Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Team name

Force India has dropped "Sahara" from its name so that should be referenced on the entrant table, past examples being when Renault dropped "ING" from its name in 2009 and when Ferrari dropped "Marlboro" from its name in 2011. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that we need a reference from a reliable source announcing the name change. The home page of the team's site doesn't qualify. The next race is on Sunday and the entry list is due to be published on Thursday. We can easily wait until then.Tvx1 20:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Force India's situation is questionable at present. I suggest more caution than usual, as it's not yet clear if or as what they may be competing as. QueenCake (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Force India's owner ship change might not be as finalized as has been claimed.Tvx1 11:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The team will apparently be a completely new entry as Force India the company wasn't actually purchased. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Well we have quite an unprecedented situation here. Apparently the team that has been competing until now this season has been excluded from the championship and a new team takes it place. I'm not sure how we should deal with this situation in the constructors' championship table and in the articles on the relevant constructor(s). Maybe it's best to raise this at WT:F1. I would wait until the entry list for the Belgian Grand Prix has finally been released (Surprised that it hasn't been already. Normally they're always published on Thursday afternoon, or Wednesday in Monaco) before doing so though.Tvx1 17:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a strange situation as the team has a new entry but team's original entry is being excluded from the constructors championship. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I imagine we may find that the new constructor is "Racing Point-Mercedes", in order to differentiate between the former team and new team. Force India will simply be excluded at the bottom of the table and Racing Point will start scoring positions in Belgium. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Update - Entry list is released, team is "Racing Point Force India F1 Team" and constructor is "Force India Mercedes". So we will need to list Force India twice? The³5₉ (Talk) 17:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the flag tag. Despite the team changing it's name, though keeping 'Force India', would one assume that the Indian licence the team is under still depicts that the nationality of the team is Indian? Is there anyway to source this kind of information? *JoeTri10_ 19:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Dieter Rencken has confirmed that Racing Point Force India is now racing under a UK license, and therefore a UK flag and anthem in case of victory. Personally I believe that we should have separate rows for each entry. LucasVon (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Our rows are tied to constructors, not entrants. Since the constructor remains Force India and the result will keep being credited to them, we just keep the information in the same row. For the standings table we should just depict the results of the first twelve races as being pointless.Tvx1 19:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But are they the same constructor? If a constructor has been excluded, can they still continue on gaining points as the same entity? Recall our many discussions regarding Lotus, in which original Lotus, Lotus of 2010-2011, and Lotus 2012-2015 are all different entities and constructors, despite all using the Lotus title. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The FIA makes clear that "Sahara Force India" has been excluded and forfeits its points, and a new entrant has taken its place. I don't see how it can be the same constructor; Racing Point Force India is just using the same name. I'm thinking they should be on two different rows, with "old" Force India given zero points. We may have to wait until Sunday to see how sources treat the situation in their championship tables. QueenCake (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The last excluded team was McLaren in 2007, and I suggest doing the same thing from that table here. QueenCake (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The current tables don't convey the situation. Force India is a completely separate entity to the new entrant, Racing Point. Force India have been excluded from the championship, and simultaneously, a new entity (Racing Point) has joined the championship, having scored 0 points thus far. Both competitors should have separate rows in the "Entries" section, as well as the "World Constructors' Championship standings" section. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I am now confused at the table since my comment. I have to agree with the opinions above. Though true in nature that the team personnel, drivers, car assets and all for the sake of simplicity, the team-name and livery are all the same, it was also suggested that current and future upgrades to the car were halted until the financial take-over. Though this is mere word salad, and the name of the car has also remained the same, it's still a different 'team' moving forward. Excluding the team and citing a new team in it's place makes it much easier for the information to be displayed and explained, as the removal of the (former) teams WCC points have indeed been removed, even if the drivers points remain (to my knowledge anyway). This may also make it more simple to show the possible switch of Ocon for Stroll, 'if' it happens. *JoeTri10_ 22:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Based on reading this section, my understanding is that the consensus is "if they are both separate constructors, they should have separate rows in the table." The FIA has excluded Force India from the championship, but as far as I'm aware, they are allowing Racing Point to score points in the upcoming rounds. Therefore, given it is the "World Constructors' Championship standings", it is clear that the FIA are treating them both as separate constructors. Taking this into consideration, I will separate the two entries in the table, to ensure the table is formatted as per consensus. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An issue arises in that this is not the team championship, this is the constructor championship, and the FIA entry lists still lists the constructor as "Force India Mercedes". So yes, they are a new team, but are they a new constructor? The³5₉ (Talk) 23:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A constructor appears to be just a fancy name for 'team' as far as i'm aware?, at least for this purpose. If the FIA deem that the constructor that is Force India-Mercedes forfeit their points in the current WCC but allow 'Racing Point Force India' as a team to collect points under the same constructor tag, then the table (used both on official F1 websites as well as the model we're using) theoretically is listing them as teams that participate in the constructors championship. Do we have any situations of a team changing engine supplier mid-season and what effect that had on the table format? *JoeTri10_ 00:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an unprecedented situation. My understanding is that the FIA voided Force India's results to allow Racing Point to take over their entry and start scoring points in the hopes of claiming prize money at the end of the year. However, the team must compete as Force India because the car was homologated as a Force India; to re-homologate as a Racing Point would make it a customer car and illegal. 1.129.109.181 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a very complicated situation and I'm afraid we might not be able to find the perfect solution. There are three separate issues we need to resolve.

