Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Section named Official names or Title sponsors into a Formula One Grand Prix Article

Today the time spent on Wikipedia involved having a new talk with users @P199: and @A7V2: regarding the need of having this section called Official names or Title sponsors in a Formula One Grand Prix article. Well, firstly P199 removed at all the section from the Mexican Grand Prix because all the Formula One Grands Prix name didn't included any sponsors. For some Grands Prix where a title sponsor appeared on a title race P199 left the section and adding little details as done in Dutch Grand Prix. Secondly, I wasn't aware of an old discussion in the Project based on it and P199 pointed me out his recent contributions on these pages. What I think is why do some pages present this section while others don't? At this point I'd like to have these sections removed at all from these articles. For example: if a reader wants to find out whether the 2017 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix had a title sponsor or not, he merely visits the page and read Etihad Airways in the lead. Island92 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is in relation to this previous one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_54#Official_names_of_the_Dutch_Grand_Prix_(and_others). I think I have made my point there clear enough. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the previous discussion is that there is a (perhaps weak) consensus to, for the most part, merge these sections into the lead in line with WP:OFFICIAL#Where there is an official name that is not the article title, but keep these sections as a list of official names where there are too many to put them all in the lead. I also believe there was consensus in that discussion to remove the silly ones (eg only slight variations, or ones which were clearly just something for the program eg Grrrand Prix Zandvoorrrt) on pages where the section is kept. Recent edits suggest that you (P199) disagree with that interpretation, so this discussion here is necessary to clarify what consensus is on this issue. I also note there was a previous discussion (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_52#"Sponsors"_section_of_Grand_Prix_articles) which established consensus that these sections should be named "Official Names". Since the name of these sections was not mentioned in the more recent discussion (that I could notice) I don't think it can be used as justification to do so. A7V2 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1, HumanBodyPiloter5, and SSSB: pinging participants at the more recent discussion. A7V2 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree, but I tried to be reasonable: keeping as much of this section as could be justified by an alternate heading. As for the January 2020 discussion, the big flaw in that discussion is that nobody brings up or realizes that official names are not set by program covers, on which the entire "Official names" sections are based. And that is ultimately the core problem with these sections: Official names are NOT based on the front cover branding of a race program. As someone who cares about the quality of WP (and I trust everyone here in this discussion also cares), that should be addressed somehow. Obviously I am open to any solution that makes sense. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The Jan 2020 discussion establishes that the section should be a list of official names, and titled "Official Names". As you say, covers shouldn't have been used as sources for official names (as established in the Sep 2021 discussion) but I don't see how that alone overrules the existing consensus regarding what these sections (when kept) are for when that wasn't what was discussed? A7V2 (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I think for a lot of older races the issue is simply accessing sources. Most likely the official titles will be documented reliably in sources like Autocourse or in more-formal official documentation for the events which isn't just a publicity poster which says "Grrrand Prix Zandvoorrrt" or "Mexico" on it. In the event that we can't find a suitable source for the official title we should just use WP:COMMONSENSE and simply tell people what the WP:COMMONNAME was without trying to make out that some other thing was the WP:OFFICIAL name. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The more I think about this issue, there more I’m convinced that we have actually mistaken commercial names for official names for years.Tvx1 02:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is a very good point. Looking at the history of these names the more weird inconsistencies come up in that regard. I think the "Grrrand Prix Zandvoorrrt" example is probably the most extreme, but the Hermanos Rodríguez and Interlagos races last year also stood out as cases where the official title of the event did not seem to align with the commercial title, which didn't necessarily align with the WP:COMMONNAME. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I don't see any justification is listing title sponsers. Sources very rarely mention them when talking about individual events, but I have never seen a source discussing the British Grand Prix (as a random example) discussing the title sponsers of an event, therefore listing title sponsers simply because they exist is WP:UNDUE. The only justification for mentioning the title sponsers at all is because title sponsers are mentioned in the official names of these events, therefore, if there are enough official names to warrant a section, it should be called "official names", and list the official names, not the title sponsers. SSSB (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Again, I really think those sponsor names are commercial names rather than official names.Tvx1 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  The only good solution to this problem is to completely remove the section (called either Official names or Title sponsors).--Island92 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Having read the above, I think I also agree it's best to simply remove the section. Of course where there is actual reason to mention it (eg Brazilian vs Sao Paulo, Malaysian vs Malaysia, French/ACF etc.) we can (and should) include the official name in the lead when it's not simply a matter of adding a sponsor's name. A7V2 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, I support removal of this section. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think there is a clear consensus to remove the lists of "official names"/"title sponser" sections. SSSB (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, well done.--Island92 (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Those sections were removed from each Formula One Grand Prix article. Template gave me a help.--Island92 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo 2022 car name

Hello. According to the entry list, Alfa Romeo Racing name constructor was renamed in merely Alfa Romeo starting from the 2022 campaign. This meant that the last car developed was known as Alfa Romeo Racing C41. The new one for the new season should be called Alfa Romeo C40 rather than Alfa Romeo Racing C40. At this stage, do we need to move the current page already available related to the 2022 car?--Island92 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

One should definetly redirect to the other. I neither know, care, or think it really matters which we use. (Arguably the WP:COMMONAME never included "racing" in the first place.) SSSB (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What we know is that the constructor name was moved from Alfa Romeo Racing-Ferrari to Alfa Romeo-Ferrari. So I think the new 2022 car shouldn't include Racing, even though the official name hasn't been revealed yet.--Island92 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If "Racing" isn't part of official name then article should be moved and redirect from Alfa Romeo Racing C41 should be deleted as WP:OR otherwise we can make Scuderia Alfa Romeo C41 and more fake names. Eurohunter (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Racing is not part of the team name anymore. At this stage we have to wait the 2022 car official name. We only know "C40".--Island92 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR is not a reason for deleting a redirect. If anything, the fact that we made the mistake, means others can to, and therefore justifies a redirect. SSSB (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: In this way we can create millions of fake redirects just because someone "could do mistake". After few months no one will search for wrong name and people search for a lot of different things that they will never find in encyclopedia - so why we need it here? This is in main space - do not create more WP:OR than needed.Eurohunter (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't know if someone will search for the wrong name, or not, after 3(?) years of a naming convention, I think it's a highly plausible mistake (at least for this year). It will interest you to know that your reasoning doesn't match WP:RFD#DELETE and is arguable rebutted by WP:RFD#KEEP criteria 2 and 5. You should also note that the WP:OR policy applies only to article, not redirects (even if those redirects are in the namespace). SSSB (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Why on earth should Alfa Romeo Racing C41 be deleted?? That's very much the car and its name (including "Racing") they very much competed with during the 2021 season. There is no OR about that.Tvx1 22:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the article to Alfa Romeo C40, leaving a redirect behind. This is not a case of OR and OR has never been a valid reason to delete a redirect. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I really don't understand why they didn't just call the C41 the C39B. That would have prevented any confusion to start with.Tvx1 23:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Franco Ambrosio

All the F1-related content was recently removed from Franco Ambrosio, in an edit with a summary claiming that the "Formula One" Franco Ambrosio is a different person to the murdered wheat magnate described in the article. There may be some validity to this claim: none of the references remaining in the article mention Formula One, Shadow or Arrows (although I concede that's not definitive proof). As an interim measure, I've changed the Formula One-related links to Franco Ambrosio to link to Franco Ambrosio (Formula One) instead, but I wasn't sure whether to create the article; pretty much all the information I could find on the "Formula One" Franco Ambrosio is that he is/was an Italian businessman who sponsored Shadow and was one of the founders of Arrows, and I wasn't sure whether that was sufficient to create an article. Alternatively, if someone can confirm that the two men are in fact the same person, then the F1-related content can/should be returned to the Franco Ambrosio article and my link changes reverted. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well according to People Pill (which I can't link to because It's apparently listed on the blacklist), Franco Ambrosio is the Italian businessman who financed Arrows and died in 2009. I can't find any other article or source that mentions any other Franco Ambrosio. Klrfl (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

