Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Project-class)
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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Lap leader charts[edit]

During the GA review of 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, the reviewer Saskoiler suggested a caption to be added for the lap leader chart. I do not really consider this necessary and I also do not know if it is technically possible, so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, why would we need a caption? The "Lap Leader" title I think makes it clear enough, we'd just be repeating that surely? CDRL102 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with the "Constructor" column on the "Entries" section?[edit]

I have already started a discussion about this on the talk pages of the "2018 Formula One World Championship" and "Template:F1 Constructors Standings", as these issues need to be addressed (preferably promptly) for the current season due to the unusual Force India/Racing Point situation. However, I felt it was best to start a discussion here also, due to the consequences such a change could have on both past and future F1 articles.

The latest update to the FIA official constructors' classification has shown that Force India and Racing Point are actually seperate constructors, namely "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". Therefore, the current constructors column on the entries table is actually showing the incorrect information, as "Force India-Mercedes" is simply a merge of the name of the chassis and the name of the engine, and is not actually the name of the constructor. My proposal is the following;

1) The "Entrant" column should be retitled as "Entrant/Constructor".
2) The "Constructor" column should be removed.
3) The name of the chassis (for example "Force India") should be merged into the "Chassis" column, for example something along the lines of "Force India (VJM11)".
4) The name of the power unit (for example "Mercedes") should be merged into the "Power Unit" column, for example "Mercedes (Mercedes M09 EQ Power+)".

Also, on this topic, I feel a similar thing needs to be done with the WCC standings - replacing "Force India-Mercedes" with "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Please could you all let me know what you think and provide your own proposals.

For the purposes of clarification, here is an example of my proposal;

Entrant/Constructor Chassis Power unit Race drivers Free Practice drivers
No. Driver name Rounds No. Driver name
Italy Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari (SF71H) Ferrari (Ferrari 062 EVO) 5
7
Germany Sebastian Vettel
Finland Kimi Räikkönen
1–13
1–13
N/A

Also, here is an example of what I'm saying with the "World Constructors' Championship standings" table;