1)How do we properly differentiate the entrants in the Teams and drivers table

2)How do we accurately reflect the situation in the WCC table

3)How do we deal with the situation in the team's article and in the articles dealing with F1 records and achievements

Now, issue 1 seems to be easy enough to resolve. Joetri10 already queried whether there were previous cases of teams changing engine supplier in-season (which has actually happened in the past), which isn't actually relevant here since that's not what happened. That however does indirectly reveal some sort of "precedent". There was an era in the history of F1 during which privateers could acquire and enter cars from another constructor. We would list these as separate entrants on separate rows, though the results counted for one and the same constructor in the WCC. If you look at the 1976 article you will find five separate rows for Tyrell-Ford for entrants who all used the Tyrell 006 to enter races. Maybe we use that as model here. Though I will note that in cases like in 2009 and 2011 we didn't create separate rows for entrants whose names changed in-season. Issues 2 and 3 are much more difficult to resolve. The FIA docked Force India's points so far but appears to consider them a continuous by having them entered as Force India-Mercedes for the Belgian Grand Prix. This begs the question how we continue to tally the results? Is this Force India's 1st or 204th entry? The FIA might end up giving us the answer themselves before long once they publish the results and standings after this weekend's race.Tvx1 03:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say the simplest solution is to wait and see. See what the FIA does after Spa and take it from there. We credit the results the way the FIA does. 1.129.109.167 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The only other solution I can think of is this:

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers			Free Practice drivers
				No.	Driver name	Rounds	No.	Driver name
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India-Mercedes	VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	11 31	Sergio Pérez Esteban Ocon	1–12 1–12	34	Nicholas Latifi
Racing Point Force India F1 Team				11 31	Sergio Pérez Esteban Ocon	13 13	—

I don't know what that's going to do to the sortable markup, but if this is the most accurate way of representing it, then that markup can—and should—be sacrificed. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

References

It seems that there is a confusion between Teams and Constructors. As far as I understand, I have never seen any mention of "Teams" in the F1 regulations. What we define as "teams" are actually "Constructors", hence why they are able to compete in the Constructors championship. Racing Point is a separate constructor to Force India, so require a new entry on the table. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not according to the FIA. Teams have three names: the trading name, which they use to do business off the track (which we don't mention); the constructor name, to which the FIA credit results; and the entry name, which the team use to refer to themselves (usually including sponsors). We have to use the name that the FIA use, and right now they're using "Force India" because the car was homologated as a Force India.

It's also worth noting that the Racing Point name is derived from Racing Point UK Ltd., which is the trading name. It appears to be a temporary name until 2019. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Having done some research into this, it appears that most of us, including myself, have misunderstood the terms, "Team", "Constructor", "Entrant". It appears that the FIA race meeting entry lists use a shortened version of the Constructors' names (Force India Mercedes etc.). However, the official FIA Constructors Classifications (https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2018/2018-classifications), list Force India as "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Taking this into consideration, it is clear that the in the eyes of the FIA, the constructor is in fact "Sahara Force India F1 Team". The problem with this, is that this is an issue that affects all recent F1 articles. In order to ensure the current table is providing accurate information, I shall do the following;

1) Remove the "Constructors" column.

2) Replace the title of the "Entrant" column with "Constructors".

3) Add a new row for the new constructor - Racing Point Force India F1 Team.

Of course, this solution is only temporary, but it provides the information accurately and should suffice until we can come to an agreement on how to format the table moving forward. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You need a consensus, not a "take my word for it, I'm right". This situation is unprecedented and will take time to figure out. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus on this page is that each constructor should have a different row. As per the FIA classification, "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor, hence should have a different row to the "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". Unless another consensus is reached, I have simply edited the table, as per this talk page. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that is the consensus. However, not everyone agrees with your interpretation of what the FIA regards the Racing Point entry to be. That's what you need a consensus for. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have provided a reference to my source, and thus far, no-one has questioned this source, or defined it as unreliable. For now, this is the best we have. We need to meet somewhere in the middle, I agree. However, I am simply using the data I have at the moment and trying to use this information to meet the consensus of this talk page. This is not the ideal solution, just the best we have for now until we can discuss it further. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I agree with Wikipediaeditperson's approach but we don't need to rush into it. What we need is a clear consensus, and if we leave it a couple of days, there might be a clearer picture of how other sources such as the FIA are dealing with this. So far as I can see, they are two different, separate teams though. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that they are two teams with the same constructor name, but the only thing that has changed is the ownership. I think it's going to cause unnecessary confusion if we have two separate rows in the table that are largely identical save for the entrant and the rounds.

