Jump to content

Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.129.110.183 (talk) at 06:52, 6 January 2021 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFormula One C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lance Stroll

Lance Stroll's Dad owns Force India Racing Point Aston Martin, and is all but confirmed to have that seat. Pity there's no formatting option for "we're pretty sure but it's not official"

byhemechi (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Byhemechi:, we have been pretty sure but it's not official before and ended up being wrong. Which is exactly why official is necesssary
SSSB (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you never know what may happen between now and then. Stroll Sr could sell the team for example, which means Stroll Jr wouldn't necessarily have the seat anymore. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not an announcement of Stroll's confirmation, the most recent announcement for Vettel joining writes that Vettel is joining Stroll for 2021. Is this official enough to put Stroll as confirmed for 2021? Dh16dh (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dh16dh: the announcement doesn't mention Lance Stroll (announcement). The "Vettel will patner Stroll" line in non-primary sources is simply speculation.
SSSB (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sources seem to be assuming that Lance Stroll will be there as it's his father's company. No evidence from the Racing Point/Aston Martin team that Stroll has a contract, which is what we base our information on. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it fair to say that there is evidence that he has a contract given all the talk from both Szafnauer and Stroll himself (from most recent press conferences in Mugello)? This article for example states that Stroll's teammate is confirmed, and his comments in the press conference support those claims. Szafnauer has also stated at times that both Perez and Stroll were under contract for 2021 (no longer true for Perez). This article (and the accompanying press conference), also provide evidence that Stroll does indeed have a contract for 2021. I understand that it's not an official announcement, but I'd argue there is evidence to suggest that he is confirmed for 2021. Dh16dh (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using the final paragrapgh of this source to justify the inclusion of Stroll is WP:SYNTH.
SSSB (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stroll is confirmed. Whoever claims otherwise must prove that team boss Szafnauer is not a reliable source. --FunkyMartian (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkyMartian: But Szafnauer (in the source cited in the article) doesn't confirm Stroll. He simply says that if he did get the seat he would deserve it.
SSSB (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Lance is in the other seat" https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.confirmed-vettel-to-make-sensational-racing-point-switch-in-2021-as-they-re.2fFFG6zJLTZssQg9EBrA5H.html --FunkyMartian (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could be resonable interpreted as WP:CRYSTAL by formula1.com.
SSSB (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Lance is an unpopular driver, doesn't give anybody the right to declare the official Formula1 website and team boss are both unreliable. You also can't just declare a consensus for your wrong stance when clearly there are people opposing these wrong claims. Lance Stroll is confirmed and that's a fact. --FunkyMartian (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a fact but that source doesn't confirm it.
SSSB (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Lance is in the other seat" https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.confirmed-vettel-to-make-sensational-racing-point-switch-in-2021-as-they-re.2fFFG6zJLTZssQg9EBrA5H.html --FunkyMartian (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because formula1.com says it as a throwaway comment, doesn't make it true. It hasn't been officially confirmed by the team yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Our two pilots get along well. And they are bound by contract for 2020 and 2021" , insists Mr. Szafnauer. 🙄 https://ici.radio-canada.ca/sports/1703059/racing-point-otmar-szafnauer-lance-stroll ---FunkyMartian (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the same article Szafnauer claims Pérez is under contract and will stay for 2021. Clearly that didn't happen, so I would take that source as completely unreliable.
5225C (talk • contributions) 22:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing that actual team boss Szafnauer says is reliable, Perez's firing also did not occur, by your people's logic. 🤦‍♂️
Perez and Lance Stroll had contracts in May. Then RP/AM changed their minds and Perez's signed contract was terminated. That means Lance Stroll is under contract and Szafnauer reiterated that Lance Stroll drives for Aston Martin in 2021 over and over again.
You people just deny plain and simple facts because you dislike Lance Stroll. The entire world reports that Lance Stroll has a signed contract for 2021. Only a tiny minority of English WP editors are denying that... --FunkyMartian (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion doesn't come into it. I dislike many F1 drivers, and I like many F1 drivers, but that doesn't mean I try to pick and choose what gets put in articles. If Szafnauer says Pérez and Stroll are under contract in the same sentence, and is later wrong about one of them, it stands to reason he could be wrong about both. The only authority on who drives for Aston Martin next year is the team. Until the team confirms their line-up, it is not within Wikipedia's editing policies to assume Stroll will be returning for next year. Will he race for Aston Martin in 2021? 99% likelihood. Can we just assume so without official confirmation from the team? Absolutely not. The same procedure applies to all drivers. Your combative behaviour needs to stop. You have had this process explained to you by what, four editors now, and you still refuse to accept that this is the procedure that Wikipedia follows. The "tiny minority" of editors you're talking about is actually just you.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If Szafneur says Pérez and Stroll are under contract in the same sentence, and is later wrong about one of them, it stands to reason he could be wrong about both."
That's faulty logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.93 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks sound to me.
SSSB (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How?
5225C (talk • contributions) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself: "it stands to reason he could be wrong about both". That's pure speculation. Szafnauer said Perez and Stroll were under contract. That statement was correct at the time that he said it. Perez was later released from his contract and no mention of Stroll was made. Perez's release and Stroll's contract are two completely independent events, yet because Szafnauer said they were under contract, only for Perez's situation to later change, you are speculating on the possibility that Stroll is not under contract. Furthermore, you have no evidence that Stroll has been released. Based on your logic, every driver in the table should be removed because the person who said "they have a contract" might be wrong about it.

