Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

2020 championship article

Overnight, 2020 FIA Formula One World Championship was created. I have since nominated it for deletion. You can comment on it here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

2019 championship article too

Since I can see no difference for the 2019 article, I have nominated that one as well. You can leave your comments here.Tvx1 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"I can see no difference for the 2019 article"

That's what happens when you remove content to justify an AfD. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: can you give the diff(s) please for where content has been removed "to justify an AfD". -- DeFacto (talk). 07:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit in particular, which I have since restored. It removed content that was relevant to the article and drew on a variety of reliable sources used in other articles. The reason given for its removal was "we have never done that before" (which to me is usually code for "I don't like it"), and there was no attempt to discuss its inclusion on the article talk page (even though it is accepted to name races that are out of contract, which is the same thing applied differently). The net effect of removing this content was to bring the content of the 2019 article in line with the content of the 2020 article, strengthening the AfD case that the 2019 article should be deleted. To someone outside the WP:F1 project, this change may not necessarily be apparent, thus influencing their decision in the AfD discussion.

Generally speaking, it's pretty poor eticutte to nominate an article for deletion and then edit that article in such a way that it reflects your view of the article. You will notice that when I nominated the 2020 article for deletion, I didn't remove any content so that other people could read and assess it for themselves.

If nothing else, the 2019 article contains content that is well-sourced and used elsewhere on Wikipedia without issue. You cannot simply delete it without discussion on the premise that the content is not typically used in that way, much less do it in the middle of an AfD discussion and then claim that the article without it deserves to be deleted because it contains nothing of value. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just removed that again as WP:CRYSTAL. That needs positive sourcing - an RS saying they will have no contract for 2019. I commented to keep that article, but thought the speculation you added was unhelpful. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not CRYSTAL at all. As of right now, they have no contracts for 2019. As much as we're interested in what the article looks like in the long term, we also have to take the short term into consideration. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What's more, ignoring those sources is CRYSTAL by omission. All of those sources clearly state that those drivers are under contract until the end of 2018. To ignore that and omit the sources entirely implies that those drivers will be offered a contract (if not with their existing teams, then with someone else), which is CRYSTAL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You are speculating that because a contract finishes that there isn't, or won't be, another - that contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. All I am saying is that the current contracts end before 2019. Nothing more, nothing less. You're the one who called the references "unverified speculation" in the 2019 article despite accepting them in the 2018 article—and despite having no issue with the bottom portion of the events section, which lists races with no contract for 2019. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

They are not used in speculative way for the 2018 article because there they support actually existing contracts for that season. Your continued request to include them on the 2019 article is because of your own misguided assumption that there will be a sensational set of driver changes for the 2019 season. You are even inventing new tables which have never even considered using before just because you keep mistakingly believing that the number of drivers currently without a 2019 contract is somehow extraordinary. I have already pointed at the AFD that prior to this summer Vettel, Räikkönen, Bottas, Pérez, Vandoorne, Alonso, Palmer, Massa, Stroll, Ericsson, Wehrlein and Kvyat were all without a 2018 contract (some of whom still are without such a contract). The number of drivers without a 2019 contract isn't unique in any way and is not in itself a reason for having that article. We should create a season article when new contracts (be it for drivers, teams, races or even a tyre supplier) or rule changes for that particular season are being announced. That's no the case now and you why? Because contrary to with some wikipedians, the focus of the real life F1 people lies with concluding their 2017 campaign as successfully as possible and with getting their 2018 campaign underway.Tvx1 10:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"your own misguided assumption that there will be a sensational set of driver changes for the 2019 season"

Where did I say that in the 2019 article? I didn't. I just stated a simple fact—that half a dozen drivers have contracts expiring at the end of 2018—and supported that statement with a variety of reliable and verifiable sources. Indeed, I could say that your decision to remove them is born out your own misguided assumption that there will be no driver changes for the 2019 season. The only difference is that I have sources to back up my claim.