"thus far, no-one has questioned this source, or defined it as unreliable"

You're forgetting that this is an unprecedented situation. Chances are that the FIA don't know exactly how this will work. Best that we wait for something definitive, like how the results are credited.

"I am simply using the data I have at the moment and trying to use this information to meet the consensus of this talk page"

Then why are you sitting on the article reverting changes on sight? You just removed the constructor column, which fundamentally changes the way championship articles are written because the FIA credits results to cinstructors. And for what? A knee-jerk reaction to a temporary situation. Get a consensus here before making changes, please. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think I will be getting involved in this any longer. It's unnecessary and frustrating that people seem to be arguing over something despite being presented with hard facts. As I have mentioned previously, the full name of the constructor that we refer to as "Force India", is "Sahara Force India F1 Team" (as displayed in the official FIA Constructors' Standings). The FIA has also said in a statement, "the Sahara Force India F1 Team has accepted its exclusion from the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship". There is absolutely no room for doubt that the constructor, named "Sahara Force India F1 Team" no longer exists. Some people are trying to argue that it is a change of entrant and not a change of constructor, but if this were the case, then please explain why this has impacted the Constructors' championship. Also, given the constructor ("Sahara Force India F1 Team") has been excluded from the championship, then please explain why the new entrant is able to score points in this championship - the only way this would be possible, is if there was a change of constructor, as there is no such thing as the "World Entrants' Championship". Whether this is unprecedented or not does not mean we should simply ignore the facts and try to merge 2 separate constructors into the same row. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

1.129.109.220 Just to add, the reason why I removed the "Constructors" column, was because in the official championship classification, the points are associated with the names that we defined as "Entrants". Given this is the Constructors' championship, it is clear that we misunderstood the meaning of "Entrants", and in fact an "Entrant" is a "Constructor". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Just ... no. The entrant and the constructor are and always have bern separate. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They may be separate, but it doesn't mean they can't share the same name. If the entrant is "Sahara Force India F1 Team", and the constructor is simply "Force India Mercedes", then please explain why the points in the CONSTRUCTORS championship are accredited to "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and not "Force India Mercedes"? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have hard facts. You have a single source for an unprecedented set of circumstances and an interpretation of that source. That you think the constructor name is "Sahara Force India F1 Team" rather than "Force India" demonstrates that you don't know the subject as well as you think you do. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I say, I can't understand why there is any room for confusion. I will try to explain it as simply as I can, because perhaps I am being misunderstood. In order to be a part of the 2018 FIA Formula One World Constructors' Championship, I'm sure we can all agree that you must be a constructor in the 2018 Formula One Season. Given the FIA accredit the points to "Sahara Force India F1 Team", it is clear that there is a constructor named "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Any attempt to argue against this is baseless and nonsense. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The FIA does not credit results to Sahara Force India F1 Team. They never have. They credit results to Force India. It's a bit hard to argue who they are crediting results to in this case because the team doesn't have any results to be credited. So how about you leave it alone until you get more information? 1.129.109.220 (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"The FIA does not credit results to Sahara Force India F1 Team. They never have. They credit results to Force India. It's a bit hard to argue who they are crediting results to in this case because the team doesn't have any results to be credited"