Pos. Constructor AUS
Australia
BHR
Bahrain
CHN
China
AZE
Azerbaijan
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
FRA
France
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
GER
Germany
HUN
Hungary
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
RUS
Russia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points
1 Germany Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 Ret 2 1 1 345
8 3 4 14dagger 2 5 5 7 Ret 4 2 5
Pos. Constructor AUS
Australia
BHR
Bahrain
CHN
China
AZE
Azerbaijan
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
FRA
France
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
GER
Germany
HUN
Hungary
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
RUS
Russia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this in the strongest possible terms. For one, it's a knee-jerk reaction to Force India's current situation, and we don't even have any results to see how that is going to be applied practically.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is more to a "constructor" than who the results are credited to. The FIA's definition of a constructor is whoever built the car. Mercedes' car is called the "Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+"—not the "Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport F1 W09 EQ Power+"—because the FIA recognises Mercedes as the group that built the car. The entrant column refers to whoever operates the car on a race weekend and this can be a temporary identity depending on sponsors. Look at Alfa Romeo: they had nothing to do with building the Sauber, but but recognising them as part of the constructor implies that they did. 1.129.104.172 (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, the fact that customer chassis are not allowed is only a recent regulation. Customer chassis scoring points in the constructor's championship despite not being the actual constructor's team have existed for many decades of F1. The entrant and constructor being separate far outweighs the amount of time that entrant and constructor have been considered synonymous. The359 (Talk) 00:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll also reiterate that "Lotus", "Lotus", and "Lotus" are three individually recognized constructors that do not share the same history. Two different "Force India" constructors are not out of the question, and again goes back to the fact that customer chassis cannot exist, thus Racing Force cannot use Force India chassis unless they name themselves Force India. The359 (Talk) 00:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I really don’t understand how anyone can genuinly argue that Force India-Mercedes is not the name of the constructor when that constructor name is literally present on every single entry list for every single race they ever entered and is used in every single broadcast. This is just a case of overemphasizing one source. I agree with my colleagues that there is more to the constructor than only results. In recent times we’ve had car manufacturers in entrant names who didn’t do anything coming close to constructing a F1 car (Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin, Infiniti,...). The current situation is exceptional. We need to find a way to make that exception fit in the existing structure, no to make the structure fit the exception.Tvx1 03:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Once again, it seems that there is some confusion to what a constructor is. As per the F1 sporting regulations, a constructor is deemed to be a competitor. The name of each competitor is the same as an entrant - please see https://www.fia.com/file/71331/download?token=35Hb3JKe, where the competitor is called "Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport". This is further backed up by the fact that the FIA World Constructors' Championship standings don't list "Force India-Mercedes", but instead list "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Clearly, in the eyes of the FIA, a constructor is any entity that brings together all of the parts necessary to form an F1 car (chassis, engine, gearbox etc.). Of course, each of these can be produced by different entities, but it is only the competitor who can claim points in the world constructors' championship.
Also, @1.129.104.172, I was not saying place the entrant name in front of the engine, I was saying place the "The make of the competing car" (as per part b of section 8.2 in the sporting regs). This would therefore form "Mercedes (F1 W09 EQ Power+)". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
You are cherry picking the sporting regulations and completely ignoring the parts that don't back this claim. 8.3 directly points out that a team can change an engine supplier mid-season, but will no longer be scored in the Constructors Championship because it is no longer the same constructor. 6.2 states "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor" followed by "If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car" meaning the title is awarded to Mercedes, not Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport. Finally, the constructors trophy is covered in the emblems of manufacturers, not team names.
Competitor is a loose term, not a technical term in this aspect. A driver is a competitor, a team is a competitor, a constructor is a competitor. Driver, entrant, constructor, team, these are all specific things that are not interchangable. The359 (Talk) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@The359, I would agree that the term "competitor" seems loose, but when there is an entire section of the sporting regs outlining exactly what a "competitor" is (section 8), I would argue that this room for interpretation no longer exists. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, "The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." Once again, this proves that the constructor is different to the name of the chassis. The constructor chooses the name of the chassis, they are not the name of the chassis. This is a key point, because it proves that the name of the chassis (Force India) is not the same as the name of the constructor. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect, this means that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes" and not "Force India", which is the maker. Which is exactly how we list them in the Constructors table. The359 (Talk) 12:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not incorrect. The regulations state that the constructor chooses the make of the chassis and engine ("The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor."). At no point does it say that the make of the chassis and engine is the name of the constructor. Also, the FIA constructors' standings doesn't list "Force India Mercedes", they list "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". Bearing in mind these two teams have unique entries in the constructors' standings, it is clear that they are different constructors. Therefore, if the constructor was unchanged ("Force India Mercedes"), how would this be the case? - the constructor is "Racing Point Force India F1 Team", and the make of chassis is "Force India", and it is important that we illustrate the subtle, yet important difference between the two. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The constructor name is not "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". I know you have a source that says that, but you should weigh that one source against the wealth of sources that supersede it. 1.129.104.205 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a source, I have multiple sources, each that back up the point that the constructor is "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". These sources include the FIA constructors' classification, and the F1 sporting regulations. The idea that you can disprove these sources as being "unreliable" is crazy, given they are two of the biggest publications produced by the FIA each year.
Anyway, this has already been discussed and it was agreed that the two teams were seperate constructors, hence why we have seperated them in the table. If you are correct and the constructor is "Force India Mercedes", then given this hasn't changed, please explain why the FIA views them as different constructors? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Because they had to void the Sahara team's results to allow the Racing Point team to start with a clean slate. Your argument, however, suggests that a) the team was never known by the constructor name "Force India-Mercedes" and was instead "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and b) this is true for all teams, which you certainly have not demonstrated.