"You are even inventing new tables which have never even considered using before"

Actually, we already do it. Look at the list of races in the 2019 article. There is a section for races under contract in 2018, but not in 2019. All I am doing is taking that and applying it to the driver table. Just because we have never done something before, that doesn't mean that it is automatically invalid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I just stated the simple fact that half a dozen drivers have contracts expiring at the end of 2018
— User:Prisonermonkeys 11:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And what is so special about that? I have already pointed that a full dozen of drivers had their contracts expiring at the end of 2017. In fact, more than half a dozen still have. And the exact same situation existed for the 2017 season. On the 29th of September of 2015 Räikkönen, Rosberg, Pérez, Ricciardo, Kvyat, Verstappen, Sainz, Button, Massa, Bottas, Grosjean, Maldonado, Stevens, Merhi, Rossi, Ericsson and Nasr were all having contracts expiring at the end of 2016 or earlier and thus without a 2017 contract. That's a whopping 17 of them. In fact 11 of them were still without a 2017 contract 12 months later. You see what you continue to present as an exceptional situation is something that literally happens EVERY year. You are literally the one sole person bombarding this into a extraordinary situation that must see an article created and kept uniquely for that.Tvx1 12:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because we have never done something before, that doesn't mean that it is automatically invalid.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 11:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If the only motivation to start doing it is to save an article from deletion that the simple answer is we shouldn't do it. As I have stated above, a multitude of drivers having contracts running out is something that happens every year.Tvx1 12:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"If the only motivation to start doing it is to save an article from deletion that the simple answer is we shouldn't do it."

Except that that isn't my motivation at all. You're just assuming that it is. Judging by the way the AfD is going, there is plenty of support for keeping the article with or without mention of which drivers are out of contract than there is support for deleting the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Formula One circuits

I notice that Template:Formula One circuits was recently divided into "Road courses" and "Street circuits". Is this desirable/necessary? DH85868993 (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

My opinion: no, it isn't. Road course is somewhat ambiguous, depending on the variety of English and the context, and sometimes can be synonymous with street circuit (things like "temporary road course" come to my mind). Besides, there are oddballs like Melbourne or Montreal that can't be exactly classified into either group (although Melbourne is described as a street circuit in its article, so I don't know why is listed as road course in the template!). I think it isn't really an useful distinction for using in a template, as it requires a lot of explanation and specific knowledge. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the value. And there is the language issue, with this usage being an Americanism. Certainly in British English a road course is a temporary circuit held on public roads, and can often also be distinguished as a circuit on rural roads like the Isle of Man TT, compared to a street circuit in urban areas. QueenCake (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this either. It should be reverted as soon as possible. More than enough reasons have already been provided.Tvx1 21:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with others. In addition, the same editor made the same changes for various other circuit-related templates. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes to Template:Formula One circuits. Thanks for your input everyone. DH85868993 (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reif/Greifzu

I noticed that in the entry list of the 1952 season Rudolf Krause his car is listed as a Greifzu BMW. In the 1953 season entry list Krause his car is listed as a Reif BMW. In the result table on Krause his page it is listed the other way round.

After having done some research on Forix I found out that Krause drove his own developed Reif car in 1952 and he drove the Greifzu at the 1953 German Grand Prix. Krause took over the Greifzu for 1953 after Paul Greifzu's death in 1952.

This is listed wrong on some of the wiki pages. A lot of pages on the internet list these cars wrong or the other way round.Jahn1234567890 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The Greifzu is listed as a Constructor in wikipedia's constructors list. Should we also add the Balsa, Nacke, Krakau, Heck and Reif in this list? Basically they are all self built cars (All converted BMW's) including the Greifzu. We also list the Apollon and McGuire in the constructor list and they are both converted Williams'. I don't see any difference with the German BMW specials. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