Please actually look at the FIA World Constructors Championship classification before you make baseless comments like that. To make it easier, I will provide the link to these results: https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2018/2018-classifications. How anyone can debate that the "FIA does not credit results to Sahara Force India F1 Team" makes no sense to me, when there is evidence directly from the FIA's own website, whereby they credit points to them. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Read source #3, the source that lists entries for the season. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please could you explain what you intend to show using source 3. This makes no mention of "Constructors", so is meaningless with regards to this discussion. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Just look at sources 9-16.Tvx1 13:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit respectless to claim that people aren't arguing with your source when you make your edits just three minutes after you stated your opinion. You should at least give other users the basic courtesy of time to come here and read the new arguments and respond. Don't forget that half of the world is asleep while your typing. What you're doing is synthesizing one cherry-picked source. You claimed you did "some research", yet you consulted one source and rushed to a conclusion. There are dozen of entry lists from the FIA supporting that table which clearly distinguish the entrant and the constructor. Moreover, if you look the results which are actually published after a race, you will actually see those names identified as "entrants" in the WCC table. So clearly these are the entrant names, not constructor names. Why the FIA uses the entrant names in that table is a big question mark, but the other FIA sources clearly demonstrate who the constructors are. The on-screen graphics always use the constructor names as well.Tvx1 13:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned, my research led me to the understanding that the FIA no longer differentiates between "Entrants" and "Constructors" (gone are the days when a constructor could have their cars entered by multiple teams). Hence, I made my edits in respect to the consensus on this page that different constructors should have different rows. Also, it seems a bit pointless trying to argue that the "World Constructors' Championship" has no constructors in it. We have to remember that a race entry list is only there to provide basic information to the competitors and officials, and it changes race by race. Whereas, the constructors' names in the world championship standings are consistent throughout the season, and these standings have to provide the correct information, given they are used to determine the prize money given to each team at the end of the season. Also, the post-race championship standings are copyrighted by "2018 Formula One World Championship Limited", proving their source is very reliable and further proving their accuracy. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding constructors, it's clear that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" isn't one. In fact, the FIA list both "constructor" and "entrant" when giving entry lists, which would made no sense if they were the same thing. Besides, the entrant name changes almost every year for some teams. According to FIA regulations, they don't give points to entrants, but constructors (make of chassis+make of engine). The problem I think comes from the fact that de facto the constructor is the chassis make nowdays, and it can only have an entrant assocciated with it and collecting constructors' points. So it seems the FIA list entrants as a convenience, because they are the entities collecting constructors' points (and if a entrant is excluded, the constructor loses all the points, like the Force India case), but they aren't constructors. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Urbanoc Exactly, the FIA give points to constructors, not entrants. Therefore, why would the points be accredited to "Sahara Force India F1 Team" in the official FIA Constructors' standings, unless they are in fact the constructor? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I already answered your question. I quote myself: "the constructor is the chassis make nowdays, and it can only have an entrant assocciated with it and collecting constructors' points. So it seems the FIA list entrants as a convenience (emphasis mine), because they are the entities collecting constructors' points (and if a entrant is excluded, the constructor loses all the points, like the Force India case)". My basic point is that, in my opinion, you are reading too much into that points table, when there are many others FIA sources supporting a different approach. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said to others above, it is ridiculous trying to argue the point that the constructors' championship has no constructors in it.

Anyway, the F1 sporting regulations defines the world champion constructor as being a competitor (or "entrant"); The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points, results from both cars (see Article 8.6) being taken into account.. This shows that the FIA doesn't oficially distinguish between entrants and constructors. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that customer chassis are currently illegal, meaning that in the current regulations the constructor and entrant have to be the same entity. In the past, when customer chassis were common, the constructor was completely separate from the entrant. The FIA listing the entrant name in the championship standings is one of convenience, but one simply has to look at the Spa entry list to see that "Force India Mercedes" is the recognized constructor. The Sporting Regulations immediately after the ones you quote specify how a constructor is recognized and named. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I say, the argument that the World Constructors' Championship has no constructors in it is ridiculous. However, even if this were the case, as I have pointed out, the Sporting Regulations still prove that Racing Point is a new constructor;

1) Firstly, Racing Point's application was carried out as outlined in Section 8 of the sporting regulations (named "COMPETITORS APPLICATIONS"). Therefore, there is no doubt that Racing Point is a new competitor?

2) Now, by looking at section 6.2, we find: "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points, results from both cars (see Article 8.6) being taken into account.". As you can see, the FIA deems the world champion constructor to be a competitor, so clearly each competitor is in fact also a constructor in the eyes of the FIA. As Racing Point is a new competitor, it is also a new constructor. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at the FIA's official entry list (now updated to include the Racing Point entry). You have a Team Name, a Chassis Name, and an Engine Name Manufacturer. The FIA's regulations (article 8.2b) state that "The name of the team (which must include the name of the chassis)", which explains why Force India is in the team name still - because you cannot change the name of your chassis once the season is in progress. "Chassis name" is pretty much analogous to constructor now. I feel that you should change the "Constructor" column in the entries table to "Chassis", and combine it with the existing "Chassis" column with the model numbers. Also, the FIA have clearly stated that the Original Sahara Force India entry has been excluded from the championship, and has been replaced by a new entry, that of Racing Point Force India F1 Team, which is using a Force India chassis for 2018. It's fundamentally wrong to see them grouped together as if they were part of the same entry. They're not. They may use the same Chassis, but they are not the same entry. --Bergqvistjl (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another over interpretation of one source. Look at the various Grand Prix entry lists that support the table. 20-21 of these are published every season and they have a column very clearly labeled "constructor".Tvx1 16:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1, the Sporting Regulations also prove that Racing Point is a new constructor;

1) Firstly, Racing Point's application was carried out as outlined in Section 8 of the sporting regulations (named "COMPETITORS APPLICATIONS"). Therefore, there is no doubt that Racing Point is a new competitor?