If Szafnauer came out today and said "Our 2021 line-up will be Stroll and Vettel" than that would be reasonably reliable. However, because he said "Our 2021 line-up will be Stroll and Pérez" in the same claim, that claim can no longer be trusted when it is at least partly incorrect. This situation has not occured with any other drivers, in fact, most other drivers (including Vettel) have had their contracts confirmed by their teams, which has not happened to Stroll. There is therefore no official confirmation of Stroll's place next year, aside from a comment from Szafnauer that wasat least 50% wrong.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a thing. Lots of editors keep adding Stroll to the article and have been ever since he was first removed. Based on this, the comments from Szafnauer and the lack of anything directly contradicting them (the best argument is "Szafnauer also said Perez had a contract, be he was later proven wrong"), I think that editors should entertain the inclusion of Stroll. To the layperson (and remember, articles are written for everyone, not just the fans), Stroll is under contract. Because right now it looks like there is a large number of editors putting him in and a small group who are rather aggressively keeping him out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.61 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the second sentence of WP:EDITCONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." We have clearly not reached that point.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of to EDITCONSENSUS than that. There is clearly a vast number of people out there who believe that Stroll is under contract - enough that if there was another discussion here, then the existing consensus would almost certainly change. However, there is a small group of editors tying themselves in knots to justify omitting him. When Szafnauer said Perez was under contract, Perez was under contract. The fact that that later changed does not invalidate his comment about Stroll because he has said nothing about Stroll in the time since. That's a logical fallacy, and what's more every driver should be removed from the table because it would not be hard to demonstrate when and where the person commenting on it has been wrong in the past. What's concerning here is the aggression that a small group of editors are showing in omitting Stroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.226 (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people making the same assumption doesn't make it true. That's a logical fallacy. Stroll's contract has not been officially announced by anyone authorised to make that announcement (i.e. the Racing Point/Aston Martin team), and there is really nothing more to it.
5225C (talk • contributions) 06:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a lot of the sources people attempt to cite with regards to where Stroll will be driving next year it becomes clear that attempting to add Stroll to the entry list constitutes WP:OR. Now, it is kind of absurd that we can't add him to the entry list, but not because of anything to do with Wikipedia. Rather it's kind of absurd that he hasn't been confirmed to be driving for the team yet despite the fact that it seems so likely he will. It's possible the team aren't confirming him until they have every single bit of legal paperwork sorted out with Pérez, but since that may be the case then that just gives even more of a reason to leave him off the list. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and is in the business of providing information which is verifiable, not just information which is heavily rumoured. Once the identity of Vettel's 2021 teammate has been confirmed talking about the history of those rumours will probably be fair game, but right now WP:BLP means we have an obligation to take zero risks about potentially misleading people. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it changes anything, but, I wouldn't be surprised if they never confirmed him at all, given how virtually everyone is tslking about him as though he already is. We may have to wait until the season entry list is published.
SSSB (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lance Stroll confirmed in an interview in September that he was going to race alongside Vettel in 2021, Otmar Szafnauer confirmed it in an interview, and Formula 1 themselves have listed Lance Stroll as the 2021 Aston Martin driver. It is more than abundantly clear that Stroll has a contract and will be lining up for the team next year, and to not include him on the list is needlessly pedantic and confusing for the common reader.Jtkerrigan (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only "evidence" that Stroll does not have a seat is Szafnauer's comments about Perez and Stroll being under contract. Those comments were correct at the time he made them, so later events meaning Perez was bought out of his contract don't make them any less correct. All they prove is that a change was made, and that that change affected Perez. Now, if you could prove that Szafnauer was lying when he said that both drivers were under contract, it would be a different story ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.105.4 (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on those trying to establish something, not disprove it. As it stands, Stroll has not been confirmed by those with the authority to declare it (i.e. Racing Point/Aston Martin, who Stroll would be signing the contract with). As SSSB points out, this official confirmation may not arrive until next year with the publication of the FIA entry list, and as HumanBodyPiloter5 states it is not within Wikipedia policy to make assumptions. No matter how obvious something like this may appear to be, there are still standards which articles must conform to.
5225C (talk • contributions) 08:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's a massive assumption to say that because Szafnauer's original statement - which was true at the time he said it - about one driver was later reversed, then it becomes retroactively untrue for the other driver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.105.78 (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stroll has not been confirmed by those with the authority to declare it - Doesn't Szafnauer (as the team prinicipal) have the authority to declare it. U-turning on Perez doesn't invalidate the original statement, it just means a clause was excercised that nullified/terminated the his contract. It doesn't mean what he said about Stroll is wrong (I know I am u-turning here). I think it may be worth opening a RfC on this...
SSSB (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a potential WP:BLP issue an RFC may be necessary. I'm ambivalent as to whether or not Stroll should actually go on the table, but without some broader consensus that including him doesn't violate WP:BLP I think it's best not to. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International

Amnesty International's criticism of the Saudi race has no place in this article. They have no ability to influence the championship or the running of the race. These details are better-suited to the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix article. To place that criticism places undue weight on Amnesty's role because they are not a regulatory body.

