Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated C-class, Top-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

German Grand Prix[edit]

There is currently no 2019 German Grand Prix page and we are only 4 days away from the race itself. Could someone create a 2019 German Grand Prix page? JamesVilla44 (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


The map should either be removed or corrected, for the Crimea is not part of Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:f4:43f7:2500:fd0d:1438:8362:d5ac (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Im no expert but it appears that both Ukraine and Russia claim it. The maps on both the Russia and Ukraine wikipedia pages include the crimea as part of its terretory. If we change it there will be undoubtable be someone else who either requests it changes back or does it themselves.
SSSB (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It's de facto governed by the Russian Federation. This has even come up before.Tvx1 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Though if it's meant to show de facto borders Azerbaijan should have the chunk occupied by Armenia taken out of it. Undoubtedly the map was made incorporating the views of its creator rather than any other basis. QueenCake (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think the map has any value to this article whatsoever. I say get rid of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It's justifiable to show where in the world the races are held. QueenCake (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is that relevant? The countries where the races are held are clearly shown in the various tables. It's just more redundant information, frankly, and apparently somewhat controversial. We certainly don't need anything unnecessarily controversial. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It shows where in the world races are held for people who don't know where sochi is in Russia, or who don't know where Azerbaijan is. I don't think the map was created with political bias. I'm assuming good faith and saying that the editor was unaware of Azerbaijans de facto borders (The Crimea thing is more recent with more media coveragae) and it's hardly controversial, it's been picked on twice in three years on minor technicalities, our constructors championship results tables are actually more controversial with more complaints about the current system. Besides I doubt most editors even notice that Crimea is shown as Russia. We can't remove every map of Russia and Ukraine, nor Azerbaijan and Armenia across all of Wikipedia's non political articles. We are making a mountain out of a mole hill with this de facto borders argument.
SSSB (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"It shows where in the world races are held for people who don't know where sochi is in Russia." Wikipedia has this amazing thing called hyperlinks where people can literally click on Sochi and it'll tell them where it is and everything! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore that condescending comment and just going to say I'm not particularly fussed either way, I just don't see the point in removing it, it isn't doing any harm. WP:BROKEN applies here.
SSSB (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Except it is doing harm in that it has needlessly introduced a dispute about land occupations into an article about motor racing, while seemingly providing almost zero benefit to the reader. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
There was no dispute, there has never been one. The only dispute is this one about it's necessity. The above it not a dispute, it is simply someone pointing out what they thought was a mistake but isn't. That is not a dispute. As far as I can tell WP:BROKEN still applies here.
SSSB (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not necessary because it conveys no benefit to the reader, and the map itself is disputed by virtue of the fact that it misrepresents the status of Crimea. It is "broken" by that rationale. Besides, WP:BROKEN is just an essay. It's not policy, and it's not even a guideline. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said before I am not particularly inclined either way, if you remove it I won't be reverting. But if your so adamant it must go, then go ahead. Thonk of this as a taster if one of the more stubborn members of WP:F1 (2 of the most prominant are incredibly stubborn, no prizes for guessing who) disagrees with you.
SSSB (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about these maps. I always found them somewhat informative, but I don't see them as vital either. Doesn't matter too much to me whether they stay or not. This is typically something we keep doing because the previous articles did. In any case the borders issue was exaggerated.Tvx1 12:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Couldn't the Crimea issue simply be resolved by making a new map? We get a new one (almost) every year; it can't be that hard to do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If only it could be that easy. If the map is changed, there will be objections from the "other side" of the issue. That's why it is better to just get rid of it. I don't see it as useful anyway. The text makes it quite clear the F1 is a global sport, and that should be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Constructor's Championship standings[edit]

Not all the standings in the Constructor's Championship board are correct. Someone had better edit them so that everything is synched with the Driver's Championship board. (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done: The standings are in separate templates from the article. Bbb2007 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

