Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 54

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

It's okay to be vague about statistics sometimes

It can seem that sometimes this wikiproject can wind up tying itself in knots trying to give precise statistics where reliable sources don't always agree (sometimes even with themselves). While sometimes this is driven by a desire to find the most accurate information, albeit in a pedantic manner; there are other times when this can cross over into POV pushing, even if the POV being pushed is that of the FIA. I don't really have any specific example to give here, and this is a far broader issue among F1 fans than just on Wikipedia; but I think we need to keep in mind that it's sometimes okay to say "depending on how one counts it, Driver McDriverface either started 92 or 94 races" or things to that effect, rather than searching (read: arguing) too hard for the "correct" answer when really any given answer is just an opinion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think in your example, the key thing here is consistency. If we count a certain set of requirements for one driver but not the other then things can get confusing. However in the case of other statistics like attendances its rare you're going to get a specific number. I agree that 100,000 attendees vs 100,253 really doesn't matter in most cases. FozzieHey (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Except it's not the job of Wikipedia to give definitive statistics according to some rigid set of consistent definitions. It's the job of Wikipedia to report what reliable independent sources say. If those sources conflict then it's Wikipedia's job to report that, not to have some sort of trial to determine which source is more definitive. For issues which directly effect championship standings for a given season the FIA inevitably wind up taking precedence as the authority (who scored how many points in a given season); but in a lot of cases there are scenarios where how stats should be counted is a matter of interpretation. It's also worth noting that reliable sources can sometimes retroactively change how they count a particular statistic if they find it more convenient to do it that way.

Right now the urge to make every single stat be given a single clearly defined figure rather than acknowledging that things aren't always clear cut seems to be a cause of a fair amount of conflict, and a general agreement that "it's not our job to determine which way of counting a given statistic is best, just that these are the numbers which can be arrived at using common methods of counting a stat" would likely cut down on that a lot, while also making Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia. Race starts tend to be a prime example of this, especially further back in history when many aspects of the sport were less well (or less consistently) documented, and a big part of what causes the conflict is that they don't usually directly affect the championship results at the end of a given season. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Mexican GP/Mexico City GP

Despite the race not taking place this year due to obvious reasons shouldn't the Mexico City Grand Prix have it's own separate article from the Mexican Grand Prix considering it's a new Grand Prix title? It just wouldn't be statistically correct to have it's results (when there are results) included with the Mexican GP's. That would be like including the Eifel GP's results with the German GP's, It being held at the same circuit is irrelevant. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We had Malaysia Grand Prix & Malaysian Grand Prix in the same article. In my opinion, it's the same Grand Prix just with a change of name. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Malaysian Grand Prix name change to Malaysia Grand Prix isn't exactly the same situation, the Mexican Grand Prix name has a long history behind it. The Mexico City Grand Prix doesn't. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To answer the original question, we should do what reliable sources do. It is not up to us if this is just a renaming or if it is a separate race as that would be original research. And definitely for the moment there's no need for a separate article since the race has yet to be held. I'm not sure I understand the point about the Malaysia(n) GP, the Mexican GP has only ever been held at one circuit, the Malaysia(n) GP has been held at 3 circuits, and over an equally long period of time (since 1962, that is). A7V2 (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, I definitely think that the Malaysian and Malaysia GPs are the same event since this is how they are portrayed in reliable sources. My point was I don't see why we should treat this case any differently (as in, make a decision independent of what the reliable sources are doing); but definitely we shouldn't assume that we should handle it differently to the Malaysia(n) GP by creating a separate article already. A7V2 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Crofty made a point at the time of referring to the "Malaysia" Grand Prix when it lost its final N, so to my mind it is the same thing. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Whatever reliable independent sources say, we should follow. We presumably wont know for at least a year, ie. if Verstappen wins next year and The Guardian say "this is his third Mexican GP win" then it's clearly the same race, but if they say "they're the first ever Mexico City GP winner" then we should treat them as different races. Right now there's no real indication that it's anything other than a sponsorship related name change that will be largely ignored in the history books. There's also a broader question to be asked about whether certain races which have been held at the same tracks under different titles are really notable independent of one another. For example, are the Dino Ferrari Grand Prix, the San Marino Grand Prix, and the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix really different events, or just iterations of the same event held under different names? I don't know, but I find it questionable (although obviously individual runnings of a Grand Prix are independently notable). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Page mover needed

Can someone (admin or page mover) move Draft:2020 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to mainspace (2020 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix). As there's currently a redirect, cannot move it myself- this is a problem we've had all year since someone created loads of the articles as drafts months in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirects have been made months in advance for years. This has been a problem all year since we started creating them as drafts.
SSSB (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly I wasn't paying attention when I wrote this. I appear to have mis-read Joseph2302's comment.
SSSB (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments on jargon avoidance

Many Wikipedia articles on Formula One inevitably wind up being filled with jargon. Some are obvious (MGU-H, DRS) and sometimes can only be adequately explained by using Wikilinks or laconic explanations, in other cases the jargon can be easily avoided and plain English used instead (ie. "soft and hard tyres" rather than "option and prime tyres"). However, in certain cases both the fact that something is jargon, and the best way to avoid jargon may not be so obvious.

One example would be the difference between "intermediate tyres" and "medium tyres" which is not in any way obvious to someone without existing knowledge. "Medium hardness tyres" (in contexts where the fact that they're dry tyres is contextually apparently) or "medium hardness dry tyres" (in cases where it may not be obvious) and "intermediate wet tyres" may be the best compromise here. The older terminology of "wet tyres" rather than the current "intermediate tyres" and "monsoon tyres" rather than the modern "wet tyres" was honestly a lot clearer.
Another example would be the term "power unit" in reference to modern F1 cars, which I think it's fair to assume many readers would interpret as meaning "battery". "Engine" should probably just be used in cases where further clarification is unnecessary; "petrol engine" in cases where the ICE is specifically being referred to; "electric motor" in cases where that part of the system is being specifically referred to; and something along the lines of "hybrid system" in certain other cases.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Intermediate wet tyres is confusing with full wet tyres, which are usually just called wets. We shouldn't just be making up terminology. Instead, add wikilinks to the appropriate terms e.g. intermediate tyre, and the reader can click the link to learn more. That's the point of wikilinks- we shouldn't be explaining every piece of F1 terminology in every article. Also, the option tyre wasn't always the softest tyre (as there were a couple of races where option was hardest due to tyre allocation rules), so the terms are not entirely synonymous. Although I do think in general, soft/hard tyre is easier to understand for the years where prime/option tyres were used. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

With the option/prime thing that was my point. It's easier to just say which was softer and which was harder rather than getting tangled up going on about tyre allocations in parts of articles where tyre allocation isn't really relevant.

As for the intermediates thing, while I understand the concern of getting "intermediate wet tyre" mixed up with "wet tyre"; there's ultimately just as much, if not more, potential for confusion between "medium tyre" and "intermediate tyre", which without existing knowledge would appear to be synonymous. The "wet tyres" should probably be referred to where possible as "full wet tyres" (which is not a made up term and is commonly used) to avoid confusion with the intermediates anyway, and at least on first reference a clarification should be made that the intermediate tyres are a type of wet weather tyre and that "intermediate tyre" is not just another way of saying "medium tyre". A mere wikilink from the word "intermediate tyre" is not likely to prompt a reader to think "oh, this is clearly a different thing from a medium tyre, I should click on this link to learn the difference" because in common use outside of motorsport "intermediate" and "medium" are often words which are used to mean the same thing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of overconcern and a lot of unfounded assumption of what general readers would certainly be unable to understand. We have been using most of these terms for years and I really have seen any complaint by any reader on any talk page of them being utterly unable to understand something. Many articles go through a GA or even FA process at some point and any significant jargon issues are dealt with during the course of these. In general we also try to apply our experience from these processes to the articles that haven't gone through them yet.T v x1 14:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Tvx1 and Joseph2302, you underestimate our readers intelligence.

"power unit" in reference to modern F1 cars, which I think it's fair to assume many readers would interpret as meaning "battery". - are you joking? A power unit is the part of something that provides power. I think you massively underestimate the intelligence of our readers. Power unit is perfectly acceptable and describing the MGU-K as part of the engine is just wrong and it fairly intuitive that "power unit" refers to the part of the car that provides its power. Weather it be electrical or in another form.

As with tyres we can wikilink "intermediate tyres" and leave it at that. Otherwise we can use the terms "intermediate wet" and "full wet". A mere wikilink from the word "intermediate tyre" is not likely to prompt a reader to think "oh, this is clearly a different thing from a medium tyre, I should click on this link to learn the difference" - disagree, reading any article it's fairly clear we don't wikilink for fun. A potential compromise would be to state in the background section "3 compounds of dry tyres named soft, medium and hard as well as two compounds for wet weather running, dubbed intermediate and wet tyres, for low and high levels of standing water respectively (it's only worth describing the wet tyre range if it is used). Putting "medium hardness (dry) tyre" is unnecessary and makes for bumpy. Medium tyre is more than sufficient, again you underestimate our readers intelligence. (Monsoon tyre is made up terminology, should be avoided, and is misleading as it doesn't require monsoon conditions).

Terms such as DRS should be spelled out and wikilinke in the first instance and use the abbreviation throughout the remainder of the article. Terms such as FP1, Q1 arent an improvement on stating "the first practice session" and can be avoided completely.

As Tvx1 points out, this has never been a problem before (because it's not a problem at all), let's not make mountains out of mole hills.
SSSB (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I agree that "prime" and "option" should be avoided.T v x1 14:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it hasn't been a problem amongst editors of Formula One related Wikipedia articles, but I've known multiple people in real life who have found the "intermediate tyres versus medium tyres" distinction confusing. And "monsoon tyres" isn't made up terminology, it was in use in F1 in the early 2000s before falling out of favour. To be clear, I'm not advocating that we switch to "monsoon tyres", I'm commenting that the terminology could be clearer on the part of F1 itself. And I'm not "underestimating readers intelligence", I'm just not making assumptions about the level of existing background knowledge readers will have. It's not unreasonable for an intelligent person to see the terms "medium tyre" and "intermediate tyre", assume they are synonymous, and to not bother clicking on a wikilink to "intermediate tyres" because they assume they already understand it. At the very least on first mention the distinction must be clarified.

As for the "power unit" thing, yes. A power unit is something which provides power. Like a battery. It would be entirely reasonable for an intelligent person to assume that a "power unit" is a technical term for a battery, especially given modern F1 cars are petrol-electric hybrids. If we can find ways to avoid terms like "power unit" in favour of plain(er) English terms we should do so.

The target audience of a Wikipedia article is people who don't know about a subject who want to learn about it, not people who already understand the jargon involved. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

We can always call them "intermediate wets" anything more is silly. And "power unit" is plain English, the plainest way (I can think) of phrasing it correctly. Describing any part of the power unit which isn't the ICE the engine is just wrong.
SSSB (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Grooved slicks is an alternative if older term for intermediates. Does require knowledge of what a slick is. --Falcadore (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard them called that, and slicks generally refer to dry tyres, so I wouldn't realise that these mean wet tyres. Just call them intermediates or if you really have to, intermediate wet tyres. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Grooved slicks is term I remember sometimes being used to refer to the grooved dry tyres F1 used from 1998 until 2008, but not for intermediates.T v x1 12:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Season changes

Could I remind editors that changes do not take effect until the end of the year. This is true particularly of any that might take place at Red Bull, which must be sourced and not changed until announced by a reliable source. No matter what anyone thinks Sergio Perez is "poised" or "set" to do. Britmax (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Grand Prix results

What do you think to separate Template:Grand Prix results from Template:Formula One constructors like in PLWP? Eurohunter (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 rescheduling

I notice that the 2020 race report articles fairly consistently say that the FIA were responsible for drafting the revised schedule, but looking at relevant sources I'm not sure that this is an accurate characterisation. It would seem that the rescheduling was actually a combined effort between the FIA, the Formula One Group, all of the teams, and all of the individual race promoters and track owners. Obviously describing this concisely is difficult, but I think it may be worth figuring out the optimal wording. I'm also not sure how relevant this information is for races whose dates didn't change, for example the 2020 Italian Grand Prix. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Roman Staněk

Article Roman Staněk was deleted recently (November) in an AfD. I asked for a draft version to be created and worked on it. I think FIA Formula 3 Championship drivers are considered notable and would like to know your opinion on the draft, which is different than the deleted article (I added 4 more sources and a lot of text). Should I create it or wait? Thanks. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any glaring problems with it. Notability of junior series drivers does seem to be quite inconsistent but in general I would say FIA F3 is notable. If a FREC driver can be notable off of their involvement in that series it stands to reason drivers in the next series up will also be notable.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Article has already been created.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Australian Grand Prix photo question

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Australian Grand Prix § Photo question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Signature field in Infobox person

{{Infobox person}} has a field for the subject's signature, and I have several autographs from F1-related people (Binotto, Newey, Horner, Abiteboul, Brown, Tost) whose articles use this infobox. However, is the use of an autograph acceptable for this purpose? While browsing through some articles on actors and directors it seems that this is acceptable, and the only relevant ~~policy~~ essay I could find suggests this is OK, since the autograph is 1) self-published 2) reproduced 3) reliable since they are original and 4) relevant to the article. I'm interested to see if there are any problems anyone is aware of in this situation, but if not I will go ahead and scan them in.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Berta

An IP editor recently added Berta-Ford to 1975 Formula One season (listing withdrawn entries for the 1975 Argentine and Brazilian GPs for Nestor García-Veiga). The information is supported by Stats F1, autosportworld, 8W, Motor Sport and grandprix247 (although the latter two only mention the Argentine GP). Should we add "Berta" to List of Formula One constructors and Nestor García-Veiga to List of Formula One drivers (noting that these lists already include other constructors/drivers with no starts)? DH85868993 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My first instict would be yes, per consistency.

The one thing I would say, and would like same clarity on, is that there are different degrees of entering and not staring. Whilst I definitly think that drivers who never started because of DNQ's should be listed in those lists, it's a question of whether the list of drivers should include drivers for whom all their results are DNA, or DNP, etc. (likewise for constructors). And do those lists currently contain such drivers (/constructors)?
SSSB (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hamilton pre-race penalty position

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Austrian Grand Prix § Hamilton pre-race penalty position. FozzieHey (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Splitting of car articles

I think it would be better to split some of the car articles into their 2020 and 2021 variants, especially if there are going to be major changes between them. For example, the McLaren MCL35 is already a pretty big article and it seems a bit confusing alternating between each variant in different headers? Similarly with the Ferrari SF1000 which Ferrari have already said they will make major improvements for 2021. FozzieHey (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This has already come up elsewhere but I believe the current viewpoint is that we should wait at least until pre-season testing and probably until the first race of the actual season to determine whether it's correct to split the articles or not. It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that many of the articles will ultimately be split. We should avoid getting ahead of ourselves though. It's easier to split one article into two when you know for certain that it's necessary than to split one into two only to then merge the two back into one. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For the most part I agree that not all car articles will warrant a split. Perhaps it'd be better to discuss this on each separate car page? I feel like the MCL35M already has more content available than the MCL35 did this time last season. FozzieHey (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not something that can, or should be applied unilaterally to all cars. Every case should be proposed and discussed individually on each relevant talk page. The arguements in favour and against splitting Red Bull RB16 can not simply be applied to Ferrari SF21 in the way a centralised discussion would promote and lead to. I therefore don't think this is the correct venue for such a discussion.
SSSB (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with HumanBodyPiloter5. It really depends on how the cars are treated by sources. For the MCL35 and MCL35M, I believe sources are currently discussing them as if the latter were a B-spec of the former. Whether that continues once the season starts, I don't know. For what it's worth, the MCL35 article currently has around 27k characters of prose, which does not warrant splitting under the size guideline. Obviously it will grow, but assuming it doubles over the course of the season it wouldn't push it out into "should be divided" territory. I believe that is the longest 2020/21 car article, so I don't believe size alone warrants splitting in this scenario.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Emilia Romagna Grand Prix

With the announcement that the Emilia Romagna GP is due to be revived again, it is clear that it is no longer considered a "one-off" race, and thus, I have began a race page at Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. Contributions to bring the page to a satisfactory level are welcome. Admanny (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no evidence that it'll be called the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix again, so seems extremely premature and original research to say that it'll be 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. They could just as easily call it the San Marino Grand Prix. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This source says it will keep the name used in 2020, the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix.--Island92 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say that at all. It is simply assuming it will keep the same name. Remember last year, before the Emilia Romagna name was confirmed, sources were saying "the return of the San Marino Grand Prix"? This is exactly the same.
SSSB (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I'm having a look at different Italian websites that report the Imola return,and all of them confirm that the double race in Italy will be run under the name decided in 2020, the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. Therefore actually we don't have a single source, but multiple.--Island92 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally I haven't seen any direct evidence that it will be run under the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix name, just assumptions that it will be. That being said, that assumption is fairly reasonable, and honestly I find it somewhat questionable that we treat the Dino Ferrari, San Marino, and Emilia Romagna Grands Prix as being separate events to begin with, since most sources I see seem to treat Emilia Romagna as being a continuation of San Marino. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are they confirming, or assuming? The two are not the same. That said, I don't mind this assumption, it isn't the worst thing in the world. If it is run under a different name it won't be too hard to change everything.
SSSB (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed here.--Island92 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The name's been confirmed now. This discussion is moot. Admanny (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Our coverage of the circuit

While we're on the subject of Imola and the F1 races held there, I would like to reraise something I pointed out a couple of months ago without any reaction. I noticed that our coverage of the circuit's early existence is quite poor and even at some spots incorrect. We apparently have no maps depicting its early configurations on Wikimedia. The infobox incorrectly list the version of the circuit used for its inaugural formula one world championship race (in 1980) as the "original configuration". That is quite incorrect. The circuit has existed since the fifties and its original layout was quite different to the one used in 1980 as well as to later revisions. The circuit has even been used for formula one races, albeit non championship ones, before 1980. A full chronology of all the different layouts can be found for instance here.T v x1 20:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is a significant problem, but unfortunately not just restricted to Imola Circuit. I wonder where those lap records come from anyway, given that the circuit length for 1980 is incorrect (it is incorrect on 1980 Italian Grand Prix as well), the layout is definitely not "original" as you point out, it was used prior to 1980, and at the very least Villeneuve set a faster race lap in the 1979 Dino Ferrari Grand Prix on the same layout meaning Alan Jones' time isn't going to be the lap record. A7V2 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the editor who added the lap records only took the world championship races into account. It seems the map uses on 1980 Italian Grand Prix is wrong as well.T v x1 00:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Continuation of San Marino GP?

