Talk:2025 Formula One World Championship

Lewis Hamilton Joins Ferrari

Me being Indecent: When a move is so mental that Next Season's wiki page gets made before this season even starts Wycombefan (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about that. I am of the opinion that WP:SIGCOV is still not met for this article. SSSB (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Seems WP:TOOSOON. The article is bascially nothing but that shocking move. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. All I know is that there hasn't been a season for the last half dozen years when I haven't wished there was an article like this for the coming season. It's the best way to track who's under contract for the next season and the rules and schedule changes that are announced during the year and that incredibly useful access to information is continuously sabotaged by rulenazis who most likely doesn't actually care about F1 anyway. But as long as this resource will stay available I'll be happy. Djungelurban (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you are not actually arguing that WP:SIGCOV is met, this sounds a lot like "I want this article to exist because it is WP:USEFUL. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a database for contracts or a live update service. SSSB (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is no one requesting or proposing deletion then? Tvx1 08:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting

@Island92: If you're going to revert like you did here, you have to give a reason, especially for edits that aren't just obvious vandalism. Why do you think the table shouldn't be allowed to be auto-width? Per Help:Table#Width, Setting widths is discouraged for the most part on Wikipedia because it interferes with the ability of the browser to adjust content to suit the browser window, device size, zoom settings, user-end font size choices, and other constraints. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That is just a copyedit from 2024 season. Island92 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That explanation does not make any sense. For what must be the thousandth time, something not following convention on other pages is not a reason to continue the issue, especially when it is an arbitrary pixel count that is causing weird gaps in the table columns. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Island92 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Mercedes power unit

@Island92: Regarding this edit, please review MOS:EGG and MOS:MORELINKWORDS and revert yourself. Mercedes power unit is significantly more clear than Mercedes power unit in setting the reader's expectations to go to Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains rather than Mercedes or one of the other main Mercedes articles. This clearly violates the Manual of Style without any benefit. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"2025 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 26 § 2025 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix until a consensus is reached. Martin^talk 02:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ferrari HP

Despite this new title sponsor, Ferrari has never entered with it in 2024. I do not understand why Ferrari should do it in 2025. There is no seasonal-entry list released just yet. We should keep Scuderia Ferrari only in my opinion. Island92 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 19:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• haven't looked at what the source says, but this reasoning is WP:OR SSSB (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • For what? Ferrari are not competing with HP. Why they should do it in 2025? How much are we sure about that? There is no indication, entry list released just yet. If there is an evidence confirming it (the best one as to be the season entry list) hence we will update it as well. Island92 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No, it's the other way around. Ferrari has not used HP as part of its entry name, and there is nothing to suggest they will do so in future. It's only been placed in this article due to a mistaken assumption (or in other words, OR). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 20:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    No, it's been placed in the article because the cited source says there is a multi-year deal between HP and Ferrari and as part of this they will enter as "Scuderia Ferrari HP" from the 2024 Miami Grand Prix.

    In the opening comment in this thread it says "I do not understand why Ferrari should [enter as 'Scuderia Ferrari HP' in 2025." The fact that you that thinks this is the case makes it WP:OR. The fact that you are comparing this source to the entry lists for this year to reach your conclusion is WP:SYNTHESIS (a type of WP:OR)

    Now, if Wikipedia allowed original research I would 100% agree with the analysis and I would agree that "HP" should be removed. But Wikipedia does not allow original research so until a source backs up the claim that the HP agreement does not apply, we cannot remove it. SSSB (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    Do we have an 2025 entry list now? No. Who knows how they will enter? When HP was introduced, I was convinced Ferrari would enter as Scuderia Ferrari HP from 2023 Miami Grand Prix onwards. That was not the case. Ferrari is not competing by including HP at all. Why this should be the case for 2025? In the first publication of the 2025 entry list we will have the final proof, but reporting now HP for 2025 is just wrong assuming. Island92 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    That source is clearly incorrect since Ferrari have never entered as "Scuderia Ferrari HP". How can it remain credible? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

    It's not wrong assuming because we are not assuming. We are repeating what the source says.

    How can the source remain credible? Because it is from HP, a reliable source when it comes to HP PR.