I'm also going to point out that this entire discussion is less than 48 hours old and we're already going in circles. You haven't introduced anything new to the argument and you certainly haven't convinced me of anything. Without any new information, I doubt you will be able to convince @The359 or @Tvx1 either. My suggestion is to either find new information to convince us or let the discussion sit for a while. I can guarantee you that if this starts going in circles, nothing will change—you won't be able to persuade those already in the conversation, and lengthy arguments repeating themselves ad infinitum will be a real barrier to people joining the discussion. 1.129.104.205 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have multiple sources. You have literally one source and your interpretation of the regulations. The former is not "one of the biggest publications" produced each year by the FIA. It's just a table on website maintained by a web designer. The many entry lists and other documents published at every race are far bigger since they all are officially signed off by the stewards. And clearly the other users disagree with your interpretation of the rules.Tvx1 14:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, seeing as though you aren't willing to accept the facts presented by the FIA, and the fact that I haven't "added anything", I will give you one more piece of evidence that an "Entrants" and "Constructors" are the same name. I will draw your attention back to the Sporting Regulations, specifically appendix 2, named "ENTRY FORM". A specific part of this section is titled "CONSTRUCTOR'S DETAILS OF ENTRY". This requires the constructor to submit a "Team Name". There is a subsection that requires them to agree to compete in every event using the "Name of chassis" and "Make of the Engine". As you can see, it is down to the constructor to decide which chassis and engine to use for the season, which would not be the case if the constructor was in fact the "Name of the chassis". This is consistent with how the FIA list the constructors in the official constructors' standings. Like I say, the difference is subtle, but it is important that we show this accurately in the tables, which we currently aren't doing. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1, the constructors' standings are also published each weekend after the race, and once again are signed off by the stewards. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Not the table published on the website. The championship standings published with the GP information actually label the names as "Entrants" demonstrating very clearly that these are not constructor names. Other users have already explained to you that they use the entrant names for convenience. And your subsection that requires them to agree to compete in every event using the "Name of chassis" and "Make of the Engine" shows very clearly that standings table you base your claims on is in fact NOT consistent at all. Because under your subsection's stipulation the constructor names they should compete under are the likes of "Force India-Mercedes", "Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer", "McLaren Renault", etc. and thus clearly not the names you claim to be the constructor names. If you had bother to watch this after noons session you would have seen that they once again used the same constructor names we use in our tables.Tvx1 16:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Please could you actually look at this section of the sporting regulations before you make baseless claims. Yes, they have to submit a name of chassis and a make of engine, but at no point in this section does it stipulate that this is the name of the constructor.
Let's look at another example that further proves my point (here: https://www.fia.com/file/72067/download?token=kElNyAFB). One section says, "Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team was excluded from the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship with immediate effect". There are only two 2018 FIA Formula One World Championships - the world drivers' championship and the world constructors' championship. There is no driver called "Sahara Force India F1 Team", so I think we can agree that this is applying to the world constructors' championship? Therefore, we know that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" has been excluded from the constructors' championship. Bearing in mind this championship can only be participated in by constructors, we also know that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor. Had they said "Force India Mercedes was excluded", I would agree with you, but they don't and this is yet another official FIA source that defines the constructor's name as the same as the entrant's name. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I have listed all of the information I have so far in the table below, and I feel that it is necessary to put all of the information in one place, so we can prove/disprove either way. Please feel free to add to the table with any more information, so we can build up a clearer picture of the situation.

Points that back up that the constructor is "Sahara Force India F1 Team" Points that back up that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes"
The name "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is listed on the official FIA Constructors' standings. This is both on the web page for the constructors classifications and the post-race bulletins that publish the constructors' standings. Given this championship is only competed in by constructors, it backs up the point that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor.

Source 1 - https://www.fia.com/file/71337/download?token=TSrMIIKr

Source 2 - https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2018/2018-classifications

The entry list for each race has a column named "Constructor". Under this column, the name is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/72023/download?token=1go8ssr2

The stewards at the 2018 Belgian GP stated: "On August 23, 2018, Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team was excluded from the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship with immediate effect". This shows that "Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team" were excluded from the World Constructors' championship. As with the point above, given this championship is only competed in by constructors, it backs up the point that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor.