There's been no visual change at all. The "Constructor's" board is still not synched with the "Driver's" board. (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look and everything looks correct. I think where you might be getting confused is that in the constructors table we sort each teams results with the best result first followed by the worse result. It doesn't work on the basis of one row per driver. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Fuel footnote[edit]

Regarding this. Please do not edit war over this footnote. Please discuss the matter here and come to an agreement instead. While I personally think the content is interesting, it strikes me as being a bit too generic for this 2019 article (it applies to previous years as well). And while true, the lack of a reference gives weight to the argument for exclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The rules were changed for 2019, increasing the maximum amount of fuel from 105kg to 110kg. The fuel is liquid, but the rules specifically state that the fuel is measured by weight, not by volume. Thus, the footnote is needed to explain why the rules state the weight of fuel in kilograms rather than litres.
The truth of the statement gives more weight to the argument for inclusion than the lack of reference does to the argument for exclusion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, @Scjessey, it would help if you pinged the editors whose attention you wanted to get—like myself and @Maranello10. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If for instance, the rules changed that in the 2019 season they were starting to measure fuel by weight rather than litres, then I could see an explanation being warranted. As mentioned by Scjessey, it has been measured by weight in previous seasons, so a justification is not needed in a 2019 article.

I reject the argument that it should be included simply due to its factual nature, as brevity in an article (what you leave out) is just as important as what you leave in. The front wing endplates were also changed for this year, should someone have to explain how they work? The aerodynamic theory of turbulence that also existed in 2018? This is primarily a sporting article, not a technical one, and the section is there to simply outline the broad technical changes, not to provide detail of why the FIA does certain things that they have been doing for years.

Finally, the reference is uncited, there is no instance in wikipedia that the truth of a statement has more weight than a lack of reference; it is probably one of the fundamental tenants of wikipedia. That in itself disqualifies the footnote. Maranello10 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey, @Mclarenfan17 Apologies for not taking it to the talk page initially, I thought it was too small an issue to bother people. Maranello10 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Maranello10. In my opinion the footnote doesn't add anything to the article, the physics as to why weight is used rather volume don't belong on an article which is about a sporting season. I've also looked for a citation for this statement several times, I couldn't find anywhere where it said that F1 regs had adopted the use of weight because volume of liquids can change. I know that F1 regs use weight and I know that the volume of a liquid can change with temperture but I can't find any source which links the 2 statements, Mclarenfan17, above you said The truth of the statement gives more weight to the argument for inclusion than the lack of reference does to the argument for exclusion., WP:VNT would disagree, can you prove that F1 changed to wieght rather than volume for this reason? Therefore I am in favour of removing this (I have actually been eyeing it for some time) espically given that this piece of information isn't necessary to understand any of the rest of the content. As I pointed out above I fail to see how the statement contributes anything to the article besides word count.
SSSB (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Mclarenfan17: I would've pinged you both if I didn't think you'd be watching the talk page, but you're basically regulars here so I didn't bother.
@Maranello10: I'm in complete agreement. While it is true that the allowed weight of fuel has changed, the method of measurement, which is what the footnote refers to, has not. What would make more sense would be to identify the year the FIA switched to using weight over volume and then putting something into the Formula One article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
A reader should not have to read multiple articles to make sense of this one. That's why the explanation is written as a footnote rather than integrated into the prose: it's a supplementary piece of information which is there to aid the reader without becoming the focus of the paragraph. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: They wouldn't need to read multiple articles to make sense of this one because that line isn't necessary to understanding the article. A reader can understand the article without it, we don't need to give an explanation for why everything is the way it is every time we mention it. I see no footnote explaining why Monaco isn't 305+km for example. 3 of us think the footnote should be removed and you are the only one of thinks it is necessary. Maybe you should admit that this is a WP:SNOW situation for you?
SSSB (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
My main objection is that this is an element common to multiple seasons of F1, so it shouldn't appear in the article about just one season. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Scjessey — that's a perfectly acceptable point, but this article has a specific rule change related to fuel. As fuel is normally a liquid (and indeed goes into the car in liquid form), the reader could or would reasonably expect that the measurements be given in litres. But the fuel is specifically measured by weight, not volume. An explanation for this is needed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: I disagree. The specific rule change is about the allowed weight of the fuel, not the way fuel is calculated. That way has been in place for a while, so no explanation is necessary on this particular article. Perhaps for the main Formula One article, but not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: I agree that a user would expect litres but this is why the concept of units exists. I would disagree with the fact that the choice of units requires an explanation. This article is about Formula One in 2019 not about the physics of liquids. Therefore an explanation of a why fuel is measured the way it is isn't needed as it is a system which has been in place for several years. There is nothing new in the way fuel is calculated. To quote Sheldon Cooper, I accept your premise; I reject your conclusion.
SSSB (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: I would go one step further and say it isn't even required in a general formula 1 article, let alone one that is season-specific and sporting. I'd imagine the vast majority of readers who would be interested in the technical regulations of formula 1 would have an idea that liquids can be measured in weight rather than volume, and why this might be favourable. It isn't that insightful a point, and only a tiny minority would be catered to, if that minority exists at all. Maranello10 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You're assuming that the audience has enough familiarity with the subject that they have a sound knowledge of the technical regulations before they read the article. The problem is that you're not taking into account newcomers to the sport—you're writing the article for established fans and only for established fans. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that is the case at all. It's enough that we say what the unit of measurement is. The fact that it differs from how people put fuel in their car is irrelevant. I think we have a pretty solid consensus in support of not including the note, and further discussion would seem unproductive at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Doubt it's the case all that you want; you haven't shown a shred of evidence. Not to mention the fact that you're writing the article for an audience that you're assuming has a similar amount of knowledge to you, which is unencyclopaedic—you're turning Wikipedia into a fan site. Mclarenfan17 (talk)\