If there are two Franco Ambrosios it's very difficult to work out what happened to the F1 sponsor after Arrows and how was able to afford to sponsor an F1 team in the first place. Looking for photos of the F1 sponsor to compare with the wheat trader has so far only yielded one [1], from a 1977 edition of Autosprint, the Italian motorsport weekly. Is that the same person as the wheat trader? I can't tell. Guffydrawers (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Raw research, so not ready for the article, but it appears that the F1 sponsor is different person - a financier with a sumptuous seaside residence "Villa Cristina" in Portofino who mixed with the jet set and was convicted for financial crimes including the disappearance of millions belonging to the Vatican starting around 1974.[2] (see also "In God's Name" by David Yallop [3]) Photos of him in Portofino and St Moritz [4] look very different from the wheat trader from Naples, especially his nose. Guffydrawers (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:F1 Non Championship Races (1970-1979)

Template:F1 Non Championship Races (1970-1979) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian GP

A discussion is taking place at Talk:2022 Formula One World Championship#2022 Russian GP re the current doubt that the GP will run and how to cover it in the article. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

New pole stats

As I'm sure everyone here is aware, the driver who sets the fastest time in qualifying is now considered to have held pole for a sprint race weekend. How are we planning to display this in race report infoboxes and the results matrices? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think since the fastest in qualifying will still start on pole for the GP, they should be shown as being on pole. As for the results of the sprint race, given that points are being paid all the way down to eighth and are far less trivial (ie 8 points for a win instead of just 3) they should probably be included as separate races in the results tables etc. A7V2 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this is being brought up. The definition of "pole" may have changed, but I don't see why how we notate pole should change. Likewise with the sprint results. We can simply continue the same practice as last year (i.e. only drivers who score sprint race points will have their positions notated.)

I strongly disagree with the notation of "they should probably be included as separate races in the results tables", as it isn't a seperate race. It's like a pre-race. In Formula 2, a sprint race win is equal presitiage (if not points, due to race length) as a feature race win. A win in the sprint race counts towards your race win tally. The same is not true in F1. This year will see 22 race winners (assuming no replacement for Russia) not 25 (22 races+3 sprints). SSSB (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Without wishing to put words in 5225C's mouth, I think the reason they brought this up is (rather than the other nonsense I raised last night) that the fastest in qualifying is going to be deemed the polesitter, so the 2021 way of showing the main results table won't work. An option would be for those weekends which include a sprint qualifying race could have the first row showing the polesitter from qualifying, then the winner etc of sprint qualifying shown but in italics, then the second row could have the pole be the winner from sprint qualifying (or whoever ended up starting from the first grid position if they were given some kind of penalty but still received the 8 points) in itallics in the pole position column, then the rest as normal. The solution from 2021 could be used for the championship standings table just adding in the extra numbers. A7V2 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That was my intention. Last year in Britain, Hamilton qualified first but Verstappen won the sprint race so he was given pole. However, if the same thing happened this year, Hamilton would be awarded the statistical pole but Verstappen would still start first in the Grand Prix. For results matrices, we can cope fine, because we simply put the P notation on the driver with statistical pole. But then a further issue presents itself if something like Italy happens where Bottas qualified first and won the sprint race but was penalised and didn't start first. In this situation, he gets pole and first in the sprint race, so his notation is X^{P 1} but that's misleading because he never started first. We can introduce a third notation, but I'm out of ideas on what to add. That being said, this would be quite a rare occurence so it's possible we never have to deal with this.

The infoboxes pose more of problem because we can't just move notation around for them. I think your suggestion of listing the driver who starts first in italics would be the most appropriate method (with an explanatory note). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think in such a case Bottas would retain the pole in such a situation under the new rules. A penalty remains a penalty.Tvx1 15:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the point is the fastest driver in qualifying will not necessarily start the sunday race on pole. It’s still the sprint that will determine the sunday starting grid. They will now simply give the statistic pole to the fastest in friday qualifying no matter what, for whichever incomprehensible reason, unless the driver is penalized. As for incuding the sprints as seperate races, I still don’t think that’s a good idea. The sprints still only yield bonus points. The positions still don’t count as proper race positions and are not used to break ties in the championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, it seems our article is incorrect, at least going by the source ([5]) which I hadn't bothered to read before... . 2022_Formula_One_World_Championship#Sprint_points_system_and_events will need to be changed then as it currently states that they will start on pole but that appears to be incorrect. I don't think including the results somewhat separately would be in any way a problem given what you have said however. Just because it appears in a table, does not imply it is of the same level (and a note/explanation can/should be added to make that clear). A7V2 (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I can't read... please disregard! A7V2 (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should not be addding sprint to the results matrices as its own column. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1: for whichever incomprehensible reason - it's a PR move based on most people not knowing the correct definition of "pole", and then complaining about it when they realise what the correct defintion is.

@5225C: that is a problem, but I would argue that it is not our problem. I can't think of a way to deal with this without delving into WP:OR. The best thing to do is to add to pole position that there are multiple defintions, and potentially add a footnote to the infobox/result matrices to explain that there are multiple defintions. Including both the official polesitter and polesitter by defintion in infoboxes/results matrices, I think, would be confusing (is the italics the person starting first, or creditied with pole, I know we have a note, but I don't think that is sufficent for something so big) unless we have seperate fields (creditied with pole, starting first).

I was also under the impression that the driver who sets the fastest time in qualifying is now considered to have held pole applied to all weekends (sprint or not), remember what happened at 2021 Turkish Grand Prix where Ham was fastest but had a penalty... SSSB (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Addressing what A7V2 and 5225C discussed further up: What F1 has done here is essentially split the pole position into two: one de jure and one de facto. My suggestion, which may not be great, is to establish a precedent on how to handle this difference between de jure and de facto, until F1 gets their shit together again. Placing the de facto in italics when it is different from the de jure is one example, putting it in round brackets is another (that I think might be more clear). This can be done in the results infobox as well as the standings matrix. E.g.:

Driver 1 finishes 1st in qualifying on Friday, but Driver 2 finishes in front of him in sprint on Saturday. In the infobox, Driver 1 will be listed as the pole sitter, but Driver 2 will be listed in italics or round brackets under Driver 1. In the matrix, Driver 1 will be listed as X^{2 P} (pole should still be put after the sprint result as it is the de jure pole position for the Grand Prix, which is after the sprint), while Driver 2 will be listed as X^{1 P} or X^{1 (P)}. This same system can be applied for any combination of someone-got-pole-but-didn't-actually, or someone-got-anything-but-didn't-actually. In a situation like Bottas', the de facto pole is simply moved to whoever was promoted to it.

Addressing what SSSB said: I personally do think it is worth while to add who actually started first in some way, and I think doing so and adding notes the way you explained will cause less confusion overall than adding notes to explain pole's are fucked and leaving it at that. Thankfully there are only few sprint weekends, and these problems are probably temporary as the format develops. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I like your idea of brackets, especially if we add mouse over text use {{Abbr}}. The infobox for me poses the biggest problem, so perhaps we could add a second field like "first on grid" or something to distinguish who starts first from who holds pole. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I just don't really think adding an extra field should be necessary, considering it's only relevant for three races. I also think sticking with one solution in both the infobox and matrix, e.g. placing the "de facto" in round brackets, helps keep the system uniform and understandable. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think your suggestion overcomplicates a thing that doesn't even have a bearing on the championship. Just use one P for whomever is officially credited with pole position.Tvx1 15:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If the consensus is that it doesn't matter who actually starts the GP at pole position, that's fine, I'm providing a solution in case it does. I was assuming it somewhat mattered considering we've bothered to document pole position all these years, but hey, that might've been for statistical purposes rather than practical purposes; the official pole during sprint weekends sure doesn't hold any practical value anymore. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need all this discussion? Pole position is the car at the front of the grid when the race is ready to start. If you're naughty and get bumped down the grid, you're not on pole any more - the guy who would have been second on the grid and is now first is the polesitter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In hindsight, I'm not actually sure why we need this discussion. (Correct me if I'm wrong but) all that's happened here is that the grid from which pole position is determined has changed. As far as pole position stats go, is this any different from a race starting on a Saturday (and pole being determined by that grid), being red-flagged, and the race concluding on the Sunday? If the awnser is no, we don't actually need to make any changes at all. SSSB (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

As I (clearly unsuccessfully) explained above, I agree with Tvx1. All these solutions are significantly more confusing than listing only the official pole-sitter. And (as I mentioned above) mentioning the non-official polesitter (who starts the main race first) is border-line WP:OR unless another source makes that distinction first. SSSB (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: No, pole position during sprint weekends is no longer the car at the front of the grid when the Grand Prix race starts on Sunday. The winner of qualifying on Friday is considered to have the pole position for the Grand Prix, but in fact, he's only at the front of the grid at the start of the Sprint on Saturday, with the winner of the Sprint actually being at the front on Sunday. The winner of the Sprint is thus on "pole position" for the Sunday Grand Prix race, but they are not theoretically considered to have pole position. You might have already understood this, but I was unsure based on your comment.

