Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about 2018 Formula One World Championship. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wrong national flags for teams

Latest comment: 6 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion

Force India, Mercedes, Red Bull, Renault are British teams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.153.188 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not. They're based in Britain, but that's not the same thing as being British. They compete under licences issued by the Indian, German, Austrian and French racing associations, and those are the nationalities recognised by the FIA. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are British teams, in that they are British registered companies, based in the UK, operating under British law and employing mainly British people. But their owners have decided for various reasons to choose foreign racing licences - and it is the flag of the racing licence that they use in F1 competition, and not that of the company itself. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

They're only really based in the UK as a manner of practicality - that's where the people, facilities and resources are to be found. The owners are free to choose whatever nationality they represent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. They are British teams, but because of the way F1 operates, they compete under whatever flag the current owner (it's their prerogative) chooses. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not British teams. They are Indian/German/French/Austrian/whatever teams because they are owned by Indians/Germans/French/Austrians/whoever. If I live and work in Britain, does that make me British, even if I was born in Australia and hold Auatralian citizenship? No, it doesn't.

I've seen this claim that Red Bull or Mercedes or any other team based in Britain is actually British repeated all over the internet. It's usually an attempt to claim those teams' successes as British success because Britain is arrogant enough to believe that the sport owes it something. Do you know why most teams were based in Britain in the first place? It has nothing to do with "heritage" or "tradition". It's because Heathrow is the most accessible airport on earth. As the sport expanded to Asia and the Americas and the calendar contained more races, it was easier and more cost-effective for teams—especially privateer teams—to base themselves in England. The few that do not usually have operations outside Formula 1, like Sauber's sportscar programme. Why do you think a major manufacturer like Toyota struggled? It's because they based themselves out of the old TTE facility in Cologne. There was no knowledge or resources available.

On Wikipedia, any claim that a team is of a nationality other than the one they nominate is a violation of WP:NPOV and the claim of being British based on facilities or staff is WP:OR. End of story. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: There's no need for "Britain is arrogant" comments. Please make your point without resorting to attacking other editors, their views, or their nationalities. I agree with you that "British-based" is not the same as "British team", and that ownership is the key point here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessy: — I'm not attacking other editors. I'm simply pointing out that the "Red Bull is British" or "Mercedes is British" argument comes up time and time again on the internet. 95% of the time it's an attempt to claim the success of those teams for Britain because the general attitude of the people making it is that the sport owes Britain something. It might not be a flattering depiction of British fans, but that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That should be @Scjessey. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: in your first paragraph you are erroneously conflating the nationality of a team's owner with the nationality of the team itself - when they are actually two entirely independent attributes. The nationality of a team is primarily to do with where a team was spawned, the community that the team's home is in, what the team's culture is and where its workforce come from. The nationality of the team's owner could be anything and is, clearly, not inherited by the team. Would you say Chelsea F.C is a Russian football team because it is owned by a Russian? Would the Sydney Opera House suddenly become Indian if it was sold to an Indian billionaire? Would you suddenly become British if whilst living in the UK your services were bought by a British citizen? Can't you see how ridiculous the notion is that an owner can confer their nationality onto their foreign property? The closest we get to that in F1 is where a team can choose to register themselves with a foreign competitor licence and thus use in competition the flag of a country other than their home country (like Force India, Mercedes, Red Bull and Renault are doing). (BTW, in, say, the upcoming FIFA World Cup matches, do you think the majority of the Mercedes team workforce will be cheering for Germany or England at their desks and workbenches in Brackley?)

I won't respond to the bigoted comments in your second paragraph.

In your third paragraph you have again demonstrated your lack of understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. They are concerned with the balance of prevailing opinions and the verifiability of facts and opinions and are not contravened simply because content does not align with your own personal views. If the reliable sources describe a team as being of a particular nationality then it would not be a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR to describe them as being of that nationality even if they had chosen to race under a foreign flag. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

All of which is moot. We use the FIA as the source for all of this because we regard the FIA as the ultimate authority on the subject. Your argument amounts to little more than chicanery to try and get around the fact that a team is able to represent itself how it chooses to. If you want to make a big deal out of nationality, watch A1GP because that's the only category where a team's nationality is actually meaningful. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: the FIA aren't an authority on team nationality although they may well be an authority on the nationality of the competitor licences used by teams to support their F1 entry applications. And you didn't answer whether you would say that Chelsea F.C is a Russian football team because it is owned by a Russian or whether the Sydney Opera House would suddenly become Indian if it was sold to an Indian billionaire or whether you would suddenly become British if whilst living in the UK your services were bought by a British citizen. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't answer those questions because they're straw-man arguments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: they are not arguments they are questions. You wrote above No, they're not British teams. They are Indian/German/French/Austrian/whatever teams because they are owned by Indians/Germans/French/Austrians/whoever. If I live and work in Britain, does that make me British, even if I was born in Australia and hold Auatralian citizenship? No, it doesn't.

I thought those arguments were absurd so I asked supplementary questions to try to understand if you really meant what you wrote. Did you really mean what you wrote, particularly the bit about nationality being inherited from new owners (your answers to those questions would help clarify whether you did)? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said nationality is inherited. The owners control the team. The team submit entry paperwork and nominate their nationality. That nationality is the one that is recognised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: it is in black and white above:

They are Indian/German/French/Austrian/whatever teams because they are owned by Indians/Germans/French/Austrians/whoever.
— User:Prisonermonkeys