I've bought this up a few times but I think it's worth addressing; I'm not entirely sure how much sense it makes to treat the Emilia Romagna GP and the San Marino GP (or indeed the Dino Ferrari GP) as being separate events rather than continuations of the same event. Most sources I see generally talk about the Emilia Romagna GP as if it's just a new name for the San Marino GP, and I find it hard to disagree with that, especially with the 2021 race being scheduled for San Marino's traditional early season calendar slot. I don't know exactly how we should go about handling this, but I think it may be worth giving consideration. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

especially with the 2021 race being scheduled for San Marino's traditional early season calendar slot. - complete coincidence. Sources make it clear that it replaces the Chinese Grand Prix. This is therefore not a factor worth considering.

To get to the point, in order for me to consider supporting a merging of those two articles, I'll have to see sources that explicitly state one as a continuation of the other. Otherwise it's just WP:OR, especially with the abundance of sources that don't take your view.
SSSB (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source saying it's a continuation of the San Marino GP. Just like how the Nürburgring has hosted the German, Luxembourg and European Grand Prixes- 3 different names, 3 different articles. Races at Imola have had 3 different names (Italian GP in 1980, San Marino until 2006, Emilia Romagna since 2020), so I see no reason to merge these articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I called for the articles to be merged? I'm merely stating that most sources I see tend to talk about the Emilia Romagna GP as part of a lineage of events which have taken place at Imola. Sources I see tend to talk about how "Räikkönen was the only driver at the 2020 Emilia Romagna GP to have raced at Imola before in F1", and I'm sure if Alonso winds up winning this year's race they'll say "it's Alonso's second Imola victory". That's just in reference to drivers of course, most sources seem to treat the "grand prix at Imola" aspect as more significant to describing events than the "grand prix under [x] title" part. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A better summation of what my point is is that there may be a strong argument for creating pages titled something along the lines of "List of Formula One races held at Imola" or "List of Formula One races held at the Nürburgring". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources and notation of pit stops

This may have been addressed before, but I notice that often different sources will seem to give conflicting reports on when pit stops took place depending on whether they choose to describe a pit stop as happening at the end of lap (x) or at the start of lap (x+1). Since the FIA seem to notate pit stops as happening at the end of lap (x), I would tend towards using this notation and refer to their official records if there was any need to avoid doubt. However, I'm wondering if there's some way in which we can clarify to readers that two sources are not actually in conflict with one another and just using a different definition when saying that "Schumacher stopped for new tyres on lap (x)" or "Schumacher stopped for new tyres on lap (x+1)", just in case there's potential for confusion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

In the race reports I've written myself (which are mainly prewar Grand Prix articles) I always go with the lap which is ending since that is what the sources seem to do. Baring the few (modern) exceptions where the pits aren't located in line with the start-finish line (eg Anderstorp Raceway), I'd say that we should be generally saying the pit occurs on the lap which is ending. A7V2 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Formula 2 Championship

Is anyone able to look at 2020 Formula 2 Championship? It's reached the templates limit because templates are being used for every driver in every race. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: the only solution is to substitiute templates...
SSSB (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 chassis

8 of the 10 teams have unveiled chassis names, and it is generally understood that 2021's chassis should be considered B-spec of 2020. However this runs into naming issues for Aston Martin and Alpine. I am proposing the following:

1. Move the following pages to its' new name:

Alfa Romeo Racing C39 -> Alfa Romeo Racing C41
AlphaTauri AT01 -> AlphaTauri AT02
Renault R.S.20 -> Alpine A521
Ferrari SF1000 -> Ferrari SF21
Mercedes-AMG F1 W11 EQ Performance -> Mercedes-AMG F1 W12 E Performance
Racing Point RP20 -> Aston Martin (insert model here)

2. Do not touch the following pages, in consistency with other B-spec chassis:

3. Adjust Haas accordingly.

This avoids having to create new pages while keeping page naming consistent. Open to ideas. Admanny (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:2021_Formula_One_World_Championship#2021_chassis_names, our existing practice for cars which are referred to by different names is to locate the article at the original name, and redirect the new name to the original one, e.g. the Wolf–Williams FW05 (which was a rebranded version of the Hesketh 308C) is described at Hesketh 308C. DH85868993 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the number of exceptions being made just for this season it would be more appropriate to name the pages their 2021 names and after season’s over pick the more common name. But for the current time period, WP:COMMONNAME applies to 2021 names. Admanny (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose to moving the pages to their 2021 names. As DH85868993 has pointed out, established practice is to have all derivative vehicles covered on the parent vehicle's page. Splitting the articles into the 2020 and 2021 names is workable, but this is highly counterintuitive (cover the original car on an article under the B-spec's name?).
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

We already have redirects and this goes against established practice. Additionally, I think it is too early to declare the common name. And therefore I see no justification for these moves.
SSSB (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see the need for new articles for every car anyway (there are countless cars from yesteryear which barely receive a mention in another article, let alone having their own article) but in the cases where they may actually be substantially different it may be appropriate to spin off as a separate article (of course it's too soon now). As for the common names, well I'd say it's far too early to move any of these articles (we don't even know what the Aston Martin model will be called yet), and existing convention would suggest we shouldn't move them at all. I'd say for now keep things on the 2020 articles and reassess later-on individually for each car. A7V2 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait it's way to soon to say what the WP:COMMONNAME is- we don't know if in-race they'll be referred to by new name, or if people will use old names instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean to soon to know the commonname? What else do you expect them to refer for instance the Ferrari SF21 as in-race?? And what exactly do you want us to wait for? Why is there this assumption that this season all of sudden something magical will happen when testing starts which will all of a sudden change the names? Why on earth would they not refer to the SF21 in race as the SF21??T v x1 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose We should simply create new articles for the new contenders for the new season like we did in almost every previous season. So far I have not seen any source treat for instance the Ferrari SF21 vs the SF1000 or the Mercedes-AMG F1 W12 E Performance vs the F1 W11 EQ Permoncance not any less different than for the SF1000 vs the SF90 and the F1 W11 EQ Permoncance vs the F1 W10 EQ Power+. Moreover the Alpine A521 is even treated more differently to the Renault R.S.20 than the predecessors. The only exceptions are those 2021 cars which are given a B-spec name. Those are the one were the sources are not conclusive enough yet for us to decide to create a new article or not. For the rest we should create the new articles already.T v x1 22:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Engine" parameter at Template:Infobox F1 driver

Carfan568 (talk · contribs) has added the | engine = parameter to the infobox at Template:Infobox F1 driver and various pages were already changed by the editor. I have not actively edited F1 pages for years, but I have some of them on my Watchlist so I am notifying active editors about the change. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need the engines of the cars they drove in articles about drivers? The cars that someone drove is important, the engines don't seem to be at all relevant to articles about drivers- they're useful on the articles about the cars only. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The engine manufacturers definitely are relevant since they directly affect the drivers performance and results, and also influence their careers. For example, Honda had a big influence on Ayrton Senna's career. Carfan568 (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The engine has as much influence as the chassis does on a driver's results. Adding either to the infobox is excessive detail and goes against the purpose of the infobox. We have results tables for a reason.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

A concise list of which chassis and engine makes the driver has raced with is not really excessive detail since the results are dependent on them. Listing every chassis and engine model which the driver has raced with – like in the results tables – in the infobox would be excessive detail. Carfan568 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Carfan568. To me, engine provider is equal to constructor. Chassis are comparable to engine names. Car construcotor is comparable to engine constructor. Engine providers are not excessive detail.
SSSB (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Formula One drivers from XXX

It has been proposed that the "Formula One drivers from XXX" articles be renamed to "Formula One drivers who represented XXX". Interested editors are invited to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@DH85868993: Why not just British Formula One drivers like British singers etc? Eurohunter (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: You may like to pose your question at the existing discussion. Also note that I didn't propose the rename; I just notified the WikiProject. DH85868993 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I can also propose move Category:Formula One races to Category:Formula One Grand Prix because Grand Prix include trainings, qualifying and race. Eurohunter (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I oppose moving Category:Formula One races to Category:Formula One Grand Prix because Category:Formula One Grands Prix (correct plural) already exists as a subcategory. Because not all historic races were "Grands Prix", many were non-championship races. And so a move like this would break all historic categorisation. It's a race weekend and classed as a Grand Prix race anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Test articles

AS19Portsmouth has created the following articles:

and looks set to publish one at 2018 Abu Dhabi Young Driver Test by the current appearance of their user page.
First off, the first two are at the wrong titles (and so will the 2018 article if it is created). They were never labelled or intended as young driver tests, which is pretty clear from both the sources and the participants list. Secondly, none of these articles are particularly notable and received meagre – if any – coverage, which is reflected in the quantity and quality of sources. As far as I understand it, there has been a long-standing convention in the project that testing does not receive the notability required for a Wikipedia article and should not be included since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. However, 2020 Formula One pre-season testing was kept after two failed AfDs. I would like to nominate all three articles for deletion immediately, but I would like to know if anyone here believes we should be reconsidering our treatment of testing.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We should include information about testing as it does receive coverage from reliable sources, but most of the information should appear in the articles about the cars themselves as that is usually what the sources are covering. In modern seasons with heavily limited testing including passing mentions within the season articles is also reasonable. (ie. "The teams convened at the Circuit de Catalunya for 5 days of testing between 32nd and 36th of Smarch.") Occasionally a test may be more noteworthy for other reasons (for example the Abu Dhabi "Young Driver" test last year and the controversy about who did or did not get to participate) which may warrant a separate article to discuss it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree testing warrants discussion on Wikipedia, but I can't see how the test itself merits an article. Even last year's young driver test didn't receive much significant coverage and I believe it could be discussed in sufficient detail in the season article.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the results from those tests don't really mean anything so they are not notable for an article. If something notable has happened in them, it could be covered in a driver article for example. Pre-season testing is a bit different because it's a much more significant event and receives much more coverage from sources, but even then the notability of it is somewhat questionable. Carfan568 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Should all be deleted. Although people voted to keep the 2020 pre season testing, so who knows? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at them in any detail, but it looks like that WP:ROUTINE could easily apply to all of them. How many sources outside of F1.com discuss this, for the purposes of determining notablility F1.com is effectivly a primary source. It is also worth pointing out that these test receive significantly less coverage than pre-season testing, so it would be a lot harder to argue against WP:ROUTINE, you don't see any coverage of these tests (outside of the Alonso coverage) on BBC Sport F1 page for example, I daresay the same could be said of virtually all other sources.
SSSB (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

With 2020 Formula One pre-season testing, a lot of the "keep" voters were not F1 project regulars, and also it was closed just after I'd done a source evaluation to demonstrate that most of the sourcing was routine or not even about the 2020 testing. That AfD shouldn't be used as a mantra to create loads more testing articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Points Removed from Constructors' at a Specific Race

An extension of the 2020 Racing Point fiasco - on the 2020 page it has been noted their 15-point penalty applies specifically to the Styrian Grand Prix (7.5 points on each car). This means that the first car (Perez's car) scores 0.5 points, whereas the second car (Stroll's car) scores -1.5 points. Theoretically, therefore, Stroll's result in the constructors' table should be coloured as... something we haven't used before. The problem with this is that whilst most editors on the 2020 page seem to agree in the talk page the colours should be changed, this clashes with precedent. The two off the top of my head I can think of are 2007 (McLaren at Hungary) which has been changed recently (the page used to say "0 (203)" which is 109 (ALO) + 109 (HAM) - 15 (Hungary pts)), and 2000 (McLaren on HAK's car at Austria) which has "1*" on Hakkinen's car in the usual colour, and no footnote given next to 152 (HAK + COU = 162 for the season). Spa-Franks (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a discussion at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship. Please redirect any comments there.
SSSB (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 RA621H Engine for Scuderia AlphaTauri/Red Bull Racing

Along with the reveal of the AT02 contender for the 2021 Season, AlphaTauri released a virtual tour of their new car which can be accessed through their website or directly through here. Once the virtual tool has loaded, clicking on the cogwheel located above the engine will show the user 'Tech Specs' about the car, which includes vague information for areas such as the brakes, suspension, steering, gearbox, and others. Within that section, the engine specification states RA621H which seems to be the name for the 2021 Honda engine, which is a continuation from previous engines as the RA620H & RA619H.

I'd also like to mention that the verified Honda Racing F1 Twitter account also seemingly confirmed this earlier in this tweet on 16 February. With this being said, I will be updating the Complete Formula One results section within the Scuderia AlphaTauri wiki page for the 2021 year.

As per the tweet, I have no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity per WP:TWEET since the account is verified.

I also do not have any resonable doubt to think that the RB16B's engine will be given an engine specification that differs from RA621H, but nonetheless I will refrain from updating the Racing record section within the Red Bull Racing wiki page until further confirmation from official Red Bull Racing sources.
Xprts (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Formula One drivers from [country]

A recent RM which attempted to move this page to another title recently failed. However, I still feel that the current naming strucutrs is in contradiction to WP:PRECISE (and reading through the discussion, no-one argued that the current names were good or staisfactory). My reasoning is this:

The current titles do not match the scope. Consider one example of many, Alex Albon, he was born and raised in London, to all intents and purposes he is "from the United Kingdom". Yet he represented Thailand, and is therefore detailed in Formula One drivers from Thailand, despite not being from Thailand at all.

Rather than rush head long into another discussion I thought it best to discuss what the best destination might be. Some of the suggestions from that discussion were:

[Nationality] Formula One drivers
Formula One Drivers who raced under the flag of the [nation]
Formula One Drivers racing with a [nation] licence
Formula One Drivers with a [nation] licence
Formula One drivers for [nation]
Formula One drivers of [nation]

Of these it is probably option 1 that had most wide ranging support in the discussion, but I thought it would be better to discuss first.

The problem with proposal 1 (as well as 3-4) is that it implies that Mazepin would be included in the scope of the Russia article. However, as Formula One isn't considering him Russian, neither can we and we can't then include him in the "F1 drivers from Russia" article.
SSSB (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"[Nationality] Formula One drivers" is the most naturalistic, probably the most WP:CONCISE, and avoids the current WP:PRECISE issues. With the Albon example, while he is fairly clearly from the United Kingdom, he is Thai in terms of nationality/citizenship. There isn't a perfect solution, but that's probably the closest to one which works best. "Formula One Drivers who raced under the flag of [nation]" should be considered per WP:COMMONNAME (and possibly WP:PRECISE) as well though. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You are not entirely correct with regards to Alexander Albon. He is a dual national and also holds British nationality/citizenship. Likewise Max Verstappen, Lance Stroll and Lando Norris are also dual nationals. That and examples like Jochen Rindt, who was German but represent Austria, makes that option one does not satisfy WP:PRECISE.T v x1 18:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 5, Formula One drivers for [nation], is the only option here that satisfies the quoted the policies and guidelines. Options 1 and 6 fail WP:PRECISE because of examples like Jochen Rindt. Options 3 and 4 are not correct either as this isn't simply about a licence. Example of that is André Lotterer, who competed with a Belgian licence but represented Germany. And while option 2 is technically correct I think it is just too unwieldy and I have rarely seen such an expression in the reliable sources. Ultimately though, I still feel that Formula One drivers representing [Nation] is the most accurate title for the contents.T v x1 16:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that option 5 is likely to be opposed for the same reasons as "Formula One drivers representing [Nation]" did. People place too strict a definition on the words in the article title.
SSSB (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Now matter how you turn it, option 5 is the only correct and wieldy one here.T v x1 18:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you agree that all six are better than the current title?
SSSB (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No. Not by far. Only option 5 is really better. The others are equally problematic or worse.T v x1 17:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to restate what much of I said in the original discussion but I would definitely say my preference would be for option 1. Note also that the categories are named in this way (eg Category:Austrian Formula One drivers) and I think these should be named the same whatever is decided. Options 2, 3 and 4 I feel are unwieldy. I don't dislike "drivers for..." nearly as much though I still think it is not the way nationality is thought of in Formula 1, regardless of how "correct" it is. I don't have a problem with 6 but unless others have good reason for it I think it does the same job as 1 but isn't as good. A7V2 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Alain Prost for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Original research in Category:Formula One controversies

There seems to be a lot of original research going on with Category:Formula One controversies. Having gone there are clicked on 5 random, none of them actually identify themselves as contraversial. Evidently, someone has read boycott in 1985 South African Grand Prix and then had an seemingly original thought of "this makes the event contraversial". I have already removed 1982 San Marino Grand Prix from the category on similair grounds and will continue to remove more. The rules on original research are clear, for these events to be readded to the category, the pages must contain a sourced statement calling them contraversial.
SSSB (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of obviously wrong ones e.g. 2009 Australian Grand Prix where the controversy is not about the race, but about the Brawn (and other cars) and their diffusers. Probably the category needs to make clear what the inclusion/exclusion criteria are. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well this is interesting. First, Joseph2302, you really need to go and read WP:BRD before you invoke that sort of bluelink bullying. Me reverting you was your notice that your actions may not be entirely kosher, and we then begin the discussion from the existing status quo. You do not simply revert again. Second, in your edit summary justification you pointed here, to a two comment chit chat between two editors in their own little echo chamber. Again, this is pretty poor form. It isn't as if you've had a great deal of thought and consideration put in here, it's just two people musing (incorrectly) over their own prejudices.