I don't need to show a shred of evidence. The burden is upon you to make a case for inclusion, and you have failed to do so. You are, in fact, the only voice calling for this footnote. Again, this article is specific to the 2019 season, whereas the fuel measurement method is not specific to the 2019 season. It makes more sense to put an explanation in the Formula One article and then link "fuel levels" (for example) to the anchor associated with that explanation. The same can be done for previous years. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: if I were writing for people who had a similar amount of knowledge to me this article would be a lot more detailed and complicated in terminology and analysis. I also fail to see how you can accuse us of turning it into a fan site, that accusation has no basis in fact. We have told you this time and time again. We don't think this note is necessary to the understanding of the article, we don't think this note should be here. It is clear to me that this discussion is now starting to go round in circles. Either back down and accept that this is a discussion you have lost or I shall ask an experienced member of WP:F1 (probably DH85868993 if he consents) to close this discussion officially (in line with wp:closing) as it would appear that we are all repeating the same arguments and getting nowhere and with your history of being painfully stuborn I don't see this discussion ever archiving a unanimous verdict.
SSSB (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: I am in complete agreement with @SSSB, this is going in circles. I second that you either concede the point or it is time to get the discussion closed officially. Maranello10 (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
"I also fail to see how you can accuse us of turning it into a fan site, that accusation has no basis in fact"
Because you're making assumptions about the audience's schema (their prior knowledge). You're assuming that they already know about the way fuel is measured and why, which is specific technical knowledge. And you can't make that assumption; I've been following the sport since the mid-1990s and only knew about this circa 2015. It's a minor point, but it can become increasingly esoteric. Thus, the audience for the article is becoming established fans of the sport to the exclusion of people who are casual fans or newcomers. Hence, a fan site—a site made for fans. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: Alright, you have gotten the last word in, said your point several times and we are not going to agree, but you are in the minority, so can you concede the point or is it getting closed formally? Maranello10 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: we aren't assuming that they know why it's measured in kilos. We're saying that they don't need to why it's measured in kilos. It is irrelevent to this article specifically as it isn't a new introduction and not needed to understand the rest of the article. And just to be clear I didn't know why it was measured in kilos until the edit war started, but I dont care because it isn't needed to understand the article or in fact any other part of the sport. I'm also going to ask DH85868993 to close this discussion as it is going in circles.
SSSB (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing centimetres as units of measurement[edit]