Sure you can admit you were wrong and retract it, but you cannot deny writing it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's entirely possible to violate NPOV with reliable sources. If there are ten sources describing a team's nationality—say Red Bull—and eight of them say Austrian but two say British, then you violate NPOV if you only select the two that say the team is British. It's a WP:POVPUSH. If you justify the decision to choose the minority of sources based on the location of the team's base and the nationality of its staff members, it's WP:OR. Especially when the team has a multi-national staff. After all, I think they employ an Australian and a Dutchman. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: you wrote: On Wikipedia, any claim that a team is of a nationality other than the one they nominate is a violation of WP:NPOV and the claim of being British based on facilities or staff is WP:OR. All I did was point out that you were wrong about that on both counts. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The claim that a team like Red Bull is British despite its licence is an obvious attempt to try and claim the team's success as British success. That is a POVPUSH and a violation of NPOV. And since you haven't shown any sources to demonstrate the team is more British than it is Austrian, it's OR if you claim it in an article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: it's nothing to do with claiming the teams' successes - that they aren't all successful is the proof of that (and no, it's not about claiming their failures as British failures either) it is about clarifying the distinction between the nationality of a team and the nationality of the competitor licences that the team's management choose to race the team under. And please stop digging your hole deeper on the POV/OR issue which is irrelevant on this point anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no distinction to be made. Sure, Red Bull is based in Britain and employs British people, but that doesn't make them British. They're funded by Austrians (who promote an energy drink from Thailand), use a French engine and employ Australians and Dutch (and probably a dozen other nationalities). Where do you draw the line? McLaren is a British-registered team founded by a New Zealander, managed by an American and a Bahraini with a French team principal and Spanish and Belgian drivers. The same can be said for any other team (Williams employs Britons, Canadians, Russians and South Africans; Haas employs Americans, French, Danes and Italians). You cannot say that one team is definitively any nationality other than the nominated nationality simply because they have multi-national workforces. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: the nationality of a team is to do with where the team was spawned, the community that the team's home is in, what the team's heritage and culture is, all of which is probably reflected in where the majority of the team's workforce come from and we can generally see that evidenced by the nationality of the jurisdiction that the team is registered under. Each of the teams based in the UK are registered as British companies with Companies House and are thus indisputably British and are subject to British company law. Check the entry there for Red Bull and you will see its pedigree and that it is exactly the same team that started life as Stewart Grand Prix, was later renamed to Jaguar Racing and subsequently was renamed as Red Bull Racing. That heritage and history does not get wiped each time a new owner hangs their name over the door and certainly isn't trumped by the flag the owner chooses for the team to race under for the coming season - a flag which may well be changed at any time on the whim of the team owner. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No. For all the intents and purposrs of Wikipedia, the nationality is the nationality they choose for themselves. All your talk of history and heritage is completely intangible. Staff move around so frequently that the Red Bull of 2018 probably only bears a passing resemblance to Jaguar Racing. You claim this isn't about "claiming the team's successes [for Britain]", but you haven't made a single argument that I have not seen before. You can personally consider them to be British all you want, but on Wikipedia they are whatever nationality they register as. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok both of you need to calm down a bit here. This section was openend to question which flags should be used and it seems everyone agrees on which one to use. Everything else posted here is not relevant to the 2018 season of F1. Even so arguments on both sides are littered with personal assumptions. There is no need to assume malicious intentions for claims being made when there is no evidence in the talk page comments of that motivations. Wikipedia is no the place to vent your anger about real-life outrages. Also the claims about teams struggling because they are based outside of the UK are bizarre to say the least (Scuderia Ferrari, anyone? And Toyota struggling? From a team built from scratch, they evolved to a regular podium finisher). Moreover a teams base does nothing to dictate a team's nationality. Company≠team. And the mentioned teams are not only owned by an Austrian/Indian/French/Germans or whatsoever. They are actually registered with these nationalities. This model is actually very common in many business areas. In maritime transport for instance its common practice for shipping companies based in certain country, for instance a Central European country, to actually registered there ships in a far away Caribbean or Pacific country. And these ships sail under the flag of the country in which they are registered and not the flag of the country where the company owning and operating them is registered. To translate that back to a F1. The racing teams are like the ships and the parent companies are like the shipment companies. In the case of Red Bull Racing, the racing team is Austrian and the operating company is British. And as for the Sydney Opera House, if that were to be bought by an Indian billionaire it would not become Indian simply by virtue of the transaction. If that new owner would however decide to re-registered the Opera House (the company, not the building) as Indian as well than yes it would become Indian. True, the heritage and history does not get wiped each time a new owner hangs their name over the door and certainly isn't trumped by the flag the owner chooses for the team to race under for the coming season - a flag which may well be changed at any time on the whim of the team owner, however every time there is a new owner they do have the option to change the registered nationality if they wish to do so.T v x1 00:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. There is no reliable, empirical way of measuring a team's nationality beyond the nationality they register. If the team "mostly" employ Britons, how do we measure that? If 51% of the staff are British, does that count as making the team British? How do we handle a team with a workforce that is 50% British, 25% French and 25% German compared to a team that has staff where 51% are British and 49% are French? How do we handle this for teams like Force India who have pinned their entire identity on a nationality, but may not necessarily employ any Indians? What do we do in the case of Haas, who are an American team with a chassis designed by an Italian firm? What do we do in the case of a team that employed a majority of Britons, but ten years later employs a majority of Germans? There are dozens of questions like this that are simply unanswerable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: there is a very reliable way to find a team's nationality, look up its company registration records, as we saw here for Red Bull. Similarly we can find out what flag it has chosen to use in FIA related events by looking up the nationality of its competitor licence in its latest entrant details submitted to the FIA. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I would not call that reliable at all. Look at Force India: based in the UK and registered in the UK, but has pinned its very identity to being Indian (to the point where they now admit it hasn't worked and has actually counted against them). Or look at Mercedes; based in the UK and registered in the UK, but owned by a major German car manufacturer—do you expect people to believe that their team is somehow not German? Likewise Renault being French.