For comparison purposes, the 2014 championship article does not contain criticism of the Russian government for the annexation of Crimea or the their role shooting down of MH17. That criticism is addressed in 2014 Russian Grand Prix, the most-relevant place for that information to be placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.95 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has tried to justify its inclusion, I have removed the content in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.88 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix article, but as it doesn't currently relate to the running of the championship, it doesn't need to be in this article. As per the previous examples mentioned by the thread creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin / Alpine flags

Is there any reason to think Aston Martin & Alpine will be changing from their current flags? Given that ownership is not changing, just branding, is there a source that suggests they will not be British or French respectively in 2021? OZOO (t) (c) 23:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, neither have a current flag. The team could be registered anywhere, so until the team is entered or another reliable source is found for their nationality, we actually don't know what it will be.
5225C (talk • contributions) 00:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, they are new constructors so don't have a "current flag". We should not just assume it'll be the same as Renault and Racing Point. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, they are not new constructors. They are rebranding both teams. There is no indication of a change of ownership. This seem clear from the referenced articles from formula1.com for each team. If anyone suggests that they have to wait to see registration paperwork for these two teams, then that same requirement would apply to all teams and we should remove their flags too. Why not use the flags that were used by these two same teams, using their 2020 branded names, until we have data to prove otherwise.
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source that suggests they will be British and French respectively in 2021?
SSSB (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's backwards to remove the flag until evidence is provided they have not changed the location of the main team ownership. Instead, I would suggest that the flag remains the same as previous years until a source can indicate that there was a change. I.e. status quo from previous year until evidence is provided to counter-indicate. The flag can be changed at that point. Renault is the owner of the Alpine team, as indicated by the Alpine F1 Team page, and is therefore a French company and French ownership. The Aston Martin in Formula One team is owned by Racing Point UK, a company based in GBR. The changes from 2020 season are for rebranding only, not changes of ownership.
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that everyone feels a need to be certain about the flags. That's what is good about wikipedia editors - passion for accuracy. However, FIA has published the 2020 and 2021 Formula One Entry Lists ([1]), and there is no change in ownership for either team. They remain under Renault Sport Racing Limited and Racing Point UK limited. Would this not indicate that we can use the flags for both teams for the 2021 season?
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the provisional entry list I have to agree with Observer 144, the RP and Renault are the same companies just entering under a different name.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership does not equal nationality. Mumtakalat is a Bahraini investor who own a stake in McLaren, but McLaren compete under a British flag. American investors from Dorilton Capital bought a stake in Williams, but Williams competes under a British flag, not an American one. Midland was owned by a Canadian, but competed under a Russian flag because of the owner's ethnic background and business in Russia. So while it is most likely that Alpine will be French and Aston Martin will be British, that is by no means guaranteed. 1.129.111.93 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think OZOO was referring to a change in ownership because that could mean a change in where the corporate entrant is based, which could change the nationality.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The companies who own the team, or where the team/company are based are all irrelevant. Consider Force India or Benetton who changed nationalities half way through their time in F1. The only evidence I have seen that they will use the English and French flags is based on WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But Force India became a different legal entity, which is not occuring in this case. On what is the nationality based if not the company that enters the team? Is this specified in the regulations?
5225C (talk • contributions) 08:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But Benetton didn't become a different legal entity. Nationalities are based on where the team is registered. The only evidence you have that Aston Martin will be registered in the same place as Racing Point, or the Aston Martin company is based on WP:OR, likewise with Alpine.
Red Bull also changed thier natioality half-way through.
In fact there is nothing stopping Ferrari from becoming Croatian next year, apart from a bit of paperwork.
SSSB (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that, I'm asking for clarification on how team nationality is determined. Does the team simply declare it to the FIA?
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know.
SSSB (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the purpose of the flags. Teams can be headquartered anywhere; for sporting reasons, for tax reasons, and for reasons of national pride. Who knows? Having the flags adds no useful value, and never has. Per MOS:ICON: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags..." In this case, teams may be BASED in one country, REGISTERED in another, and OWNED in still a third, PRIMARILY SPONSORED in a fourth, and so on. Associating a flag with a team can lead to the kind of confusion MOS:ICON specifically refers to. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the FIA entry list, when it is eventually published, includes the team's nationality, definitively settling this discussion. Like any sport, the teams and drivers do act as national representatives, so to me having flags here is just as useful as having them in results pages from the Olympics.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The flags make sense for the drivers, but not for the multinational teams in the paddock. You don't (usually) have multinational teams in the Olympics, because unlike in F1 the Olympic teams are representing their country. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Constructors are officially considered to be representatives of the country of the national sporting body which issues their competition licence, hence why the anthem of the winning constructor is played on the podium etc. One can debate whether or not the sport should operate in this manner all day long; but we can't change what the facts are, only report them. I may dislike the nationalistic jingoism which exists in almost all sports regarding competitors, but I don't pretend that it's not a part of the sport. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessey, the constructor flags aren't based on the nationality of the team - if they were most of them, including Mercedes, Renault/Alpine and Red Bull, would use the British flag. No, the constructor flags are based on the nationality of the national body that the team owners choose to get their team licence from. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has anything to do with the flags are unnecessary in my opinion, and would seem to not fall within the spirit of the Manual of Style. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Lance Stroll's Aston Martin seat