Your assertion that the category is at fault is incorrect. Many of the instances that you have identified were certainly controversial in their own way (you are seriously glossing over an event in apartheid South Africa?) and if there isn't a comment on those lines in the article then the article is at fault, not their categorization. You removed US F1 from the category despite there being detailed discussion over why the team collapsed, including accusations of gross mismanagement and misleading statements given by various parties. Do you really need something as simplistic as a statement that "this topic was controversial"?

Granted, some of the things included in that category are a bit of a stretch, but you seem to have picked some very bad examples to start with. Pyrop e 19:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the existence of a category is bad, it's just that the category description of "Controversies related to Formula One motor racing." does not give suitable inclusion/exclusion criteria. I would see the purpose of this category to be limited to articles with controversy in the name, and specific cars or races that caused particular controversies. There is nothing sourced in the US F1 Team that looks like a massive controversy to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You might, others might not. Like I said, you seem to have quite a simplistic attitude to what constitutes a controversy, and I don't really see how limiting the category to just those controversies that have generated their own Wikipedia article is actually helpful to our readers. US F1 was certainly a controversial topic at the time (and there are certainly sources in the article for those accusations) as was the 1985 SA GP (ditto on the sources). Quibbling over degrees of controversy seems a bit silly (and is in itself a form of OR) considering that the category has only a couple of dozen or so articles in any case. Pyrop e 20:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

In response to the original question, I think the inclusion criteria need to be clearly defined. I don't think simply finding the word controversial associated with something should be the standard (pretty much every race has something some would call controversial, but at the same time some large scandal's aren't described as controversial since it is somehow obvious that they are). I'd say the 1985 South African Grand Prix definitely qualifies as controversial: the report section of that article is quite long, and none of it is about the race itself! (Also, one of the references is an article titled "The Apartheid Controversy Reaches Formula 1 Racing", definitely implying that the event was controversial). Probably any race which had competitors boycott should be able to be called controversial, after all presumably they were boycotting for a reason. A7V2 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

To give an example of what I mean by not including some things which ARE described as controversial, for example the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix (which has an unsourced claim of controversy in the lead) which was described as controversial by, for example, speedcafe. This is really just, well, editorialising by the publication, and is something which happens in countless races. A7V2 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@A7V2: I don't agree that any race which had competitors boycott should be able to be called controversial, after all presumably they were boycotting for a reason. If Ham boycotted the 2021 Saudi GP, this doesn't make the 2021 Saudi GP contraversial, the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, yes (it already is). But the individual 2021 event, I would argue not. Looking at the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, it seems that it is regarding contraversial because of the Pironi/Villeune incident, not becuase of the boycot, a boycot which was unrelated to the race.
SSSB (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You have removed some of the context of what I said in your quote. I said "probably". That's just me thinking of the times when such a thing has happened (when it was a boycott, not just teams/drivers missing events for any other reason) that it was always due to some kind of controversy. As to the hypothetical Hamilton example, well we've yet to have one Saudi GP, let alone multiple, so I don't think it's a fair question since I would argue there should only be one article until the second race is at least confirmed (if that even means anything these days!). For the 1982 San Marino example, I'd argue that the controversy and boycott are inseparable from the event itself. But this is why I think a clearer inclusion criteria is needed since I don't think many would argue for, for example, including the 2019 Canadian GP, but that was quite clearly called controversial in a reliable source. A7V2 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I would say that plenty of sources establish the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix and 1985 South African Grand Prix (and indeed the South African Grand Prix generally) as being sources of controversy. We don't need to be pedants about whether or not sources literally use the word "controversy"; the only standard needs to be that multiple independent reliable sources have indicated that something was controversial. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment - At the moment the category appears to be poorly defined and either overly selective or strangely random. The Tyrrell P34 was extremely radical, but as far as I remember was never any more controversial than other radical cars like the Lotus 56 or the Brabham BT55. The Lotus 88 was really controversial, and what about McLaren's MP4/12 brake-steer! The South African boycott wasn't controversial, rather like not having Tobacco advertising on the cars for some races - it was the result of factors outside of the sport leaving teams and drivers without any choice. I would have thought the 1985 Belgian Grand Prix should on the list though - it mad a lot of headlines at the time. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Testing article

Since this came up with the recent deletion discussions I think it may be worth having this conversation. The creation of a general article which provides coverage of the topic of Formula One testing without giving WP:UNDUE weight to individual tests (which it's generally difficult to write much of substance about) may be worthwhile, particularly with the increasing number of restrictions on testing which have come into place since the mid-2000s.

Hopefully an article like this could provide meaningful coverage of what these tests are and potentially discourage the creation of jargon filled articles which try to cover individual tests but lack any real information beyond "the test happened here on this date and these teams and drivers participated". Many aspects of testing are notable and worthy of coverage, but it needs to be done in a manner which is comprehensible to readers who don't already have a deep level of existing knowledge. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree and I have nothing further to add. Testing as a concept is notable, individual tests are not.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems sensible to have an article about how F1 testing is/has been done, should make a good F1 history article. Certainly a much better article than 2020 Formula One pre-season testing, which loads of non-F1 project members voted to keep.... Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like another shot at having that deleted given how many policies it breaks. GNG, INDISCRIMINATE, and ROUTINE come to mind.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: then renominate. A piece of advice, you should give a reason why consensus might have changed since the last discussion, otherwise people will vote keep because "no evidence that the last consensus might change" and they'll just accuse you of not droppin the stick, which won't do the nom any favours. (here you could bring up the source anaysis which was done towards the end of the discussion by Joseph2302 and was therefore not considered by anyone, possible incluede that anaysis in the nomination.)
SSSB (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Before we consider whether that article should or should not be deleted it may be a good idea to show that what well sourced information of substance there is in it can be moved to other relevant articles, such as the 2020 Formula One World Championship article, articles on the individual cars and drivers, or this proposed more general article about Formula One testing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there's some decent sources in the 2020 testing article about other year's testing, or testing in general. Which would be good for a general testing article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposals for developing an article

To separate off the discussion of articles on individual tests from the initial proposal I'm making a more focused subheading here. At the moment I think some useful topics to cover would include:

Regulations and restrictions on testing.
Safety at tests (particularly regarding Elio de Angelis's death).
The overall purpose of testing (communicating in a general article on Formula One testing that it is not some sort of non-championship time trial competition may be useful in the event of future discussions like those on the 2020 pre-season testing article).
Techniques and technology used in testing, such as flow-vis paint or the various aerodynamic measurement vanes.
Different types of tests (pre-season, young driver, tyre tests, etc).

I'm sure there are other topics which could be covered, and I'd like to see this article well developed before it gets full created to ensure it's harder for it to become a target for WP:INDISCRIMINATE statistics and trivia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting of car articles for 2021

RB16B, FB43B, MCL35M are the only car without their own article. Should be split or not? -FungTzeLong (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not, there is no evidence that these are considered separate entities. There names clearly suggest that they are considered the same car and secondary sources (are to my knowledge) taking the same approach. Take for example the Ferrari 312T2. This is the same.
SSSB (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

1950's Aston Martin and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results.

Why did the Grand Prix results of both Aston Martin and Mercedes-Benz from the 1950's get separated from the rest of the results? Just seems like a unnecessary change. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mercedes results are split by decade. This is because one table would have been too big. As for Aston, I agree, it is unnecessary.
SSSB (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:F1estat and statistics calculations

I have created Template:F1estat for F1 engine manufacturer statistics (similar to Template:F1cstat for chassis statistics), as I think it will be easier to have the engine manufacturer statistics in one place and now all the different pages where the statistics are included don't need to be individually updated. I have also added calculations based on F1cstat, so now the engine manufacturer statistics will be automatically updated after each race after F1cstat is updated (if the calculations work as intended), however the calculations will have to be updated if teams change engine makes or possibly in "Did not start" type situations. I think it will overall reduce the time spent on updating the statistics, and the statistics should also be quicker up to date after the races. Carfan568 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. Also, article creation based on Wikiproject Guidelines would be curtailed. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested moves

Please note that there are currently two ongoing Requested Move discussions underway: at Talk:List of Formula One engine constructors‎, and Talk:List of Formula One constructors. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And a third at Talk:Formula One racing.
SSSB (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Grand Prix winners lists

Just noticed a list on Nigel Mansell's Grand Prix victories has been created. I'm fine with the list being notable enough to warrant its own article but what would be the limit for meriting such an article? A list with ten victories wouldn't warrant a separate article. My thinking is 20 Grand Prix victories. I think this is a sufficient number to warrant a list being created. Open to suggestions on this. NapHit (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A raw number isn't enough justification to pass WP:NLIST. There are things such as notability/sucess of the driver. Holding/have held a win related record. Discussed in other sources (the Mansell list has justification from articles such as this). A driver having 20 wins isn't good enough by itself.
SSSB (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this. Arbitrary quantities aren't useful for our purposes, sourcing matters a lot more. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This should be deleted. This isn’t notable enough for a standalone article at all.T v x1 16:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence of lead section of articles about Grands Prix

There seems to be a disagreement about whether articles should open by saying "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One motor race" (which I believe is the long standing convention) or "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One Grand Prix". Personally I think the latter is a redundant statement and isn't particularly helpful to somebody who doesn't know what a Grand Prix is. However concerns have been raised that the "motor race" wording be misleading people on the grounds that practice and qualifying sessions are not a "race" by some definitions. If these concerns are deemed to be significant enough then "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One motor racing event" may be a preferable wording. The counterpoint to this would be that the race is still the primary subject being discussed and that many sources would treat "Formula One race" and "Formula One Grand Prix" as synonymous, in which case the former would be preferable as it is closer to WP:PLAINENGLISH. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Practice and qualifying are not a race by any definition. Motor racing event covers the event and explains that the event is. Calling a Grand Prix a race is misleading becuase a Grand Prix encompasses more than a race, it is a whole event.

I see no problem with "motor racing event" and no problems have been raised with it, problems have been raised with "Grand Prix" and "Formula One race", the simple solution would be to use "motor racing event", wouldn't it?
SSSB (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One Grand Prix" violates MOS:REDUNDANCY as it uses Grand Prix twice. As it has Grand Prix in the title, it's obviously a Grand Prix. Formula One motor racing event or Formula One motor race would be preferable in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Motor racing event is the preferred wording for me. These articles deal with more than just the races. There are even articles, like 2005 United States Grand Prix, where what happened during the race is just a minor part of what the article deals with.T v x1 17:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The 2005 United States Grand Prix is arguably an edge case in that regard where I would fully agree that the race itself is not the primary subject of the article. In most cases the race(s) are the primary (or at the very least the core) subjects of our articles and the opening paragraph of the lead should be primarily focused on those. ie. "The 1726 Lilliputian Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held on 32 February 1726" rather than "the 1726 Lilliputian Grand Prix was a Formula One motor racing event held over the weekend of 30-32 February 1726". The latter version is better suited to the background section of the main body of a race report article such as 2019 United States Grand Prix, and is unnecessary on general race articles such as United States Grand Prix. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your claim is that your preferred wording is blatantly wrong. Grand Prix≠race, it’s that simple. Motor racing event is the only correct wording proposed here.T v x1 16:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this distinction between a race and an event is being overly pedantic, but in any case, I prefer either of HumanBodyPiloter's two suggestions to using "Grand Prix" again (after all, if we assume every user knows what a GP is, why even describe it at all?). I disagree with others' assessment that practice, qualifying etc are part of the Grand Prix itself, and believe we should be guided by reliable sources. Commentators and journalists use terminology like "all weekend" when a driver had a bad time of practice, or "qualifying for" etc, which implies a separation, and generally use "Grand Prix" to refer only to the race (eg "why he slid off the road midway through the ... Grand Prix", midway through the event was on Saturday!). In any case "motor racing event" is still an accurate description so I suppose either is fine. A7V2 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"X Grand Prix is a Formula One Grand Prix" is idiotic wording. Either motor race, or motor racing event; both are fine. If it matters, I agree with A7V2 that practice and qualifying do not constitute a Grand Prix, or any part of it. All other sessions are prep for the GP. Everyone talks about qualifying for the GP, not as part of it. The GP is the race, no more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that in common usage the term "Grand Prix" refers to the race and not the whole event, as has been seen recently in reporting on proposed sprint races. The whole event might be referred to as "the Grand Prix weekend" or "the Grand Prix meeting" but it's rare to see qualifying considered a part of the Grand Prix and even rarer to see free practice considered as such. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought it's obvious that Grand Prix covers practise, qualifying and race, and calling "Grand Prix" just a "race" is incorrect. It's basic term in motorsport or F1. I'm not sure why "somebody who doesn't know" is a thing. There are other complicated things like they are in biology or some culture or other fields hard to understand. You can't be expert in every field. Some people don't know what "single" in music is. Should we care about them? It will be hard to avoid "MOS:REDUNDANCY". We can call it a "motor racing event" but it's simply "Grand Prix" like Bass Generation is an "studio album" not "music release" :). There is also "The 2021 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars". Eurohunter (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

RE: "I'm not sure why "somebody who doesn't know" is a thing." On some level the term "Grand Prix" is WP:JARGON. People who don't already know about Formula One will be unlikely to know what a Grand Prix is. Wikipedia is written with the assumption that readers are here to learn. WP:TECHNICAL goes over some of this. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is not just to document information, but to explain it to a general audience. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

So "People who don't already know about music will be unlikely to know what a single is". We can't really look at them then. Eurohunter (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It exists to inform people, not to abandon people who don't have sufficient prior knowledge. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Surely there are enough comments here already to convince you that it is NOT obvious? In my opinion also the Grand Prix is the race - I do not believe that to be incorrect. Can you at least wait until we reach some consensus before changing every Grand Prix article? - Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Well its’s your own opinion and it’s wrong. Grand prix≠race. Why would the word race even exist otherwise?? It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of factual definition.T v x1 16:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"Why would the word race even exist otherwise?" Is that a serious point? So if there's a practice session and a qualifying session, but for some reason the race doesn't happen, we've had a Grand Prix? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The word race would exist because there are many races which are not Grands Prix! Grand Prix originally meant a great prize - awarded for winning the race, not for any other part of the event. - Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If we had practice, quali and no race we would have had part of a Grand Prix (to my mind at least)
SSSB (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

How many points would be awarded? - Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What would the results be? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ian Dalziel: Why points would need to be awarded? @Bretonbanquet: results? Practise, qualyfing and race has their own results. Eurohunter (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No, really? What would the results of the Grand Prix be? It is a simple question. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The same as if less than 2 laps of the race are completed, if I recall correctly, that would be abandoned.
SSSB (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Why do you think there are results of the Grand Prix? There are results of three independed sessions like practise results, qualyfing results and race results. All these sessions together are Grand Prix. Race results are always race results. Eurohunter (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's nonsense. The Grand Prix result is the race result. As SSSB said, if there was no race, there's no result. No points, no Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There is actually no such thing as a "Grand prix result". There is only a practice, qualifying and race result. Consult any official document from the governing body and you’ll see they’re labeled things like "provisional race result” and "official race result".T v x1 00:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment - It is worth noting that the only reference to the term "Grand Prix" in the current F1 sporting regulations uses the wording "Formula One Grand Prix races". The wording used in this Guardian article generally treats the term "Grand Prix" as exclusively referring to the race itself. This Autosport article sees a similar usage. This BBC article makes reference to "the main Grand Prix on Sunday" although it also says that the proposed sprint races would take place "at three Grands Prix". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I have seen sources that refer to the whole weekend as a Grand Prix collectivly, just the race and sources, such as the BBC that are inconsistent. I had results for both sides of the argumemt when I googled "Grand Prix definiton" earlier today. Both sides are claiming the other is categorically wrong, however, my personal research has shown that their is no agreement (at least in English) across any secondary sources or dictionary definition, it looks like it is down to personal interpretation. I therefore propose that either is acceptable.
SSSB (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of an official definition, a "factual definition" like the one Tvx1 claims, then any reasonable wording is acceptable, except "The X Grand Prix was a Grand Prix", which is laughable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It really only requires to consult the official sites to see the factual definition. It’s really dezd obvious that a Grand Prix constitutes an entire weekend. In any case that’s what our articles deal with, so there leads should introduce a motor racing event that takes place over multiple days and not act as if there only is some activity on sunday.T v x1 00:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Might I ask, then, that you consult those sites and quote that factual definition? Otherwise you're saying "What I think is fact, what you think is opinion". I don't believe we're dealing with a factual issue here, we're dealing with English usage, which is changeable. I don't think there is a precise definition for "Grand Prix" - there are events like the Pau Grand Prix which bear no resemblance to a World Championship race, and the term is used in other sports as well. I maintain that "Grand Prix" is used primarily for a race - if it's used for the whole event it's usually qualified, as "Grand Prix event" or "Grand Prix weekend" or "practice for the Grand Prix". However it is used loosely for the whole event, so I'd be quite happy with "is a motor racing event". "is a Grand Prix" is just silly. (As an aside - motor racing not auto racing, we're using UK English here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Dalziel (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The notion of there being a "correct" definition of 'Grand Prix' is absurd given that different sources clearly use different definitions to one another and given that often the same source will use a different definition in a different context. Any reputable linguist would tell you that there are multiple definitions of the term and that usage can sometimes be ambiguous. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

With the plan to hold two races at some Grands Prix from this season, I don't see how the Grand Prix=race claim can retain any credibility though. I don't think one can genuinely claim there are two Grands Prix during those weekends. Moreover this is not even exclusive to Formula one (or even four wheels). The Detroit Grand Prix has had two full races for a couple of years now. "Detroit Grand Prix" has therefore been used to refer to the entire event.T v x1 20:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The Indy Car example is irrelevant because it's not a Formula One race, and nearly every source I've seen has distinguished between the Saturday sprint races and the Sunday Grands Prix, so I really don't understand your argument. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No, they distinguish between saturday sprint race and sunday race.T v x1 20:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I already provided examples of reliable sources clearly using "Grand Prix" exclusively to refer to the 305 kilometre race that takes place on the Sunday. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Both myself and HumanBodyPiloter5 gave examples above of reliable sources using the term to refer only to the race. You have given no examples at all, only claims. Here is Ross Brawn specifically distinguishing the Grand Prix from the other parts of the weekend: "The thing to remember about Sprint Qualifying is that its intention is to expand the whole weekend ... It is not intended to impact the race event. The Grand Prix is still the vital event of the weekend. ... Sunday’s Grand Prix is fantastic" [1]. As others have pointed out, the Grand Prix is a race, but it not a synonym since it is a specific kind of race. A7V2 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because some sources lazily call the race grand prix that doesn't mean it's correct. It actually has been pointed out during this discussion that there are most certainly sources that refer to the grand prix as the entire event. Again, just go to the FIA site and you'll see that they list race classifications and not something called "Grand Prix classifications".T v x1 16:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Bill Mackey / 1951 Indianapolis 500

I've started a discussion at WT:AOWR regarding the chassis make driven by Bill Mackey in the 1951 Indianapolis 500. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sprint races

Championship tables

With the sport moving forward to introduce sprint races from this season, we should really discuss how to include these additional points in our championship tables. I would consider a similar system as we use for the points awarded at Power Stages in the World Rally Championship. Any other suggestions?T v x1 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The power stage system would make the most sense to me. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a definitive answer. I'm a little worried about adding more items to a single result cell. We already have the Pole and Fastest Lap info.