As I explained, the original desicision for teams to base themselves in the UK was a matter of practicality and convenience and has nothing to do with being British. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: of course you wouldn't call it reliable, because it entirely contradicts your personal opinion. But it is definitive and incontrovertible - the team is registered as British - full stop. That a British team is owned by Indians and chooses to market itself with an Indian identity is fine, but it doesn't change any of the underlying facts. Would the Sydney Opera House become Indian if an Indian billionaire bought it? Similarly with the British teams owned by Daimler AG and Renault. Tomorrow one of them might be sold to a Chinese car company or an Irish beverage company, but the chances are they would continue much as before but under yet another flag. Look at the facts objectively and have you decided whether you think Chelsea F.C. is an English or a Russian football team yet (only 6 of of its current squad of 27 players are English, if that helps you to decide)? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: we seem to mostly agree here. Yes, the answer to the original question is that although the team is British, F1 allows the team owners to choose a different flag to race under. Your analogy with the flags of convenience used in the shipping industry doesn't really hold though. In shipping they are used to allow ships to avoid being the subject of the laws of the country in which the company is registered. OTOH, in F1 the competitor licence system allows the owner of a team to choose a "vanity flag" flag to race under, thereby allowing foreign owners of teams to use the flag of their country (or the flag of any country for that matter) to race under and thus, perhaps, using the team as a kind of commercial or political promotion vehicle. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure the Sydney Opera House would become Indian, even if it was moved bodily to India. Think of all the Egyptian and Greek artefacts in the British Museum - have they become British? Or London Bridge which was bought by Americans and transported stone by stone to the US and re-erected - is that now American? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I quite explicitly wrote I was referring to the company and not the building, yet you answer with comparisons with other buildings.T v x1 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: no. Now you are conflating the nationality of the team with the nationality of the team's competitor licence - despite them being two completely different things. Sure the team can choose to race under whatever competitor licence (flag) that they choose, but the team's nationality isn't so ephemeral as that - it is enduring and unlikely to ever change (think Chelsea F.C.). Wikipedia should be honest and be careful not mislead the readers about the role of and nature of the competitor licence and certainly not suppress information about the heritage and culture of teams or pretend they do not exist. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Prove to me that the only thing that has changed between Jaguar and Red Bull is the sign over the door of the factory and that the only differences are purely cosmetic (ie livery). Red Bull has no claim to Jaguar's history or heritage. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure DeFacto, the motivation in marine transport is different than in F1, but the net results is exactly the same. The operating company having a different nationality than the vessels/racing teams. You are actually conflating the nationalities of the racing teams and the ones of their parent companies. The link you provided for Red Bull provides details on the operating company, not the racing team. And it does not contain anything literally stating them to have a British nationality. If anything it supports Britain/UK-based rather than British.T v x1 13:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys' comments are actually right on the money. What do you with Haas. They actually have a second base in the UK registered with the companies house. Does that make them a American-British team? I don't think so.T v x1 14:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And Haas uses Italian chassis and Italian engines, so you could almost argue they are American in name only. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's actually American in registration as well. And they do have a primary base in the US registered in the US.T v x1 16:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, this has gone on long enough. Nobody agrees with DeFacto's interpretation. DeFacto needs to put down the stick before getting a label for being tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

How did this discussion even drag on so long? Close the case already. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ on this for now as it is off-topic here and is getting a bit circular now. But I'll happily join any future discussion on the question of a team's nationality versus a team's competitor licence nationality if it arises again and on-topic somewhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Tyres in table

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Because of the inherent difficulty of presenting tables in a mobile-friendly format, it is preferable for them to only include columns with useful information. Apart from "we've always done it that way", is there any particular reason why we still have the spectacularly redundant column denoting the tyre manufacturer in the "entries" table? The article already has a section on tyres that indicates Pirelli is the manufacturer, and that is more than sufficient. This is the eighth consecutive year Pirelli is the sole supplier. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This was already discussed very recently and no consensus was achieved to remove the column.T v x1 15:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right, of course. I had completely forgotten! I see that 6 supported the removal, and 4 opposed. I think perhaps it is time for a proper RfC to put the issue to bed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey — I agree an RFC is needed. I don't think that discussion was really much of a discussion; it felt dragged out to force a WP:NOCONSENSUS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Article titles (revisited)

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

A few months ago, we made a change in article naming conventions. "19/20XX Formula One season" was moved to "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship". However, upon reflection I am not convinced that this was the best location to move the article to; "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" would be a better location as it is used in most articles. For example, this one from Autosport:

"Daniel Ricciardo has received a three-place grid penalty for his home Formula 1 race"

Nor is it a one-off, as shown by this atticle from Autosport:

"Sebastian Vettel believes there is "a lot" more performance to come from Ferrari, having not felt comfortable in Friday practice for the Formula 1 season-opening Australian Grand Prix"

It's not just Autosport who have done it; Speedcafe do it, too:

"Lewis Hamilton led a Mercedes one-two in the opening practice session of the Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix."

Of the 56 references currently used in this article, 27 use "Formula 1" or "F1" as opposed to "Formula One" (I haven't counted articles from teams that use the 1 in their entrant name). These come from a wide range of publishers, including the FIA, Road & Track, Renault, Autosport, GP Update, TASS, Speedcafe, Eurosport, ESPN and Autoweek. As per WP:COMMONNAME, I think it is safe to conclude that "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" is the best name to use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As this will be a project-wide change, probably better to discuss at WT:F1. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 — true, but I don't like proposing sizeable changes without testing the waters first. Posting there now Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

But in principle, I agree with this change. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Absoultely agree, "Formula 1" is more common name than "Formula One". Corvus tristis (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It does make sense, since "Formula 1" is also the official, copyrighted term used by Formula One World Championship Limited (which ironically spells it out in their name...). Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to the project talk page. Please dicuss it further there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Force India

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We can put this argument to bed at last. Force India will not be changing names this year, according to Motorsport. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to point this out? It wasn't exactly a contentious topic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

We had quite the debate about it in January, so I thought it was a good idea to mention it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Winter Testing

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think there should be a "Winter Testing" section in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codibick (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It will be added eventually. A "season report" section will be added there and should include details of winter testing. We cannot have a stand-alone section on winter testing because we cannot read anything into winter testing without knowing details of teams' testing programmes, which we don't have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a season report section and I don't think it needs a part on winter testing. Winter testing generally has little importance in the greater picture and certainly this year nothing noteworthy happened.T v x1 22:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Statistics

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I saw the Statistics section, then someone removed it, why? I think it's a great idea and it quickly gives you numbers you might need, instead of going through the standings to calculate. They do that in articles about football seasons, and they are very useful, nobody removed them there. The 2 sports are different from A to Z but I am talking about the statistics.
This is a link to a screenshot :
https://s7.postimg.cc/akfc7182z/stats.png
Alexsd27 (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexsd27: The reason is quite frankly, that Wikipedia is not a F1 statistics site. There are plenty of websites out there that provide this, here, we are an encyclopedia. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

And it really just rearranges the data from the results matrices into another table. It doesn't actually add anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Entertainment section

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just like the Super Bowl & other sport events alongside the competition there are some shows. As halftime show is mentioned in the article we should mention to this too. CerberaOdollam (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because something is done on another Wikipedia article it doesn't mean we have to the same thing here. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Formula One≠NFL. The extra-sportive shows which are occasionally held at some individual Grands Prix just don't even remotely receive the same attention as the Super Bowl half-time shows, even within the sport itself. Moreover this is season article. While the Super Bowl half-time shows are mentioned in the articles on the individual Super Bowls, they are not mentioned on the NFL season articles.T v x1 16:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Super Bowl half-time shows are a key component of the spectacle the NFL is trying to create, including major TV coverage. The non-sporting stuff that happens at F1 events have nothing to do with the FIA or the Championship, they are almost always organized by the tracks or sponsors, and they almost NEVER get any TV coverage. -- Scjessey (talk)

Yeah, I actually forgot to mention that. The Super Bowl half-time shows are actually shown live on tv during the broadcast of the game. Not the case for this on-site F1 entertainment.T v x1 22:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment on tyres