@SSSB: You removed centimetres from my contribution about technical regulation changes for this season. I do not object to including inches as they are helpful for American readers, but for most people in the rest of the world centimetres are a more intuitive unit of measurements than millimetres, as 1 cm is already pretty small (2.54 times smaller than an inch). I included both with the handy template Convert, mainly because the regulations are written in millimetres, then you, instead of simply adding inches, removed centimetres. Can we agree to include all three of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobi.1 (talkcontribs) 12:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bobi.1: I used mm because that is what the regulations use and also other Formula One articles. I added inches for those who use imperial measurements. I removed cm because any use who knows what mm will understand cm and vice versa. I don't mind if we use cm or mm and we have no obligation to use one or the other, I don't care which one we use but to use both is just silly in my opinion. It just feels like we are including units for no reason other than we can. It is common knowledge among metric users that 1 cm is 10 times bigger than 1 mm, knowing what a front wing is or a rear wing is more obscure knowledge amongst metric users than cm to mm conversion. Remember we dont have to use mm because the regs do and we dont have to use mm because other similiar articles do as the articles are written to be read independent of each other and Wikipedia is independent from the FIA. So to conclude you can replace mm with cm if you wish but please refrain from including both. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the measurements should always be given in millimetres and inches. I've never seen any form of technical papers written with centimetres. I think the reader will expect millimetres and it would be peculiar if with did anything else. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, we are not a technical report, so we don't need to follow the precision of one. cm and mm are both suitable here.
SSSB (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to be deliberately different either. If our readers generally encounter millimeters and inches in the reliable sources on this subject than it makes sense to keep our articles in balance with them.Tvx1 14:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Like I said I'm not particularly fussed, I'm just pointing out we have no obligation to follow any given system.
SSSB (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this article is not a technical report but aimed towards fans who read it to get an overview of the changes without having to read the FIA documents. so we should not blindly copy the regulations. Even Formula 1 technical regulations used centimetres for most measurements over 2 cm until 2000, and I guess it was only changed in early 2000s because some team tried to argue 'if it is given in centimetres, and our wing rounds down to the nearest centimetre, it should be legal'. For example, in one version of the regulations there is the number 40000mm², which would make no sense to put in an article instead of 400cm² or 4dm². And while mental maths in metric is not hard, it is best to use the most suitable unit of measurement. Bobi.1 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
It's true that this article is not technical report, but that doesn't mean we are prohibited from using millimeters. Using that subdivision is not synonymous with "blindly copying the regulations". The most logical thing to do remains keeping our articles in balance with the sources for this and using sub-units that our readers generally encounter in the general sources (like this one) as well, per WP:ASTONISH.Tvx1 12:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the current version is ok. Millimetres with inches between brackets is the most logical way to me and echoes the units used in the sources. The convert template was primarily designed to be used to easily display equivalent units from different measuring systems (e.g. Metre vs Miles or °C vs °F), not really to display different divisions of the same unit of the same measuring system. Moreover inches and centimetres are not each others proper equivalent. The imperial equivalent of centimetres would be feet.Tvx1 13:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Metres and Miles are not equivalent, Km and Miles are. Just because they are the same number of steps up from the smallest unit doesn't make them equivilant. We should use common sense when determining which units should go together. Anything between 1cm and a 1m could easily use either cm or mm with inches. Using feet would just be weird with anything less than 1 foot (30 cm) and illogical when you can use inches (approx. 12 inches in a foot.)
SSSB (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I meant to write metres and yards.Tvx1 14:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I support millimetres as the primary unit as they are the common unit in automotive engineering, and a convert into inches for those in many parts of the English speaking world who prefer British imperial or US customary units. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That is exactly my thoughts also. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)