Ex
4^1 P F

On the other hand, I'm not sure we want to create an entire extra column in the results table just for the sprint race. It wouldn't be the end of the world for this season, as there will only be 2-3 sprint races. But in future years, if this gets adopted for all the races, we could end up with the ridiculously large results tables that are used in the 2020 NASCAR Cup Series#Drivers' championship, with 40+ columns for results.JohnMcButts (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with putting it as a superscript, even if a driver has all three it's still fairly clear and it doesn't affect table width that much. It definitely makes the most sense to me.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It has already been made clear that sprint races will not be adopted for all races. Specifically, the venues where qualifying has a larger impact on the final result (for example Monaco) will retain the existing format.
SSSB (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to add the sprint races as a separate column like in F2? It's a separate set of points, and for this season, it will only add 3 more columns. And it would make it much easier to understand- comparing tables, I can understand the results for F2 sprint races much more easily than the WRC Power stages. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Formula 2 uses a different format for the sprint races. They are really proper races with a considerable number of finishers receiving points and all results counting toward the championship as well as extra points for fastest laps. They are only really different in length. Also the total number of races in a Formula 2 season isn’t increased by them. The total is adapted to it so if remains lower than the number Formula 1 has. The Formula 1 ones are only intended to be a qualifyingish thing at some Grands Prix. I would find it excessive to add entire columns for just three points scorers.T v x1 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As it is sprint qualifying would be possible to avoid having two columns for both the sprint qualifying and the grand prix of the Silverstone race weekend in the Drivers' championship table? It seems unnecessary and out of place. I think it would benefit from a 123 or 123 sort of notation system to indicate pole position for the grand prix, second and third place on the grid respectively, as is used in the IndyCar and Formula E standings. As it is sprint qualifying, as termed by F1 management, the sprint qualifying result should be treated as if it were just qualifying and remain on the page for each individual Grand Prix as had always occurred, beneath the qualifying for the sprint qualifying. Sprint qualifying wins are pole positions and not race wins and this should be reflected. I think graphically as well this would be better as it doesn't give the illusion that drivers have more wins/podiums than they do in a season just because they have put themselves in the top 3 for the grid. The sprint qualifying results should not be given a row in the 'Grand Prix' section as it is not a full length Grand Prix, and only sprint qualifying, and does not count as a full race win.Walkingsense (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC) (Message moved from Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship by SSSB at 15:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree. Dedicating entire rows and columns is excessive and can actually be misleading.T v x1 18:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Poles

I think that it is important to distinguish between poles through qualifying and poles through sprint race, or is this just me? I suggest we do this through a footnote, so we get {{f1stat|HAM|poles}}{{efn|Includes/Excludes {{f1stat|HAM|sprintpoles}} poles gained through winning the sprint race.}} I suggest we add the same note to List of Formula One polesitters.

I'd also like to point out that we're going to have to wait for some indication from the FIA about if that note should be "includes" or "excludes". I daresay we will be looking at those overhead boards that say "xth pole for Hamilton".
SSSB (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

David Croft said during testing that his understanding was that the sprint race winner would be listed as the polesitter, but yes we'll see how it works in practice. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well obviously the sprint qualifying winner will initialy earn the right to start the race from pole position on sunday in the affected weekends. In those cases friday qualifying does not generate pole position. It acts more as a sort of pre-qualifying then. I will remind however that in any case the actual polesitter is the driver who actually starts the race from first place. Occassionally that isn’t necessarily the fastest qualifier, like in a case where the driver ends up with a DNS, is penalized or has to start from pit lane for some reason.T v x1 15:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think DNSing stops you from being the pole-sitter, for example Schumacher isn't listed as having pole for the 2005 United States Grand Prix even though he started from the highest position. Penalties can deny a pole position though, yes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it can in some cases. Schumacher didn’t get pole position for that race, simply because he did not start from pole position. He started that race from the slot he earned through qualifying with the slots ahead of him, including pole, left empty.T v x1 15:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"Grands_Prix" table

How are we going to adapt the 2021_Formula_One_World_Championship#Grands_Prix tables. I advise that the "pole" column list the sprint race pole sitter, and then we add a column for the sprint race winner?
SSSB (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment - With all of this we should probably be waiting to see how reliable sources handle this information. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment – I agree with the above. Plus the polesitter for the sprint race is not the polesitter for the GP. If we are counting poles for Grands Prix, then it should only be the driver in pole position on Sunday. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I've stuck two rows for the British GP as a trial. Copied the format from the F2 page but if sprint race is really that not needed then we can go with nom's way. Admanny (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We should not be using our articles for trial edits.T v x1 17:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment - In any case it's way too soon to make any actual changes. We should wait and see what the sources do. Regardless, I think it's excessive to dedicate entire rows for these. The only really important thing from this is the top three, as they get championship points and because the winner earns the right to start from pole in the sunday race.T v x1 17:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree to this comment above. There won't be two pole sitters. The real pole sitter is the driver who wins the qualifying sprint.--Island92 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Should the Port Imperial Street Circuit and Grand Prix of America articles be merged?

A fairly simple question, although not one I expect to have a simple answer. The Port Imperial Street Circuit and Grand Prix of America articles both cover a clearly notable subject, but as the circuit was never built and the races were never held it's unclear whether these two articles actually cover separate subjects. With no news for several years regarding the proposal it's unlikely that either article will ever be expanded to a point where having the information distributed across two separate pages would be particularly advantageous. If races were actually held at the circuit then having an article to specifically document information about those races separate from information about the venue would be far more advantageous. There are possible parallels here with the merge that took place of the Bern Street Circuit and 2019 Swiss ePrix articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly support a merger of those articles. I'm of the opinion that if the notability of a race circuit stems from a single event, it probably doesn't need it's own article. The information about the circuit should instead be covered in the page about that event. If the event only happened once, then a single page can cover the information about the race and circuit. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that there is info on the circuit that does not apply to the event, namely, proposals for an ePrix on the circuit. This rational behind this merge proposal is therefore downright false.
SSSB (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I would dispute the notion that the section regarding Formula E on the circuit article does not apply to the Grand Prix. It quite clearly says that Agag "was waiting to see how the financial situation surrounding the Grand Prix was resolved before he could commit to bringing the Formula E series to the city" and does not state that there was any actual plan to host Formula E races on the Port Imperial Street Circuit. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: The Formula E section of that article seems to be using somewhat speculative headlines in sources to imply that there was a plan to use the track to host FE that the sources don't actually say existed. That may need to be cleaned up. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed information from the Port Imperial Street Circuit article which could not be verified from sources. @SSSB:, does this change your opinion on the subject here? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I‘ve removed the section entirely. There was nothing really related to that circuit.T v x1 12:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Somewhere in the regoin of neutral to weak support
SSSB (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason the support isn't stronger is because I don't understand what we achieve by merging. These are seperate subjects (proposed event, proposed venue), just with large overlap. The Bern circuit/ swiss eprix merge had the added influence that one was a stub. WP:NOTPAPER applies. Both articles are substantial in their own right.
SSSB (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC

Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: This RfC isn't relevant to this project. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_14#Formula_1 shows consensus that Formula One drivers represent their nations and so all this projects articles are already compliant with the guideline.
SSSB (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, without getting into a whole separate debate, I'll just say I disagree. Consensus can change. If an editor feels the RfC isn't relevant, they can ignore it. But I would think editors here might want to consider that the outcome could potentially change the 2014 consensus you linked to. There's a lot of questions being raised, like what {{Infobox racing driver}} is even for. All motorsports? Only FIA? The documents say one thing and some editors in practice think it means something else. The current RfC is on the basic question of whether MOS:FLAG applies to motorsports or if motorsports is going to be treated as a special case. Unfortunately there will probably need to be further RfCs to cover specific genres or events within motorsports. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Styrian Grand Prix

With the announcement that the Styrian GP is due to be revived again, it is clear that it is no longer considered a "one-off" race, and thus, I have began a race page at Styrian Grand Prix. Contributions to bring the page to a satisfactory level are welcome. Admanny (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Autodromo Nazionale Monza

Name of track is "Autodromo Nazionale Monza" (website, social media + name is used in Italian media). How anyone got "Autodromo Nazionale di Monza"? Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the talk page it is the WP:OFFICIAL name, although there isn't much evidence presented in this regard. While it isn't a pressing issue regarding Monza, we should aim to ensure that our articles conform to WP:TITLE and in particular that they are recognisable WP:COMMONNAMEs in WP:ENGLISH, which is why Imola Circuit and Interlagos Circuit were moved to their current locations relatively recently. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases in English sources just call it "Monza" but I don't think that is an option here. I do think though that a namechange towards something like "Monza Circuit" or "Monza Autodrome" would be a good idea. As to what the actual official name is, it seems like both names are used interchangeably, eg [2] uses both (and from what I've seen, it may be a case of the name having been "officially" changed more recently). Clearly the name with "di" has been used in an official sense, eg see this photo from the 1989 Italian GP podium [3]. The 2019/20 Autocourse uses Monza Circuit to introduce the Italian GP, then uses Autodromo Nazionale di Monza as the official name. Paolo Montagna's The Legendary Italian Grand Prix uses Monza Autodrome. Interestingly, The World Atlas of Motor Racing (pub 1989) seems to imply that the official name is actually just "Autodromo Nazionale", but it's hard to say. But definitely a move towards something closer to the common name of just "Monza" would be a positive. A7V2 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"Monza Circuit" or "Monza Autodrome" would be WP:OR if they are not official names. Eurohunter (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not how original research works; have you read WP:COMMONNAME or WP:ENGLISH or WP:OFFICIAL? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, "Monza" is the commonly used English name, so it makes sense to call it "Monza Circuit" or "Monzo Autodrome", as Monza is an article about the city. I would slightly prefer Monza Circuit, to be consistent with Imola and Interlagos. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

But Monza Circuit and Monza autodrome are neither the official nor the common names.T v x1 17:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right that they are not the common name, but I feel that they (may) satisfy the requirements of being a natural disambiguation, but it depends on how "commonly" either of these is actually used (obviously suggestions of these being original research are simply untrue). Otherwise I we can use bracketed disambiguation, ie Monza (Racing circuit/Race track/etc etc) since just "Monza" is the common name. We could even go as far as arguing it is the primary topic of "Monza" but I don't think that is likely to work. A7V2 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

{{re}A7V2}} @Joseph2302: Disambugated name would "Monza (circut)". "Monza Circuit" is fake missleading, pretending to be official name. Eurohunter (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move discussion started here, feel free to contribute thoughts there. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on flags

A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here.T v x1 00:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, could this force races such as Imola to use the Emilia Romagna flag and the upcoming Russia to use a blank flag, amongst a handful of races from last year as well? Admanny (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea actually. Those flags in our articles refer to the circuits rather than races anyway.T v x1 14:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Monaco GP standings column

I think Monaco GP column in the standings should be as narrow or as wide as the others. That way the view is more esthetic.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.53.93 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's wider because of Leclerc DNS's with pole (whose characters cover more space). I can't see justification in widening other cells, just so it looks pretty. Aesthetics are not justification for edits, partly because it's subjective (I think the wider column is quirky and quite like it).
SSSB (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is possible to make Monaco GP column as narrow as the others. DNS with pole could be easily squeezed to the same boundaries. (maybe with the help of smaller font size and/or DNS and pole being closer to the borders)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.53.93 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

To what end? There is no benefit in manipulating the table in this way, where we risk reducing readability.
SSSB (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Our goal is to communicate information effectively, not to avoid slightly uneven lines of formatting. See WP:NOTPAPER. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Just want to inform the members of this project about MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk · contribs) who has continued adding trivial or unsourced content after the editor's block expired. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Literally all I did was add that Steve Nash was born in South Africa and now he's deleting all of my contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@MCRainbowSupernova8196: Steve Nash is not related to F1. In addition, I used to edit F1 pages in the past so I know what should or should not be in the articles and you are adding either trivial or unsourced content. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A simple look through your edit history, namely your contributions to talk pages, and those edits which were reverted, support the claim that your editing behaviour is starting to become WP:DISRUPTIVE.
SSSB (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

All I do is information to articles. I'm not trying to be "disruptive". I thought thought that editing articles would be fun, but thanks to people like you, it's not. You're constantly nagging me about sources, as if every little goddamn thing needs a citation. I am sick of this. I've had my contributions deleted for no reason, I've had people nag me about sources, I've been blocked for over a day, and I've had people try to bash me for adding information to articles, all within my first 2 months of editing on Wikipedia. I've had enough of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't think that all of this editor's contributions are disruptive, and I wouldn't classify most of them as trivia. However, they do have a tendency to not provide sources when adding information, and have introduced some minor errors into articles as a result. If they make more of an effort to find sources before adding information to articles, work on writing their contributions in a more encyclopaedic tone (which is a skill most editors have to learn through practice), adopted a less adversarial tone towards other users, and start adding edit summaries to their contributions then I don't think their contributions would be particularly disruptive at all, and many of them would be productive. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Well at least you didn't outright call me disruptive unlike those other two.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Fuck this, I'm done. I give up (Personal attack removed) I fucking quit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, a look at your Instagram page isn't very convincing that you're ready to be a Wikipedian. Please follow the guidelines set on the topics of speculation and personal opinion before making contributions. Thanks Admanny (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Source for number of French Grands Prix held

It's difficult to find a source online stating how many times the French Grand Prix has been held. Nearly all agree that the first was held in 1906, that sixteen tracks have hosted the event, and that the 2019 edition was the 60th time the French Grand Prix has been a part of the World Championship, but the only source I can find for the number of times it's been held is on the McLaren website, whose claim of 86 contradicts our article which claims the 2019 French Grand Prix was the 88th. This seems to be compounded by attempts to retroactively label races in the 1890s as French Grands Prix in order to claim the event is the oldest motor race in the world. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably the McLaren source did not include the 1928 race (as is reasonably common due to the race being a sports car handicap race), and probably 1936 too as it was in every sense a sports car endurance race (unlike 1937 which was much more "grand prix like"). As for the number of venues, it may be that they did not count Saint Gaudens (aka Comminges) but instead counted Lyon twice since they were totally separate circuits (noting that although Le Mans 1906 was totally separate to Le Mans 1921-, they share the name Circuit de la Sarthe). They also may have counted St Gaudens due to the "official" 1949 sports car race. Ultimately I don't know, they could have forgot to update from an older document, or miscounted. As a general rule I'm not a fan of including these often suspect "edition numbers". But I think for our purposes it is NOT considered original research to simply count the number of races we've called a French GP. A7V2 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This Guardian article from 2018 says that the 2018 edition was the 87th, so that's probably good enough, and at the very least would be consistent with our result table on the French Grand Prix article. I suspect that most sources have looked at the long, weird history of the French Grand Prix and decided not to give a definitive figure. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Notes sections below qualifying and race classifications

Many race reports have "notes" sections below the qualifying classification and the race classification. The notes system which is frequently used has serious issues, such as directing users to notes regarding the qualifying classification when they click on a footnote marker in the race classification, which presents a potential MOS:ACCESS issue. The way they are located in the middle of articles rather than at the end also gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is usually essentially an explanation of minor details. I would personally recommend replacing them with explanatory footnotes in most cases, unless another suitable system for making footnotes has already been established in a given article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, when a driver either gets penalties or fails to set times, it's correct to use ;Notes as the current case so as to explain what happens during the session. ;Notes is also reported below the race classification, especially for the fastest lap which guarantees +1 point. Therefore I do not see the need to change this consistency that has been used for years and years in several Formula One Grand Prix articles.--Island92 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

As a completely random example, go to the article on the 2017 Belgian Grand Prix, and click on the superscript "1" next to the number 17 in the position column of the race classification. This redirects the user to the notes below the qualifying classification rather than the notes section below the race classification. This issue exists on most, if not all, articles where these notes sections appear below both the qualifying classification section and the race classification section. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

; Notes should not be used, as it causes accessibility issue, see MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. I don't see why all the notes shouldn't be at the bottom- this is how most non-F1 articles do it, and is compliant with MOS:ACCESS. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the system as such. The editor who has added the notes simply did not format the notes in the races sections correctly. I have fixed the article mentioned above and others can/should be accordingly. As far MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, that deals with correct formatting of headers, not with whether we should use notes or not.T v x1 19:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the fact so many articles have exactly the same issue with those note sections is an example of something which is obviously wrong with the system. It's clear that a not-insignificant number of editors have made errors when trying to implement these notes because something is obtuse about how the system works. My concerns about giving undue weight to what are usually relatively minor explanations of aspects of the results tables (such as drivers being classified as finishing because they retired after more than 90% distance) by placing them prominently (separated and bullet-pointed away from the rest of the prose) in the middle of the article rather than at the end also stand. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer them being where they are because that improves readability. Notes should be paired with the tables they relate to. Especially in race articles wich have large qualifying and race reports, bunching all these notes at the bottom would do more bad than good.T v x1 19:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1 here. The explanatory notes are directly related to the race classification and moving them would reduce readability and be potentially misleading. The issue at hand is why notes aren't being implemented correctly, not where they are.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix tyre controversy