Latest comment: 6 years ago49 comments9 people in discussion

The consensus of this RFC is that no, the "entries" table should not include a column for which tyre manufacturer is used by each team. Fish+Karate 13:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "entries" table include a column on which tyre manufacturer is used by each team? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

No - The article already states that the tyre supplier for Formula One is Pirelli, so the tyre column in the table is totally redundant. Historically, the column has been necessary because more than one tyre supplier had been available; however, there has only been a single tyre supplier since the beginning of the 2007 season. Functionally, it is the same as having a column denoting how many wheels there are on each entry. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment - @Scjessey: Maybe not the best example that you used there, considering that there was a time in F1 where that information was actually significant. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment - @Zwerg Nase: You were saying? -- Scjessey (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: That is exactly what I am saying, yes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes - Tyres are an inherent part of this sport, it cannot exist without them. We thus need to convey this information somehow and through a very recent discussion little was achieved to disprove this column as being the most efficient and clear way to present this information to our readers. I takes little space in the table and does not hamper its readability in any way.T v x1 16:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The lack of consensus on that very recent discussion is the reason an RfC is necessary. Every additional column in a table hampers readability in mobile devices. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I beg to differ on both points.T v x1 13:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh. An RfC is the Wikipedia mechanism for resolving disputes where a clear consensus cannot be reached, because it brings in outside editors. I'm not sure why you would suggest it wasn't appropriate. And most tables work poorly on mobile devices because of horizontal scrolling issues, so any redundant information should be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no obligation on Wikipedia for every discussion to conclude with some sort of consensus. Sometimes there is just no consensus. And the removal of this small column changes little on mobile devices.T v x1 17:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes - The Formula One season articles should be consistent throughout each and every one of them, since that makes it easier for readers to quickly find the information they are looking for. Tables, not prose, is usually where the eye gets drawn to first. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No for the reasons I mentioned at the previous discussion, it's pointless. We don't need it for any season where there is only one tyre supplier. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No, but I do support the column's inclusion in years with multiple tyre suppliers. As pointed out by others, it is unnecessary in years where there is a single tyre supplier. I also dispute the argument that the column should be kept for the sake of consistency; we should make decisions based on what is in the interests of each individual article. If we achieve consistency with other articles, that's great—but consistency should not be prioritised to the exclusion of all else. We should not be making decisions for the 2018 article because they service the needs of the 1998 article first and 2018 second. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No because, as the "Tyres" section in this article explains, Pirelli are the tyre suppliers for all cars in the 2018 season. Per WP:Ignore all precedent, constructive changes to this article should not be prevented by the argument that "we always do it this way". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @DeFacto: My argument was not "we have always done it this way", but rather "there is a reason why we do this consistently". The main argument for the No-side here is, that the column is redundant. By that logic, every infobox in every article is redundant because the information stated there is also in the prose. But there is a reason why almost every article has an infobox and that is so that readers find information on first glance. That is the logic that I am implying when I say: Yes, please let us leave that information in the table. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  - Maybe not the best example that you used there, considering that infoboxes are easily read on mobile devices, but tables are not. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  - @Zwerg Nase: the "Tyres" column is now redundant - not because the info is already in the prose - but because all rows have exactly the same value. Columns are only useful for data that can vary by row. Also - for the tyres, where all cars are mandated to use Pirelli, the info is better suited to the prose alone because the context is necessary to explain why all teams use the same make of tyre. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    - @DeFacto: - In my opinion, the fact that a reader can, by simply looking at the table, see that in this season all teams used the same tyre, is really helpful. I do concede that one can disagree on wether that advantage outweights the redundancy factor. So I completely respect your opinion. I just don't share it, but as I have stated in the last discussion on this issue, it is simply my personal taste that Wikipedia pages should show consistency. That is what I generally prefer on websites. I hate nothing more than webpages of companies or universities for instance, where the same information is layouted differently on different subpages. That makes it so hard to gather information quickly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
      - @Zwerg Nase: I agree that consistency can be reassuring and aesthetically pleasing, but - at the end of the day - if we enforce consistency, we are, in effect, enforcing the way "we have always done it" over allowing the article to be improved (for mobile users, or whatever). -- DeFacto (talk). 11:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No it's not an important element of the table and wording will be enough. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
No For commonsense reasons others have mentioned. Also its inclusion in the table is confusing; as someone who doesn't ordinarily follow racing, I presumed when first looking at the table that all the teams chose to use Pirelli, but after looking at Formula One tyres it appears that teams are required to use Pirelli since 2011 by the contest rules? (Solicited by rfcbot) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Comment. I don't think that this is the right place to discuss this. This affects more than just this article.T v x1 16:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. If we decide to eliminate the pointless column in this article, it will become a blueprint for a potential discussion at the project level. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Still a few more days left to run on this RfC, but at this point I think any closing editor will see there's a clear consensus for removal of the column. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Clear consensus?? At five against two? And the arguments is even what carries weight.T v x1 15:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a clear consensus among the editors who have participated thus far. Not just double the number of !voters, but also one can't really make a persuasive argument for retaining something completely redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that's your take then, I disagree with it. Arguments have clearly been given as to why it isn't redundant at all. Also the RFC started on the 18th of March. That mean's it hasn't even reached the halfway point.T v x1 22:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"And the arguments is even what carries weight"

That's correct. And so far the strongest arguments have been in support of removal. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's patent nonsense.T v x1 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hardly. All the people in favour of keeping the column have managed to come up with is some variation of "we've always done it that way" and "the reader won't understand it without the column". Formula 1 articles are the only major motorsport articles that keep the column when there is a single supplier. Even if it was a vote (which it isn't) you said it yourself: five support removal and two oppose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but your summary off the opposing position is heavily editorialized nonsense. The arguments have clearly demonstrated that tyres are a vital aspect of this sport and that the column is very easy and efficient way to include this important information.T v x1 22:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Which conveniently ignores the way tables were never intended to be a substitute for prose. Take 2018 FIA Formula 2 Championship as an example: the series uses a spec chassis, a spec engine and spec tyres — none of which are in the table despite including them arguably being "a very easy and efficient way to include this important information". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, IMHO there would need to be a source establishing significance in the context of facts about the 2018 racers that they each use Pirelli. If no such appropriate source can be found, that confirms the commonsense supposition that "tires are by Pirelli" is generally framed by the WP:RS as a fact about the race nowadays, rather than a separate fact about each entrant. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: — would this source be acceptable? It outlines Pirelli's plans for 2018 and establishes that all teams are provided with the same compounds. The only difference between entrants is how many sets of each tyre the individual drivers choose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