Like @SSSB: suggested, we can view this as F1 essentially making the Saturday Sprint and the Sunday Grand Prix one long race with a night-long break in between, but that's also not quite right. As an example, if the fastest lap on Saturday is quicker than the fastest lap on Sunday, it's not gonna win you any points for being the fastest lap of the Grand Prix. They are still two different races, which means it's really confusing to list the pole sitter for Saturday under the "Grand Prix" results infobox in the season article, right next to the fastest lap-holder by the way. That's what we'll have to do, though.

My suggestion was adding the "real" pole sitter for the Sunday Grand Prix in brackets, and I wouldn't consider this to be WP:OR. Their position on the front of the grid is of course referenced, and "pole position" actually does have a definition, despite F1 totally ignoring that it does. I'm not strongly opposed to not dealing with any of that and just sticking with F1's "statistical pole", as long as we put notes explaining why pole is practically wrong for these weekends, but I think there's no getting around that what they've done here makes absolutely no sense. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree that this is an unimportant discussion or that any of the suggestions here consitute OR in any way. Pole position has always referred to the driver starting first, and this change means that is no longer true. I'm happy to stick with official poles as long as they are followed by explanatory footnotes in infoboxes and the summary table (just like we've done when drivers had pole and DNSed, like Leclerc last year – which is effectively the same thing because the statistical pole is different to the actual pole). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to add, at least with Leclerc's DNS the first (pole) position on the grid was left empty. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the effect is still the same (the driver with statistical pole was not the driver who started first). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The driver with pole is still the person who started first, they've just changed which grid it is based on. It's confusing, but not wrong, to suggest the pole-sitter should be the person who starts the sprint first, rather than the main race first (unless it is an absolute case of "whoever was fastest in quali, regardless of penalties for the sprint grid", but I don't believe it is). Last I checked, the definition of pole position doesn't specify that it must refer to the main grid.

Us designating a "real" pole-sitter based on our interpretation of the rules/definitions is WP:SYNTH (unless another source also designates them as the "real" pole-sitter) because we our combining a dictionary definition (which does not specify which race pole should be derived from. And contradicts F1's defintion (which does specify the sprint grid)) with the starting grid for the main race to reach our own conclusion of who the "real" pole-sitter is.

That being said, I am not opposed to a note which plainly says "the polesitter was derivied from the sprint race grid" on the condition that it gets added to last year's spirnt races too (with the opposite effect, obviously), otherwise we risk readers assuming that the rules were the same last year. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's wrong because it's not consistent. If the Sprint and Grand Prix were considered one, long race in every regard, I'd support your assessment. That's just not the case however, e.g. with the fastest lap of the Grand Prix being the fastest lap on Sunday. If the Sunday race were to be cancelled, I also don't believe the winner of the Sprint would receive 25 points. Having the pole position of the Sprint next to the fastest lap of the Grand Prix listed in the Grand Prix infobox is thus not just confusing, it's practically wrong – if there were a Sprint infobox, which I'm not suggesting, that's where it should have been. I'm not saying this because I don't support just adding notes, though, I think both are OK solutions. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your argument. We aren't designating a different polesitter, we're reflecting reality. If the winner of the sprint isn't the same as the official statistical polesitter, all we need is a footnote saying "Lastname is credited with pole position, but Othername started the Grand Prix first following the sprint race." That's not OR or SYNTH. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

F*ck the FIA and the annoying stupid fans who don't understand basic defintions.

There appears to be some misunderstnading in each others arguments. Let me clarify, with example boxes.

{{{year}}} {{{Grand Prix}}} Grand Prix
Race details
Date	{{{Full_date}}}
Pole position
Driver	Valtteri Bottas ( Max Verstappen)	Mercedes (Red Bull Racing-Honda)

I remain convinced, that having both "our" pole and "their" pole in the same infobox field (see right) is confusing, regardless of whether we use italics, or brackets. Which is "our" and which is "their" polesitter?

{{{year}}} {{{Grand Prix}}} Grand Prix
Race details
Date	{{{Full_date}}}
Pole position
Driver	De jure: Valtteri Bottas De facto: Max Verstappen)	Mercedes (Red Bull Racing-Honda)

The only suitable way to include both in the infobox would be too include two fields, or clearly label them as "de facto"/"by defintion" and "de jure"/"by FIA"(see right), (it looks odd, because I had to do a series of formatting to line it up, if we take this approach we will have to make changes to Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report)

@5225C: we misunderstand each other. Your prosoped note ("Lastname is credited with pole position, but Othername started the Grand Prix first following the sprint race.") isn't WP:OR. But any attempt to imply they are both credited with pole based on different standards (like "Lastname is credited with pole position, but Othername started the Grand Prix in pole position following the sprint race.", or "Lastname is credited with pole position, but Othername is considered to be on pole position by [this standard].", or trying to put both drivers in the pole field (like in the infobox's I created above), or crediting both drivers with pole in results tables/matrices (like this:)

Round	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
14	Italian Grand Prix	Valtteri Bottas( Max Verstappen)	Daniel Ricciardo	Daniel Ricciardo	McLaren-Mercedes	Report

)

is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH without a source stating the same. SSSB (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You do misunderstand me. I was proposing this:

Round	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
14	Italian Grand Prix	Valtteri Bottas	Daniel Ricciardo	Daniel Ricciardo	McLaren-Mercedes	Report

and I don't understand why that's disagreeable, since we've done similar in other situations. Like Leclerc in Monaco last year, where we said "Charles Leclerc set the fastest time in qualifying, but did not start the race. Pole position was left vacant on the grid. Max Verstappen, in the second slot, was the first driver on the grid. Leclerc is still considered to have held pole position." Anything like that would be acceptable to me, as long as we're making clear that when the sprint winner didn't hold pole, they didn't start the race first. Now that we're on the same page, do you find this idea agreeable? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That is agreeable (because we are not implying that Verstappen had pole). SSSB (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as we use “sprint“ instead of “sprint race” in the wording.Tvx1 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the exact wording isn't my concern, the approach to these statistics are. As long as we can all agree in advance that this is how we'll treat these situations, I'm happy. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that works. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes

Fastest Lap point for Constructors

I was expanding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Climax#Partial_Formula_One_Championship_results and realized while extra points for "Pole Position" and "Fastest Lap During the Race" were awarded for Drivers Championship, but only the "Fastest Lap During the Race" was the extra point for Constructors Championship. Could someone clarify if this understanding is correct? I wanted to discuss this here before correcting other tables like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Formula_One_season#International_Cup_for_F1_Manufacturers_standings where this extra point seems not considered at all on points total for each constructor. Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say that extra points were awarded in the Drivers' championship for pole pisition? As far as I'm aware, F1 has never given extra points to drivers for qualifying on pole position. This is also mentioned in the List of Formula One World Championship points scoring systems. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, there have never been points for poles. Secondly, according to StatsF1, fastest lap points were only awarded to drivers, and not constructors - if this is true, then List of Formula One points scoring systems will need to be updated. SSSB (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I had a copy of "Grand Prix Data Book" somewhere but couldn't find it. It seems I remembered "both pole and fastest to drivers and only fastest to constructors" (while International Cup for Manufacturers lasted) but actually it is "fastest only for drivers". Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Guanyu Zhou