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/72067/download?token=kElNyAFB

Section 6.2 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points". This shows that a constructor is in fact a competitor. Competitors are defined in section 8 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations (named "COMPETITORS APPLICATIONS"), and specifically section 8.2 states that a competitor's application must include "The name of the team". It is generally accepted, as per other F1 articles, that the "Team Name" is interchangeable with the "Entrant", and hence is the best way of representing the "competitor". Taking this into consideration, we can say that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the name of the competitor, and given the constructor is the competitor, we can say that the name of the constructor is "Sahara Force India F1 Team"

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY

Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body)". I am not aware of any corporate or unincorporated body named "Force India Mercedes". However, I am aware of one named "Sahara Force India F1 Team". This may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY

Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6". These "Listed Parts" in Appendix 6 are the: "Survival cell", "Front impact structure", "Roll structures" and "Bodywork". The engine and gearbox are not on this list, so there should be no reason why "Mercedes" would be a part of the constructor's name. Once again, this may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does go some way to disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY

The "CONSTRUCTOR'S DETAILS OF ENTRY" section of Appendix 2 (named "ENTRY FORM") of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations has a section which states;

We hereby apply to enter the [ ] FIA Formula One World Championship and we undertake to participate in each and every Event :

i) With the make of the car referred to below which we nominate for the purpose of Article 6.2 of the Sporting Regulations

Name of the Chassis

Make of the Engine

As you can see, the "name of the chassis" (Force India) and "make of the engine" (Mercedes) are merely a part of the constructor's agreement of participation, and it is not deemed to be related to the name of the constructor. Once again, this goes some way to disproving that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Also, in this section, the constructor is required to submit a "Team Name". As mentioned above, this is interchangeable with the "Entrant", and therefore would be suitable representation of the constructor. In this case, that would mean representing this constructor as "Sahara Force India F1 Team".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY

At the FIA Prize Giving 2017, the "FIA Formula 1 World Championship for Manufacturer 2017" was awarded to "Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula 1 Team". As you can see, the manufacturers'/constructors' championship was awarded to the full entrant name, not simply "Mercedes".

Source - https://fiaagapg.fiaevents.com/ehome/200174320/prize/

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I was never a fan of changing "Red Bull" to the full "Red Bull Racing" or "Toro Rosso" to the full "Scuderia Toro Rosso" so in my opinion it should just stay as "Force India" instead of the full team name but obliviously my opinion doesn't matter in this subject, we have always used "Force India" as that is what was used by the FIA since 2008 so I don't understand why all of a sudden people want to make a mess of it and change it over sources that don't mean much in the way of the teams actual constructor name which was shown to be "Force India" on Thursdays entrant sheet. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Speedy Question Mark, the reason why I feel this needs to be changed, is because the FIA appears to define the constructor as "Sahara Force India F1 Team" on a regular basis. Of course, in the past it was assumed that "Force India Mercedes" was synonymous with this, but now we have a situation where the tables on the F1 2018 article have two constructors named "Force India Mercedes", which leads to confusion (particularly the WCC table). I feel we should ensure we are providing accurate information, and just because this is how we have previously displayed the information, it doesn't necessarily mean it is right - it just means we have never been presented with a situation like this before which shows up any misunderstandings. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I was never a fan of changing "Red Bull" to the full "Red Bull Racing" or "Toro Rosso" to the full "Scuderia Toro Rosso"
Those were the names that the team nominated and which appeared on the season entry list, so I have no idea why you are bringing it up.
I feel we should ensure we are providing accurate information
What is inaccurate about calling the team "Force India-Mercedes"? By your own logic, Appendix 2 demonstrates this to be an accurste name. Moreover, the majority of third-party sources use the "Force India-Mercedes" name. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you (and which you have ignored), all you have is the interpretation of a handful of sources. 1.129.104.138 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