I notice the recent creation of 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix tyre controversy. It probably needs to either be expanded or deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look to merit a separate article, it's already covered in 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix#Post-race. My preference would be to redirect that article to that post-race section, which can be expanded with referenced content if needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I've WP:DRAFTIFYed it for now (Draft:2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix tyre controversy), because it is not suitable for the mainspace in that condition. My preference would be out-right delete as I see no grounds for an entirly seperate article and I don't see it as a plausible search term.
SSSB (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Not really that controversial and thus lacks indipendent notability.T v x1 14:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think independent notability is the primary issue here. While the subject would most likely pass WP:GNG, from a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective all the coverage can go at 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix (the failures themselves), 2021 French Grand Prix (the revised tyre pressure protocols), and 2021 Formula One World Championship (WP:SUMMARY). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean we don't even have 2005 United States Grand Prix tyre controversy. We then surely don't need this. I haven't even seen this being labelel a controversy in the sources. Thet just had two tyre failures during the race, they were investigated and corrective measures were taken.T v x1 15:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a separate article for Grosjean's crash, so I don't think we need one for the tyre controversy. Patient Zero^talk 01:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"Jesus Mary Joseph H Christ" is my initial reaction to seeing this article's existence. I would resist ANY and all attempts to create it. Spa-Franks (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

How about Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the wee donkey, Spa-Franks? Patient Zero^talk 02:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Belgian Grand Prix

Heads up:- The Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps has suffered major damage to its access roads and digital safety infrastructure due to the 2021 European floods. It is possible that the race may be in jeopardy. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there actually an offcial announcement that it is, or is that just your speculation? I mean, they have about 1,5 month to make the necessary repairs.T v x1 16:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The article on the floods mentions the Grand Prix and therefore the implication is that it's under threat. It may be worth a mention in the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix article when that gets created. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The article just mentions the circuit, without any implying. From what I can find the circuit itself wasn’t affected this time, only some access roads. They actually had a worse flood in early June wich passed over a section of the circuit and required reconstruction of the La Source to Eau Rouge section. Reconstruction that had already been completed prior the current floodings. If there is any actual impact on the running of the grand prix it could be mentioned in its article. At this time I feel it’s unnecessary worries though.T v x1 18:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: - my post is clearly speculation, identified by the word "possible" (italics now added). I posted the heads-up partly to inspire those who know where to look to seek out additional sources on the story and the possible impact thereafter. They may have 1.5 months to make the repairs, but they'll be competing for resources and manpower along with everyone else affected. I suspect that they might be a bit lower down the pecking order than others are. There must be plenty of specialist F1 sources out there that can be relied upon to carry the story and that are reliable enough to use on Wikipedia. I've an interest in F1, but it's not a specialist subject for me. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the WEC 6 hrs of Spa this weekend. Wouldn't be suprised it it was cancelled. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The 2021 6 Hours of Spa-Francorchamps was on 1 May? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I stand corrected, it's Monza. A recap of Spa is being shown before the coverage of Monza. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Results keys

Pinging @Tvx1: since he has reverted my changes.
I went through this afternoon and corrected the label for DNP from "Did not practice" to "Did not participate" in all our results keys. I say "corrected" because the usage of this abbreviation has only been, as far as I have found, in situations where a team arrived and then did not participate in the event. For example, Andrea Moda, who entered into GPs and showed up but then didn't go out on track. The term "Did not practice" is nonsensical in the context of the other results codes. Either the driver practised and did not further participate, and is recorded as WD (e.g. Stroll last year) or skipped practice and participated in the event, in which case they recorded an actual result (e.g. Hulkenberg last year). In fact, the only situation where "Did not practice" could be a useful and coherent result would be a situation where the driver is only entered for a practice session and then does not drive, such as Callum Ilott at the Eifel GP last year. But we used TD and an endnote for that, not DNP. Finally, the abbreviation is explained correctly in other templates such as {{Motorsport driver results legend}}. If they were entered and did not participate at all, sure, they didn't practice, but they also didn't do anything else (one could even venture to say they did not participate in the weekend).
So sure, we can say DNP means "Did not practice", but that doesn't make sense, and I would love to know what situation it does because I'm sure it's a very interesting bit of F1 history.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

We had a very lengthy discussion on the subject a while ago and the consensus is that participation starts with taking part in thursday proceedings and being entered for the grand prix in question. Thus redefening DNP as did not participate is wrong as no participation equates no entry and then the cell for that GP should be empty.T v x1 19:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I will challenge that consensus by suggesting that the participation relevant to the results tables is participation in actual sessions when results are recorded. Scrutineering isn't participation in on-track activity, it just confirms entry. But ok, let's assume if you show up to the track and complete scrutineering etc. then you've participated. I would disagree with that, but the issue at hand is the term practice. None of this changes the fact that "Did not practice" is a nonsensical result. We had two actual situations last year where a driver literally did not practice (Hulkenberg and Ilott) and we don't use "Did not practice" for either of them. If "Did not participate" is an inappropriate term to use, "Did not practice" is misleading and just outright irrational.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

No it isn’t. I’m not sure which 2020 entry for Hülkenberg you are referring to, but I cannot find a race entry where he did not drive in any session. As for Illot (and Schumacher), they were free practice entries only. DNP is for drivers who were entered as race drivers but for some reason did not drive in any session without the entry actually being withdrawn. As for your example of Andrea Moda Formula, you are right that some of the information there is wrong. There are couples of grands prix where they actually didn't show up or did show but were barred from entering for the GP entirely. The EX's and DNA's should really not be there as they were never entered for the races in question.T v x1 15:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing when DNP has been used, I'm saying that it logically cannot stand for "Did not practice". For example, Hulkenberg arrived at the 2020 Eifel GP after all practice sessions had been completed. He literally did not practice. Illot was entered for practice. He literally did not practice. The term "Did not practice" would therefore apply to both situations where a driver did not record any participation in a practice session. Stating DNP means "Did not practice" is wrong, because that is not what the term has been used for.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No it is not because that is the only thing this term has been used for around here. Hülkenberg took part in qualifying and race during that GP so DNP doesn't even remotely come into the equation there. And as I said before, Illot was not entered as a race driver and thus these terms don't apply to him at all.T v x1 16:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Technically speaking, @Tvx1 is correct. The Qualifying session is listed as the Qualifying Practice (noun) session in the Sporting Regulations, and therefore a driver that did not take part in Free Practice, but did in Qualifying (Hulkenberg EIF 2020 e.g.) technically, officially, legally, did "practise" (verb). Spa-Franks (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Spa-Franks, that is significantly more helpful and it's good to know there is at least a technical reason behind it, although it is highly counterintuitive. I do believe it is misleading, but since there is a reason behind it I will concede it.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Grand Prix one more time

Grand Prix consists of free practise sessions, qualifying sessions, race and all other past sessions like warm up or new sessions like sprint race so saying that "The 2021 British Grand Prix (officially known as the Formula 1 Pirelli British Grand Prix 2021) was a Formula One motor race held on 18 July 2021 at the Silverstone Circuit" is fake. Whole article is about all the sessions not just race and article itself is named "2021 British Grand Prix" not something like "Race of 2021 British Grand Prix".

2021 British Grand Prix including free practise sessions, qualifying sessions, sprint race and the main race took place between 16-18 July 2021:

The 2021 British Grand Prix (officially known as the Formula 1 Pirelli British Grand Prix 2021) was a Formula One motor race event held between 16-18 July 2021 at the Silverstone Circuit so in other words Grand Prix was held between 16-18 July 2021.

"Grand Prix" ≠ "Race"

Eurohunter (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are we bringing this up again. Analysis of sources done not so long ago reached the conclusion that some sources call the event the Grand Prix, whilst others only refer to the event as the Grand Prix. Therefore we (Wikipedia) can do the same thing across articles. In other words, we follow the precedent set by the first edit in an article (like we do with date format, or variation of English, broadly speaking)

I don't mean to be rude, but, unless you have any (new, conclusive) evidence this amounts to little more than a personal rant, and is not worthy of anyone's attention.
SSSB (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sprint qualifying

Hello. The official standings published at the end of the British Grand Prix does not include position achieved during the sprint qualifying. Why are we doing that here, as well as for the Constructors standings? Island92 (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Indicating who scored the points in the Petit Prix is helpful for readers in understanding why the points totals add up the way they do, in the same way indicating who scored the fastest lap is. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We need to put the sprint qualifying numbers somewhere, otherwise the points don't add up and will confuse people. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Plus the FIA have implicitly put them on there, as it lists Verstappen as earning 3pts, and Hamilton as 27pts. Which includes the sprint qualifying points. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but basically FIA includes only the position achieved during the main race for the British column space. Not sure, may be for the future sprint races something might happen into this pdf document.--Island92 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Not quite. They also list the total amount of points collected over the entire weekend. That’s why they list Verstappen with three. We are not obliged to copy the FIA’s documents’ style identically. We have chosen a different style because we concluded that there was a clearer way to convey this information.T v x1 21:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

More Sprint stuff...

Just in case I've gone about this in completely the wrong way, I'm going to link to something I've posted on the 2021 talk page regarding the language used surrounding the sprint. tl;dr - "sprint", "sprint qualifying", or "sprint race": all are used at present. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fernando Alonso

Hi all, I'm not (currently) a project member, but I've been attempting an overhaul of Alonso's article to get it to GA-standard, based on comments from the 2010 peer review. I'd appreciate any help with that. IronManCap (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've now nominated it for GA status. Anyone is free to improve the article or give it a review. IronManCap (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

The title of "Sir" should be dropped. Lewis Hamilton was awarded MBE, but only the senior two classes grant honorees the title of Sir or Dame. MBE is the least senior class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire

I can't make this change myself as the page is locked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieBarbarossa (talk • contribs)

Hamilton has been awarded an MBE and made a Knight Bachelor, entitling him to use of honorific 'Sir'.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I missed that he had been made a knight bachelor. You're correct. ZombieBarbarossa (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

F1's attempt at establishing a one-hour time to race

Had this scenario been successful it would've created a host of issues how to classify/how to sort etc. the race and its statistics because it was rather a rare breach in the rules to allow that and turns the race into a Formula E-style race. Are we going to just act like that never happened and move on? No mention of it at all at 2021 Belgian Grand Prix. Admanny (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not new. The three-hour time limit in which to hold a race has always been in effect. Once it became clear that there was only one hour of remaining time, meaning the planned number of laps could never be achieved, there is no change to the regulations by stating they will race until that three-hour time limit is reached. The change in graphics really had no change on the regulations either. I believe it also was the reason for abandoning the Malaysian Grand Prix in 2009 when sunset became an issue that would have needed to be resolved before even attempting to restart the race.

Yes, it should be included in the Belgian Grand Prix article, but clearly the article needs to be expanded, as any recent Grand Prix needs. Please feel free to edit and add it to the article. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Extending on The359's point, it also happned at the 2017 Singapore Grand Prix, when the two-hour limit was reached. That's what happened here, the stewarts/Masi decided that the race couldn't continue beyond 19:17 local time, due to lack of daylight. You can't complete 44 laps within that time if it were bone-dry, let any torrential rain. So, for the benefit of viewers, they put a timer up (which they also did towards the end of the Singapore GP, if memory serves).
SSSB (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

No the three-hour limit hasn't always been in effect. Such a limit has only been in effect following the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix which took over four hours real-time. Until that there was a two-hour race time, which suspension times added on to it, only. And initially it was a four hour limit, which apparently was reduced to three at some point.T v x1 10:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It was reduced to three for this season.
SSSB (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot of things were said during the broadcast. It was my understanding that the three-hour countdown clock was started after the first attempt to start the race. Two hours into the delay, they froze the countdown at one hour. Presumably this was done because the three hours would have expired with daylight still available. Freezing the clock would then allow for up to an hour of racing, weather and daylight permitting. The countdown clock was restarted at the second attempt to start the race.

Is this a correct assessment of what happened? Again, this is only my impression of what I heard in the broadcast.

I think there may be a need for clarification on a number of things in the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix article. I'm personally confused on how many and which laps counted as officially completed. In other words, did the first attempt count as a completed lap? DB1729 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is a correct description of the events regarding the clock. Regarding the classification the second “formation” lap from the first start and the two completed laps following the second start, in fact resumption, counted as race laps for a total of three. They then deduced two per the count-back rule to get the offical classification with race winner time of three hours and twenty-seven minutes.T v x1 14:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a correct description of what happened with the clock. The race time is given as 3 minutes and 27 seconds.
SSSB (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Your point being?T v x1 17:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

My point being something that I release in hindsight doesn't make any sense. However, the above account is still incorrect in one area. The three-hour countdown started at the scheduled start time (15:00), not at the attempted start time (15:25). This is what is stated in the regulations, and the stewards document stated that the time limit countdown was halted at 17:00.
SSSB (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Pole indicator for 2021 British GP

I think we need a superscript 'P' (in addition to the superscript '1') in the Max Verstappen/2021 British Grand Prix cell of:

to identify Verstappen as the polesitter. As the recent Italian Grand Prix has shown, it doesn't necessarily follow that the driver who finishes 1st in sprint qualifying is the polesitter. I was recently using Red_Bull_Racing_Grand_Prix_results to count how many pole positions Red Bull-Honda have achieved and I missed the 2021 British GP because it didn't have a 'P'. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. It's removal seems to stem from a misunderstanding, it was added for this reason but Tvx1 removed it per an IP editor's reasoning. The IP was, however, referring to the P in VER2, which is used in driver results and is unnecessary because GBR is bolded in the table. In the regular VER result there is no bold to indicate pole, so the P is needed.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, per my arguments at User talk:SSSB#Revival of sprint qualifying discussion. Simply put, the winner of the sprint race will almost always on pole (around 96% of the time based on data from 2020-present). Putting both is redundent the vast majority of the time. I am of the opinion that the keys should identify that the sprint race winner is the polesitter unless otherwise noted. Then (for the one case every few years it is relevant) we can simply put such a note in place in the relevant articles (those who gained pole and those who lost it)

{{efn|Bottas won the sprint race but started the main race from last following a grid penalty. Verstappen was promoted to pole.

SSSB (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue really comes down to readability. If the sprint quali winner has lost pole, I think the reality is that you're unlikely to spot an extra P floating around in a column of 20+ drivers with 4 other superscript characters unless you knew it was meant to be there, which leads to the problems DH85868993 is describing. It might be redundant, but it at least it is consistent and absolutely clear what's going on. Adding an extra note to the key seems like an unnecessary complication when the alternative would be to just add an extra letter occasionally.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, for situations like the British GP we could use a P instead of a 1 since they mean the same thing in those contexts.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If the sprint quali winner has lost pole, I think the reality is that you're unlikely to spot an extra P floating around in a column of 20+ drivers with 4 other superscript characters unless you knew it was meant to be there - but you would know that it was meant to be there as we would have a note within the table to that effect.

for situations like the British GP we could use a P instead of a 1 since they mean the same thing in those contexts. - they don't mean the same. The 1 identifies that points were awarded, the P doesn't. SSSB (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If you say in the key that a P is present for sprint qualis where the winner lost pole, then sure, you know it's there. If you know this situation has occurred sometime in the season. We're writing for the future as well as the present, and it seems significantly more likely that a reader will miss the distinction even though they know the distinction has been made. And yes, in a sprint quali race where the winner gets pole (which will be the vast majority of the time) a P and a 1 do mean the same thing in those contexts, because sprint quali is still quali. Regardless of how you choose to interpret that, the simplest and most elegant solution to this issue is to add a P for every race. It is unambiguous and consistent across all situations. I see no need to introduce exceptions and rules when we can have one system that will work everywhere.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. For Bottas at the 2021 Italian Grand Prix my proposal would mean that the cell in the results matrix would contain the following. 3¹^[a]. A similar thing would be in place for Verstappen. Personally, I consider this the most elegant and simpliest solution - because it doesn't mean adding notations where they are not necessary. SSSB (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes

^ Bottas won sprint qualifying but lost didn't start on pole position due to pre-race penalties. Verstappen inherited pole in his place

Unfortunately that seems ~~like the worst possible scenario~~ quite undesirable to me, because it relies on reading the note which hides the result behind an additional layer. On the other hand, adding the notation makes it immediately visible.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC); amended 10:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

– they don't mean the same. The 1 identifies that points were awarded, the P doesn't. That's the point. They mean different things and so they should both be displayed independent of each other.

I agree with 522C's comments. When viewing the tables from a reader's perspective, if they are wanting to see who got pole for a given race, they shouldn't have to access a note to find that out.