For me no, IMHO I'd more need something that has it in a table like [1] or like if there were multiple profiles on individual racers, each of which mentioned that they use Pirelli tires. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's weird that we have a column for tyres, which have been the same for every car since the 2007 season, but not for brakes, which often differ from season to season, manufacturer to manufacturer, and even from teammate to teammate sometimes! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

They simply don't have the same notability.T v x1 22:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Romain Grosjean would disagree with you there. After all, he spent a considerable amount of time switching between Brembo and Carbon Industries pads last year, trying to find something that worked. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of the same thing when I commented. Not to nit pick, but it's Carbon Industrie without the "s". -- Scjessey (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This RfC has "expired". It looks as if there's a pretty solid consensus to remove the tyre column, but if anyone vociferously degrees I would suggest we request a formal close at WP:AN/RFC. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I'd go for the formal close, to get someone uninvolved to review the discussion and call it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that there is a consensus to remove it, but I expect that Txv1 will just ignore it and do whatever he wants. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even proposing anything here. So why would I do anything. Why are you making accusations of bad faith here with any reason and without even being able to spell my name. Regardless, going by WP:AN/RFC is never a bad idea.T v x1 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you just moved forty-odd pages, ignoring a consensus and making no attempt to establish a new one despite the way your concerns were discussed in the original consensus. Plus, we've discussed the tyre column before and there has argiably been the support to remove it, but you have insisted it stays despite said consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I have just as much right to advocate my position in a RFC as anyone else. And I have very much made attempts to establish consensus on the article titles. I raised in the fall of last year and already back then the general preference was clear. I raised it again when the titles were discussed again a short while ago and again I clear agreement emerged as to what policies consider to be the best titles to use. I don't need your personal permission. You don't have any authority.T v x1 21:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"I don't need your personal permission."

And yet, we seem to need yours. Based on this conversation, I could remove the tyre column right noe. But I'm willing to bet that you'll revert it if I do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you please stop your ridiculous accusations of bad faith. You’re just making a mockery out of yourself.T v x1 11:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed a pattern emerging where a consensus is formed, but when you happen to be in the minority, we end up doing what you want despite the consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 April 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to use the current title format (e.g., 2018 Formula One World Championship) at this time, per the discussion below. It is clear that this is a contentious issue. In the future, I would advise initiating a move request before performing moves of this type in order to receive input from third-party editors and a close from someone uninvolved, in order be sure that moves have explicit consensus. Dekimasuよ! 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 Formula One World Championship → 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship – After an extensive discussion about moving "season" articles to "chsmpionship" articles, the Formula 1 WikiProject achieved a consensus to move all articles from 1984 to present to "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship". Overnight, an editor has taken it upon himself to subsequently move those articles again, this time to "19/20XX Formula One World Championship", citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE as justification for the move. However, COMMONNAME and PRECISE were taken into consideration during the initial discussion and there has been no subsequent attempt to establish a consensus beyond his claim that he would move the articles "if there is no further opposition" despite that opposition directing him to the previous consensus. All articles from 1984 to 2019 should be moved back to the agreed-upon "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship" format, at least until the community has a chance to discuss it. After all, it took nearly three months to agree upon the original move; this editor thinks it reasonable to move nearly forty articles with just three days' warning. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the later discussion here, which delivered a new consensus - the one which supported today's move. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd hardly call that a consensus, since it draws upon an unreliable method of measuring the COMMONNAME. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Though as pointed out to you, it's significant nevertheless.T v x1 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You also overlooked a latter part of the earlier discussion which came to the same rough consensus. The moves made our season article better aligned with some important policies.T v x1 21:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Since when have we only needed a "rough consensus" to maje changes? We arguably had a "rough consensus" to remove the tyre column, but you objected to its removal and it stayed. Why do we need a "refined (for want of a better word) consensus" to make changes, but you only need a "rough consensus"?

As for those guidelines, I have pointed out to you that those were taken into consideration in the original discussion. You don't just get to ignore a consensus because you don't like it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with liking, everything thing with improving articles. Two subsequent discussions were held and the consensus is clear. You're the one not liking things here. In total you've had over 7 months and you have not been able to bring up one sensible argument as to why the usage of "FIA" in the titles is so vital. The only things you came up with is "We already discussed the titles" and "I won't let you change them". Neither of which is a valid argument. And while the usage of FIA was mentioned through the original discussion, it was thoroughly discussed and the usage of that particular portion was never judged to the mentioned policies in particular. And you have mentioned many times that consensus can change. As for the tyres, I haven't blocked anything. I have added my opinion to both the discussion and the later RFC. That is my good right. I've also given my reading on what appeared to be the prevalent choice at one point. I have the right to write that as well. However, whatever the actual outcome is, I will respect the consensus.T v x1 21:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"In total you've had over 7 months and you have not been able to bring up one sensible argument as to why the usage of "FIA" in the titles is so vital."

If my arguments lacked sense, why did the community agree to that title in the first place? If they're as incoherent as you say, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because another name would have been chosen.

"However, whatever the actual outcome is, I will respect the consensus."

Like the consensus that was established seven months ago? The consensus that you're ignoring now? The very same consensus that took three months to implement, but which you issued a three-day ultimatum to change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the arguments provided in the subsequent discussions. I already explained that the inclusion of FIA was not thoroughly judged to the policies. Just lake using one/1 as a result of which you started a new discussion. But apparently only discussion you start have some merit and are allowed to continue. As for ignoring consensus. I didn't. That's why we discussed this for seven months before I decided to act. As for the "ultimatum", that was to finally have the discussion result in an outcome after seven months. It prove to be enough for you, the lone opposer, to make a few comments but all you came up with is "I won't let you change them". I don't know why the removal of FIA is such a drama and why you are utterly unable to acknowledge the many contributors disagreeing with you, but if you'd take a step back you'd see that even in this discussion no one is agreeing with you. Learn how to lose and drop the stick already.T v x1 12:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"I already explained that the inclusion of FIA was not thoroughly judged to the policies."

In your view. At the time, the community felt that it had been discussed.

"As for the "ultimatum", that was to finally have the discussion result in an outcome after seven months."

Wrong. We had a outcome months ago, which is why the articles were moved. There were ten people in that original discussion but only four when you raised the issue again. Did you notify any of those other six editors? After all, you claim that you were trying to resolve an outstanding issue that they were involve in.