We report everywhere Guanyu Zhou, as per his wikilink into the encyclopedia. FIA reports Zhou Guanyu, as per also the entry list. Do we have to respect this order everywhere? For everywhere I mean entries tables, templates result standings and many others. In 2021, as he competed in F2, FIA reported him as Guanyu Zhou into official documents.--Island92 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Judging by Wikipedia:ZHNAME, unless his name is "familiar, but with Western wording", the title of his article (and with that, wikilinks to his article) should probably be in Chinese ordering. I suppose we'll have to see what his WP:COMMONNAME turns out to be for his career in F1 to judge that. In the case where Guanyu Zhou stays as the title of the article, I'd argue we stick with that for all wikilinks as well, the same way we don't include Sergio Perez' last name of Mendoza although it is included in the entry list. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. In addition to that, also a simply news reports him as Zhou Guanyu.--Island92 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion (I've raised this before with regards to other issues) that we should use the common name, and use the article title to judge the common name at any given time. If Guanyu Zhou ever gets moved to Zhou Guanyu, we can either use a bot or WP:AWB to change the name order in effected articles (we simply get the bot/AWB to go through all pages that link to Guanyu Zhou) SSSB (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is essentially what I'm getting at as well. A discussion about Wikipedia:ZHNAME and his WP:COMMONNAME could very well become relevant after the season has begun, but it should be based in Talk:Guanyu Zhou. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO, his article can be moved to Zhou Guanyu also now. Island92 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've personally almost exclusively heard him referred to as Guanyu Zhou. It also happens to be what he uses to refer to himself e.g. on Instagram. Again I do think we will notice if Western ordering is the familiar ordering or not once the season begins. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If you can put together a successful RM, sure. However, I feel it will be wiser to wait for a few GP, just so we have a greater number of sources to base a discussion on. SSSB (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok.--Island92 (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Multiple news coming out are enough to move the page to Zhou Guanyu. Island92 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence yet that the Zhou Guanyu order is the common name in English, although it might become so. At the moment it's a mix of both, with Guanyu Zhou more common IMO.

I know it's only Google, but compare the results for '"Zhou Guanyu" -wikipedia' to "Guanyu Zhou" -wikipedia': 66k to nearly a million.... Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The entry list changed shows he wants "Zhou Guanyu".--FungTzeLong (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What he wants isn't relevant. What's relevant is his WP:COMMONNAME across sources. SSSB (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe we're going in a direction where a move will become relevant, but I still think we need to wait for the season to begin to establish a WP:COMMONNAME. With the FIA moving to Chinese ordering, along with Guanyu himself on his social media, I think we'll eventually see the common name adjusted as well. No rush. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Most news/website sources still use Western naming order, so Guanyo Zhou, so I think that's what we should do too. We use WP:COMMONNAME (which I believe is Guanyo Zhou) rather than WP:OFFICIALNAME (which would be Zhou Guanyo). Wikipedia routinely uses Western name order for individuals from countries where surnames are listed first in their name. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware, and that's why I'm saying we don't rename the article at this time already. However, his WP:COMMONNAME could change in the near future, and I think it will.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk – contrib.)  17:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no it's not that simple. This looks like it could be a case were more than one name is commonly used. Sometimes there just isn't one definite common name. The sources that use the Chinese order are more than just ones that would recude that to merely the offical name. Moreover, WP:COMMONNAME only deals with article titles and thus doesn't force us to use a certain name in tables or prose.Tvx1 21:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Official entry list says Zhou Guanyu. What do we have to do now? @Ved havet:, @Tvx1:.--Island92 (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

...my first thought would be to continue to follow the common name, but we already don't do that for Albon (for reasons I still don't understand). The fact remains, we aren't a mirror of official sources. I don't care what they call him, because the visibility of official documents means they don't contribute to what the subject's common name is. SSSB (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

But how do you know what the common name is? Zhou Guanyu has been used outside of official documents as well.Tvx1 12:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't deny that. I'm just saying that what the official entry list says has little to no relevance when determining the common name, because most people don't read them. SSSB (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll bring up something that I mentioned previously but sort of forgot about, and that's what WP:ZHNAME says about the order of Chinese names. It states that it is standard practice in English to also present the family name first and, notably, that there is an exception for people whose Chinese name is familiar but with English ordering. I'd argue this is more important when dealing with Zhou than WP:COMMONNAME is, because 1) two different orderings isn't really two different names, and 2) at this point, it's safe to say both orderings are commonly recognizable. WP:COMMONNAME also says that when there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used, we should look to the five criteria directly, one of which state that the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. To find the consistent pattern of similar articles' titles, again, we should look to WP:ZHNAME.

So, WP:ZHNAME says that we should use Chinese ordering, unless their name is familiar but in English ordering. The way I read this, we should only use English ordering when English ordering is clearly more frequently used than Chinese ordering. If it isn't, we should favor Chinese ordering.

If you agree with my reasoning, the question is not whether Chinese ordering has become the most frequently used, it is whether English ordering is more commonly used and/or recognized than Chinese ordering anymore. Thus, if Zhou's name in English ordering can not be reasonably proven as more common than in Chinese ordering, it's time to move his article and update the season article. Regarding Albon, I think we should move to "Alex" in the season article as well, considering we don't stick to the entry list on any other matter (including Zhou and Perez). Let's stick with everyone's article titles.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  14:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree to move the Chinese driver to Zhou Guanyu, but I disagree to put Alex Albon. The Entries table tendentially follows the entry list. We put AlphaTauri-RBPT as listed rather than AlphaTauri-Red Bull Powertrains desping knowing RBPT stands for Red Bull Powertrains.--Island92 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Then why are we not including Perez' other last name, Mendoza? Why are we including acute accents and diaeresis'? Regarding RBPT, how come the Bahrain entry list is considered superior to the season entry list (where this abbreviation is not present)? We're not tendentially following the entry list, and the entry lists themselves are actually inconsistent.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  14:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

However, official results list Alexander Albon and Zhou Guanyu.--Island92 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said they didn't, I'm saying we're not following entry lists (or result lists) on everything, we're being inconsistent and the lists themselves are also inconsistent.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  14:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps because I'm so used to basing this information on official FIA documents.--Island92 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, the FIA document of the season entry list puts Perez as "Sergio Perez Mendoza", but we're not. The FIA document of all entry lists and result lists does not include acute accents etc. in people's names, we are. The FIA season entry lists puts the Red Bull power unit supplier as "Red Bull Powertrains", while the FIA Bahrain entry list abbreviates it to "RBPT". So, we're not always following FIA documents, and the FIA documents are inconsistent with each other, so I don't know how we're choosing which to follow.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  15:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the standard used in previous season, the most recent document I guess.--Island92 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that we should blindly follow official documents for anything. We should combine official sources with common name and then apply common sense. For example, in our results tables I would just put "Aston Martin-Mercedes" (don't mention "Aramco") on the grounds of WP:COMMONSENSE as Aramco are nothing but a sponser, and not part of the constructor at all (but that is a discussion for another time).

Also two different orderings isn't really two different names - neither is "Alex" vs. "Alexander", the former is merely a truncation of the latter.

As for WP:ZHNAME, it says to use the variation most familiar to English readers (this being an English encylopedia). Forgive me if I'm being thick, but how is this different to determining the common name. It merely says that if a commonname cannot be determined then we should use the local variation, rather than mantain the staus quo. Therefore, if you want to use WP:ZHNAME as an argument, you must first demonstrate that it applies, preferable through an WP:RM. SSSB (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Albon is a bit unrelated, so let's just deal with Zhou. WP:ZHNAME says to use the variation most familiar to English readers, indeed. However, it looks to me that we're in (or coming up on) a situation where we can't confidently say if English or Chinese ordering is in fact the obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used, in English. In that case, WP:ZHNAME establishes that it is standard practice in English to also present the family name first, and thus we should favor family name first, because the exception to this is when English ordering is indeed demonstrably the most frequently used.