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The provisional 2021 entry list has been published, ending the discussion. No additional comments have been made, so I assume that closing this RfC will be non-contentious.
5225C (talk • contributions) 06:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there sufficent evidence for Lance Stroll to be included on the entry table? Several sources say things slong the lines of "Vettel will partner Stroll". However, those opposed argue that, because there has been no official statement/press release confirming this, these sources are speculating.
SSSB (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Neutral - See the discussion section. We're currently stuck between a rock and a hard place so far as whether it's correct to include him or not. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose adding Stroll to the table.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding Stroll to the table after the publication of the provisional 2021 entry list.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Admanny (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Changed to Weak support after provisional entry list. Admanny (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support addition of Stroll. I don't understand why the editors here insist on WP:CHERRY-picking sources in favour of a non-existance press realese from Aston Martin/Racing Point and there is no guarantee that such a press release will ever come. You then have some sources (such as this one: [2]) where Otmar Szafnauer, the team prinicipal, explicitly states that Perez and Stroll are under contract for 2021 and yet these sources are being ignored simply because Perez's contract was nullified/terminated. In above discsussions editors have claimed that this is evidence that Szafnauer was wrong. He wasn't wrong the situation just changed. Arguing that the situation changing for Perez meaning they could change for Stroll (and there is therefore insufficent evidence to include him in the article) is, at best, original research.
SSSB (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, prior to official statement. Idealigic (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support addition of Stroll. As discussed below, there are valid primary and secondary sources available to justify his inclusion. These sources are being deliberately ignored and there is no policy-based justification for doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.139 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Stroll has been confirmed to be driving alongside Vettel by both CEO Otmar Szafnauer here and by his own words here. The statement that Aston Martin's second seat is TBA is really the statement that needs a citation. OZOO (t) (c) 23:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as he's on the F1 entry list for 2021 [3]. The FIA are an authority on who is and isn't going to be racing, and so this source is way better than news sources speculating/assuming Stroll would be racing. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment - I'm ambivalent on the issue of whether or not we should include Stroll. If it weren't for WP:BLP concerns I would take the side that we should, however as it stands I think we should take the side of caution until either:

  • a) Racing Point put out a press release saying who will be driving for them next year.

or

  • b) The FIA release an entry list stating who will be driving for the team.

or

  • c) Concerns about WP:BLP are in some way adequately addressed.