1974 Austrian Grand Prix

The article for Firestone tires says something big happened at the 1974 Austrian Grand Prix, but I don't know what this is. Could they really be talking about the 1975 Austrian Grand Prix where American Mark Donohue lost his life??: "In motorsport[edit] The 1911 Indianapolis 500 auto race was won by a car running Firestone tires. Firestone-shod cars won all editions of the race from 1920 to 1966. The company also provided tires to Formula One from 1950 to 1974. As a consequence of the 1973 Indianapolis 500, 1973 United States Grand Prix and 1974 Austrian Grand Prix tragedies, Firestone retired from American open-wheel racing and Formula One after 1974. The manufacturer returned in 1995 to the CART series with technical assistance from Bridgestone. Goodyear retired after 1999, thereby leaving Firestone as the single supplier of the IndyCar Series as of 2017." 24.16.61.75 (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that an event at the 1975 Austrian Grand Prix would prompt Firestone to withdraw from American open-wheel racing and Formula One at the end of 1974. However, I can't see anything tragic about the 1974 Austrian Grand Prix. Perhaps they meant the 1974 United States Grand Prix (the final race of the 1975 season), where Helmuth Koinigg lost his life? DH85868993 (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the paragraph should be rewritten. Right now, it assumes preexisting knowledge of the readers what happened at those races. That's not the encyclopedic style of writing.Tvx1 14:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added a little bit that I've been able to substantiate about Firestones withdrawal, but I couldn't find anything that specifically referenced the races mentioned, that information was added in January 2013 by User:NaBUru38 but may just have been speculative. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I did this edit four years ago. I don't remember where I got that information, but it looks like I copied the text from somewhere else. I found this source, which mentions Firestone's withdrawal but not any fatalities. That's as much as I can have to solve the issue. Years ago I was reluctant to add sources, I've learned since. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Championship lead graphs

An editor is adding these. Is this the sort of thing we put in the "encyclopedia" now? Britmax (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I can see where the encyclopaedic value of it comes from; it takes the complex results matrices and turns them in an effective visual representation of the championship. However, I feel the way the user has done them is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Driver number article

I'm not happy with the current state of this article. Posted an explanation on talk page, then realised the article doesn't get much traffic. Reposting here to draw attention to problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article would be more valuable if it listed all the historic driver/number combinations since 2014 when the new system went into effect. cherkash (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated that article for deletion twice and I still feel it shouldn't exist.Tvx1 21:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of it either, but if it has survived two AfDs, then I guess we're stuck with it. We might as well do it properly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It didn't really survive those AFD's with much justified support. The first one even ended as "no consensus".Tvx1 22:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

So feel free to nominate it again, and let us know to chime in on the discussion. cherkash (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1, @Cherkash — nominated. Would have done it sooner, but it took me a while to figure out how as the article had already been nominated twice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. cherkash (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Test drivers in 2009

Do we have any evidence of Kamui Kobayashi driving with number 0 (as is listed here)? Even in 2009 Japanese Grand Prix which was the only race listed on his stats with a "PO" status (besides the last two races where he drove as a regular driver), he was driving car number 10 (see here).

More generally, what was the status of test drivers in 2009? The championship page lists Kobayashi as the only test driver among the 10 teams competing that season. Is that true? Hartley's article seems to indicate otherwise. cherkash (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the number, since that's clearly incorrect. Fairly sure Kobayashi was the only driver to actually practice on a Friday, which is what we list - I don't think Hartley or anyone else ever did. OZOO (t) (c) 13:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember details of 2008 & 2009 seasons very well, but it seems those two seasons are an exception to the teams' entering some test drivers on Fridays (which happened pretty much every season for more than 10 years now). Apart from Kobayashi in Japan-2009 (which actually is more of a substitute driver's case), there are none others practicing on Fridays. Was there a reason those two seasons stand out in this way? cherkash (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, you actually seem to have made this edit adding Kobayashi's number as 0. Do you remember why? Do you have any reference you can dig up supporting this? cherkash (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Must have been a typo.Tvx1 00:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is settled then. cherkash (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am still curious about 2008 & 2009 standing out in the way of not having a single test driver appear in official Friday sessions. Anyone remembers why? Was there something about the regulations in those years? cherkash (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Friday drivers were first introduced in 2003. The original rule was that teams who finished fifth or worse in the previous year's WCC were allowed to run a third car in FP1 and FP2 (and they did so lot, as long as they could afford it). In 2008, third cars were scratched and replaced by the current system, which gives every team the option to replace one or both their regular drivers with test drivers in FP1 and FP2, provided that the latter still drive the race cars. Obviously, this system is less favourable than the previous one (you generally don't want to take driving time away from your race drivers, especially in an era with so little test days), so teams just didn't field testers on Fridays in 2008 and 2009 (except the aforementioned Kobayashi). In 2010, Friday drivers started to be seen more often because the three new teams (HRT, Virgin, Lotus/Catheram) run pay drivers on Friday to try and make some money. Over time, other teams began to run Friday drivers more or less regulary, but it's usually midfield teams who run either pay drivers or young drivers from a top team's junior programme as part of their engine supply deals. Luxic (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