From an editor's perspective, sometimes we/I use that ^P to help verify poles for a car, for example. The missing ^P makes it difficult to count them. This would be true even if the superscript¹ and the ^P meant the same thing — and they don't. DB1729 (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Formula One entrants

Why entrants instead of teams? Eurohunter (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

In the 1950s and 1960s, cars were often entered by individuals rather than "teams" (see the "Entrant" column of 1950_Formula_One_season#Teams_and_drivers for examples). So the more inclusive term "entrant" allows the category to include all kinds of entities who entered cars into Formula One races: individuals (e.g. Silvio Moser), dedicated racing teams (e.g. Benetton Formula) and companies not specifically dedicated to motor racing (e.g. Bugatti). Although I acknowledge that the category currently contains only 3 individuals (Paul Greifzu, Silvio Moser and Enrico Platé). DH85868993 (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:F1RYYYY

These templates ({{F1R2020}} etc.) were created to make updated results easier, fine. However, I think it may be worth subst: them at the end of each season. After the season is over, in fact after the results are out, these templates no longer serve much of a purpose. I understand that Wikipedia doesn't have space restictions, but if Russell ends up with a Raikkonen length career then the transcusion limit will be exceeded. Simiarly, the transcultions limit will soon be exceeded on Mercedes engine customers' Grand Prix results (more than 130 transclusions for this year alone). I therefore propose that when we add the new year row, we subst: the old year's results. (i.e. when we add 2022, subst: 2021). SSSB (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a common sense move to me.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I also support substing at the end of each season. DH85868993 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I still seriously question the practicality of this template. I understand the problem at hand, but I feel that the solution is not well worked out. All these transclusion limit problems could be avoided if we could generate an entire row of results with one transclusion, instead of requiring a separate transclusion for each result.T v x1 13:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is a clumsy template, but you'd have to agree a central update is better than manual updates for 20 drivers, 10 teams, 10 cars, and 4 engine suppliers, plus WDC and WCC tables (46 pages instead of one). However, it seems like this isn't a big enough issue to warrant a more elegant solution. At the end of the day we have a system that is relatively easy to implement and needs a bit of effort to maintain, and until someone can come up with a working alternative we just have to deal with what we have.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If think what Tvx1 is suggesting is that {{F1R2021|BOT}} would output all of Bottas' results for the season, rather than having 22 instances of {{F1R2021|BOT|XXX}} (one instance for each race). Apart, from anything else, it would make updating {{F1 Drivers Standings}} easier (After the 2021 Turkish Grand Prix we would just swap {{F1R2021|HAM}} and {{F1R2021|VER}}, @Tvx1: can correct me if I'm wrong about my interpretation of his comment....)

I still think it would be a good idea to subst: the templates if we took that approach (maybe try it for next year) SSSB (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've understood me right.T v x1 11:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Something to consider with that approach is that it would mean we wouldn't be able to use {{F1R2021}} in {{F1 Constructors Standings}} as we do now (I'm not saying that's a showstopper, just identifying it as something to consider). DH85868993 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

We could by simply adding another set of parameters to the template.T v x1 12:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. DH85868993 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Grand Prix articles

Hello. I would like to complain because I find articles dedicated to Grand Prix are created much too late. Especially for new Grand Prix, which are frequent these days. If I want to know details about future Grand Prix (like schedule, characteristics. changes in the track wrt previous years, etc) I have to look at other languages wikipedias. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hektor: As you would know, Wikipedia is a volunteer project with no deadlines. You are free to create articles yourself. Often coverage of a Grand Prix is not significant enough to warrant an article until the Wednesday or Thursday of the race weekend, so if you want routine details you can check F1.com or third-party websites that cover Formula One. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Most drivers have infobox flags, why doesn't former driver Jacques Villeneuve have one? --2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548 (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Been added by 5225c Eagleash (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

He should have one. What I have noticed (and I don't know if this has always been the case (and I'm only noticing after I started getting involved at WP:MOSICONS), or if this is a new thing) but there is an ultra slow edit war on some pages concerning the inclusion/exclusion of the flag. SSSB (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been a recurring thing for years for some editors to just pass by a driver article and delete the flag. Just keep your eyes open and restore it when you see a deletion. If that editor starts an argument then direct them to the endless discussion on the matter. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Tyre Data

Hello all,

I am a motorsport historian and recently added Tyre Supplier data to around 100 F1 World Championship events, from 1975 through to 1983. After spending several hours on this task, someone (no username given, just IP 80.31.37.137) undid all my hard work. They gave no reason for why they did this but experienced expert Wikipedia contributor SSSB, who had advised me perhaps correctly not to add a tyre supplier column to races where only one tyre supplier was used, suggested I should discuss the issue here as maybe IP 80.31.37.137 didn't think the column was important or relevant.

I thoroughly disagree that tyre data isn't worthy of a column and countless historical motorsport race results and records do include it so I believe it is fair to say it is valid. It has also been included on the official Formula One results shown on TV in some years and so I think it has its place and makes the results more thorough. Many motorsport fans believe it is just as important as engine supplier as a performance variable and I would be one of them! :) Certainly a quick scan of historical race results from reputable sources have more meaning when tyre data is added and often it makes for very interesting reading!

Whilst I think SSSB might have a point in arguing that having a column for the tyre supplier is less important when all runners use the same supplier, I think it is essential for events where there were multiple suppliers and I hope we could reach some consensus that it is a good addition before I undertake adding the data to all races from 1984 where this is the case!

I'm new to the Wikipedia community and very much shall look forward to hearing your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoutside29 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally see it as useful information and would prefer to see it included in some way. The tables make the most sense to me, but I agree it should be prose when only one supplier was used. However, would it be better to use P, A, F, etc. to save space in the tables? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I broadly agree with 5225C. If every car on the grid used the same tyres, an extra column devoted to ramming that home is overkill. Put it in the prose. Where there are multiple tyre suppliers, I would go with the symbols 5225C suggests, with a key to explaining their meaning, as we do in the season articles. In addition, the prose should attempt go some way to explaining the effects the different tyres had on the entrants using them, rather than leaving it to the reader to figure it out. There's way too much tabulated data chucked into in F1 articles generally, and nowhere near enough explanatory prose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bretonbanquet. The only thing I'll add is that who uses which tyre should be included in prose (like we have done with this season's races, see 2021 Sao Paulo Grand Prix#Tyre choices) SSSB (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the optimal solution will vary with context. In cases where all entrants used the same tyre supplier there's no need for a column, although it should probably be noted in prose. For a season like 1982, where some teams used different tyre suppliers at different races, it would definitely make the most sense to note tyre suppliers in the tables in race reports. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Brabham Featured article review

I have nominated Brabham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Mika Salo paid editing

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mika Salo#Discussion of "paid contributions" template – some input would be helpful from people familiar with the subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bolding of fastest qualifying times in each session

I realised (not having noticed it before) that on race articles, the bolding of fastest time in each qualifying session is not actually explained anywhere in the article. Should we add a short note above these tables (eg "Bold indicates the lastest time in each session" or "Fastest time in each session in bold")? As a side point, should a driver disqualified have their times bolded (eg Hamilton at the 2021 São Paulo Grand Prix) given that in effect, the time was not actually set? I can't remember off the top of my head another occasion to check how this was done previously. A7V2 (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

2012 Spanish Grand Prix springs to mind. That article doesn't bold illegal times (but also considers Hamilton's Q1 lap as legal, not sure how accurate this is. The GA reviewer (me) appears to have over-looked this). Bolding should indicate the fastest legal lap. As far as I am aware, all of Ham's laps at the 2021 Sao Paulo Grand Prix are considered as illegal, and therefore none of his lap times should be bold. I also agree that a note should be added. SSSB (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The times still stand in the official classification. Only his position was revoked.T v x1 11:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Before asking this I did check a lot of past articles going back to when the three part qualifying was introduced in 2006 and I didn't notice any which included a note. 2012 Spanish Grand Prix does have a note actually, added as part of MWright96's efforts to bring it up to GA standard "The fastest lap in each of the three sessions is denoted in bold". They also added a note for the bolding of the drivers scoring world championship points which I think we should probably do on all articles as well. As for what to do about Hamilton's times (in either case) I don't really know or have a firm opinion either way. A7V2 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Grand Prix codes

I'd like to bring up the Race abbreviations we use. Firstly, there is the Miami Grand Prix, I suggest we go for "MIA", if no-one has any objections.

More contraversially, (hence why I wasn't bold with Miami) I want to bring up something Ved havet brought up at {{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}}. The problem (s)he identified is that every race which is named after a country uses some form of international country code, either IOC country codes or ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes (which are mostly identical), apart from Saudi Arabia. I therefore propose that we adopt the IOC country code for all countries/regions where it is applicable, for two reasons:

Consistency with other places where codes are used both inside and outside the Wikipedia/WikiProject F1
For recognisability, people are more likely to regonise a code if it isn't one we made up.

Unless anyone has any objections? (note: "too much work" is not an objection, the only one that needs updating is the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix from "SAU" to "KSA"), there is only one istance of this, and we don't need to bother updating the field names in {{F1R2021}}) SSSB (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's fine with me. If it's just Saudi Arabia then there are only 27 articles (10 x team results, 4 x engine supplier results, 10 x cars, 2 x championship standings templates + the labels (but not the field names) in F1R2021) to update. Although I would point out that {{flagicon|SAU}} does produce the Saudi flag (

), so "SAU" is used as an abbreviation for Saudi Arabia elsewhere within Wikipedia. DH85868993 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

~~I don't object to using ISO codes if it's a decision made with consensus (I reverted it because it was a unilateral change).~~ MIA makes sense to me, so I support that one. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I misread SSSB's comment as ISO when he actually said IOC. I object to using IOC codes. Those are codes assigned for the Olympics, and Formula One is not the Olympics. So to me changing it to match makes no sense. On the other hand, I do support the use of ISO codes which are an international standard. Per ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, the abbreviation for Saudi Arabia is SAU, hence why {{flagicon|SAU}} produces

. We didn't make up the code, SAU is actually more widely accepted and used than KSA. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC), expanded 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Formula One not being the Olympics doesn't mean we can't use their abbreviations. I also reject that SAU is more widely accepted. The use of ISO codes are limitied (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3#Uses and applications). Most people will be more familiar with IOC codes. It may also interest you to know that FIFA also uses KSA. In short, the two places where most people see country codes use KSA. SSSB (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Well I'll have to disagree with you there. The Olympics and FIFA are not the only two situations where country codes are used. I for one had never heard of KSA until it was put into the table by Ved havet (and I watch the Olympics). Regardless, the common name of the country is Saudi Arabia, and SAU is a more logical connection than KSA. I see no need to mirror the abbreviations of the Saudi Arabian Olympic committee and soccer team in a Formula One article when the variant we are using is (a) an international standard and (b) closer to the common name that is being abbreviated. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This is by no means definitive proof that one is more popular than the other, but searching "iso 3 codes saudi arabia" returns about 10.5 times more hits in a Google search than "ioc codes saudi arabia". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Google hits proves nothing. SSSB (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

They certainly do, because they show the relative frequency of each search term on the internet. While it isn't definitive (like I said), having 10.5 times the hits does show that ISO 3 codes are more frequently referred to than IOC codes. Even as a vague estimate of popularity, that is still more evidence to prefer ISO codes over IOC codes than what you have offered to the contrary. I'm ok with being proven wrong by a better method if you can offer one. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

More frequently refered to does not mean more frequently used. It just means that more sources discuss ISO 3 codes, which is completely unrelated to usage. Most sources won't specify the reason they are using the codes they are. We also aren't comparing popularity, but exposure. Far more people are exposed to the codes in football or the olympics than the codes in passports, on aeroplanes or at UN SSSB (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That's still a better approximation than "FIFA and the Olympics are more popular than international travel", which to be frank I think is a weak argument. On one hand you have an international standard used to identify countries in most geographical contexts and is designed to be recognisable, and on the other you have a different code introduced by specific bodies which does not reflect the common name. If we're going for recognisability, all else aside, SAU matches Saudi Arabia an awful lot better than KSA does. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

MIA is good, and I also support adopting the IOC country codes. I think it's preferable for Wikipedia to stick with one official standard, and although Formula One or motorsports aren't traditionally olympic sports, the FIA is recognized by the IOC. I'd also argue the fact that we're already using the IOC codes except with Saudia Arabia speaks to which standard is, on average, more recognizable – I'd much rather stick with NED for The Netherlands and MON for Monaco, than switch to NLD and MCO. Either way though, I think we should stick to one standard where possible. Most people probably utilize the flag icons to identify the correct column, rather than the code by itself.

About DH85868993 and 5225C's comments on flagicon: {{flagicon|KSA}} also produce the Saudi Arabian flag (

). KSA is a redirect to Saudi Arabia, and the KSA abbreviation is mentioned on the first line of the country's article. It's clearly not uncommon. Judging by articles used as sources in that article, it looks to be a common abbreviation for the country in the arab world. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Most people probably utilize the flag icons to identify the correct column, rather than the code by itself. - yes. But this change is more to benefit to pages where we use the code without the flags (which is all instances of the code outside of the standings templates, I believe) SSSB (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand, that comment of mine was a bit off-topic. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We also currently use ISO codes wherever applicable, so changing SAU to KSA would be a break in the trend equally as much as it would correct it to a new trend. That's not an argument. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't, every other country code is either universal or IOC>ISO. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please give me an example of when we have used IOC over ISO codes. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

GER, NED and MON are examples which spring to my mind.T v x1 08:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the races of the 2021 season only, we have the Dutch Grand Prix, Monaco Grand Prix and Portuguese Grand Prix. So saying we use ISO codes wherever applicable is simply not true. It seems that in the past editors have simply choosen what made most sense to them at the time, rather than follow any established system. SSSB (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The common thing among all these examples is that they use the first three letters of the host country's common name. That still makes more sense to me than using IOC codes, and I'm happy to continue that. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC), amended 10:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The common thing among all those examples – and almost every other country code we use – is that it's using the IOC codes. It is not a common thing among all country codes we use that they're the three first letter of the name, and the fact that those three are is entirely random. Japan is JPN, Austria is AUT, Great Britain is GBR, United States is USA... The reason for this is fairly obvious, but there is no system nor standard behind it. I think it is beneficial for Wikipedia to use a single, established standard, and I think the IOC codes is the one to pick, considering it is the closest to the one's we're already using, and Formula One is a sport. If you still think the whole "Formula One is not an olympic sport" argument is the killer – look to my comment above. I will also repeat that KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is, clearly, not an uncommon abbreviation for the country. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the common thing among all those examples is that WikiProject Formula One chose what ever three letter abbreviation was most instinctive by being as close to the common name of the subject as possible. I can guarantee that no WP:F1 editor whatsoever thought of the IOC when implementing these codes. SAU having been instinctively chosen proves this quite clearly. I cannot understand this obsession with imposing the usage of KSA. I have to agree with 5225C here. SAU is perfectly suitable and is actually a much more common abbreviation which is used in an official system. You are really trying to fix something here that isn't broken.T v x1 17:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective, "KSA" does not obviously stand for "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" in the context of the other codes used. "SAU" seems far more logical. Given that cities are also having their names abbreviated (ie. "MXC" or "SAP") I would probably think of Kinshasa before I thought of Saudi Arabia if I saw "KSA" without the context of the flag. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Formula One is not an Olympic sport is the killer, because as I have said above there is no need to adobt IOC codes when they actually do not make sense. If we're going for recognisability, all else aside, SAU matches Saudi Arabia an awful lot better than KSA does. Although you've successfully picked apart all my attempts to name the trend in the abbreviations, you're yet to dispute this. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have disputed that. You disagreed, which is fine. But I have disputed it, and not going to bother doing so again. I have been in too many circular discussions. SSSB (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've just had look at the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix coverage, which had a graph showing the points gap between Hamilton and Rosberg throughout the season up until that point. I'm not sure what the source material was that they used, but I'm sure it can be found easily, which sorts out the Saudi problem... I hope. In 2016 the list went as follows: AUS, BRN, CHN, RUS, ESP, MON, CAN, AZE (surely an error given that was the "European" GP?), AUT, GBR, HUN, GER, BEL, ITA, SGP, MAL, JPN, USA. So I suggest we use whatever that source material has for Saudi. It's worth noting that at WP:EUROVISION, the Eurovision Song Contest has used ISO 2-letter codes for some time now in terms of listing countries but from 2015 they started adding hashtags on the entries on-screen according to the same list: #GBR, #NED, for example. In 2019 they changed that list to telephone codes (#UK, #NLD) but reverted back this year (no contest in 2020). The point is we know what source they were from, and I suggest a similar approach here. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't use a consistent method (that I am aware of). Most use IOC, but MAL isn't used for Malaysia by any of the systems listed on Comparison of alphabetic country codes (MAL is listed as the IOC code for Federation of Malaya).

I'm starting to regret bringing this up. When I made my original post on this thread I thought it was only Saudi Arabia that needed updating to IOC standard, but I clearly didn't check properly because Singapore and Bahrain would also need updating. I thought (and still think) it would be worth the effort of updating one instance of a GP for the benefit of a consistent system. But I question if its worth the effort of changing it for the 12 instances of the SIN/SGP Grand Prix.

I therefore suggest we drop this and just choose whichever abbrevation we think best (every system has a least one country where the abbrevation doesn't make sense to a speaker of common English) - preferably using a letter combination that is used somewhere else. SSSB (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sao Paulo

While we are here, I thought it worth bringing up that an editor has suggested Sao Paulo GP uses the abbreviation of SP. See the mini, de facto thread buried in Talk:2021_Formula_One_World_Championship#São_Paulo_Grand_Prix. SSSB (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This breaks the three-letter format of the abbreviations we use, for what? I see no reason to really consider this suggestion. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said on the talk page I linked above. SSSB (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we would switch to a two-letter code for a single race. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Official names of the Dutch Grand Prix (and others)

While making some edits to the Dutch Grand Prix article following it's revival, I noticed the worrying state of its official names section. While I get that we have generally assumed that whatever appears on the covers of the official programmes as documented on the Programme Covers Project, I really find the suggestion that the 1977-1983 editions of this Grand Prix having been named nothing but "Grand Prix" just laughable. I think we're taking an immense leap here with sticking rigidly to just these covers.T v x1 17:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should probably scrap most of these "official names" from articles unless a far stronger source than a stylised programme cover comes up. I don't think it takes much WP:COMMONSENSE to work out that there's a far stronger chance that the 1968 edition was officially called the "Grote Prijs van Nederland" than the "Grrrand Prix Zandvoorrrt" HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My greater concern though is that we have actually used these stylised programme covers to determine article titles. In the meantime I found this site, which have more of these programme's covers for a great number of races, but unfortunately only deal with the 1970-1982 period.T v x1 01:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I agree with everything raised here, however what do you mean by "we have actually used these stylised programme covers to determine article titles"? Could you give an example? Even if we assume that the covers always give the official name (which you and others have shown is not the case anyway) we definitely should rely solely on this to determine a common name! So if there are articles named in such a way we should probably do something about it. A7V2 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, we have used those programme covers to determine the names of the different Grands Prix which were held in the United States and how the articles dealing with them are named.T v x1 23:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Using stylised programme covers to determine the official name is original research, it is as simply as that. "Grrrand Prix Zandvoorrrt" is just advertising, it's just a fun way of saying "There is a Grand Prix at Zandvoort". SSSB (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Is not just that one stylised cover I'm concerned about though. For instance for the 1978 edition our article writes "Grand Prix" as the official name based on the cover of the programme, yet if actually look at the information inside it reads "27e Grand Prix van Nederland".T v x1 12:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand that and agree with you. I just gave that one as an example, nicking it from HumanBodyPiloter5. SSSB (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I just discovered this discussion now! It is amazing that I independently reached the exact same conclusion as User:Tvx1 in their original post, see my comments at Talk:Mexican Grand Prix#Official names. Yes, the "Official names" sections are flawed. Official names are not based on program covers (as referenced in these sections). The minor variations on the front covers of the programs are merely typographical, or branding at best, and should not be misconstrued as evidence of an official name change. If there is some point in keeping these sections, then I suggest to accurately reflect what they really are: Program Covers branding. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole argument for these sections was that Wikipedia:Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title states:

Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly introduced in the article introduction unless there are many of them, or they are relatively obscure, in which case:

The alternative name should be mentioned early (normally in the first sentence) in an appropriate section of the article.
The redirect should point to this section.