2) Now, by looking at section 6.2, we find: "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points, results from both cars (see Article 8.6) being taken into account.". As you can see, the FIA deems the world champion constructor to be a competitor, so clearly each competitor is in fact also a constructor in the eyes of the FIA. As Racing Point is a new competitor, it is also a new constructor.

@Tvx1 You mean like this one? It has a column labelled team first, then constructor (referring to the Chassis & Engine Manufacturer's names). The FIA's own results standings clearly show that points in the Constructors' Championship are awarded to entrant, it is headed with "Entrants", and the Team name is listed, and not that of the constructor or engine manufacturer. Thirdly, the standings page on the FIA's website also heads the column as "Teams", again showing the entrants name and not that of the constructor. Yes the Formula One website does list the constructor's name under the team column (rather than the name of the entry), but the championships are regulated and awarded by the FIA, not FOM, so sources authored by the championship regulator are of a higher authority than those of the championship promoter. --Bergqvistjl (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The FIA has now updated the constructors' classification, and both constructors have separate, distinct rows in the standings. I have updated the table to reflect this. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As expected, FIA provided the answer themselves. I have also updatet the WCC table accordingly. This also means we need to create a new article for the new constructor.Tvx1 18:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I still feel that it was fairly clear that this would be the situation even prior to this, but nevertheless, it is good to be able to put an end to this debate now. It does open itself to another discussion though - how do we deal with the "constructors" column now? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's to say that afterwards. I would leave the design of the table as is. All its contents is supported by the myriad of reliable sources in the source row. RP Force India is an exception. And we made the exception fit the table. We should make the table fit to the exception.Tvx1 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 I don't think we need to create a new article just for "Racing Point Force India" considering the team is literally the same and they will most likely change their name for next season anyway, its similar to when Spyker Cars had taken over Midland F1 during the 2006 season to become Spyker MF1 Racing except this time a lot of word salad with things like "new entrant" and "new entity" are included. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We have to create a new article. The FIA considers them different constructors. They even separate them in their WCC table. We can't go on on continue tallying up RP Force India to Force India's stats. Belgium is their first entry, not their 204th. The situation is quite different to MF1's takeoff by Spyker. Spyker only added their names as a sponsor during the season. The situation is more similar to Lotus and Caterham. They were both operated by the same people from the same location but were separate constructors and hence have separate articles.Tvx1 20:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to create a new article then what will the new article be called, "Racing Point Force India" or just something like "RP Force India" so to make it distinguishable from the old Force India? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that creating a new article is justified at this point.

If we are going to have two separate Force India entries in the team and driver table (and I am not convinced that this is the best way forward), then we need two separate Force Indias in the WCC matrix. 1.129.104.172 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you had bothered to check you would have seen they are already there. What is the alternative to creating a new article? We can’t keep talliying up results and actievements to the defunct Force India that has no right to them. The way the Force India article currently stands is completely wrong.Tvx1 03:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I would wait and see. Even if there are technically two Force Indias, there is a shared history. I don't really see how it's any different to Spyker buying Midland; the owner changes, but everything else remains the same. What makes this unusual is the way the FIA disqualified them and re-entered them, which they seem to have done to allow the team the chance to win prize money (which seems to be moot, since the teams have agreed to let them keep what they would be entitled to).

I would keep the content in the Force India article until we get a clearer picture of what will happen in 2019. My understanding is that "Racing Point Force India" is a placeholder name made up of the owners' trading name and the Force India name. It remains to be seen what they'll be called in 2019. Once we know, we can create a new article and move some of the detail across. 1.129.104.248 (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If yet another constructor debuts in 2019, we create yet another article in 2019. Otherwise this has no relevance on the current situation. The current constructor is clearly a seperate one to the one that competed up to and including the Hungarian Grand Prix, and that's the difference with Spyker MF1. It has its own seperate records and statistics and continuing to add the achievements of Racing Point to the defunct Force India is outright wrong original research. Look here. There current Racing Point Force India is not credited with any starts, let alone finishes.Tvx1 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

So what is happening then because everything here has paused? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

We're waiting for information. There has been uncertainty over their points, prize money and engine allocation, all of which could potentially affect how we handle it. There's no rush to make changes. I think that how the FIA handles Force India's results in Belgium will give us the clearest indication of what to do. 1.129.104.193 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The official standings published at the Belgian Grand Prix list them as seperate constructors. Defunct Force India is listed with its pre-Belgium positions which aren't worth any points any more. We should thus create a new article now.Tvx1 18:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added links to the entrant column. I know we don't ususlly do this, but there were two links to "Force India-Mercedes" that went to different places. We also need to visit race reports and update the classification tables; I would suggest using a footnote "Competing as Sahara/Racing Point Force India". 1.129.109.35 (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure that the new Racing Point entry has registered as a UK team? Sorry if this was discussed above, I tried to skim it but...you guys talked about a lot. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka, The official Formula One website now displays Force India as a British team. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