González / 1951 Spanish Grand Prix

There's a discussion in progress at Talk:1951 Spanish Grand Prix regarding whether or not González was still in title contention going into the race. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing the function of the rounds column

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship about how to organise drivers in the team and driver table. The dispute centres on the practice of arranging drivers based on who was the first to be entered; for example, Antonio Giovinazzi is listed before Pascal Wehrlein because although they were both entered in the first round, Giovinazzi was entered in the second round where Wehrlein was not. This arrangement is typically shown like this:

No.	Driver name	Rounds
2	Stoffel Vandoorne	1–18
14	Fernando Alonso	1–5, 7–18
22	Jenson Button	6

However, I think this creates a bit of a problem. The convention is to put the entry table as the first section of an article and the calendar as the second section. Consequently, the rounds column is somewhat meaningless. In the table above, did Jenson Button enter round six, or did he enter six rounds? After all, the column is simply called "Rounds".

What I am proposing is that we change the function of the "Rounds" column. Rather than being a list of all the rounds contested, I think we could simplify the tables by treating the column as the total number of rounds contested. Thus, the above table would look like this:

No.	Driver name	Rounds
2	Stoffel Vandoorne	18
14	Fernando Alonso	17
22	Jenson Button	1

In this version, Vandoorne has been entered in eighteen races, Alonso in seventeen and Button in one. True, we lose the specifics of where those rounds were contested, but that is explored in more detail (and more effectively) in the results matrix.

I appreciate that this may cause some confusion to begin with; looking at the new table, a reader may think that Button contested the first round rather than the sixth. But I think that if we applied this across the scope of championship articles and kept vigilant, the new table would be accepted within a year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

As already mentioned in the other discussion you referred to, the information you suggested as replacement is significantly less detailed than what's used currently. Why on earth would we want to replace the actual rounds entered by a driver with a dumbed-down statistic like a total count of rounds entered?

This is another case of "tail wagging the dog": you are using an argument about a completely different point of contention to promulgate changes that are inferior to what's currently being used without any other justification than to offer a weird way to resolve an unrelated point. cherkash (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"Why on earth would we want to replace the actual rounds entered by a driver with a dumbed-down statistic like a total count of rounds entered?"

Because the point of the entry table is to outline who entered a round or rounds of the championship. It doesn't matter if a driver enters one round or all twenty rounds—they are treated equally in the table. Given that the entry list is positioned before the calendar in the article, the "actual rounds entered" is meaningless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

As stated in the other discussion, I oppose changing the format/meaning of the rounds column. Apart from the loss of information (for no benefit that I can see), it would make the Formula One season articles inconsistent with every other motor racing series on English Wikipedia. DH85868993 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, the statement "True, we lose the specifics of where those rounds were contested, but that is explored in more detail (and more effectively) in the results matrix" is not correct for all seasons - consider 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship - currently the "Rounds" column shows that Fisichella drove for Force India in rounds 1-12 and Ferrari in rounds 13-17. The results matrices do not show that information. DH85868993 (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — in that case, Fisichella would still appear twice in the entry list, once for Force India and once for Ferrari. The table is only a visual representation of the entry list; the prose should adequately detail when Fisichella swapped over and the circumstances under which it happened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to this change as well. I do not believe this improves anything. It's just an overreaction to one isolated case in 2017.Tvx1 13:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

World maps with GP locations (1950–1985)

Tvx1, you've recently removed 36 seasons' worth of location maps from the 1950–1985 season articles. The edit summaries were "Removed unwieldily, unexplained and poorly placed map". I don't quite see the reason behind removals. Could you explain it please? cherkash (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