You're right, it must be decided through an WP:RM, but I think it's relevant to discuss Zhou's article title when talking about the entry list in the season article because frankly, I think we should base the entry list on the drivers' articles, not FIA documents directly (and that's also why I think Alex should be listed as Alex, not Alexander). It looks to me like you agree with that, at least to some degree.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  16:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Island92: that's not the standard in previous seasons, and as I've pointed out to you before, that approach is fundamentally flawed. SSSB (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that an editor has started an WP:RM at Talk:Guanyu Zhou. SSSB (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

DNA, DNQ, DNS, Withdrawn and Retired

Another question while editing the same article as in the above discussion. For the purpose of recording drivers' and constructors' championship results in WikiProject Formula One, is there a list of criteria to be used for "Did not enter", "Did not arrive", "Did not qualify", "Did not start", "Withdrawn" and "Retired"? For example, for Portuguese GP in 1960, Henry Taylor and his Cooper T51 were 'entered', 'arrived', ran practice session and crashed, did not start the qualify session so "did not qualify" but were present in the pit/paddock 'withdrawn', and "did not start" the race. Is he supposed to be classified as DNA, DNQ, DNS, Withdrawn, or Retired, according to what criteria? Since a driver and a car are two totally different things, is there another set of criteria for constructors' championship (e.g. car arrived the venue but not the driver; one driver entered for two different cars.)? There may be some answers in the FIA Sporting Regulations, but I'm too lazy to go through them all. Please tell me if this is something that is better left undefined. Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yiba: We generally reflect what the reliable sources say. Where reliable sources conflict, we typically have a discussion and come to a consensus. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Disputed_results for some examples. DH85868993 (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@DH85868993: Thank you. I normally would take what reliable sources say (but that would promote inconsistency on a wikipedia project I would think). I looked at the disputed results page with interest, but in my example, most reliable sources don't even mention "Henry Taylor" in 1960 Portuguese GP article (because he didn't make it to the qualifying), except ChicaneF1 table (as just one example) on entry list. And the list, as it is an entry list, does not say he and his car was DNA, DNQ, DNS, Withdrawn or Retired. What should we do when sources don't say anything but we could reasonably establish something? Omit the info intentionally? I am a bit surprised to see Stirling Moss taking over Maurice Trintignant's car half way into the race (1960 Argentine GP) and finishing 3rd, not on that disputed results page. It seems the race result stands that Trintignant's Cooper earned the 3rd place, but driver's championship points were not given to either driver (which is fine). However, I don't know of any reliable source that tells why/if constructor's championship points were, or were not, given to Cooper-Climax for that Trintignant/Moss result. It's a similar situation for the Henry Taylor case, where reliable sources don't mention it (thus there is no conflict). Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yiba I think a large part of the issue is that in the time before computer databases of results, people didn't particularly care if someone was DNQ or DNS or DNA since it made very little difference. This probably isn't consistent, but I think in general DNQ means that either it was a requirement to set some number of laps in practice and they did not, and/or only the fastest n drivers/cars in practice were given a start, and they were not fast enough. As for Taylor in the 1960 Portuguese GP, he was definitely there. He is shown as "non-starter" in Lang's Grand Prix but more interestingly in Autocourse (a contemporary source) it describes that he crashed early in practice (which at the time was not distinguished from qualifying), also sustaining injuries, but it doesn't explicitly state that he was DNS or DNQ or withdrawn since it doesn't make much of a difference. As to the 1960 Argentine GP example, I'm not sure what would have happened regarding championship points for constructors in such a situation but in this case since only the best finishing car for a constructor scored points back then, it didn't affect the points either way. A7V2 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the diligent research @A7V2. I generally agree with you, but are you sure about practice laps at the time was not distinguished from qualifying? As I recall from the old days, many people (preferably as many as the number of entered cars) with stopwatches and timing sheets on the tower got ready for the flag declaring the beginning of timing (qualifying) session, at least on my level of racing. If the car number I'm supposed to time does not complete a lap during the session, I'd write 'DNQ' on the sheet with no times on it. If the car does not appear on the course during the session, I was supposed to write 'DNA' or "No Show", and the Steward ranked DNQ sheets higher than DNA / No Show sheets on the qualifying result.

As two of the knowledgeable editors (I have known @DH85868993 for a loong time) seem not being aware of criteria, I'd like to propose the following based on my common sense:

-For the races that precede FIA Sporting Regulations or equivalent that defines the criteria, the progression is considered on:

1. Making the formal entry for the event. ("Entered the race", DNE if not -this is totally optional)

2. Car and Driver shows up on the course during the Practice or Qualifying session. ("Arrived for the race", DNA if not)

3. Car and Driver is on the grid for start of race (or on Pit Lane for "pit start"). ("Qualified for the race", DNQ if not)

4. Car and Driver starts the race by crossing the start/finish line after Green Flag. ("Started the race", DNS if not)

5. Car and Driver completes the required number of laps to be considered a finisher. ("Completed the race", Retired or Not Classified, if not)

6. Car and Driver crosses the start/finish line after Checkered Flag.

-and the furthest point in the above progression is considered the result, except 'Withdrawn' which could happen anytime from #1 to #5 above.

-Only the driver is considered for driver's championship, and only the car is considered for constructor's championship.

This may well be quite different (especially #2 and #3) from the race organizer's point of view, but I hope we could agree from the ease of checking records point of view that the above is consensus for this Wikiproject. "Considering only the driver for driver's championship" is different from the regulation in effect from 1958 (this is why no driver's point was given to Moss for 1960 Argentine GP), but again, for the ease of checking records I'd consider it practical. From my experience, "reliable sources" tend to be quite unreliable on the details that is considered at the time to be "doesn't matter" or "does not make any difference" before the data goes through the test of time. Ideas? Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yiba: Ah yes, you're quite right re practice. There would often be "untimed" practice (although some teams would time cars themselves) and then "timed practice" was when the times were taken which determined the grid positions. I had meant as opposed to what we now call "qualifying" since "untimed" practice hasn't been around for a long time at Formula One level (in the Taylor example Autocourse doesn't specify whether it occurred in timed practice, or whether he had even completed a lap when it happened. As an aside, most older sources tended to give only the starting grid with lap times, not the practice results per se).

Without wishing to cause an argument, I am generally of the opinion that "inventing" classifications for the purposes of satisfying databases is not a good thing, whether it is done by us or by modern sources, partly as it hides the real story as with the Taylor example. I also don't think there will be much support to use our own standard for these things as that could be interpreted as being OR. That said, it could certainly be used as a guidance where sources either don't give an answer, or contradict eachother.

As for the points issue, are there any contradictions you had in mind that are an actual issue? It's not related to drivers vs constructors, but I certainly know of at least the 1953 French Grand Prix which has an issue around this, as the disputed result (see discussion on Talk:1953 French Grand Prix) would affect the points totals of two drivers, but it doesn't seem like official points tables were published at the time to reflect this, and sources disagree. A7V2 (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@A7V2: 'Guidance' is fine with me. I also agree 'inventing' classifications/criteria is not a good thing in general, and I am talking about the cases where the real story gets hidden if we don't (Henry Taylor name was not on the wiki "1960 Formula one season" page for Portugal GP until I added it yesterday). Because of the tendency of the "reliable sources" to disregard what's considered not important at the time, I prefer any good quality OR over inaccuracies or omissions --but this is an old debate for somewhere else. I did not have any "points issue" in mind (extra point for the fastest lap was my simple misunderstanding in the previous discussion above). I'll take a look at 1953 French GP talk page. Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yiba: Regarding Argentina 1960, checking my copy of

• Griffiths, Trevor R. (December 1997) [1992]. Grand Prix: The Complete Guide (3rd ed.). Enderby: Blitz Editions. pp. 68–75. ISBN 1-85605-391-1.