The argument was that the British Grand Prix (an example where a section is actually justified by those guidelines) was official called the "Santander British Grand Prix" in the period from 2007-14, and because it has had dozens of other official names, a section was needed to list them all. Someone then went "we have them here, we should put them everywhere", despite there being no basis to do so.

That being said, cases such as the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, or the Mexican Grand Prix or the Dutch Grand Prix don't have enough different official names to warrant a section.

Therefore, most of these "Official names" sections need to be removed and merged into the lead. SSSB (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If no one has any other comments on this, then I support SSSB's proposal to just remove this entire section from the various articles. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove these sections so long as the "reasonable" ones are mentioned in the lede. But I think for a race such as the British Grand Prix there are too many to list them all in the lede (but a couple there are nonsense and should be removed, eg the "IV British Grand Prix" is clearly the name of that race only, not of the race in general, assuming that was the official name at all) so it should be kept. A7V2 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Of course, there is no problem with "Official names" section if there is really a need for it, but it can't be based on program covers. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 championship

A reminder that the F1 world championship is an ITNR event, but it won't get posted if the orange tag on the article isn't addressed and removed. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Grand Prix titles (Mexico vs. Mexico City, German vs. Luxembourg, Sao Paulo vs. Brazilian, European vs. Azerbaijan, etc.)

There is a thread hidden in one of the individual Grand Prix talk pages, which I believe deserves a wider attention in order to reach conclusion and find consensus. The question boils down to what is considered a Grand Prix title, and when should different titles be considered not to be different at all:

In the past, when an event was renamed, we considered the "before" and "after" events as different (e.g. Europe → Azerbaijan; or Germany → Luxembourg).

This year, with two renamings on the calendar at once (Mexico → Mexico City; and Brazil → Sao Paulo), somehow some editors chose to treat the "before" and "after" events as the same – which breaks with our historic tradition on WP:F1 project, as well as with other sources (books, websites, etc.) dealing with such renamings in the past in favor of the "new name = new event" concept.

So the argument some editors made this year is that some sources specifically mention an event's "renaming". And then these editors' conclusion was that we should go by what the sources say on the subject. I find this argument weak – mainly because even if a source says the event was "renamed" it is still open to interpretation as to what the word "renamed" means. This could be easily interpreted in two opposite ways: 1) it's a confirmation the event got a new title, and hence deserves recognition on its own; or 2) the event is somehow the same, and it even retains the same "title", although the title in reality has changed.

These two opposite interpretations hint at a dichotomy of what is the title of the event:

Is it the actual title/entity that figures in its name?

Or is it something else (for example, the track/organizer or the track/country combinations, or even something else entirely)?

I personally think the title is what it's named after. Plain and simple. And historically, by the title we always meant an entity after which the event was named (whether a country, a city, a region, or even a hotel).

If we now start interpreting the title as being something completely different (as, for example, the combination of track/organizer – which seems to be hinted at in both of 2021 cases), then this would have to lead to a lot of historic revisions, as European GP/Azerbaijan GP in 2016/2017 would be part of the same event series, while the European GP in Valencia would be an event that belongs to a different series than, say, the European GP in Donington, etc.

cherkash (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

To me there are several different issues here, some where I agree with you to an extent and others where I disagree. As a rule I believe (whether it's F1 races or other races) that we should be doing what reliable sources are doing, and not inventing continuities which don't exist, nor breaking ones which do exist for no good reason (a particularly bad example I believe is the Los Angeles Times Grand Prix, though not an F1 race). There are examples where a name change was considered a separate event by reliable sources, for example the Luxembourg Grand Prix is considered separate to the European GP (which has been held in several different iterations) and German GP (which was held in the same years so is by default, separate), and examples where they are not, such as the Zandvoort GP becoming the Dutch GP, at least according to sources such as the Guinness Guide to International Motor Racing. And (though not F1) I don't think anyone could reasonable dispute the various names of the Bathurst 1000 constitute different events, and doing so would totally go against reliable sources. In the case of the Sao Paulo GP, I think it is difficult to argue that sources aren't treating this as the same event as the Brazilian GP, indeed Motorsport totally ignored the name change, and official sources seemed to ignore it or use both names, eg [4]. An added complication with the Sao Paulo example is that races with this name were also held in the 1930s and 1940s, such as [5].

Long story short, I think we MUST be guided by what reliable sources are doing, so in the case of the Mexican and Brazilian races this appears to be, for now, to keep them with the "old" races (noting that no-one provided alternatives to the sources given by HumanBodyPiloter5 in Talk:2021 Mexico City Grand Prix#First running). A7V2 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The first thing I want to say (and the only thing whilst I ponder what is written above) is that this has been discussed a couple of times before: September 2019 and December 2020 are the two I find in this talk page's archives. SSSB (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, cherkash, you are providing false information here. The German Grand Prix was never renamed to Luxembourg Grand Prix at all. No German Grand Prix was held at the Nürburgring during the nineties at all. And before you go that direction, not it wasn't the European Grand Prix that was renamed either. In fact, the German Grand Prix, European Grand Prix and Luxembourg Grand Prix all took place during 1997. Claiming that the 1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix was the next edition of either of the former is thus entirely wrong. Note also that the Luxembourg Grand Prix had different organizers as those races were actually organized by the Luxembourg Automobile Club (ACL). The situation with the current season's contested races is very different. As already explained to you the reason why we consider these two continuations is because reliable sources do so as well. It is true that the FIA actually created quite a mess by continue to use Mexican and Brazilian Grand Prix in their official documents, but we cannot just go and ignore that. By that token the situation is akin to the Malaysian/Malaysia change.T v x1 13:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't provide false information, I simply outlined (specifically, with respect to Luxembourg) what at the time was common knowledge: the organizers couldn't reach an agreement on either using "German GP" name due to Hockenheim/Nurburgring conflict, or continuing to use European GP name as Jerez event was named so in 1997. It was a mess, but you can at least see that continuity of naming (aka "continuing the series") was never our concern in the past, when we treated races as belonging to a particular series based on the title alone.

Your argument on different organizers (at least for Nurburgring) doesn't even apply to European/Azerbaijan renaming in 2016/2017. You can't just pick and choose which facts to use, which facts to ignore. That's why I outlined examples of different situations as a food for thought - and as an indicator of the various combinations that happened in the past, and how we treated different cases like this.

Finally, the FIA, despite playing with "Mexican" and "Brazilian" as unofficial titles they used in "cover sheets" to the various official documents (which also, in the context of the documents you linked, could be considered just a location specifier, not a title - as those page-1 titles are not official titles unlike what the headers for the actual page-2 results contain) the FIA itself clearly treats each of the newly created race titles as a new title in its own right - see e.g. the FIA-produced preview for the 2021 Qatar Grand Prix, quoting: "The Qatar Grand Prix is the 51st event name to be used in the World Championship but it is the third race in a row to introduce a new title to the sport, after the Mexico City and São Paulo Grands Prix. The Saudi Arabian Grand Prix will extend that run to four." [6] cherkash (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I agree with Tvx1, your information is false. The evidence (s)he laid out clearly shows that the Luxembourg Grand Prix cannot possibly be considered a continuation of the German Grand Prix. Every year that featured a Luxembourg Grand Prix, also featured a German one. So the claim of "Germany → Luxembourg" is proveable false and I don't see how Luxembourg is a relevant example.

our argument on different organizers (at least for Nurburgring) doesn't even apply to European/Azerbaijan renaming in 2016/2017. - no-one's claimed that. Tvx1 was just explaining that Luxembourg isn't a relavant example.

...could be considered just a location specifier... - this is conjecture which has zero supporting evidence and does have opposing evidence. They don't seem to do this with any other GP (using the same document as linked above, i.e. entry list), 2020 Styria, [70th anniversary, 2020 Sakir, 2021 Styria don't follow this convention. This reads as a rather desperate arguement.

the FIA itself clearly treats each of the newly created race titles as a new title in its own right - Firstly, this isn't clear at all. That document describes it as the "51st event name". Wikipedia doesn't base it on event name, but event. For it to be clear it would have to be the "51st event", not "51st event name". Secondly, we are not the FIA. Just because the FIA consider it one way, doesn't mean other sources do, and it doesn't mean we should. Espically given that a promotional document is the best evidence you have provided so far. SSSB (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to review how sources treat the Baku case now a few years have passed. Since it was only run under the "European Grand Prix" title once before switching to the "Azerbaijan Grand Prix" title it might make sense to see whether sources are just treating it as being the same sort of European Grand Prix that the 1950 British Grand Prix or the 1968 German Grand Prix were. In the case of the two races from this season at Hermanos Rodríguez and Interlagos I would say that most sources seem to treat those as a part of the Mexican and Brasilian Grand Prix continuities. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously it’s not the same sort as those two examples. Back then European Grand Prix was an honorary title. Since the mide eighties it has been a standalone event.T v x1 16:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It may not have been intended as such at the time, but it may be worth checking how retrospective sources treat it. For example, do recent sources refer to the 2017 Azerbaijan Grand Prix as "the first Azerbaijan Grand Prix" or as "the second Azerbaijan Grand Prix"? If it's the former then the 2016 race clearly belongs in the same European Grand Prix lineage as the races at Brands Hatch, the Nürburgring, Donnington, Jerez, and Valencia; if it's the latter then it's less clear cut. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Luxembourg GP was just an off-hand example from my memory - it is by no means a cornerstone of any argument, just one of many recent examples of name changes. I should have pointed to the European/Luxembourg pair (instead of German/Luxembourg) which is more relevant here: the European → Luxembourg → European back-and-forth name change for the successive races on the same track is pretty much as close to the current situation as it gets.

As for the European/Azerbaijan GP, here is a somewhat detailed treatment of the name change circumstances quoting a few people involved, which highlights how it was basically a branding/PR exercise on the part of the Azerbaijani government and the race organizers: [7]. Again, a very similar circumstance to the Mexico City and Sao Paulo: same venue, same organizers. But again, the title is the title - and we never questioned such name changes in the past - and never arbitrarily assigned them to the same series based on venue, as opposed to the GP title. So what's so different this year (that is, apart from some emotional attachment to the Mexican GP and Brazilian GP monikers which happened to change)? cherkash (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"European → Luxembourg → European" is equally wrong as 1997 featured both a European and Luxembourg Grand Prix. So to claim that the European was renamed the Luxembourg is false.

What's different is that the FIA continues to "assign[] them to the same series based on venue, as opposed to the GP title." on their documents and website,[8] and that third-parties are doing the same. The motivation behind this is irrelevant, this is just the way it is, and we have to reflect this (otherwise we are engaging in WP:OR). SSSB (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Right in my very first reply to you I already warned no to go and claim that it was the European Grand Prix being renamed and pre-debunked that theory, yet you still managed to ignore that entirely and make that false claim. I'm really wondering why I'm even bothering to write down things here when they clearly aren't read. Your account of the 1997 events is just incorrect. The German Grand Prix, the Luxembourg Grand Prix and European Grand Prix ALL took place in 1997. There was no renaming. As for the 2021 situation, there are official documents that still use the Mexican and Brazilian Grand Prix titles officially. And as I have been trying to point out "Gran Premio de la Ciudad de México" and "Grande Prêmio da São Paulo" are primarily commercial names and not simply thé official names. And the circumstance for the Luxembourg Grand Prix was not a similar circumstance to the Mexico City and Sao Paulo. The Luxembourg Grand Prix to the European Grand Prix was actually same venue, different organizers.T v x1 21:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What's unbelievable, is you are actively ignoring European/Azerbaijan case, which is more germane to the current renaming events. While at the same time pursuing ("debunking") Luxembourg circumstances which I didn't claim mirrored the current events entirely, although it could give some food for thought if you thought about the GP naming/renaming issues more widely. Nothing in my initial post relied on Luxembourg GP entirely or at all. Delete all mentions of it, and what I laid out still holds. cherkash (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't hold. Because you haven't provided any relaible sources to back up your thinking. Therefore your entire arguemnt is predicated on WP:OR - as I explained on 25 November. SSSB (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest what is currently sitting at the end of the 2006 San Marino Grand Prix article as a catch-all?

Previous race: 2006 Australian Grand Prix	FIA Formula One World Championship 2006 season	Next race: 2006 European Grand Prix
Previous race: 2005 San Marino Grand Prix	San Marino Grand Prix	Next race: None Next race at Imola: 2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix

In the case of Nurburgring 1996-99, may I suggest we change them to this, for example on 1996:

Previous race: 1996 Argentine Grand Prix	FIA Formula One World Championship 1996 season	Next race: 1996 San Marino Grand Prix
Previous race: 1995 European Grand Prix	European Grand Prix	Next race: 1997 European Grand Prix (at Jerez) Next race at Nurburgring: 1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix

Spa-Franks (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I like this idea. I think it should be extended to "previous year's race" too. These templates are supposed to be to aid in navigation, and I believe this would be helpful for navigation for someone interested in a particular circuit. It could be extended even to races like the British Grand Prix which used to alternate venue. A7V2 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Is it me, or is our article on the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix currently showing a bias in favor of Mercedes' point of view on the championship outcome. I mean, the reactions section contains a monumental amount of mostly British sources criticizing the result and none at all dealing with Verstappen's championship performance.T v x1 01:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article is severely lacking balance and needs to be rewritten in parts. I'm not sure I see the point of including a directly sourced excerpt from the FIA sporting regulations. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article about a race, not a place to make legal arguments. At the very least there should be something to balance all of the criticism of the race director, perhaps something on Horner's response to the Mercedes protest(s)? A7V2 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes sense for us to quote the relevant parts of the relugalations (obviously, they still need cutting down a bit), not everything in 48.12 and 48.13 is relevant). I've tagged the race reaction section as being non-neutral. SSSB (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We have to be careful about introducing false balance into the article, though. I’m not aware of reliable sources talking about anyone (other than Red Bull and the stewards, and they would say that, wouldn’t they?) defending the call Masi made. On the other hand, we have drivers (both former and current) and other personalities coming out of the woodwork to criticise it. I think Horner’s defence of the decision, and the people splitting the middle saying “Masi botched the call under immense pressure”, should definitely be in the article, but we shouldn’t be finding some marginal source to balance it out; it would be like adding links to small partisan blogs to “balance out” the article on the Downing Street Christmas parties (and as an aside, I bet that some wisearse is going to link the two at PMQs tomorrow…) Sceptre (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think avoiding a false balance is important here. It's easy to look at the British tabloids' sensational editorials and think that everyone criticising Masi is being hyper-partisan in Hamilton's favour, but in reality there's a lot more nuance here, and even Horner called it "a marginal call". I think it might be sensible to avoid too much emphasis on people's views on the outcome and more emphasis on people's views on the procedure. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

With marginal he meant "difficult to make because there was little margin", not some pejorative. Moreover? I can't see how adding some reactions on Verstappen's performance would create false balance. Right now, the section only deals with the restart. That's not right. There should reactions on Verstappen, on Räikkönen's retirement on Bottas final race for Mercedes and also on Hamilton cutting a corner during lap 1 and how it was dealt with. T v x1 18:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, pretty much the only thing anyone has been talking about has been the controversy surrounding the safety car restart. Even people congratulating Max have made reference to the incident. That's another aspect of the undue weight part of NPOV: we give more detail to the fallout of the safety car restart than Kimi's retirement from the sport because that's what the reliable sources are doing. Even without the controversy, we would give more detail to the championship battle in the race. Compare to the 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix; we talk more about the Vettel–Alonso battle to the line than Schumi's final race. Sceptre (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not saying we should give the exact same amount of detail to all things. They simply all should be mentioned in a way. 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix does provide some detail on Schumacher’s retirement. 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix doesn’t mention any reactions but on the restart.T v x1 20:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a tough balance to strike, and it's important to include all angles, including praise of Verstappen's performance and the universally held view that he did nothing wrong. But coverage of the widespread criticism of the race director is vital, as is inclusion of the rather popular view that the race result was manipulated – without dipping into the British tabloid ranting. Any comments by the participants (drivers and team bosses) on the safety car procedure in Abu Dhabi should be included, such as Norris' post-race comments. More may come in the near future, at least, one would think so. Raikkonen's retirement should be mentioned but there's probably not too much to say about it, likewise Giovinazzi's (potential) last race. Russell's last race for Williams and Bottas' last race for Mercedes deserve a brief mention. As usual, all the early material we have concentrates on the business end of the race, and description of the rest of the race has to be added. But since the chequered flag was waved, there's been more heat over the controversy than there has over the new champion, and we probably have to reflect that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Pole Trophy

Moved from Talk:Formula One § Pole Trophy

– 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There are currently no sporting regulations covering the 'Pole Trophy" the last set of sporting regulations I can find to mention the existence of such a trophy awarded at the end of the season for the most pole positions is 2018 with the regulations for 2019 omitting the "Pole Trophy". As such it appears to have been replaced with the wind tunnel tyre awarded after each qualifying event. I have tried to find sources for the winner of the 2019 and 2020 "Pole Trophy" as described, but none can be found. As such I think this needs removing from articles from 2019 onwards as the FIA from the loos of the regulations have scrapped the overall trophy at the end of the season with the Wind Tunnel tyres. The relevant regulation was 6.7 of the sporting code and I have included the 2014 to present Sporting Regulations for reference below:
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Sparkle1 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

And yet Formula 1 still awarded Leclerc the Pole Trophy for 2019 (announcement on F1.com), so whether or not it is awarded is not solely determined by regulation. However, I agree with removing it from season infoboxes beginning with 2019 since it seems to be on the same level as the overtake award, pit stop award, etc. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree to remove Pole Trophy per nom Admanny (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC), moved by 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Verstappen was however awarded a "Pirelli Poleman of the Year" tyre award after his pole position in Abu Dhabi 2021 (Source). I didn't find any sources other than pictures and video of him being handed the award, but something related to the Pole Trophy still exists. Sources have gotten buried and are hard to find due to the other events of the weekend and the championship, but I wouldn't say the award has been entirely removed. Maybe just reworked? Might be worth looking into before completely removing all mentions Mordrim (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
If the award is to stay, good documentation has to be provided. If that's difficult to do, it should be removed until someone can get that sorted. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree to remove these from the infoboxes as it can really be claimed to be one of the most important things. I do believe though that they should mention in the season report prose.T v x1 15:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This outcome seems pretty clear, until reliable sources are provided out it goes. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Drivers from the UK

Enough

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I personally believe that *just* because a driver from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland competes/competed under the Union Jack, does *not* mean that they cannot be described as anything other than British.