How can you not understand the words unwieldely, unexplained and poorly placed? Simply put, those maps are utterly impractical and do not improve those articles in any way.Tvx1 01:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Unwieldely (sic), unexplained and poorly placed" calls for improvement, not removal. These maps are an approximation of what we've been showing with a single map in a few most recent seasons (2012–2018). I completely disagree that those maps should be removed, as they give a geographic scope and GP locations at a glance for a given season. So unless you are willing to actually improve them, they should be restored in their most recent form. cherkash (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the maps. If you believe they need improvement, feel free to either propose specific changes and ask for help with implementation if you can't do it yourself – or just go ahead and make those changes. cherkash (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The maps are unnecessary and intrusive. They don't add any value to the actual subject. Otherwise you might as well start adding maps showing the drivers' birthplaces, or the locations of the manufacturers. Halmyre (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And you should not have done so. These maps were added by some IP some time ago. We have no obligation to accept every random edit by every IP. I have given enough reason to justify their removal. Also read the comments of other users removing the maps. They create technical problems. There is no policy anywhere which obliges us to have maps in our season articles. If you do really want maps create ones similar to the ones we have in our more recent articles or at least ask the person who created them to create maps for the older articles as well. But most certainly do not blanket restore flawed maps as is in the hope that someday someone will pass by to "improve" them. These charts can't even be "improved" to the ones we have in recent articles because they were created in completely different manner. But I see that there other people who think that these maps aren't required as well.Tvx1 20:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, your main argument is flawed in a couple important ways.

• First of all, your incorrect claim these maps are creating technical problems: not true – there was a single edit to the 1950 article where a user screwed up something in a map and then another user deleted it after; this was the extent of the technical issues – basically, none. So these maps don't create any issues.
• Second, you single-handedly decide you don't like them and took them out. There was no discussion at all. When I disagreed with your decision and initiated this discussion you again didn't address any specific issues, but simply reiterated your "unexplained and poorly placed" argument. This is not a good enough reason to remove the maps – and certainly a good reason to restore the articles to a status quo state prior to the maps removal, pending the results of this discussion.
• Third, it doesn't matter who added these maps: for all our purposes, IP editors are as good as registered editors. Your derogatory reference to "every random edit by every IP" is nothing more than an unjustifiedly snobbish attitude, which in itself can't justify removal of material from the articles.
• These maps survived in the articles for a while, and I personally went through all the articles a while back and fixed any issues with the maps I could find (track placements, etc.). So again, no matter who and when added them, multiple editors worked on incremental improvements to the maps, which shows their perceived value.
• In fact, you even suggested replacing them with maps in a different format, acknowledging their usefulness. So you can't be arguing about the maps not serving any purpose at the same time as advocating placing differently-formatted maps in their stead.

So bottom line is: if you don't like the maps in their current form, feel free to improve them or replace them. Without any concrete improvements suggested/implemented, there is simply not enough reason to remove them. cherkash (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

At least I make some arguments. That they are flawed is your opinion. Other users clearly think otherwise. The only things you bring are "They were added by someone" and "We have a map in 2017". My actions have nothing to do with not liking anything. They have everything to do with removing content that literally makes articles more difficult to read. Three users have stated independently from one another (pinging Johnuniq who removed them from the 1950 article} that they find these maps unhelpful. We have no obligation whatsoever to include these maps everywhere. Just because we have a map in 2017 doesn't mean we must have one in 1950 as well. Back then there were only a handful races across Europe and one or two in North America. I feel that adding a world map there like we have one in 2017 does not add anything to the subject. Something that works for 2017 does not necessarily work for 1950 as well. So stop adding those charts in complete ignorance of other editors' contributions to this discussion. You do not dictate if and when something can be removed. Your actions are utterly disruptive and if you persist you will be reported to the administrators.Tvx1 00:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1: your arguments are factually flawed, and I explained why. This is not my opinion, it's based on facts I outlined above. Your main argument was (and continues to be, based on your edit summaries) that these maps cause technical problems. It's a lie: the only article where there was ever a semblance of a technical problem is 1950 Formula One season – and even then the problem was not with the maps, but with a single bad edit made by an editor which was easily fixable.