    Now, if you want to change your argument from WP:OR to WP:inaccuracy, then we should still have a footnote that reliable sources report that they will compete as "Scuderia Ferrari HP" on a multi-year basis from 2024 Miami Grand Prix, will specifying that they haven't actually done this yet. SSSB (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

    • That's nonsensical. An obvious prerequisite for a source to be reliable is for it to be accurate. You're insisting we need to retain factually incorrect information in an article because of a press release which makes claims about a future arrangement which has never come to pass? Surely you can see this is a ridiculous position to hold. This is nothing more than OR or some sort of weird, anti-COMMONSENSE wikilawyering about what an RS is. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

      I don't think you understand the difference between reliability and accuracy. A source of information (HP in this case) can be reliable while making the occasional inaccurate comment. We are not retaining factually incorrect information because we don't know it is factual incorrect (with regard to 2025). You are speculating that the 2025 information is incorrect based on the 2024 info being incorrect. We know it is factually incorrect vis-a-vis 2024 Miami to know, but that does not make it factually incorrect for 2025. If you want to speculate that the source is incorrect on all counts, I will speculate the source is only incorrect on the 2024 team name. Either way, we are speculating on either a miscommunication between lawyers and PR teams of the two companies. And my speculation carries as much weight as yours. Which is why the appropraite course of action is to follow the advise in Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Should inaccurate material be excluded from the encyclopedia?: that we should include a footnote that the source which comes from a reliable source is potential inaccurate when discussing the 2025 name. SSSB (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

World map circuit locations

What a joke. Island92 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging users to give their take on it. @Cerebral726:, @Cerebral726:, @5225C:, @Tvx1:, @Joseph2302:, @DH85868993:, @BryOn2205U:. Island92 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't need them, they don't add value to the article, contrary to Cerebral726's edit summaries. There's a reason why we have 74 years of F1 articles without them. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The inactive WP:MOSDIAG still gives some interesting and useful foundation for viewing this from a Wikipedia-wide perspective. They give an explicit presentation that is directly relevant to the subject of the article in which they appear; they are fully consistent with, and support, the surrounding text; their style and density of information are chosen to appeal to a general reader. The "World" championship's location also does appear in other articles, such as 2018, 2017, 2016. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also 2014, 2013, albeit different format. I would consider this one better, with more relevant details. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"The "World" championship's location also does appear in other articles", yes, but that is a different image with a different presentation, more generic. These current two maps are just copied from here, for example. Just red dots were moved in the map. Island92 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

So? Cerebral726 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

So it should not be used. My opinion. And not only mine I bet. Island92 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The map should not be used because the template is used in other contexts as well? Cerebral726 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, a map like it is sufficient for the section, not two maps like now. Island92 (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the issue to be perfectly honest, I agree with Cerebral726. This is a better way of presenting the information than our previous method since it actually labels the circuits. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have notified WT:F1, as would be good to get more people's views. Especially as the outcome of this discussion could set a precedent for which maps to use in future. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  To get more people's views, it is correct that user Cerebral726 undo his edit. Island92 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  You can't have it both ways. While I viewed there was a slight consensus before additional discussion such that it was acceptable to add the maps back after 3 days of no additional opinions, Tvx1 now contributing to the discussion (among others), show there is none. As such, the correct procedure is to restore the WP:STATUSQUO (which was no map) until a consensus is reached. It is correct that you undo your edit. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  The additional of the other kind of map is not against any tipe of consensus because it is used for some past editions. I'm just matching something used somewhereelse, hence I suppose with nothing against it. Island92 (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  One person supporting you is not “a slight consensus”. There were actually two people opposing you as well. As for the single map, we have used that for years. It just wasn’t added to this article yet, but that is the consensus style. Tvx1 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete ALL the maps. While I appreciate the work that was done to create them, I don't think they add any value to the article; moreover, they may encourage edit warring where someone thinks some national border is in the wrong place (even at that scale). Since the calendar includes linked circuit and city names, all of which have articles that show their respective locations on maps, I honestly think the maps are superflous here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  And I can't really see the point of having this kind of map either, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Let's remove it then, but watch out that this kind of map is used for some past editions. A general review is needed if we don't want to have any kind of map. Island92 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Let’s not overreact. The single world map style is what we have use succesfully for years and without complaints. There is no need to remove it. Tvx1 18:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)