60 years of official Formula One history says its Team-Engine and you want to discard that Wikipediaeditperson? One of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is we are telling the story of all of Formula One not just the last year or so. WP:RECENTISM. --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.104.138, Appendix 2 refers to the "make", which is not the same as "constructor". The constructor is the overall entry (hence the title "CONSTRUCTORS ENTRY"), and the "make" is the car that they use. At the very least, we must change the WCC table, because only one source really applies to this (the official FIA WCC standings), and this displays it as "Sahara Force India F1 Team".
@Falcadore, the trouble with F1, is rules change. In 2007 for example, the Sporting Regulations stated the constructor was the "make", hence "Force India Mercedes" is correct. However, that's not the case now. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
A) Changing rules isn't trouble.
B) This is not, at least not completely, about rules. There is sixty years of history that can not be discarded by your interpretation of some regulations which deal in purely cosmetic aspects of the World Championship. --Falcadore (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Falcadore. The point I was trying to make when I said "trouble", is that the rules/regulations change, and one of these regulations is what defines a constructor and we must make sure that this article is accurate to the rules of this championship. Also, this is not my personal interpretation, this is the FIA's interpretation too, given they list "Sahara Force India F1 Team" on the Constructors' table, which as the title suggests, is only a championship competed in by constructors.
Also, there is a clear change between the 2009 and 2010 sporting regulations. In 2009, the constructor is deemed to be a "make", in 2010, it is deemed to be a "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts". I am assuming this change was brought about by the new Concorde agreement, and therefore clearly a new agreement was reached on what defined a constructor from 2010 onwards. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it appears I was wrong. I assumed that this change occurred in 2010, in conjunction with the new concorde agreement. However, it appears that the FIA has deemed the "Entrant" to be the "Constructor" for some time before this, as can be seen by;
The 2009 F1 Constructors' standings - https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fia.com%2FEN-GB%2FSPORT%2FCHAMPIONSHIPS%2FF1%2FPages%2FChampionshipClassification.aspx&date=2009-12-05
The 2007 F1 Constructors' standings - https://web.archive.org/web/20100109215547/http://www.fia.com/sport/Championships/F1/F1_Classifications/2007/Championship/2007.html
Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@1.129.104.138, I noted afterwards that those were my opinions and that they don't mean anything here and I was relating to changing the constructor name that we have used for years without any problems to the full team name which in this case isn't right as just "Force India" is the constructor name as backed up by many sources that we've used over the years. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
As per what I said above, I have found the exact point of this change - it occurred in 2002. As can be seen at: https://web.archive.org/web/20011121023848/http://www.fia.com/Classements/Classements-2001/F1_C_Tot.htm, the 2001 Constructors' classification is made up of the chassis and engine. Then, as you can see at: https://web.archive.org/web/20021221123803/http://www.fia.com/freepress/F1_guide_2002/Championship.html, in 2002 the constructors are listed as being the "entrant" name. I can't explain why this is the case, but there is clearly a change in what defines a constructor between 2001 and 2002, and I'm sure with some further research we can discover what exactly this reason is. I feel that our articles need to represent this. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
You can try further research but it isn't the first time and the answer will just end up in frustration and a realisation that reall all they are doing is incresing the emphasis on commercial sponsorships because well... money.
For the most part TV broadcast and print media ignored the ongoing commercialisation of the sport and continued with the accuracy over the selling of every available square centimetre available. But by all means go right ahead. You're not the first and won't be the last. --Falcadore (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Falcadore, to be honest, the reasoning behind it is pretty irrelevant. Like you say, I could waste my time finding out exactly why this is, but the fact is, the definition of a "constructor" has clearly changed. On the entries table, this can easily be remedied by renaming the column something like "Chassis-Engine". However, with the WCC table, we should be listing it as the FIA list it, because this table is meant to represent the official FIA Formula One World Championship classification. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I have added an extra point to the table above. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
FIA publications are not the only source available. When you watch a race, the final results show the name "Force India-Mercedes". The World Championship is not an abstract concept, but a concrete event and those races are perfectly valid sources. Likewise, formula1.com uses the name "Force India-Mercedes". The average reader is far more likely to get that information from the races or the website than they are from interpreting technical documents on the FIA website. If, as you maintain, the definition of "constructor" has changed, how do you explain the way that change has not been applied anywhere? The overwhelming majority of sources still use the "Force India-Mercedes" name. 1.129.109.242 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@1.129.109.242, the sources you mention are secondary sources, which use the FIA as their original source. While I agree that these sources are usually fairly accurate, there is no doubt that the FIA is a far more reliable source.
Also, the source you mention (FOM), also manage the formula1.com website. Currently the constructors standings on this website (https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2018/team.html), only lists "Force India Mercedes" once (11th), and fails to list any constructor in 9th place (the one taken by the new "Force India Mercedes"/"Racing Point Force India F1 Team"). This clearly shows that firstly this source isn't accurate, and secondly they are likely also facing some confusion as to how they should list the new constructor, as it doesn't make sense to list "Force India Mercedes" twice.
Finally, on the subject of FOM, they also list the teams (https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/teams.html) as "Mercedes", "Ferrari" etc. We may be debating the constructors' names, but I'm sure we are all in agreement that the team names are "Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport" and so on..., so FOM have already shown that they sometimes choose to shorten names, rather than displaying more accurate information. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Convenience"? It sounds an awful lot like you're interpreting a source to me and doing it in such a way as to disregard it since it doesn't align with your view—which is cherry-picking your sources. I also fail to see how the broadcast of the race makes it a secondary source given that it is the most direct and accurate account of the races.