I observe that the first paragraph of 1960 Formula One season#Season summary bears a remarkable similarity to the text on p. 68 of that book. That aside, I also find that Trintignant is not listed in the final drivers' championship standings on p. 74 - thus he scored no points that season. Moss is credited with 19 points which tally with his two wins (8 points each) at Monte Carlo and Riverside and the fourth place (3 points) at Zandvoort. Thus Moss scored no points at Buenos Aires either; but Menditeguy scored 3 points all season, consistent with being classified as fourth place at Buenos Aires, therefore behind Trintignant/Moss. It appears then, that the 4 points for third was not awarded to anybody - split or otherwise. As regards the constructors' championship - LotusCooper-Climax wouldn't have scored for that race in any case, because they had picked up 8 points for Bruce McLaren's win, and in those days each constructor only scored points for their best-placed car (for example, at Reims, Cooper-Climax scored 8 points for their win, not 23 points for their 1-2-3-4). The book does list disqualifications after the start - such as Moss at Oporto - but not drivers/cars who didn't make the grid. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I agree with your finding/understanding. If I may rephrase, Moss and Trintignant are considered to have earned the 3rd place in a shared drive "for the race", but "for the purpose of driver's championship" the points for 3rd place was not awarded to anybody because it was a shared drive. Not that important here, but Moss' retired car and Trintignant's 3rd place car driven by Moss for the latter half of the 1960 Argentine GP, were Cooper-Climax, not Lotus-Climax. (You could check the table on Coventry Climax page, which I recently updated.) If you know of any page that says Lotus-Climax, please let me know. Or, you could correct such a page yourself, thanks. Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

My bad, fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Toyota

A very simple question: should Toyota Racing (Formula One team) be moved to Toyota in Formula One? Given the topic of the article, which contains both the manufacturer part and the engine supplier part, I think so. Also, WP:TITLECON. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Because it covers details outside of the F1 team (engine's deals with other teams). In other words the title is currently over-precise, as the article contains information outside of the scope indicated by the current article title. I would just be bold and move it, then discuss if we get a revert. SSSB (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything said by SSSB. In addition, "Toyota Racing" could refer to some of their other racing activities, so I think it would be better to have a title that does not need to be disambiguated. Carfan568 (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:F1 Drivers Standings

Hello. Please tell user Arkhaaan that we don't need a double source for the table in Template:F1 Drivers Standings. The first source is sufficient. It will be automatically updated after each Grand Prix. We need to update the access date only, rather than adding every time the new pdf document regarding Classifications published later. This can be the practice as 2020 and 2021 and current constructors standings table. Island92 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't need the second source. The first source will update itself, whereas the second source is static, so will be outdated as soon as there's another race (i.e. on Sunday). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Arkhaaan. The revision supported by you (Island92) fails to verify that Perez and Verstappen were classified 18th and 19th at the Bahrain Grand Prix.

Also, adding every time the new pdf document isn't (to my understanding) true. After each Grand Prix we can simply replace it with the latest version, we don't need to cite the copy for each GP. SSSB (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do we have to add every time the new pdf document if the first source automatically updates itself? Island92 (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As I just explained, the source that automatically updates itself doesn't verify the whole table, and is therefore insufficent by itself. Secondly, as I also just explained, all you need to do is update the url and access-date of the PDF, which you can just do at the same time you update the access-date for the other source. SSSB (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok so there is no point having two sources. The current second one (pdf) has got more importance than the first then. Island92 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If only it were that easy. Unfortuantly not. Because the PDF only lists drivers' classified in the standings, and therefore doesn't list Gasly (although after the Saudi GP it may list Gasly's DNF, if not sure). Additionally, it only lists what postion drivers' are classified in, and we would therefore require an additional source to justify the daggers (although I would be willing to consider WP:IAR as a counter-arguement). SSSB (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Where's the template data

Where's the data for F1R2022, I've noticed that Mick_Schumacher in some places displays him as 11th when he should be 15th. In turns out that title="" style=" text-align: ;"| 16th gets him as 11th, so how can I fix this. 11cookeaw1 (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The template is located at {{F1R2022}}. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Updated for Mick Schumacher: [6]. If any others also need updating, you can edit {{F1R2022}}. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou, that was very helpful. 11cookeaw1 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

2023 season

With the announcement of the Las Vegas GP in 2023, and the current season underway, isn't it time the article on the 2023 season was started? Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there any coverage of the 2023 season? Because the Las Vegas Grand Prix has its own article. Until there's some content that specifically supports the notability of the 2023 season, I see no reason to have an article on it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We have got a draft which has been rejected about 4 times due to a lack WP:SIGCOV. The main page was actually salted to due a high number of creations. Personally, I agree with 5225C, but I also agree it is becoming less clear. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The addition of 1 race to the calendar is not a reason to create this now. There are no significant changes announced for this year, and most F1 coverage is about 2022, almost no mentions of 2023. This wasn't the case for e.g. 2022 where there were major rules changes that were discussed lots years in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Eszett in race title

Hello, I have been looking at the official titles of the Grands Prix in Austria and Germany. Most of them have got an SS in the word "Großer" instead of an eszett. The source cited which is the official F1 site often uses an SS but I'm pretty sure that is because it's in all caps. I think using an ß would be more appropriate. I changed the first few I saw but I don't want to waste my time and change 100 odd articles just so someone can click revert 100 odd times right back. Is there a discussion or consensus on this subject? DerVogel999 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I support your proposed change.Tvx1 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

De Tomaso 801 Article

I am requesting permission to create and write an article for the De Tomaso 801, a car that competed in 1962. The article is currently a redirect link to the Formula One section of the De Tomaso car manufacturer page. I have half a dozen sources, including several period sources, on the car as well as the full technical details for the chassis. Whatisdeletrazdoing (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Whatisdeletrazdoing: You don't need permission to create a draft article which should then be submitted for review. Please proceed via WP:WIZ, probably the better option, or WP:AFC. Please review the guide to article creation and ensure that the item has sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The fact that an F1 car existed is not enough, there must be significant coverage of it in independent sources and if it just competed in a very few races without much success it may not be considered notable enough – which might be why the current redirect exists. Please also review the WP:MOS and look at a few F1 car articles before proceeding. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It's been a very long time for me. I'll work up a draft article. While the car only appeared in 1 Grand Prix, I do find it notable in that the chassis, engine, and gearbox were all designed and built in-house. Only Ferrari and Porsche were also doing that during the 1.5-liter era. Whatisdeletrazdoing (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

BRM won both titles in 1962 with their own engine (having used the Climax the year before) but even so... I notice the redirect was created by a partcularly disruptive editor who was seemingly intent on creating sub-standard articles about F1 cars. Some typical 'hidden advice' aimed at them was left in the 'source' at the redirect page. Don't let that put you off trying to create a decent item though. If its notability can be demonstrated then we want the article. Good luck. Eagleash (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I will certainly do my best. And for what it's worth, BRM did their own engines and chassis, but used off-the-shelf Colottis (which was the right thing to do). Whatisdeletrazdoing (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I rather think that this could be incorporated in the formula one section of the car manufacturer’s article. I really don’t see the merit of a standalone article for a car which made only one unsuccessful attempt at qualifying for a race. There might even be something to say for having an article on De Tomaso in Formula One to properly deal with the F1 constructor.Tvx1 19:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a look at the draft last night and I agree that a De Tomaso in F1 article is probably the best solution. The car is notable enough it should have coverage but not notable enough for its own article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The first place to improve should be De_Tomaso#Formula_One or I think preferably a separate article as Tvx1 suggested. It seems as though the draft (which can be found at Draft:De Tomaso 801 for those interested) is written in such a way anyway as it goes into a bit of the background. A7V2 (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"Widely regarded" statements

Recently there's been quite a few additions of "widely regarded" statements in articles. I think this RfC makes it pretty clear that this should not appear in Lewis Hamilton's article specifically, but this was later also adapted and removed from other articles. To make it clear that this should apply to all articles, can we have some sort of consensus here?