World Drivers' Championship standings

I'm not sure if this is relevant but I just saw the standings and realized Stroll is below Ericsson. Considering that based on F1 rules in case of a tie for 2 or more drivers you have to look at the drivers' best result, shouldn't Stroll be above Ericsson? It would become especially relevant at the end of the season if say Hamilton and Vettel end with the same number of points but one of them win the title. It seemed to mention about the rule on the page but it doesn't seem to apply in the table. JohnnyZCR (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Thanks for pointing out the error. DH85868993 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Red Bull point total

Red Bull's current championship point total is 274. Please correct the template. Thanks. 68.187.249.27 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed I've updated the template. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

WCC RET issue

As of 22-09-18, Vet should been labeled as RET in WCC under Germany. Currently RAI is showing as having RET, which is wrong.

The WCC table doesn't mention any driver. It simply list the constructors' results.Tvx1 21:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The WCC lists the 2 results, with the best one first. See #Constructor Standings: Ferrari mix-up. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that we need to keep explaining how the matrix is structured suggests that the system is B-R-O-K-E-N. How many canaries do you need to lose before you admit there is a problem in the coalmine? 1.144.111.121 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Barely two relevant requests in over two months and no relevant edits to the table in said timeframe suggests the exact opposite. Save for a few exceptions, people have gotten used to it. Please finally accept it.Tvx1 12:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There have been no edits or proposals to change the tables for a while because every attempt to do so has been met with your vociferous and relentless opposition, to the point where nobody can be bothered with the hassle. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey — I wouldn't be surprised if Tvx1 works for the White House. His approach to these discussions works in largely the same way: deny reality in the loudest possible voice until it goes away. That's just how it works on WikiTvx1pedia.

I know I sound flippant when I compare WT:F1 to American politics, but it's apt. There's no discussion—both sides retreat to their corners and confer with their bases, and when they meet again, they just shout at one another until their voices get hoarse. Then rinse, lather, repeat until one side quits in frustration and the other claims it as a victory. And that's how it works at WT:F1. It used to be that we could make wholesale changes quickly and effectively through constructive debate. Now it takes months to achieve anything; the most significant change made in 2018 has been to remove a flagicon from an infobox. Even when we do achieve a consensus, it amounts to nothing if Tvx1 opposes it. We've had a consensus to change the matrix twice this year and it's never been changed because one person denied that it was a problem. 1.144.106.32 (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This comment is not fruitful to the discussion. A discussion was already held, at length, and a consensus reached. Those that have commented on the matrix are those that have either misunderstood the meaning of the matrix, or those that have nothing to add to the discussion simply because they are rehashing the arguments already discussed. The discussion was made by the original user, and definitely no demand that things be changed. Piggybacking that user's claim that it is broken does not have merit. We have always had people who failed to understand the data, we cannot appease everyone.

If you have issues with the WikiProject, discuss them at the WikiProject. This is not a place to discuss your bias toward a WikiProject.

Finally, I suggest you log in so that we may know who we are addressing, since you claim to have previous experience with the Project. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

:"A discussion was already held, at length, and a consensus reached."

That discussion was held at least twice and a consensus for change was achieved twice. Those discussions then moved to address the form that the change would take. However, when editors did not immediately agree on what that change would look like—several proposals were tabled—editors who were opposed to changing back took this to mean that the original consensus was formed prematurely and have since moved to block any attempt to re-open the discussion.

"Piggybacking that user's claim that it is broken does not have merit."

That was me. I don't know why it's a different IP. If you check the archive for this talk page, you will see that this has been a reoccurring issue. Multiple editors have started discussions requesting the matrix format be changed back and all of them have been met with blanket refusals from the same editors to change it. These editors have adopted the line that "if you just give it time, people will get used to it", but half a dozen uninvolved editors have requested the change, all of which fulfilled the original predictions that people would be confused by the format. The entire change appears to have been introduced as a knee-jerk reaction to Toro Rosso's merry-go-round of drivers last year and a dislike of seeing large numbers of empty cells in the matrix. At this point, I think it's obvious that the system does not work—changing the matrix back has been the most-requested change this year. 1.144.106.11 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, no consensus was achieved for a change. This was explained to you at length by multiple users. There is no consensus for a change just because you say there is. That's not how consensus works. This recent exchange of posts is one of very predictable returning pattern of yours all stremming from one obvious problem. You just cannot stand to things not going your way. When you exhausted all apparent wikipedia procedures, desperate to get things your way nevertheless you resort an attempt to bring the other party into disrepute by spouting out ridiculous and delirious personal attacks. In the end though you end up making a mockery out of yourself because each time you demonstrate clearly how little you know about the users you accuse. As you should be well aware now, I'm Belgian. Aside from one 7-day holiday in the US, I have not spent any time there and I have never visited Washington DC, let alone the White House and have no link to it. Moreover, I don't care about politics whatsoever, something my editing history should make very clear. You have never given this table format a fair chance. You refused to even entertain implementing when it was first proposed. Consensus was achieved to do so nevertheless and you have tried everything in your might to overturn it since. Your behavior is appalling. Things have been stable for months now (The359 has explained the meaning of the two lone requests that have popped up since) and it is more than time to finally drop this and focus our efforts on more important things. We have wasted more than enough of our time on this now. By the way, The359, this 144. IP is Prisonermonekys who edits while being logged out due to having forgotten their password.Tvx1 11:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Things have been stable for months now"