I don't think you're any closer to establishing a consensus than you were 48 hours ago. 1.129.109.177 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "convenience" part was a total interpretation and assumption. However, that doesn't disregard the fact that FOM shorten names from their official names, so this proves that the names presented by FOM may be shortened and therefore not accurate. Picking out 1 word from what I wrote and trying to misquote me using it doesn't do anything to disprove the point that FOM sometimes shorten names. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I have started an RfC below, as we are simply going around in circles. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I did warn you that we would go around in circles. And given that almost everybody else in this discussion has disagreed with you, starting an RfC now looks like you're shopping around for support—you couldn't get an agreement here, so you're trying to get more support to swing the discussion in your favour. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how do you see this playing out? You've encountered resistance at every turn and from people who are both knowledgable on the subject and whose opinions are widely respected because of that knowledge. Do you imagine that some uninvolved editors are going to come charging over the hill like the cavalry, sweep aside the opposing arguments and install your preferred edits as a consensus? It doesn't work like that, least of all because you have misrepresented the situation by claiming that no progress has been made when in reality progress has been made but it's not the progress that you want. The RfC process is not to be used as a way of undercutting a consensus because you're unhappy the discussion did not agree with you. It's time to admit that you're beat. 1.129.111.205 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on how best to represent the Formula One Constructors[edit]

Should the constructors be represented by their full entrant name (for example "Sahara Force India F1 Team"), or as a combination of the chassis name and engine make ("Force India Mercedes")? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I started this RfC, is because we have seemed to go round and round in circles in the discussion above. In the discussion above, I added a table, and asked for others to add to it (which no-one has), and this table summed up the points on either side of the debate. I have copied this table below. As you can see, their is a lot more evidence for the constructors' names to be the full entrant name, but this has been disputed by some editors, and this has stood in the way of us reaching a consensus. I feel that some outside opinions would help to resolve this and stop us from continuing going round and round in circles.
Points that back up that the constructor is "Sahara Force India F1 Team" Points that back up that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes"
The name "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is listed on the official FIA Constructors' standings. This is both on the web page for the constructors classifications and the post-race bulletins that publish the constructors' standings. Given this championship is only competed in by constructors, it backs up the point that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor.

Source 1 - https://www.fia.com/file/71337/download?token=TSrMIIKr

Source 2 - https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2018/2018-classifications

EDIT - Just to point out, this point is backed up by the fia.com in recent history, as can be seen by the 2006 F1 Standings here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100418174721/http://www.fia.com:80/sport/Championships/F1/F1_Season_Guide/2006.html

The entry list for each race has a column named "Constructor". Under this column, the name is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/72023/download?token=1go8ssr2

The stewards at the 2018 Belgian GP stated: "On August 23, 2018, Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team was excluded from the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship with immediate effect". This shows that "Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team" were excluded from the World Constructors' championship. As with the point above, given this championship is only competed in by constructors, it backs up the point that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor.