The question with that last part is whether the high level of evidence that he will almost certainly be driving for the team next year is enough to justify saying that he will be driving for the team next year. However, the closer the start of next season comes without any evidence that any other driver may be driving for the team the more not including Stroll starts to look like WP:CRYSTAL about some potential that another driver might be about to swoop in and snatch the drive from him. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it is a difficult choice. Usually we would wait for an official press release from Racing Point/Aston Martin saying they've signed for 2021. But it's been strongly implied in some primary sources (like RP/AM saying that Vettel will partner Stroll), other sources are now saying that Stroll is confirmed for 2021, and the official press release isn't coming anytime soon, as the team obviously assumes everyone knows Stroll is going to stay for 2021, as Stroll Sr owns the team. So either we have to compromise on our usual standards, or compromise by being the only place to not say that Stroll is driving in 2021. Both of which are potential BLP issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Otmar Szafnauer is on the record as saying Stroll has a contract. He is recognised as someone with the position to comment on these things, as his statement was used to justify the inclusion of Perez and Stroll in the article at the time. His comments were correct at the time he said them, and while later events saw Perez replaced, those events do not retroactively make Szafnauer's comments incorrect, especially since they only affected Perez. There is no evidence that his comment about Stroll is incorrect aside from the "he said X about Perez and Y happened, so if he said X about Stroll at the same time, Y could also be true" argument, which is speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.105.33 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am opposed to adding Stroll until the entity with which he would sign a contract – the Racing Point/Aston Martin team – announces it. Szafnaeur has made statements in the past, yes, but the situation has clearly changed since he made those comments and they can not be credibly relied upon now. That Stroll will drive for RP/AM is obvious, yes, but we have standards for the publication of reliable content and he is no exception.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with reasons said; it is likely after Abu Dhabi that RP would mention something about next year and Stroll. Until then, we should wait. Admanny (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Admanny, as Bretonbanquet said below, "Arguing to exclude some reliable sources in anticipation of one which suits certain editors has no foundation in any Wikipedia guideline". There are already valid reliable sources on offer, so there is no cause to ignore those sources because you think a better one might come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.104 (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can the source be reliable if there has been no public announcement from the team or Stroll/his management? How is that actually possible? Are they psychic, or are they just making assumptions? Either way, it's not verifiable.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 10:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Arguing to exclude some reliable sources in anticipation of one which suits certain editors has no foundation in any Wikipedia guideline. The team and the FIA are not the only reliable sources in this case: any normally accepted reliable source is enough to add Stroll. The idea that other traditionally acceptable sources might be speculating is completely unfounded. If in the extremely unlikely event that Stroll is replaced, then deal with it then – adding him is not irreversible. Multiple reliable sources like this (particularly redoubtable) one [4] state he is driving for RP next year. If anyone were to add this as a source, no editor should reasonably remove it without being prepared to back up their claim that the source is unreliable, which in my view, they would not be able to do. This project has been overly cautious about this kind of thing for some time, with no good reason. Cherrypicking sources is not supported by any guideline. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to @SSSB: you really get to the crux of the issue in that "He wasn't wrong the situation just changed." The RP/AM contract situation did change, so that interview cannot be credibly relied upon. A press release wouldn't be the only acceptable source, but I would expect an official source to be the one we use – whether that be a new statement from Sazfnauer, Stroll Sr. (in his official capacity), Stroll Jr. or his management, the team, or an FIA entry list. I think that is quite a reasonable range of choices and would not consider it cherry-picking by any useful standard. But anything else is, quite simply, unreliable, because third-party sources are making assumptions.
5225C (talk • contributions) 11:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is "Perez's contractial situation changed, therefore Stroll's could change too". Yes, Stroll's contract situation could change, but the same could be said about any driver, you could use that arguemnt to exclude Verstappen, Mazepin or Bottas. Stating that Perez's contract changing makes it more likly that Stroll's will change is WP:OR. You have just admitted that Stroll has a contract. That interview is still credible in supporting the addition of Stroll, because there is no evidence the situation around Stroll has changed.
SSSB (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a misinterpretation of my argument. I'm saying the Racing Point contract situation has changed since that interview, so it is clearly outdated. It's all one source created at the same point in time, and unlike those other drivers Stroll has not received official confirmation from the team since, whereas team officials have repeatedly discussed the contracts of those 3 in no uncertain terms.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 13:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying the Racing Point contract situation has changed since that interview - but only with Pérez. Saying that this means the contract situation has changed with Stroll is original research. The source is only outdated with respect to Pérez, not anything else.
    SSSB (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it say in any guideline that secondary sources (or third-party sources, as they have been called here) are not sufficient. They simply are sufficient, per Wikipedia guidelines. If an editor wants to claim that a secondary source is unreliable, then they would have to come up with something better than "they are making assumptions". 5225C is claiming that only a primary source will suffice, and that simply does not stack up by any interpretation of the guidelines. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am claiming only a primary source will suffice, because on what else are secondary sources basing their claims on? It logically does not follow. I will remind you that we required a primary source for Carlos Sainz's move to Ferrari despite almost all secondary sources claiming it had occurred.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 01:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference here is that we have a perfectly-valid primary source: Szafnauer's comments about Perez and Stroll being under contract.
On the subject of the Sainz articles, they were obvious clickbait - a title that implied the deal had been announced, but the body of the article made it clear this was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.139 (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5225C, you can claim only a primary source will suffice, but you haven't produced anything in Wikipedia policy to back it up. Serious magazines and websites write stories based on information they have to hand. That information does not have to be published publicly; they are not like Wikipedia. It could be confidential information given to them by team members, bosses, drivers. The best publications do not publish information as fact unless they are 100% sure of its accuracy. That is why they are reliable sources to us. They do not have to reveal their sources like we do. I am not familiar with the Sainz episode, though it does appear those secondary sources were right, and "requiring" a primary source was completely unnecessary, as well as being unsupported by Wikipedia guidelines. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bretonbanquet, the "Sainz episode" you are referring to is the announcement of Sainz moving to Ferrari. Sources like Autosport reported that the contract had been signed, but no-one from Ferrari or Sainz's side actually confirmed it. It's complicated by a couple of things:
  1. The headline on Autosport's front page was (words to the effect of) SAINZ JOINS FERRARI, clearly implying that there was an official announcement, but the body of the article had nothing concrete.
  2. Autosport did something similar with Ott Tanak in the WRC last year with very different results: first they claimed he was going to stay with Toyota; then they claimed that he was going to Hyundai; then they claimed that he was going to stay with Toyota; then they claimed that he was going to Hyundai. In each case they claimed an announcement was imminent, but none emerged and they never quoted anyone from the teams or Tanak's side.