"I don't know why the removal of FIA is such a drama"

Because of your attitude. You didn't like the consensus that was achieved, so you went looking for a reason to change it. Like I said, your concerns were taken into consideration when the consensus was formed. When the community decided to do something different, you decided that it was your place to ignore it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Every other year has been the same title. No need to change this title. 22:50, 17 April 2018 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.57.65 (talk)

I disagree with the move that's been done recently. I've left my comment at WT:WikiProject_Formula_One#Article_titles_(revisited). cherkash (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It should change to 2018 FIA Formula One world championship as this is the official name and the name used for previous seasons (with relevant year). This would make it consistent with other competitions (2018 FIFA World Cup for example). SSSB (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME.T v x1 20:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. FIA is redundant, as no other entity runs a formula 1 world championship, and there's no evidence that reliable sources commonly include it, so the proposed name fails on both WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Historically F1 articles are not only about FIA sanctioned events. Elk Salmon (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Right. If nothing else, the articles cover off-season testing, engine and driver news and suchlike, which aren't directly related to the championships. I much preferred the old 2018 Formula One season model, that describes the content best, is consistent across different years with different championships. The word "season" also matches things like 2018 NFL season. — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Ticks all the boxes. Despite the previous discussion, it appears to me that there's more to be said on this. Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per my comment above. Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Very weak oppose. "Formula One" sort of makes "FIA" redundant, and I prefer the more concise form; however, there's ample Wikipedia precedent for including the governing body in the title (FIFA World Cup, for example). I think Tvx1 pulled the trigger too quickly on the page moves, but now it is done I suggest leaving it as it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The FIFA World Cup example is not the same case though. There FIFA is needed to provide disambiguation. Having an article called "World Cup" is just pointless. There many World Cups like for instance WDF World Cup, VIVA World Cup, ISSF World Cup, UCI World Cup and many many more. There is only one Formula One World Championship every year so FIA is redundant here. There is clear difference between this and for instance PDC World Darts Championship and BDO World Darts Championship. And regarding pulling the trigger to quickly, removing FIA has been first raised eight months ago. Just how long do you think we should have waited?T v x1 15:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, I agree with you on the redundancy and I don't need convincing. "FIA" would definitely be necessary if it was the "FIA World Championship" instead, but it isn't. With respect to trigger pulling, it was my understanding that the discussion did not yield a consensus for change, and it consequently went stale and got archived. For such a significant change, I would've expected a discussion immediately prior to page moves, and perhaps even an RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Circuit locations

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

1) Some of the circuits are incorrectly listed in the article. For example, the Shanghai circuit is over 30km from the city, just as the Hungaroring is not in Budapest, but some 30km away.

2) The circuits are not in the locations listed—the Hungaroring is not in Mogoryod, so it's a false equivocance to suggest it is, hence the extra column.

3) If there is an existing discussion on this subject, please cite it. Don't claim it exists when the article has been like this for weeks and no-one has any objections. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

1)While the Shanghai circuit is situated 30km from the city centre, it is still located on the territory of Shanghai so listing Shanghai is just fine.

2)You are the one who changed it to Mogyoród in the first place. Make up your mind. Moreover as far as I can find, the circuit IS located in Mogyoród.

3)I already linked to the discussion in my revert. Here it is again. You already proposed the extra column and you received unanimous opposition.

4)Details on the circuit locations are not relevant here. They belong on the articles dealing with the circuit. The only important things here are which race takes place on which circuit when.T v x1 13:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you took a break from Wikipedia recently. I noticed it because we actually got stuff done instead of having to run every change past one person. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Pot, black, kettle. This isn’t about me. We discussed this subject four years ago and we decided unanimously against Youri proposal for a location column. I never stated I have to approve anything.T v x1 01:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet, it seems that any changes to an article seem to need your approval before they are applied to an article before they are accepted. Even if 99 out of 100 users agreed to a change and you were the only dissenting editor, we'd still end up doing what you wanted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2018

That’s your general behavior, not mine.T v x1 19:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one insisting that a four year old consensus must be observed despite the way nobody in that original discussion objected to those edits for weeks. I'm not the one who refuses to acknowledge the way people can and do change their minds and nor do I expect that people remain consistent with something they said years ago even if they no longer agree with it. I'm not the one who assumes he has the power to ignore a recent consensus because he personally disagrees with it, and I'm not the one who abuses the ANI process to try and punish people for daring to disagree with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of even having discussions and gaining consensus if the just become invalid solely because some years have passed. Many of our articles even operate on consensus which have been achieved over a decade ago. And where has even one person from the linked discussion said now that they no longer agree with it?? The fact that after four years you still refuse to accept that you "lost" that discussion and that no-one agreed with you show what the real problem here is. You just cannot stand not getting your way and then you launch into rant after rant of delirious personal attack s on the person you consider guilty of not getting your way. Here you accused me of going to ignore the consensus. In reality, the discussion was closed, you made the supported edit and I did nothing. So you really need to drop your delirious obsession that my sole purpose here is to create trouble. Also your accusations regarding ANI and me are hilarious and utterly hypocritical. In reality, you are the one who has the habit of jumping into running to ANI to settle scores whenever someone does something you don't like (as seen e.g. here, here, here here). You have even been warned once by a reviewing admin about jumping to ANI. So stop going the personal route by fruitlessly trying to question my credibility because it just has no relevancy to, let alone effect on, this discussion.T v x1 11:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"What's the point of even having discussions and gaining consensus if the just become invalid solely because some years have passed."

It's not to give you a licence to block changes that you disagree with.

"you are the one who has the habit of jumping into running to ANI to settle scores whenever someone does something you don't like"

Says the man who either trawled through years worth of ANI archives or had those discussions bookmarked for just such an occasion. Neither is a good look for you.

"So stop going the personal route by fruitlessly trying to question my credibility because it just has no relevancy to, let alone effect on, this discussion."

I'm not the only one who has questioned your attitude. And I believe it is highly relevant because I think there is a pattern where you behave as if the article is your property.

"So you really need to drop your delirious obsession that my sole purpose here is to create trouble."