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/72067/download?token=kElNyAFB

EDIT - @Tvx1, mentioned that the announcer on the post-race podium ceremony at Belgium announced the winning constructor as "Ferrari".

Source - So far, I can't find any documented sources that state this. Therefore, the source is the podium announcer (I'm not sure what his name is).

Section 6.2 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points". This shows that a constructor is in fact a competitor. Competitors are defined in section 8 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations (named "COMPETITORS APPLICATIONS"), and specifically section 8.2 states that a competitor's application must include "The name of the team". It is generally accepted, as per other F1 articles, that the "Team Name" is interchangeable with the "Entrant", and hence is the best way of representing the "competitor". Taking this into consideration, we can say that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the name of the competitor, and given the constructor is the competitor, we can say that the name of the constructor is "Sahara Force India F1 Team"

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY

Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body)". I am not aware of any corporate or unincorporated body named "Force India Mercedes". However, I am aware of one named "Sahara Force India F1 Team". This may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY

Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6". These "Listed Parts" in Appendix 6 are the: "Survival cell", "Front impact structure", "Roll structures" and "Bodywork". The engine and gearbox are not on this list, so there should be no reason why "Mercedes" would be a part of the constructor's name. Once again, this may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does go some way to disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY

The "CONSTRUCTOR'S DETAILS OF ENTRY" section of Appendix 2 (named "ENTRY FORM") of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations has a section which states;

We hereby apply to enter the [ ] FIA Formula One World Championship and we undertake to participate in each and every Event :

i) With the make of the car referred to below which we nominate for the purpose of Article 6.2 of the Sporting Regulations

Name of the Chassis

Make of the Engine

As you can see, the "name of the chassis" (Force India) and "make of the engine" (Mercedes) are merely a part of the constructor's agreement of participation, and it is not deemed to be related to the name of the constructor. Once again, this goes some way to disproving that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Also, in this section, the constructor is required to submit a "Team Name". As mentioned above, this is interchangeable with the "Entrant", and therefore would be suitable representation of the constructor. In this case, that would mean representing this constructor as "Sahara Force India F1 Team".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY

At the FIA Prize Giving 2017, the "FIA Formula 1 World Championship for Manufacturer 2017" was awarded to "Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula 1 Team". As you can see, the manufacturers'/constructors' championship was awarded to the full entrant name, not simply "Mercedes".