None of this addresses the fact that we have a perfectly valid source: Szafnauer's original comments about Perez and Stroll. It satisfies every condition that 5225C wants from a source, but he is refusing to accept it because Perez's circumstances changed so Stroll's might change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.150 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A provisional entry list has been published by the FIA and includes Stroll as racing for Aston Martin. This satisfies my expectations for a reliable source and I have changed my vote accordingly.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the problem is that your expectations are too high. There has been a valid source available for months which you have refused to accept. And it's not like Toto Wolff refuting the entry list - there was nothing to contradict Szafnauer's comments. 1.129.109.117 (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drop it.
5225C (talk • contributions) 06:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because it's inconvenient for you? You ignored a valid source for weeks, if not months. The publication of a new source does not make the issue go away. How can editors be confident that you will not do the same thing in the future? After all, the entry list with Stroll's name on it also contains Hamilton - but Toto Wolff says Hamilton does not have a contract and that the entry list should not be interpreted as meaning that he does. How do we know you won't disregard a source that you find inconvenient? 1.129.109.165 (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the discussion has reached a natural conclusion. The table in this article reflects the entry list, the provisional entry list has been published. I did not ignore any source, I rejected a source and I have given you full justification for why I did so. The topic of this RfC was Stroll's inclusion, not my editing philosophy, so if you have any further concerns take them to my talk page.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 08:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am weakly supporting after the entry list. The list still has errors such as Hamilton (w/o contract) so I would not exactly call the list accurate but it is satisfactory for now. Admanny (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

The following text should be changed:

"Russian Formula 2 driver Nikita Mazepin is due to take one of the seats at the team, while the other will be filled by German Formula 2 driver Mick Schumacher, the son of seven-time World Champion Michael Schumacher."

It should instead read like this:

"Reigning Formula 2 champion Mick Schumacher–the son of seven-time World Champion Michael Schumacher–is due to take one of the seats at the team, while the other will be filled by Russian Formula 2 driver Nikita Mazepin."

Schumacher's status as champion is the most important detail in identifying him in the prose. 1.129.105.75 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and  Done.
SSSB (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

Please remove the subsection "changes to support series lineup". This has nothing to do with the F1 championship and the support series links at the top of the article are there for navigation, not content. 1.129.110.151 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support series are relevant, and I think the level of detail (four sentences) is appropriate. Any more would be undue and should be covered in specific articles, but it is a change to how F1 race weekends are supported, and so seems as important as the F1 media days being moved from Thursday to Friday am. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

Please remove Hamilton from the entries table. The article clearly states that the table shows teams and drivers under contract, but Toto Wolff has made it clear that Hamilton does not have a contract yet:

https://www.speedcafe.com/2020/12/13/mercedes-boss-plays-down-hamiltons-name-on-2021-entry-list/

He makes it clear that he had to submit an entry, but that Hamilton still does not have a contract and that the entry list should not be taken as proof that he does. 1.129.109.117 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
SSSB (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

Okay, this is too vague:

"The 2021 calendar consists of twenty-three events, subject to the naming of an additional event in April and a contract extension for an existing event."

Firstly, are there 23 races or 24? The prose states 23 events and an additional event, which would make for 24. Secondly, "a contract extension for an existing event" is very vague. It feels like this passage is trying to do too much, especially considering that the Vietnam situation is covered in detail below and Spain is addressed in a note.

Simple is better here. The WMSC calendar has 23 events. That is a simple statement of fact. Two of those 23 are subject to caveats, but sections should start with big concepts before moving to small details. 1.129.104.67 (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the text.
SSSB (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020 (2)

This passage needs to be rewritten::

"Sergio Pérez is set to leave Racing Point as they are due to become Aston Martin at the start of 2021. Pérez had previously signed a contract to drive for the team until 2022. Vettel is due to replace Pérez for 2021 onwards. Pérez will replace Alex Albon as a race driver at Red Bull Racing, with Albon becoming the team's reserve and development driver."

It implies that Perez is leaving Racing Point because they are becoming Aston Martin. The passage should start with Vettel joining Aston Martin and replacing Perez, who will move to Red Bull.

There should also be some mention of Perez being the first driver recruited to Red Bull from outside their driver program since 2008-ish. 1.129.104.7 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this wording is both dense and obtuse:

"Lewis Hamilton will be the reigning World Driver's Champion, having won the 2020 World Championship title by the end of the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix, and having equalled Michael Schumacher's record of seven."

Something like this would be better:

"Lewis Hamilton will be the reigning World Driver's Champion, having won the 2020 World Championship at the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix. In doing so, he equalled Michael Schumacher's record of seven World Championship titles."

Please fix it. 1.129.104.73 (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
SSSB (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: - There should also be some mention of Perez being the first driver recruited to Red Bull from outside their driver program since 2008-ish. - this can't be added without a reliable source to back it up.
SSSB (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has definitely come up in various articles from reputable outlets, although one would have to go through and dig up the information. The general view seems to be that if Toro Rosso is counted as a part of the Red Bull young driver programme then Pérez is the first driver from outside that programme to be hired by Red Bull Racing since Mark Webber in 2007. On the STR side there's debate over whether Bourdais or Albon was the most recent hire to either team from outside the programme, since Hartley and Albon were both dropped by the programme before being bought back to drive for STR; however since Pérez has been hired by RBR and not STR that's largely tangential. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SSSB, does this source work for you? https://www.speedcafe.com/2020/12/19/perez-replaces-albon-at-red-bull-for-2021-f1-season/
@User:HumanBodyPiloter5, it is definitely worth noting in some form. 2001:8003:2312:E301:84A3:F528:9065:6674 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I agree it is worth noting. I see that an editor has inserted it into the text.
SSSB (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fittipaldi potentially replacing Mazepin