I never said that your purpose was to cause trouble. I think your purpose is to control the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no desire to control any article. Again pot, black, kettle. You're the most unopened editor to other editors contributing to articles you regularly contribute to. I went to the ANI archives because you accused me of things which are simply not true and because I prefer to back my claims up with evidence. You just spout out unfounded accusations and hope they are correct. I did not block any changes that you disagree with. The tyre column is the evidence of that. I merely ensured that the article adhered to consensus. You were the only one who ever complained about those locations and you still are. Nothing what you wrote here achieves anything. Unless you have anything meaningful to say there is no point in continuing this. Wikipedia is not a place to vent your anger with other people.T v x1 15:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's something meaningful: you need to learn how to work with people. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with working with people. Years of fruitful contributions to multiple versions of wikipedia demonstrate that. I'm not the one who has been blocked six times for behavioral problems.T v x1 15:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Says the man with a history of trying to use 3RR to punish people who disagree with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't. That just your disillusioned thought.T v x1 18:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Circut Paul Ricard 2018 layout map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: Only two editors have weighed in on this nomination. Perhaps other editors here can do the same? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Pole Position Austria

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that in the championship tables Lewis and not Bottas are shown in bold. I'm not sure how to correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malfunctional (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It is now fixed. (Mobile mundo (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC))

Thanks

Standings

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The current Championship standings indicate Lewis Hamilton got pole at the Austrian GP, this needs to be changed to Valtteri Bottas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versicarius (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The Championship standings for HAAS seems to be a bit messed up. At least Austrian GP. (Im sorry. First time editing in talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to 2018 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hamilton has been awarded Pole Position from Austrian GP in Drivers championship table instead of giving it to Valtteri Bottas. Tähdikki (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Done Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the template, but this begs a question regarding the constructors' Championship results: Since we no longer indicate the individual cars or drivers in the constructors' table, I assume when both cars retire and one of them also had pole or fastest lap, this will be displayed as the "upper" of the two results? This would imply Bottas' result as "top" because that Ret result is in bold, despite that fact he retired earlier than Hamilton. I guess it doesn't matter because neither are classified? 68.187.249.27 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That is my understanding. DH85868993 (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Photo of current driver/constructor leader

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

It seems odd we have photos of the current leader and the defending drivers champion and only a photo of the current constructor leader. We should have a photo of the current leader in both championships or photos of both defender and current leader (if they are different).

Swagger9000 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about this season, not last season. There is no requirement of having pictures of all defending champions in the lead.T v x1 20:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit was reverted because there was no consensus. There is no rule saying one way or another. So at some point there was a decision made to have a photo of the defending driver champion and the current driver champion photo placed side by side but only the current constructor champion photo. Would like to hear some feedback as this is inconsistent. Swagger9000 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Too many photos at the top of the article clutters it up. You claim it is inconsistent, but it is not. Look back over previous championships—they always feature more drivers than teams. There is no rule that says we must have two drivers and two teams or one driver and one team, but we cannot have two of one and one of the other. The current arrangement of two drivers and one team was reached through edit-consensus. I see no reason go change it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason not to change because that is the way we have done it in the past is not a good reason to keep doing it. As we are both arguing the same thing, there is no rule saying there needs to be a photo of the two driver champions and/or two constructor champions or one driver champion and one constructor champion, there is no particular reason to keep the accustomed layout. If space is a valid concern, show only the current champion for both or if it is not, show both current and defending for each. Swagger9000 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You're arguing that we change the article for the sake of change. You haven't provided a single reason why the current layout is a problem. The expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" springs to mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am arguing because it is inconsistent. I said that multiple times before. Having the defending and current champion for the drivers and not the constructors shows the drivers championship holds greater emphasis than the constructors. Again, just because this is how it was done in the past does not mean it is best. Now if I only had a witty expression to conclude this simple argument. Swagger9000 (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus for change, then by all means, it will change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I would actually argue that the drivers championship does carry more notability than the constructors championship.T v x1 07:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I second that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to seeing an image of the defending constructor, but I completely agree it is less noteworthy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@Mayerroute5 — you need a consensus for your changes. Given the recent history of this article and other, related articles where the same unjustified edits were made (which coincided with your block), your edits constitute disruptuve editing. The edit-consensus has accepted the use of "[note #]". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Where does it show that note# is agreed as the consensus? It's not there on the WikiProject Formula One page. Mayerroute5 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit-consensus.T v x1 20:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

1) It's unclear what the "N" in "[N #]" actually means.

2) Long-standing practice at WP:F1 is to make articles accessible to tablet and mobile readers (provided it does not compromise desktop readers). "[N #]" is a small target to hit when you physically have to touch it to read it.

3) A consensus on the F2 article talk page is that the F2 article should recreate the style of the F1 article where possible. It's pretty obvious that you've changed the style of this article so that you can change the style of the F2 article, which is disruptive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that Mayerroute5 has made no attempt to establish a consensus, I have restored the original markup. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong number of running

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says in the beginning: "The 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship is an ongoing motor racing championship for Formula One cars and the 72nd running of the Formula One World Championship." but it is only the 69th. Cmeio (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Lando Norris

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Over the past few days, editors have been repeatedly adding Lando Norris to the table as a free practice driver. As far as I can find, he has not been entered as such for any GP so far and thus he should not be added.T v x1 20:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources exist that state he will feature in the first Friday practice at Spa, including the Formula1.com website. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

We need an entry list, because that's the only evidence that he has been given permission to take part by the stewards. He still needs to pass scrutineering.T v x1 20:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. WP:PSTS essentially states Wikipedia articles should rely mostly on secondary reliable sources (which all the above are) over primary sources like the entry list. This is a site-wide policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It also says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That's exactly what we do. There's nothing wrong with citing the official authorities to list actual participants and results of sports events as long as we accurately reflect them and don't analyze them ourselves.T v x1 20:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a primary source is not necessary when we have several secondary sources available. Ergo, it was wrong to revert the Lando Norris addition and the edit summary you gave was misleading. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. He has not been entered for any session of any grand prix so far, and none of your secondary sources state he has been, so we cannot list him. For the same reason, the rounds column only goes to round 12 at the moment and not 13 (Belgium). This is our convention and I cannot see any reason why we should deviate from it.T v x1 16:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. Plenty of reliable sources confidently and uncontroversially state Norris will drive in FP1, which is more than enough for the fact to be added to the article. Perhaps you should consider being less slavishly rigid about sticking to convention? It has often put you at odds with other contributors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

They only state he is contracted to enter. As explained before, the rounds column isn't updated until driver are actually entered for said round. Adding Norris now would make that information clash with the rest of the table. Wait and add him if he's entered.T v x1 18:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

At the start of the season, we include drivers with contracts before they enter any races. Why is this any different? Reliable sources say Norris is McLaren's free practice driver, let's stick him in! OZOO (t) (c) 11:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What is so important that you can not wait until the grand prix? Do you have no impulse control? --Falcadore (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I have no impulse control. When I see something on Wikipedia that I know is wrong and have reliable sources that can be used to justify a correction, I need to correct it. OZOO (t) (c) 10:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

What's the wrong bit? Where does it say that Norris will not be taking part in the future? --Falcadore (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reserve Drivers

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should we include reserve drivers next to the Free Practice drivers, since they are somewhat important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotmotF12 (talk • contribs)

We removed reserve drivers from the tables several years ago. The big problem we were having was defining which drivers should be included. Many teams associate with a number of drivers under multiple designations (test driver, reserve driver, third driver, development driver, simulator driver, young driver), the actual role not being standard and differing greatly by team, and often not involving any guarantee they are the reserve driver (even if they are called that) or even a chance of driving the car. Some drivers are also paying to be associated with the team or to be part of a driver development programme, and their official titles are essentially meaningless.