Only because you doggedly deny that there is a problem every time someone mentions it on the talk page. I would hardly call things "stable" when half a dozen uninvolved editors and IP users request that it be changed and you act as if there is no issue. Once is an accident and twice is coincidence, but three times is a pattern. I don't know what six is.

"focus our efforts on more important things"

I can't think of anything more important than structuring a complex table in such a way that readers can read it and understand it without needing to visit the article talk page to request clarification as to how it works. 1.144.106.188 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

United States Grand Prix

We are less than three weeks away and the Calender section still has the note "The United States Grand Prix remains subject to the approval of the local sanctioning body." attached to the USGP. The note is evidently from last December. The problem with relaying these types of official little irregularities into the articles is, while this could have potentially evolved into an issue, if the approval by the local sanctioning body happens in a timely manner, it hardly makes front page news. Thus, it can be difficult to know with certainty when the note should be removed. 68.187.249.27 (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Given that the USGP indeed is 2 weeks away I would think it would be appropriate to remove the source given that well, it's only two weeks away and the source itself is old, dated last December. If the "local sanctioning body" or whatever does approve it, it would generate very little to no news at all so I assumed it was already approved. I am perfectly fine with the source staying there for two weeks until the USGP, I thought it would looks "cleaner" to remove it. Admanny (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You did the right thing in my opinion. Thank you. Indeed someone someone could say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" or that sourced content was removed without providing any source stating otherwise and insist we but it back. (Which is not a huge problem) The point I would like to make is a note like that shouldn't have been placed there in the first place. We can think ahead a little and see that it may be impossible to remove such a note. 68.187.249.27 (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

The World Championship Standings for Red Bull are incorrect.

There are two lines per constructor meant to be 1 line for Max Verstappen's results and 1 for Daniel Ricciardo's results. However for some reason the top line shows the best results for both Max and Daniel and the line below the worst results per race of the two. This is NOT how results are listed for any other constructor or for previous years. 203.214.35.157 (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's the same issue as above. Readers do not understand the constructors' table as it is presented at the moment. This will need to be discussed at WP:F1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It is very much how all constructors are dealt with. It is also the same way that previous season’s articles are dealt with. No driver is mentioned in any way in the WCC table, so I really can’t see why you would think it is meant to have its lines tied to drivers. Why are you looking for drivers’ results in that table in the first place. Their results are in the WDC table.Tvx1 16:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase if a reader can argue that the results do not show one drivers results on one line and the other driver on the second line then they are demonstrating then understand precisely how the results are displayed and merely disagree as to its presentation. So your basic arguement is founded on a falsehood. If you need help making your own argument understood, perhaps you should re-write it and try again? --Falcadore (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

WCC table is very badly broken

Pretty much every row in the WCC table is completely wrong. It's like someone has assigned whatever the best result was to a single driver and whatever the worst result was to the "Number two" driver. Has someone done this on purpose or is it a mistake?80.249.216.199 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Read two sections above. It's not broken. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You do realise the irony of that statement, right? How many people have to come in here asking for clarification before editors admit that it's a problem? It's been going on for months. Surely the fact that people keep asking how the matrix is organised suggests that it is very poorly done since they clearly don't understand it. 1.144.106.35 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that was how it was meant to be - sorry. I'd respectfully suggest that this might need a rethink - I don't think I'm the only one who's going to misread that table. And it seems to be communicating less information than it would do if each driver had their own line (eg. you could take a quick glance at the McLaren line and see which driver most of the points were coming from).80.249.216.199 (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It's the constructors table, not the drivers table. If you want to know how one driver went, you look up the drivers table to find out, not the constructors table. --Falcadore (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't what people are looking for, it's that they don't understand how the matrix is organised. 1.129.104.131 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? Where does it say that? --Falcadore (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

On my screen the "Black - Disqualified (DSQ)" part of the legend has black text on a black background. A little bit hard to read. (By the way, in relation to the above conversation, I think the table design is fine.)Hayttom (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

... However, shouldn't the name of the reincarnation of Force India be shown as 'Racing Point Force India'? (The link is correct.) Hayttom (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No. The constructor name registered with the FIA is simply "Force India".Tvx1 23:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Haas points in article wrong for USA.