This is all rumor with slight evidence at the moment. Fittipaldi has changed his bios to "Haas F1 driver" or some sort and Mazepin has deleted all Haas-related posts from his accounts. (edit: Haas has also unfollowed Mazepin on their accounts as well and Guenther Steiner did an interview praising Fittipaldi.) Would Mazepin's contract be considered void and thus, we remove him from the table if confirmed? Admanny (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the current information available (which amounts to some activity on social media), absolutely not. A similar theory was developed after the Sakhir GP involving Russell and Bottas and did not eventuate. However, if confirmed then yes, we'd have to.
5225C (talk • contributions) 03:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As always, wait until official confirmation (if there ever is any) before making any changes. It would be unsurprising to hear that Mazepin had been sacked, but we haven't actually heard that. As it's still 2020 it makes total sense for Fittipaldi to call himself a "Haas F1 driver" as he drove for the team this year. Wikipedia is not a place to share rumours; there are many other places on the internet which serve that function. If Mazepin doesn't drive for the team in the end then we should leave a note explaining the circumstances if and when that happens. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped reading after this part: "this is all rumor".
But for what it's worth, Haas' most recent official statement is that if they take disciplinary action against Mazepin, they may keep the nature of that action private. 1.129.106.195 (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 chassis names

This piqued my curiosity: how do you intend to present the 2021 cars? The pandemic means that the original design overhaul was pushed back to 2022 and the 2020 cars kept in service for a year with some limited development. To complicate things, Ferrari have announced that the SF1000 will be the SF21 while Red Bull have announced that the RBR16 will be the RBR16B. This raises the question of whether the 2021 cars should get their own articles, or if one article covering both years is best. And if one article is best, what name should that article have? 1.129.106.195 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, when the same car has been used for multiple seasons/under different names, we have had a single article, using the original name, e.g. both the Ferrari F2001 (used in 2001) and the Ferrari F2001B (used at the start of 2002) are described in Ferrari F2001. Similarly, the Wolf–Williams FW05 (which was a rebranded version of the Hesketh 308C) is described at Hesketh 308C. DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having seperate article from RB16 and RB16B is illogical. The name makes is obvious it is the same car (and it should be at Red Bull Racing RB16). The same applies to the Mclaren MCL35M.
Currently Ferrari SF21 redirects to the SF1000 article, but depending on the interpretation of secondry sources, it may well be considered as a new car (and therefore new article, saying that the Ferrari SF21 is the same as the Ferrari SF1000 may be original research).
SSSB (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the SF21 having a wildly different name to the SF1000 (as opposed to being called the SF1000B or SF10001) justifies giving it a separate article though, as shown in the Hesketh example DH85868993 gave. Given the chassis has to be reused and will be largely the same because of how Ferrari has allocated its tokens, I think it would be fair to call and treat the SF21 as a B-spec vehicle. I would be interested to see if there are any precedents for this though (where the chassis is mostly the same, new engine from supplier, noticeably different name), nothing really comes to mind.
5225C (talk • contributions) 13:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It having an entirely different name or an identical one is irrelevant. But, if the media (i.e. secondary sources) consider it another car, then we must too (this is incredibly unlikely for Red Bull or Mclaren as their names directly tells us it's a B-spec (or M-spec, what happended to B-L?), that's why I specifically mention Ferrari).
SSSB (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since we already know that the 2021 cars will be substantially similar to the 2020 cars in a large nyumber of key areas (with reliable sources consistently saying that "the 2020 chassis designs will be carried over for 2021" or something to that effect) it's in no way original research to say that the 2021 and 2020 cars are just different evolutions of the same car. The fact that the name might be different is irrelevant. The article on Mumbai doesn't pretend that the city magically came into existence in 1995; and there isn't a separate article on the city of Bombay. This may of course change as the season progresses, if for some reason it becomes clear that there is a pressing need to have a separate article on (some or all of) the 2021 car(s). However, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and we have no way of knowing whether that may be the case yet. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is why I am asking the question: assuming that everything goes according to plan, by this time next year the SF21 will have completed 23 races. The SF1000, on the other hand, only completed 17. There is an argument here - and to be clear, I am not in favour of it, just pointing it out - that because it is a racing car and was designed to compete in races, then "SF21" better represents the name of the car because it completed more races. 2001:8003:2312:E301:D1D3:D94C:AF1C:E76E (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Ferrari using the chassis under the SF21 name more than the SF1000 name doesn't change the fact that the former is a derivative of the latter. A comparable case is again the Hesketh 308C: although the FW05 version was used more, it's still a derivative version of the 308C, and the article should be orientated towards the original vehicle.
5225C (talk • contributions) 06:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Lewis Hamilton

Lewis Hamilton has been changed to Sir Lewis Hamilton by many editors. As per MOS:HONORIFIC, Sir should not be used on articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