That is, I see no reason why the likes of the Hills, Hunt, Mansell and Hamilton cannot be described as English rather than British, and no reason why the likes of Clark, Stewart and Coulthard cannot be described as Scottish rather than British. (If Nicola Sturgeon gets her way, then drivers from Scotland will *definitely* have to be described as Scottish and not British...)

Also, it's *not* a good idea to describe a driver from Northern Ireland as British, even though they too compete(d) under the Union Jack (they don't/didn't really have a choice there). For one thing, Britain is *just* England, Wales and Scotland (so it's not really a good idea to describe any drivers from the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands as British either, and indeed these aren't even part of the UK). For another, try describing *anyone* from NI who happens to be Catholic/Nationalist/Republican as British... it's not going to go down well at all with them, trust me.

And in any case, will it *really* blow casual readers' minds to see, for instance, Graham Hill being described as English and Clark being described as Scottish, even though the Union Jack appears next to both their names in the qualifying and race result tables rather than St George's Cross and St Andrew's Cross respectively?

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:1C9D:26B6:9F59:E589 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(to be clear, it was my disagreement that brought this up) I never said that they can't be described as English/Scotish/Welsh and I do understand that ~~a Northern Irishman can't be described as British~~ describing a Northen Irishman as British is contraversial. I just think it makes sense to use the same nationality indicators in the prose as we do in the tables (where-ever possible). I don't really have a sufficently strong opinion to insist on or debate my preference, beyond stating why I have that preference. SSSB (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a very long discussion on this years ago and the current wording is the result of that. There would need to be a decent consensus to change it. Thing is, all these guys are/were British and raced under the British flag. Using sporting nationality avoids issues of trying to establish which nationality any given driver would like to be referred to, or potentially getting it wrong. Would Hamilton prefer English or British? Who knows? How can it be verified? What is not in question is his Britishness, as he races under that flag. As for Northern Ireland, drivers do have a choice; they can always get themselves an Irish licence and race under the tricolor. Ralph Firman managed it and he was from England. Generally, articles on drivers from Northern Ireland are stable; there are only six F1 drivers from NI, and two don't describe them as British. If there are issues with NI drivers they can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the issue between you guys at the race article, I think in the prose of race articles, describing Mansell as English isn't really a problem. It's not particularly contentious, unless he considers himself Manx. I was thinking more of the lead sentence of driver articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth couldn't we describe people from Northern Ireland as British?? British doesn't only mean "from the island of Great Britain, you know. It's most importantly the official word to describe the nationality of citizens of the United Kingdom, which Northern Irishmen patently are. I strongly oppose describing Formula One drivers in any way that implies a nationality from a Home Nation as that creates unnecessary confusion, be it in the lead, the infobox, or prose. It's a can of worms we needn't open.T v x1 18:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

So as to deal with the contested sentence specifically: "The race decided a three-way battle for the Drivers' Championship between Englishman Nigel Mansell, driving a Williams-Honda; his Brazilian teammate Nelson Piquet; and Frenchman Alain Prost, driving a McLaren-TAG.", implies that in this specific event the Englishness of Nigel Mansell had the exact same representative value as Piquet's Brazilianness and Prost' Frenchness. We know tough that is patently not true. Using English is that sentence and thus deviating from legal nationality for one of the three creates a false implication and thus it is not something we should go with.T v x1 19:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: As I said, try describing *anyone* from Northern Ireland who happens to be Catholic, Nationalist, and (particularly) Republican as British...

Obviously, this man is not and never has been a racing driver, and for all we know he has probably never had any interest in motorsports whatsoever - but try going up to Gerry Adams, born in the Ballymurphy district of Belfast, and explaining to him that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, therefore he was born in the UK and therefore he's British. Believe me, he would *not* be happy with you - and that's putting it mildly.

So I'm sorry, but I'm sticking to the following opinions:

(1) "British" should *only* mean "from Great Britain" and therefore should mean *just* England, Wales and Scotland;

(2) It is *not* a good idea to describe a racing driver from Northern Ireland - Catholic or Protestant - as British even if they competed under the Union Jack (as you might gather, I also do not approve of "British" being used as an official word to describe the nationality of *any* citizen of the UK including NI);

(3) There are no real problems with describing Mansell as English rather than British in F1 race article leads (and Bretonbanquet has said so themselves), nor are there any real problems with describing other British drivers born and raised in England as English, British drivers born and raised in Scotland as Scottish, or British drivers born and raised in Wales as Welsh in these leads.

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D4FB:3A6D:6109:4AF3 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

try describing *anyone* from Northern Ireland who happens to be Catholic, Nationalist, and (particularly) Republican as British... - they don't have to like it for it to be true. Tvx1 is right, if you are a citizen of the UK you are British, even if you are Northern Irish (i.e. not from the British Isles), just look up the definition of British. So, I have ammended the earlier claim (using stricking and underlining), I suggest you do the same.

You're Gerry Adams example is also meaningless, just because he doesn't like something doesn't make it false. His objection to being descibed as British is besed on his objection to Northern Ireland being part of the UK, it has nothing to do with the definition of the word "British" itself. Also, as Tvx1 pointed out, Adams would have the right to compete as either Irish, or British (i.e. under the Irish flag or under the Union Jack), in a (presumably) similiar arrangement to the Olympics.

"British" should *only* mean "from Great Britain" and therefore should mean *just* England, Wales and Scotland; - on what grounds, this contradicts the definition of the word "British", as explained to you.

It is *not* a good idea to describe a racing driver from Northern Ireland - Catholic or Protestant - as British even if they competed under the Union Jack... - it is a perfectly good idea, because it is true.

There are no real problems with describing Mansell as English rather than British in F1 race article leads (and Bretonbanquet has said so themselves), nor are there any real problems with describing other British drivers born and raised in England as English, British drivers born and raised in Scotland as Scottish, or British drivers born and raised in Wales as Welsh in these leads. - there are, Tvx1 stated them, and nobody has rebutted his argument.

Your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, which won't win any arguments. SSSB (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

We have described racing drivers from Northern Ireland as British for years without any of them having issued a complaint to us. You are making a problem there that doesn’t exist. If you want to stick to your opinions that’s your problem, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong. British is not limited to people from the isle of Great Britain. ALL citizens from the United Kingdom are quite patently British. As for the contested sentence where you changed British to English, I have explained already why that IS inappropriate there.T v x1 16:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I think in the case of Northern Irish drivers we should take it on a case-by-case basis in terms of how they describe themselves and what sporting nationality they represented (ie. "an Irish driver", "a British driver", "a Northern Irish driver competing under a British licence", "a Northern Irish driver competing under an Irish licence", "an Irish driver competing under a British licence", "a British driver competing under an Irish licence", etc.); I think it's extremely politically insensitive (and probably a violation of WP:NPOV) to do otherwise. That isn't relevant for drivers from England, Scotland, or Wales, who should just be described as British unless they competed under a different flag for some reason, since the only way in which nationality really matters to these articles is in terms of representation. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's only a violation of WP:NPOV if there are multiple points of view (i.e. if reliable sources disagree amoungst themselves). As for politically insensitive, we don't make judgements on political sensitivity. If reliable sources call them something, so do we, regardless if political correctness. SSSB (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1 and SSSB: tell you what, if the Reverend Ian Paisley was still was us you two would *definitely* find favour with him. Indeed, you two would find favour with *any* Unionist and (particularly) *any* Loyalist - while alienating just about *every* Nationalist and (particularly) *every* Republican.

The Troubles may have ended long ago, but that doesn't mean the situation in Northern Ireland is no longer sensitive. Nationalists and Republicans still very much object to being described as British (and indeed, Unionists and Loyalists still very much object to being described as plain Irish). And it's not as if they're wasting time with their argument, because - let me point this out again - Northern Ireland may be part of the UK, but it is *not* part of Great Britain and never has been.

To go up to Gerry Adams, or indeed any other prominent living Republican, and tell them "Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and "British" is the official term to describe any person from the UK, therefore you are British, and if you don't like it, tough s**t"... seriously, this is *not* a good idea by any means. (Nor, indeed, is it a good idea at all to go up to a living Loyalist and tell them "Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland, therefore you are Irish, and if you have a problem with that, tough".)

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:5578:E578:32FF:FA14 (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am so far an uninvolved editor and have no "horse in the race" so to speak. Every argument you have presented has been thoroughly refuted by SSSB and Tvx1, and a few other editors too. You seem to be treating WIkipedia as a soapbox for your political views, which is not its purpose. You are yet to present a grounded argument for change to what is a long-standing, consensus-supported convention. There comes a point where the argument is going in circles, so I advise you to drop the stick and admit defeat in this matter. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

How Adams feels is only relevant to this discussion if he were an F1 driver. If Adams feels so strongly about being called British, he wouldn't agree to compete under the Union Jack, therefore we wouldn't call him British and there wouldn't be a problem. Part of competing under the Union Jack involves being described as "British". As Irish citizenship is available to everyone born in Northern Ireland (with the same conditions as those born in Republic of Ireland), any Northern Irishman can compete as an Irish citizen (as opposed to a British/UK citizen). We can therefore conclude that any Northern Irishman who competes under the Union Jack is happy to be called British. I therefore fail to see how your "try telling Adams he's British" rant is relevant, as any Northern Irishman who is opposed to be called British would surely race as an Irish citizen (like Ralph Firman did). SSSB (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

What Gerry Adams or Ian Paisley think is utterly irrelevant here. Neither of them are sportspeople officially representing a nation in a World Championship. We do not "go up to" anyone here. You're making a problem there that doesn't actually exist. We write an online encyclopedia and this of articles of this encyclopedia deals with sporting facts. If a formula one driver from Northern Ireland was content to represent the United Kingdom in this world championship we reflect that. If someday there is a formula one driver who refuses to do so and exert his (or her) right bestowed on them by the Good Friday agreement to obtain Irish citizenship and represent Ireland in the world championship we will reflect them as Irish here as well. It hasn't happened in formula one as far as I know, but I do know examples there are examples of that happening in other sports. Rory McIlroy, for instance, refused to represent the United Kingdom in the recent Olympics and represent Ireland instead. The moment you wrote you don't approve of British being the official word for the nationality of all citizens of the United Kingdom is when you lost all credibility with me. That is not something we are to approve of, because it is actually something that is written in law.T v x1 15:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You know something? What has taken place on this talk page has made me realise a number of things once and for all, including (1) editing Wikipedia is not as fun as it seems, (2) it is an even bigger waste of time than one could think, and (3) even though it's supposed to be an encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit, it doesn't always feel like that.

I already know that Wikipedia is never going to be perfect. New people will always come along, new objects will always be created, and new events will always take place, all of which will merit articles of their own and/or revisions to existing articles. And there will always be ennui, there will always be disagreements, and there will always be editors that genuinely do not know better (i.e. trolls and those who treat Wikipedia as if it's a toy). I'd like to think that Jimmy Wales himself knew that Wikipedia was never going to be perfect when he founded it all those years ago, and that he still knows it today.

But what has taken place on this talk page has made me finally realise that Wikipedia is never even going to be *close* to being perfect. It has also made me finally realise, I'm sorry to say, that there are just too many editors who seem to have allowed power to get to their heads, who seem to insist on things being done one way and one way only (whether or not actual rules of Wikipedia and/or real-world laws and norms are involved), and who *don't* seem to realise that Wikipedia is never going to be close to being perfect, no matter how frequently they edit it and how they go about their editing. And I'm even more sorry to say, these editors seem to form cliques, whether they intend to or not - and seemingly *any* editor who is not in any of these cliques (but particularly anonymous editors like myself, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to say that I have always preferred to edit anonymously) is not to be trusted immediately. And surely that goes against assuming good faith, one of the most important principles of Wikipedia if not *the* most important - and, in turn, goes against the idea of Wikipedia being something that *anyone* can edit?

When one realises that Wikipedia is never going to be close to being perfect, then they realise that there isn't as much fun in editing it as they thought there was, and that they are *really* wasting their time editing it, more than they could have thought. And when one realises that there are just too many editors who seem to have the aforementioned unappealing qualities, and who seem to band together, then they realise that Wikipedia doesn't always feel like something that anyone can edit, even though that's what it's supposed to be.

As I said, what has taken place on this talk page has made me finally realise all these things. But it is not *solely* what has taken place on this talk page that has brought me to these realisations - it is a whole combination of less-than-pleasant experiences during my time on Wikipedia. And not just to do with Formula One, but UK train operating companies and UK towns and villages too, among other subjects.

And having been brought to these realisations, I now know for sure that it would be far, far better for me if I gave up on editing Wikipedia altogether. There is no shortage of other things to do on the 'Net - and no shortage of things to do away from a PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone, either - that *are* fun and always will be, that are not big wastes of time (if indeed they're wastes of time at all), and that take place in atmospheres that never feel hostile or unwelcoming.

Any future edits from IP addresses in the range that I'm at will be made by different people. Possibly trolls, possibly people who treat Wikipedia as if it's a toy, quite likely people who couldn't care less how far away Wikipedia is from being perfect, and almost certainly people with different interests to mine (football rather than F1, rock bands rather than railways, etc.).

In any case, the Sisyphean task of making Wikipedia close to being perfect will continue. And, alas, there will continue to be mountains made out of molehills, including when sportspeople from England, Wales and Scotland who happen(ed) to compete under the Union Jack are described as English, Welsh and Scottish respectively rather than British. There will also continue to be great objections when someone explains why it is not a good idea to describe someone from Northern Ireland as British, even if they are/were loyal to the Union Jack and even if it's written in law that anyone who was born and raised in the UK including NI must be described as British. (Not every law is right, even if it's made with the best of intentions.) And there will continue to be editors who seem to let power get to their heads and don't seem to realise that making Wikipedia close to being perfect is a Sisyphean task, and who seem to band together and hence give the impression that Wikipedia *isn't* something that anyone can edit.

I won't be around to witness any of it. And indeed, I won't be around to witness any replies to this comment, if people feel compelled to make them. You can call me a selfish git or a bitter old lemon; you can say I've thrown my toys out of the pram; you can even question if I'm a Sinn Féin supporter or something - I'll be elsewhere and will never know.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:34FD:12E8:F86B:1464 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

On the off chance you do come and see how people react to this - WP:FORUM applies. This is not the place to post essays about how you feel about Wikipedia. SSSB (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)#One row, many constructors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Tavo Hellmund

This article seems to be a pretty bad case of WP:PROMO, mainly authored by an SPA. It would benefit from one of you F1 specialists (which I’m not) taking a look at it. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added {{Weasel}}, {{peacock}} and {{advert}} to the article, hopefully this will help to attract additional editors. SSSB (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've had a go at hacking away at it. I had personally never heard of Hellmund before but I'm confident of his notability and it's disappointing how much effort was put into producing a very promotional article when a quality piece could have been produced instead. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Formula One Template

{{Formula One}} – top of Formula One, the articles in that series, and the six F1 lists.

So I want to revitalize WikiProject Formula One on the Indonesian Wikipedia, and I have a question: What are the six F1 lists that must have the F1 template? Thanks all. Klrfl (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Klrfl: I'm not sure I understand your question? There's quite a few lists on that template, most of which also have the template on them to aid navigation (eg List of Formula One drivers), and I'm sure if it hasn't already that following a similar arrangement on Indonesian Wikipedia would be a good starting point, though if there are fewer list articles there, then just put fewer on the template. I'm not sure what the significance of having six lists is? A7V2 (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@A7V2: In this project page, It is said that the Formula One template ({{Formula One}}) must be present on top of Formula One, and the six lists. My question is, what are the six f1 lists exactly? Or can you just put the template on all the F1 related lists?

The six core articles are:

The template can and should be added to all articles that it links to. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@5225C: Ah, I get it now! Thank you so much. Klrfl (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

[1] Bottas won sprint qualifying but lost didn't start on pole position due to pre-race penalties. Verstappen inherited pole in his place

[a]