In addition, you clearly engage in edit warring at this point, Tvx1: I've pointed out to you that since your edits happened to be controversial, the articles should be restored to a status quo state – i.e. the state they were in before you started removing the maps. Despite this, you keep insisting on removing the maps even though the discussion is ongoing. Please stop. cherkash (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of bad faith and please stop dictating what actions we are (not) allowed to take. The fact is that they literally make these articles harder to read and it is also a fact that three users have stated independently from each other that they are unhelpful. You are literally the only one advocating in favour of them and the only thing you can say about it is that you like them. You have not provided any coherent argument in favour of them. And you really make a mockery of yourself when you complain about someone edit warring when you are involved in it yourself. Oh and by the way, the status quo state is the one before the IP unilaterally added those maps without any form of discussion and with apparently little support.Tvx1 00:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of bad faith – I actually accused you of bending the truth, which doesn't require me to assume anything (good or bad faith), but simply to show how your stated reasons for your actions are based on misinterpretation at best, and deliberate lying at worst. The very fact that despite my pointing this out you keep insisting on your lies, leaves me nothing but assume your lies are deliberate (there is also a chance you are just not very smart and can't follow a simple logic, but I prefer not to assume this as not to insult your intelligence).

Now, you happen to continue your lies by stating about me this: "You are literally the only one advocating in favour of them", despite making this false statement after other users had agreed with me and you knew about it. See e.g. the repost below of a comment by Biografer which you had read and even replied to here before still making a false statement above that I'm the only one opposing your edits. cherkash (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusing me of lying is quite blatantly accusing me of bad faith. Worse it's a blatant personal attack. And what lies do you mean? I'm certainly not lying when I claim I find the articles more difficult to read with those maps. I'm not lying either when I claim that the multiple users, one of whom just reaffirmed it below, have stated their opposition to them. And the below user seems to have simply revert because they didn't really understand the situation and didn't know this discussion existed despite me referring to it in my edit summaries. They have no provided any argument in favour of them. So your comments regarding my actions are clearly misplaced. It'd be better if we'd focus on the content rather than on the contributors now.Tvx1 01:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

[Reposted from Talk:1981_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Map_dispute discussion]:
First of all, I don't get what problems are they causing, @Tvx1:? Please be specific. Second, I see that not only @Cherkash: and me who opposed such removal but also @The359:. Its only you who have an issue with it. You and an apparent block evader 2a02:a03f:265:ec00:d885:be34:86c6:5c1 who's edit pattern you follow.--Biografer (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the comments from the other contributor above and one here. I have never been blocked in my entire Wikipedia history, so I certainly never even had the opportunity to evade one, if that's what you are insinuating. As for The359, I think there edits were merely general reverts of the IP's contributions rather than edits particularly aimed at the maps.Tvx1 00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

An example of the proposed maps is at 21:52, 6 November 2017 (a permalink to 1950 Formula One season#Grands Prix). Judging by the strong views expressed above, my suggestion would be for anyone who wants to add the maps to start an RfC asking whether maps showing race locations should be added to articles. I would oppose the proposal because the maps are decoration that add no encyclopedic content. For example, if an articles lists race British Grand Prix at circuit Silverstone, there is no point adding a very large world or Europe map showing the location of Silverstone. The maps are far too large. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, quite contrary: the question is not of adding the maps, but of removing them.

The maps have been present in the articles for a few months now, and the content has stabilized for a while: e.g. I personally went through all the maps in 1950–1985 seasons and fixed the factual inaccuracies a while back. Now, for better or for worse, this is what the status quo is. Having said this, those maps and their location in the articles could of course be improved (e.g. the maps resized, or even possibly redrawn), but it's rather strange to say they add no value whatsoever and hence should be removed. Such content removal is exactly what I opposed in the first place.

So the "status quo" (aka the "stable" version of the articles) happens to be at this point with the maps included, and hence the purpose of this discussion is what changes need to be made to this status quo (i.e. whether to keep/remove/improve the maps). cherkash (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what we are allowed to do and we aren't allowed. My initial removal stood for nearly a month before you barged in to take offense to it and started repeatedly restoring them today. Johnuniq's removal of these maps even stood since 19 August. The status quo thus very clearly pertains to the situation even before the unilateral addition by the IP, a situation which existed for years. We should only include such maps only if they actually add encyclopedic content, not just for the sake of including them. In articles which detail seasons which only contained a thin geographical spread of races I really do not see any value in adding maps. They would be purely decorative and do not serve any function the prose or tables wouldn't already serve.Tvx1 01:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope I won't be commenting again about this issue unless there is an RfC where I would offer an opinion. However, I will say that everyone should tone it down. The way to resolve something like this is with an RfC. Until that RfC starts, there is no need to ping me, and further discussion would be pointless unless someone wants to post to say they have changed their mind. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD

FYI, List of Formula One circuits outright fastest lap and lap record has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The outcome of the discussion was "delete". DH85868993 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

When does Hamilton become reigning champion?