Could somebody please replace the photo of Mick Schumacher in the article with the photo that appears in the infobox in Schumacher's article. It can be found here. This is a better image because you can see his face more clearly; the hat obscures his face in the image that is currently in use. 2001:8003:2312:E301:19AE:1851:62C2:BDD1 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SK2242 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aus GP in doubt

Sky Sports, as well as several others, are reporting that the Australian Grand Prix has been postponed as the Australian / Victorian governments will not grant an exception for overseas quarantine for F1. The reports are stated in a way that is beyond speculative reporting, as Sky are talking about it as a statement of fact, that it has been postponed, with an official announcement expected this week. Whilst we may be waiting for an official announcement, to do so is being over-reliant on formula1.com (an issue that has been highlighted before in the project) and it's not as though Sky is an unreliable source. Spa-Franks (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Formula 1 2021: Season-opening Australian GP to be postponed
Taking the the title of your article: Season-opening Australian GP set to be postponed - i.e. it hasn't been postponed. Until it is we can't put it in the article.
SSSB (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SSSB. However I have clarified above the calendar that local governments also must approve the race before it can go ahead. Admanny (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, right now it's speculation. Wait until it's officially postponed (or not), and then that will be relevant to the article. Just because Sky might be saying it has been postponed, that doesn't make it correct- wait for a proper, official announcement. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the official calendar says "this race will take place on this date", we should say that that is what the scheduled date of that race is. However we should clarify that the calendar is likely to change, something which there is substantial evidence of. The comment on local government approval is a good way of going about this, although there are probably even better ways of going about it. Just because those officially organising the championship and Grands Prix are under contractual obligations to pretend for as long as they can that everything is going to be normal doesn't mean that we should when there's substantial evidence (reliable sources commenting on the doubts over Melbourne, Jean Todt's recent comments about the season) that things are likely to change. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5 and Admanny: they dpn't require (explicit) government approval, but local, or national, restrictions could make the event illegal, or unviable (akin to (implicit) government approval being withdrawn). I have copyedited the statement in question although it could use significant refinement.
SSSB (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SSSB: I partially disagree with your edit. Last year's Belgium was held under exempt from the Belgian government - had no intervention took place the GP would have not gone ahead. Admanny (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Admanny: Huh, I forgot about that one...
I think the situation is then that they only require government approval if there are restrictions that impact on the event.
I still think my edit is accurate though. Events are still subject to COVID restirctions. If they recieve a waver, then the restrictions, don't apply to them (obviously), this in turn means that the restrictions have been relaxed, if only for F1. Last year's Belgian Grand Prix still only took place becasue COVID restrictions were sufficently slack, even if they were only slackened for F1.
SSSB (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 (2)

Please update the lead of the article it currently reads as follows:

"The 2021 FIA Formula One World Championship is a planned motor racing championship for Formula One cars which will be the 72nd running of the Formula One World Championship. It is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. The championship is due to be contested over a series of races, or Grands Prix, held around the world. Drivers and teams are scheduled to compete for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion respectively.
"Lewis Hamilton is the reigning World Drivers' Champion, having won the 2020 World Championship at the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix. Mercedes is due to be the defending World Constructors' Champion, having taken a record seventh consecutive title at the 2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix.

It should be rewritten like this:

"The 2021 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars and the 72nd running of the Formula One World Championship.[a] [the Formula One article has a link to this article under "current season"] It is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. The championship is due to be contested over twenty-three Grands Prix, which will be held around the world. [the number of races has been confirmed, even if the final calendar has not been; this might need a footnote explaining that the pandemic may require changes on short notice - see Jean Todt's comments for a source] Drivers and teams are competing for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion respectively. [again, Formula One already treats the 2021 championship as its current season]
"Lewis Hamilton is the reigning World Drivers' Champion, having won the 2020 World Championship at the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix. Mercedes are the defending World Constructors' Champions, having taken a record seventh consecutive title at the 2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix." [because of the Formula One article

Explanations for the changes are in bold, italic font. 1.129.110.191 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the second one, but not the first, third of fourth. Formula One may list is it as the current season, but that doesn't mean the season has started, therefore present tense is unjustified. I also don't think the second sentence is necessary until COVID does disrupt the calendar.
SSSB (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Please change the opening paragraph in the "calendar" section. It currently reads as:

"The 2021 calendar consists of twenty-three events, subject to the confirmation of the fourth round due to take place in April as a replacement for the Vietnamese Grand Prix. Also subject to confirmation is a contract extension for the Spanish Grand Prix and COVID-19 restrictions."

It should read like this:

"The 2021 calendar consists of twenty-three events, subject to the confirmation of the fourth round due to take place in April. Also subject to confirmation is a contract extension for the Spanish Grand Prix and the status of COVID-19 outbreaks."

I am asking for these changes because:

  1. The circumstances of the Vietnamese Grand Prix are detailed below the table.
  2. Liberty Media have said that they are in negotiations to keep the race going - to say they are seeking a replacement suggests the race is not an option.
  3. I have changed "restrictions" to "the status of COVID-19 outbreaks" because local restrictions are not the only factor - if the organisers think it is too dangerous, they can cancel events regardless of restrictions. 1.129.110.183 (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=998619833"