Source - https://fiaagapg.fiaevents.com/ehome/200174320/prize/

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: we have not "gone around in circles". Wikipediaeditperson proposed the change, but three of the most knowledgable people on the subject—@The359, @Tvx1 and @Falcadore—have opposed it (I have opposed it, too, but I have forgotten my password, so I cannot really put my name to it). When Wikipediaeditperson says "we are going around in circles", he means "the discussion isn't going the way I want it to". 1.129.108.255 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: In reply to the comment above, this is the exact reason why I feel that this RfC is needed. Saying "three of the most knowledgable people on the subject" sums up exactly what I feared - those who are opposing the change are doing so as a matter of their personal opinion, rather than based on the facts presented. I would like to point out that I am also very knowledgable of Formula 1, but I do not see my personal knowledge as being more accurate than a number of reliable sources, hence why I have provided these to back up my viewpoint. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: you are not presenting facts. You are presenting an interpretation of sources, ignoring the points raised by other editors and now you're trying to use the RfC system to undercut them because you're not getting your way. This whole debate is on the verge of becoming a dead horse. You proposed a change and did not form a consensus. The RfC process is not here to give you the chance to get your way after all. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: @Wikipediaeditperson: My problem with your arguments is this: You say you are quoting facts. That might very well be true, but they are not as relevant to the question at hand as you are suggesting. When we ask ourselves the question, how do we want to portrait something in our articles, we have different rules that we have to follow. We need to be a) accurate, b) keep in mind that we present the information in an easy and understandable way and c) have to adhere to regulations such as WP:COMMONNAME. In my opinion, writing out the constructors names in all tables (and we would then have to do it in all captions and so forth as well!) would be like being more Christian than the pope. As can be clearly seen on the official F1 website (here), F1 Management does not take the regulations you've stated by their full value either. So why should we? In doing so, we would sacrifice easy readability as well as confusing readers, because the way we have it now is the way that viewers of F1 see the constructor names on their TV screen every race weekend! So, let us stick with going by WP:COMMONNAME here, please. It's just easier for everybody. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: building on Zwerg Nase's comments, this is a prime example of what I mean by interpretation of sources. You say FOM only use the short form as a matter of convenience as if that invalidates their use of it—but as Zwerg Nase points out, they don't put stock in the full name. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Regarding formula1.com, this source doesn't even list any constructor in 9th place on their Constructors' Standings page, so this situation is likely causing some confusion to them as well, or if this is not the case, they are simply listing inaccurate information. Also, saying I am simply interpreting sources isn't correct - How is it possible to misinterpret the official World Constructors' Standings? How is it possible to misinterpret the fact that "Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula 1 Team" were crowned the Formula 1 World Constructors' champion at the 2017 FIA Prize giving? How is it possible to misinterpret that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" were excluded from the 2017 FIA Formula One World Constructors' championship?
I fear that this discussion is not going any way towards resolving itself and becoming just like the discussion above. Therefore, I am going to refrain from making any further comments on this matter until this has received some outside opinions. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
And how is possible to misinterpret that “Ferrari” was celebrated as the winning constructor yesterday? That “Mercedes” were presented as the winning constructor in Hungary? That “Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer” was named the winning constructor at their own circuit? It’s about time you admit to yourself that the WCC does not solely evolve around the standings table on FIA’s website.Tvx1 13:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
As I say, I am not wishing to comment any further on this until we have an external viewpoint, but @Tvx1, please could you provide a source of "Ferrari" being the winning constructor. I couldn't find this on the FIA's final classification. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Watch the podium ceremony.Tvx1 14:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so this isn't available in a documented source? I will add it to the table above though, as this is obviously something to be taken into consideration, even if the accuracy of it could be questionable. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems you really struggle to understand other people. I was referring to the on-screen graphics displayed pots-race and during the podium ceremony.Tvx1 03:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Comment: "I fear that this discussion is not going any way towards resolving itself" — but it is working towards a resolution: keeping things the way they are. Just because it's not the resolution you want, that doesn't mean that there is no resolution. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Just one more Comment: I do not consider FOM the inferior or less official source for F1, quite the contrary. Ever since the FISA–FOCA war, FOM has been king of the show, Ecclestone firmly saw to that. The FIA operates the sporting regulations side of things, but nothing more. FOM controls everything else, including (and this is the most crucial point!) what the viewers see on TV. Oh, and one more thing. Yes, nowadays entrants and constructors are the same thing. But I would like to point out that this hasn't always been the case. In years such as 1965, Ferrari entered the North American rounds under a different entrant name, but they remained the same constructor. In other years, such as 1970, one contructor built chassis for several entrants (March for Tyrrell for instance). Also, in 1982 for instance, there is a clear distinction in the constructors' standings between the results by Brabham with BMW and Cosworth engines. So, if we were to follow your suggestion and just list the entrant name in the result tables, all of these nuances would be lost and create confusion for the readers. How it is now, it works like a charm. So please, close this RfC with the result to keep the current format. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep the existing format. I have already presented more than enough arguments in the above discussion.Tvx1 13:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the three discussions (two here, one on the 2018 talk page). 1.129.111.205 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Imagen of the 2003 British Grand Prix[edit]

This gallery of Flickr has many images of the 2003 British Grand Prix under the 2.0 license. Whoever is interested, can upload them to Commons. Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)