Since deciding who should be included was impossible without asking the teams for the contracts so we could differentiate between the actual reserve and test drivers and the standing at the back of the garage drivers, it was decided to eliminate everything bar the free practice drivers, which could be easily verified. QueenCake (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Constructor Standings: Ferrari mix-up

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Please refer to the table in the section “Results-Constructor Standings”. The results for the German GP for the Ferrari boys have been erroneously switched: First line is Vettel: He is the only one to win for Ferrari this season and DNF’d in Germany. Second line is Kimi: He didn’t win for Ferrari this year :( but managed to get third place. As you can see, the results for this race where swapped between the two. I only know because I was there in the stadium section when it happened :’( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C9:4BEB:B43A:D509:3067:CC4:6C07 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You’re wrong. There are no lines for drivers in the constructors’ table. It only lists the constructors results. I don’t why you think otherwise since the drivers aren’t mentioned in any way or form in that table.T v x1 02:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that each row would correlate with each entry, but we've had that discussion before, haven't we? 1.129.109.167 (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

In the WDC table yes, in the WCC table no. Constructors can enter more than two different drivers over the course of a season. Moreover prior to 2014 our tables didn't have one row per driver either.T v x1 03:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Discussion has been moved to WT:F1

The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.

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

1) The "Entrant" column should be retitled as "Entrant/Constructor".

2) The "Constructor" column should be removed.

3) The name of the chassis (for example "Force India") should be merged into the "Chassis" column, for example something along the lines of "Force India (VJM11)".

4) The name of the power unit (for example "Mercedes") should be merged into the "Power Unit" column, for example "Mercedes (Mercedes M09 EQ Power+)".

Also, on this topic, I feel a similar thing needs to be done with the WCC standings - replacing "Force India-Mercedes" with "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Please could you all let me know what you think and provide your own proposals. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of clarification, here is an example of my proposal; Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Pos.	Constructor	AUS	BHR	CHN	AZE	ESP	MON	CAN	FRA	AUT	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	RUS	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport	2	2	2	1	1	3	2	1	Ret	2	1	1										345
1	Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport	8	3	4	14†	2	5	5	7	Ret	4	2	5										345
Pos.	Constructor	AUS	BHR	CHN	AZE	ESP	MON	CAN	FRA	AUT	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	RUS	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points

I wouldn't overhaul anything. All the table's contents is supported by the myriad of reliable sources in the source row. And I wouldn't change the WCC table either. Using the full entrant names only makes the table wider without any benefit.T v x1 19:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely aesthetics etc. should all come last - primarily we must make sure we are providing accurate information. As we discovered today, with the Force India situation, the constructor name is in fact the name of the entrant. Taking this into consideration, the "Constructor" column is now presenting the wrong information in both the entries table and the WCC table. The WCC table can easily be fixed in the way I described, and personally I can't think of another option for this, can you? Of course, the same could be done with the entries table, but then you would have the first two columns ("Entrant" and "Constructor") displaying identical information, which seems a bit pointless, hence why I felt it made sense to merge these two columns. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a conversation that should be taking place at WT:F1 because it potentially affects dozens (if not more) of articles. 1.129.104.172 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.104.172, I have added a discussion at WT:F1. Obviously this discussion is most relevant to this season, because most other seasons could use the current table without causing any real confusion, but with the Force India/Racing Point situation, we should really be making all of this information clear for this season's article at the very least. However, I totally agree that if we can come up with an option at WT:F1 that will mean we can make older articles more accurate, as well as set a precedent to make future articles more accurate (especially if this situation were to occur again), then that would be ideal. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You cannot have the same discussion in multiple places. It looks like you're shopping around for a consensus. What do you do if you get one agreement in one discussion and a different agreement in the other? Given the potential to affect dozens of articles, WT:F1 is the most appropriate place for this discussion. 1.129.104.172 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Background colour for Force India's pre-Belgium "points" finishes

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I recently updated Force India Grand Prix results to change the background colour for Force India's pre-Belgium "points" finishes to blue, on the basis of the same having been done in {{F1 Constructors Standings}}. But then I noticed that this is inconsistent with what we did for McLaren in 2007 - McLaren's results in 2007 Formula One World Championship, McLaren Grand Prix results and McLaren MP4-22 kept their original background colours. So should we do the same for Force India this year, or are the two situations different? DH85868993 (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually think we got that Mclaren situation wrong. The situation was rather identical. They were docked all their points prior to the Belgian Grand Prix as well and they surely didn't receive any points for their results in the remaining races.T v x1 13:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see the rationale to the McLaren table. McLaren had their championship points as a whole removed, but the FIA did not change the results in individual races - apart from Hungary where they directly had their constructor points removed. QueenCake (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They didn't change the positions they achieved as such, but they surely converted them to non-points scoring finishes. And certainly, all the results achieved starting with Belgium were non-points scoring finished for the WCC. They never received any points at all from these races.T v x1 18:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously wrong to say that they 'never' received any points - they did receive points for their points finishes, although as a result of exclusion those points did not count towards the WCC tally. From a more pragmatic perspective, many Wikipedia users use the colors as a way to get a high-level overview of the performance of a team in a given year. Take the McLaren page as an example - just scrolling down the page it's easy to see how the fortunes of the team have changed over time. Now, with Force India, we loose this facility. 86.179.118.92 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed they didn't ever get points. With that I was referring to McLaren's 2007 post Italy results. Force India did originally receive points, but they have now de facto been converted to non-points finishes by the FIA. When a constructor is excluded and doesn't get any points as a result evolution of performance is really of no importance. The WCC table is only intended to show the outcome of the championship. For the evolution of the season we have a season report.T v x1 16:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)