@Mastermind627: has recently added this to Hamilton's article, and this to Charles Leclerc's article, although I don't want to personally get into an edit war over it since I reverted @AtishT20:'s edit (discussed here). FozzieHey (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that they should be excluded entirely, but if consensus exists to remove them from one they should be removed from all. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

...depending on what the consensus to remove them from one was based on. It could very well have been removed because the references weren't good enough, while the references might be good enough for other. As an attempt to clear up what would be required: Someone being "widely regarded as the best" is a conclusion that has to be sourced from somewhere directly, if not it's in violation of WP:OR. You can't just add ten sources claiming he's the best or one of the best, and then make the conclusion that he's "widely regarded" as anything.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  01:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll take your point regarding consensus, but I will disagree on the OR statement. At some point it has to become common sense. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ved havet: Source doesn't matter. "Majority", "widely" wtc. - by who? Eurohunter (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The Leclerc one doesn't look to have been sourced in the article, and is also a dated statement, that will become outdated at some point. At what point does Leclerc stop being a "rising star"- after all, he's been racing in F1 for 4 years, won multiple races and is currently leading the World Championship, and Verstappen won the championship last year. I wouldn't consider either to be a rising star, as they've already risen. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The RfC only applies to claims that someone is considered the greatest, and it only applies to such statements in the lead. It doesn't, for example, apply to the Leclerc example above. Nor does it prohibit making the statement that Hamilton is the greatest in the body, where it be discussed, with proper sources, neutrality (including counter-views). The biggest problem with these statements is justifying WP:DUE, (both for the lead, and article as a whole) and justifying the use of the word "widely". SSSB (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, and that's why I raised it here. What is the actual value in including these statements? I personally think we should outline the statistics and records and let the reader make a decision on their own. FozzieHey (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@FozzieHey: Exactly. Source doesn't matter. "Majority", "widely" wtc. - by who? Show me who said that exactly or give example in awards, records etc. Eurohunter (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Note for F1 2022 table results

In the table you read Pole position. The pole position for a Grand Prix is awarded by normal qualifying result (it is always the case for 2022). It is not important if the Grand Prix features the Sprint format or not, despite the fact driver gets the right to start first by winning the sprint. Note for Verstappen in the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix line is irrelevant in my opinion. Why is there this necessity to clarify this aspect?--Island92 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Island92, could we have more context? Which table? Where? SSSB (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of my watchlist you mean the table at 2022 Formula One World Championship#Grands Prix. I agree with the need of the note, but find it's content too specific. We should have the same note for all weekends: "Pole position is determined by the fastest driver in qualifying, not the driver starting the race in first." Because who has pole is already in the table, and the driver who started in first, bit didn't (necessarily on pole) isn't relevant (as the column is for pole). SSSB (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he's talking about the note I've added to Max Verstappen's pole position over at results table of the 2022 Formula One World Championship, which I added after we came to an agreement about this in this discussion in March, in the format suggested by @5225C:.

In short: Most people would rightfully assume that pole position is held by the person starting the Grand Prix in first position. That is however not the case during sprint weekends, where pole position is awarded to the person winning the qualifying, meaning they start the sprint in first, but not necessarily the main race. We therefore came to the solution to include a note for these pole positions, with something along the lines of "Bottas is credited with pole position, but Hamilton started the Grand Prix first following the sprint." (names are random in this example).

Verstappen, who holds pole this weekend, does indeed start the Grand Prix in first position, but not because he won pole on Friday. I therefore think it's still relevant to have a note about this for this weekend.

I disagree that who started the Grand Prix in first position is irrelevant. Technically, yes, it's not relevant to the official title of pole position, but it is relevant to the readers who are rightfully going to the pole position column looking for who started the Grand Prix on pole (first) position. In the previous discussion, we agreed not to call the first position on Sunday "pole", but information about who started the Grand Prix in first position is not necessarily available anywhere else (the sprint result from Saturday may not reflect the starting grid on Sunday e.g. after penalties). It therefore has a function, and I don't see how being specific about the relevant weekend is disadvantageous in any way.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The point is: doesn't the pole position match with the fastest driver in qualifying? Of course yes, that's why I think specifying that prose into the note is irrelevant. No matter whether the Grand Prix presents the sprint format or not, in any case the pole position, during the race weekend, is linked to the fastest driver in qualifying session. You have the right to start first if you win the sprint, but it doesn't necessarily mean, statistically speaking, you got the pole position as well. Pole position's achievement is something external to the sprint. A reader in the table reads pole position for the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix clinched by Verstappen, ok, but is it such important to know who won the sprint at all so as to be aware of who started first in the Sunday's race? This is my thought on it.--Island92 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You're basing your argument on the assumption that pole position is defined as the "fastest driver in qualifying", but that's not usually the case. Yes, the fastest driver in qualifying is usually the one who starts on pole position, but what actually is "pole position"? Pole position is, in all of racing except Formula One sprint weekends, "the position at the front at the start of a racing event", typically meaning the person at the front of the grid on Sunday's main race. With this not being the case on this weekend, along with other deviation from the regular format, people are going to be confused, and that's when they head to Wikipedia to hopefully get a better understanding. Our goal should always be to make things clear cut for the reader, and adding these notes takes up very little space while at the same time making the function and result of pole position(s) of sprint weekends very clear. I'm genuinly curious what the motivation would be to not include it.

Yes, I do believe it's as important to know who actually started the race in the first position, as it is to know who won qualifying and thereby the "statistical pole". Even more than that, I think it's important for people to understand how this weekend format works. I think explaining exactly how the qualifying result, sprint result and main race grid is connected when it comes to pole, including the specific results from that weekend, is very much relevant and important in regards to the results table of the season.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  23:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but basically the table itself should not explain what the pole position is. There is the link in the first line to know it. We got other articles to make readers aware of how it works, when a sprint format is used. The table itself sums up all the results achieved by drivers throughout the season. Where did the three sprint formats take place? Emilia, Austria, Brazil. Are people forced to know who won the sprint and got the right to start first? I don't think so, on average. For that there is always the dedicated page to be informed and to check how the Grand Prix results went. People interest in knowing who starts in front only because the driver who won the sprint starts first by putting pole position value aside is not considered worthknowing. Island92 (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

SSSB, that statement only applies to sprint weekends. In normal weekends, to this day still, when someone sets the fastest qualifying time but is then penalized for a breach of some rule or signals their intent to start from pit lane or to withdraw prior to the starting grid being declared final, pole position is reassigned to the next driver on the grid. And to my understanding, this also applies to sprint weekends in that if the fastest driver is penalized following Friday qualifying, pole position is passed on.Tvx1 00:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I seem to have misread SSSB's comment, I thought he was suggesting a general note for all sprint weekends. You are correct though, e.g. the 2021 Turkish Grand Prix where Hamilton's pole wasn't recorded after receiving a grid penalty. Only in situations like the 2021 Monaco Grand Prix where Leclerc did not start the race will the pole grid position be left vacant.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  02:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

In particular, when someone is unable to start from their assigned grid slot AFTER the starting grid is declared final.Tvx1 06:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ved havet: the discussion in March (that you linked above) was about if the pole-driver didn't match the person starting first on Sunday. Additionally, as far as I was aware, the purpose of that table is to provide a statiscal summary of the events. I notice we don't hae a note in 2019 Formula One World Championship to indicate that Magnussen didn't get the fastest lap point in Singapore, likewise for 2018, (though I acknowledge, non-F1 articles do).

@Tvx1: then the note would say "Pole position is determined by the driver starting the sprint race in first, not the driver starting the main race in first.", or some alternate wording.

Generally speaking, I take back my comments about a general note for all weekends. However, when the pole-sitter is the same across both defintions, the style of note currently in use feels clumsy, and any note at all seems redundent. SSSB (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Although Verstappen holds pole this weekend, and also started the Grand Prix in first position, I still believe the note is relevant because he did not start first due to winning pole on Friday, as people will assume.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  14:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

At the same time readers should be aware that the rule has changed for 2022 and pole position stats for the Grand Prix information matches with the result of normal qualifying. It's out of the context if you start first thanks to sprint win. It's something disconnected from the pole position "value" during the weekend.--Island92 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Far from everyone is aware of the details in the rules, and their point of confusion will naturally first occur when interpreting the results. This is still relevant despite Verstappen winning both qualifying and the sprint, because if they do know the rules then they can't be sure if Verstappen did start first or not (and it's probable that that's the information they're looking for), and if they don't think about sprint weekends being different, comparing this Grand Prix to future sprint weekends where the pole and first grid position is not the same may also lead to confusion. Pole in qualifying lining up with the starting grid of the race this weekend is not because pole in qualifying decided the first position of the starting grid of the race, like some will believe. That's why making sure people interpret pole position correctly upon reading the results is valuable, and I think expecting everyone to read the details of the regulations beforehand is unrealistic. Remember this is not just live data, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these results may be read by people far into the future. So, let's lend them a hand and inform them as they're reading the results.