In the interests of avoiding potential confusion, I'd like to establish consensus on exactly when Hamilton becomes the reigning/current champion. Is it:

• At the conclusion of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix,
• At the FIA Prizegiving Ceremony on 8 December 2017, or
• On 1 January 2018?

DH85868993 (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Or has he been it since the end of the 2017 Mexican Grand Prix? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Good luck finding a source... Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

FIA: "Lewis Hamilton claimed his fourth FIA Formula One World Drivers’ Championship title with a ninth-placed finish in a Mexican Grand Prix...". -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not looking for consensus on when Hamilton became/will become the 2017 World Champion - I'm looking to establish from what point in time it is correct to refer to him as the reigning (or current) World Champion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say he should be called it from the time he became it at the end of the Mexican GP. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Even at this point Nico Rosberg is the reigning champion. This is evidenced in the fact, that if he had still been competing he would have had the right to use the number 1 up to an including the Abu Dhabi GP. Or if he were to be drafted in as a one-off replacement for that race, he could still use that number for that occasion.Tvx1 11:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

So we have two reigning champions? Hamilton has already won the 2017 championship, so is surely a reigning champion. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No he hasn’t. He has only assured that he will win it. The titles are only distributed at the end of the season.Tvx1 16:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the FIA's Press Release of 31 October 2017 they confirmed Hamilton has won it. To quote from it: "Sergio Pérez was seventh in front his home crowd ahead of Haas’ Kevin Magnussen, while Lewis Hamilton finished ninth, enough to earn the Briton his fourth drivers’ title." -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be at the conclusion of the championship (I.e the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).Tvx1 10:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; Rosberg is still the reigning champion as the season is not yet over. The 'prizes' always used to be handed out at an end of season event after all races had been completed and all Ts crossed and Is dotted. Heaven forfend that Hamilton should pull a Schumacher in the last race and get himself DSQ'd from the championship in its entirety. Eagleash (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that it should be at the end of the Abu Dhabi race. - J man708 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that "enough to earn the Briton his fourth drivers’ title" is not the same as "he has won the title". As it is possible for him to "pull a Schumacher in the last race and get himself DSQ'd from the championship in its entirety" we should wait until at least the end of the season. Britmax (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So remove all doubt and call him reigning champion from 1 January. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Provided there's no pending investigation (or a controversy that could result in such) which could still change the result of the championship, it's reasonable to call him reigning champion after conclusion of the final race. cherkash (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Grand Prix winners order

At the moment Grands Prix articles have the winner list starting from the most recent and on the bottom of the list is the earliest race for example Spanish Grand Prix, Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and Monaco Grand Prix. I think that this might go against WP:SALORDER. Mobile mundo (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

None of those are stand-alone lists. They are regular articles with tables in them.Tvx1 01:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:F1 logo.svg

Is this {{PD-textlogo}} ? If so, it should be moved to Wikimedia Commons.

(This is the logo for 2017, not the "1970's style" 2018 logo)

-- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a registered trademark.Tvx1 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Being a registered trademark is not relevant. IBM's logo is a registered trademark, however the logo File:IBM logo.svg is still a PD-textlogo image, and resides on Wikimedia Commons. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably a question best aimed at the Commons Village Pump. Pyrope 17:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The old (2017) logo revision has been placed for deletion (revdel for files) by the new logo uploader. The file itself was overwritten with the new (2018) logo film. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@70.51.45.76: I should point out that you put the wrong tag in this file. There is no "speedy deletion" in the file's page as you think, so I removed the misplaced tag. The old version has been re-uploaded at File:Formula One Logo (1987–2017).svg. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Evanderxn, what's your rationale of naming the old logo "... (1987–2017).svg" while writing in the description "introduced in 1993"? Which year is it? cherkash (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)