The Haas points in the constructor's championship column are distributed wrong.

Kevin was DSQ and Grosjean Ret. It is currently displayed the other way around.

Edit: Yes, it is wrong. Under constructor's championship each team is represented by 2 rows. 1 row per driver. The results in each row match the results of a driver in the driver's championship. In the USA column of the Haas rows the results are reversed. Next to Grosjean's results it says DSQ, but he retired. Same with Magnussen's results, he was DSQ, but it says retired.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AtotehZ (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

See the above discussion, also if a driver is disqualified they are listed after any non-classified finishers. Bbb2007 (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No it's not wrong. The drivers are mentioned in way of form in the constructor's championship table. It just lists the constructors' results in vertical order.Tvx1 19:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in the chart assigning any row to any particular drivers. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The Constructors table continues to be misunderstood. The current method of listing a constructor's results by finishing position still confuses readers. How many times does this need to be said before the "regulars" with ownership issues understand the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

See here for a good example of what you are describing. It's a battle against windmills. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

why at USA, kimi is 4 and vettel 1, it should be vice versa. who makes these lies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.240.230 (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't see that, read the relevant talkpage section. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is yet another example of the Constructors table causing reader confusion. Every argument for leaving it as it is, however logical that may be, is trumped by the fact the readers are confused. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This is what happens when the inmates run the asylum. 1.144.108.111 (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

US Grand Prix

where the report for US Grand Prix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4426326a (talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

2018 United States Grand Prix (surprise!) -- Scjessey (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A picture tells a thousand words

How about adding a line chart to graph the drivers' points accumulation as the season progresses? Something like this:

     Lewis Hamilton      Sebastian Vettel      Kimi Räikkönen      Valtteri Bottas      Max Verstappen
     Daniel Ricciardo      Nico Hülkenberg      Sergio Pérez      Kevin Magnussen      Fernando Alonso

-- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I like it, but I am not sure it adds much value. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

We've had these suggested by all sorts of users almost every year. They almost always unanimously get shot down. They are inherently difficult to read even in just this state, and especially if you plan to add the full field of drivers. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The359, do you think that it is more difficult to interpret the info conveyed by this simple graph than it is to get the same instant picture from the dense matrix of numbers we currently provide? I think this compliments the table and is quicker to get the picture from. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest option 3. Read the text. Why not put the same amount of effort into these ugly and congested charts into better written text? That way a chart will never be needed. --Falcadore (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This has far too many drivers and lines to be comprehensible to most readers. Strongly oppose this being used. A picture may tell a thousand words, but that's not helpful if people cannot decipher the picture to work out which thousand words it's on about. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Joseph2302, how many lines would you think would be comprehensible? Don't you think that the way it shows the trends is helpful and informative? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no ... 1.144.108.111 (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you dignify that response with your reasoning please? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Can't support this as it doesn't comply with our guidelines regarding accessibility. It relies entirely on color conveying information, yet there are people who only see limited colors or even none at all. And as far as I can see the colors in the legend don't even match the graph.Tvx1 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

So if we could create a similar graph which complied with the accessibility guidelines would you support it's inclusion? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No. It isn't very practical. You can't distinguish the lines at all on the left side (covering the early part of the season), nor can you for the bottom four or five drivers on the right side. Prose is just much more efficient.Tvx1 17:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course you can't distinguish the lines at the left side. Everybody starts at the same point. As far as accessibility goes, even people with their full sensory faculties have a hard time deciphering the existing tables, and that hasn't stopped you. No, the real reason it isn't worth including is that it just doesn't really add much value. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks terrible, does not add value and a chart should never be used as a substitute for clearly written text. It's that simple DeFacto. Don't draw, write. --Falcadore (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, you can't even get the colours right! Is Vettel blue or lime? If he is blue, then who is the lime coloured line? --Falcadore (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In a closer fought championship between several drivers (think 2010 or 2012), it would make sense to include some sort of table of graph that gives a quick view of how the season progressed. However, this year, the case is so clear that no visual representation is needed. The pendulum swung from Vettel to Hamilton. End of story. Prose can tell that easily. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

While Sebastien Vettel led in the early stages, Hamilton led the championship from the Azerbaijan Grand Prix onwards apart from a brief period after the British Grand Prix.

There. Done in 28 words. Substantially less than a thousand. --Falcadore (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton breaks the point record

its worth mentioning? 408 > 397. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4426326a (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Then do it! Don't wait for someone else to make the change. --Falcadore (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure if this fact really worth mention. Hamilton scored 77.71% of possible points. It was just second season from such amount of races (21). It means that this record would be broken soon. We already have this info here. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)