As I've said multiple times by now, I'm well aware that who starts in first position of the race is no longer necessarily the "statistical pole" holder – but this is Wikipedia, we care about neutrality, WP:COMMONNAME's and common sense, and there's absolutely no doubt that the usual definition of pole position is in fact the driver starting the race in first position. That's what our own article on it says, and that's also the page we're wikilinking to multiple times in these season articles. I'm not at all saying we should prioritize this over the FIA's statistical pole holder, but I think giving a heads up on these weekends that "hey – this is the statistical pole holder from qualifying, but if you were (rightfully) looking for the person who started the race in first position, that would be ..." is a good thing, even if it's the same person, to make the distinction and the way pole works clear and precice where it is most useful. Again, I'm struggling to see the issue with this. We're not saying the person started first was "on pole", so we're not in any conflict with the FIA's weird use of the word. I think it's a simple and elegant solution, which is why it was agreed upon in the first place.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  11:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. As long as sprint remains a rarity we should be pointing out the exceptions to what has been a decades-long norm. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Ved havet on this. You cannot assume that every reader in decade or more from now will be aware of all these rule quirks. I have actually seen that in practice with editors incorrectly changing Ret's to DNS's in results table of red-flagges races of the 90's and early 00's, not knowing that back then when a race was red-flagged before the completion of two laps that start attempt was voided entirely and cars that had crashed out or had a mechanical failure during it an did not take the actual classified start would be classed as DNS for the classified race.Tvx1 11:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Event circuit lengths

A dispute in 1957 Pescara Grand Prix has led to changes in the event circuit length. While looking for more references for that dispute, I've come across this interesting article which mentions

Due to small modifications made to the circuit over the long period of years there has not been a consistency over fastest lap times

This raises an interesting question, as most of these older event articles are sourced from various different sources, and unknown circuit changes may be introduced year on year, would it be more appropriate to simply mention the length as an estimate of "25km" for example?, as this article does in other places. I personally think changing "25.73km" to "25.801km" is a bit ridiculous in terms of MOS:UNCERTAINTY so I think an "around 25km" (or even just "25km", if it's obvious it's been rounded) would be better here, interested to hear others thoughts though. FozzieHey (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This actually reminds me of a discussion we had here regarding rounding attendance figures. FozzieHey (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If the source does not express uncertainty, neither should we. If for some reason consensus develops otherwise, I think c. 25.801 km (16.032 mi) is a more appropriate method of doing it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

What if multiple sources disagree? Even if we have sources that agree on a particiular figure, e.g. 10.289 miles, what is the value in saying 10.289 miles over 10 miles? I think MOS:UNCERTAINTY covers this as well Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. FozzieHey (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If sources disagree, and one number isn't obviously correct, we should reflect uncertainty amongst sources. Circa means approximately. So c. [an exact match with a source, where another says something different] does not make a great deal of sense. It would be "c. 25.75 kilometres (16.00 mi)" (25.75 the result of rounding both 25.73 and 25.801 to the nearest 25m. 25.8 km would also work, rounding to the nearest 20m). I think a "25.73–25.81 kilometres (15.99–16.04 mi)" approach (with a footnote explaining why we have a range) would also be a viable option. Saying approximately 25km makes little sense, as it is closer to 26km. But also, the sources are within 100m of each other, so rounding to 1000m is unnecessary. SSSB (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, if sources disagree I agree we should approximate appropriately (e.g. using circa) and state the reason for some uncertainty (if there is any clear reason). However, I posted that "what is the value" question just to see if there is actually a reason why we provide such specific values for when sources do agree, to the reader is there any difference from 10.289 to 10 or 10.2 miles for example? To be clear, I think specific values are useful depending on the context (for example, putting 10.289 in the infobox), but I think having it written in prose seems a bit clumsy and interupts the sentence flow. FozzieHey (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between 10.2 and 10.289, because it should be 10.3. We should be rounding, not truncating. There should be a limit to the number of decimal places we use in running prose, but I think 3 decimal places is acceptable. At 4 I would start to have a problem. 2 is fine. I think 0 decimal places is a bit too extreme though. SSSB (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this after contributing to the Pescara discussion but I think a side point I raised there is more appropriately mentioned here. For the vast majority of Formula 1 race articles we give the circuit length to the nearest metre (ie 3 decimal places, so taking the 2022 Australian Grand Prix as an example, we have the circuit length as 5.278km but the race length is simply 58x5.278=306.124km. However this is an incorrect amount of precision. To give a simple illustration, the length of the circuit is known to the nearest metre, 5278 metres. So if the race was 10 laps long, the length of the race would be 52.78km (NOT 52.780km). We cannot add a trailing zero here since we only knew the length of the circuit to the nearest metre we know the length of a 10 lap race to the nearest 10 metres. This is captured by the concept of significant figures. Since the length of the circuit had four significant figures, so too when we multiply it by some number of laps the precision of our answer should only have 4 significant figures, and so the distance given for the Australian GP should only be 306.1km. We could perhaps instead say 306.124 +/- 0.058 (since 58 laps means our answer is correct to the nearest 58 metres instead of nearest 1 metre), but that's probably a bit too complicated and confusing. A7V2 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Last part should be plus or minus 0.029 (29 metres, half of 58). A7V2 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes the race length is available in the source to the nearest metre though, so we aren't required to do any calculating ourselves. For example, F1.com gives the race distance of the 2022 AUS GP as 306.124 km (link). In these cases, with modern systems of measurement, I would say the precise measurement to the nearest metre is appropriate. In past cases where there is a disagreement among sources, I think SSSB's proposal of a c. [range][footnote] is the best method we can use. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be an almighty coincidence if the length of the Australian GP, to the nearest metre, just happened to be the same as the length of the track to the nearest metre multiplied by the number of laps. A7V2 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s not coincidence at all. In Australia start and finish line is quite simply one and the same.Tvx1 01:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1 I was referring to the claim 5225C made that "In these cases, with modern systems of measurement..., measurement to the nearest metre is appropriate". But as I explained above, if the circuit length is known to the nearest metre and we multiply it by 58 laps we only have the length to the nearest 58 metres. So you would need to measure the length of the circuit to approximately the nearest 0.01 metre (ie the nearest cm) in order to get the race length to the nearest metre, unless it so happened that the length was actually 5278.00m which seems incredibly unlikely, not to mention that it is completely pointless to bother measuring to the nearest cm. It has nothing to do with where the start/finish line(s) are in this case. A7V2 (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If the FIA say this is the race distance to the nearest metre I don't see any valid reason to dispute that. Mathematically you are correct, but the FIA have determined that this is the official distance so I don't see how you're going to overcome that. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There's two main reasons (in policy) that I feel would allow us to ignore their precision, though I admit these are open to interpretation. Firstly, there is MOS:UNCERTAINTY, which states "Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context" (emphasis mine). I couldn't find much in the talkpage archives but this old discussion has a clear consensus that rounding of data provided by reliable sources (in that case census data) is appropriate.

Secondly, I feel that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. Given that the FIA's self-published claim would imply that they know the circuit length to the nearest cm, we should only use such measurements if given in independent sources. I don't know of any major outlets discussing this issue, but Snellman certainly noted it on his website. See [7].

Finally, I think WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:IAR could be invoked here as well, even if only to give the interpretations of policy I have given above. A7V2 (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with A7V2's point here about MOS:UNCERTAINTY and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I think settling this discussion may require the involvement of users from maths-related WikiProjects and possibly a request for comment however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm with 5225C here. I don't see the problem with simply stating the FIA's number, rather then delving into unnecessary uncertainty, which is apperently discussed in one source, and not actually calculted in any. WP:UNDUE applies here, if one source discusses the problem, and no source address the problem (by stating the error in their lengths), then it is inappropraite for us to do so.

I would also argue that WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR suggest we should overlook MOS:UNCERTAINTY and WP:EXCEPTIONAL becuase no source deals with the uncertainity, so there it is WP:OR for us to do so.

Finally, I don't find the claim exceptional at all, with modern measuring equipment, it is perfectly feasable to work out the centre line, and it's length, even if you don't publish to that accuracy. SSSB (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I largely agree with 5225C and SSSB and disagree with A7V2 and your claim that they have a point. I don't agree with SSSB's reasoning IAR is needed here. A7V2's reasoning is simply wrong. There is no "explicit uncertainty" here. On the contrary, we have an extremely reliable source providing us with explicit certainty and no general calling this into question by other sources at all. Neither does this fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The provided information is not out of character, contradicted by prevalent view in mainstream sources, nor generally challenged. Or articles or not out of sync with MOS on this subject at all.Tvx1 23:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to reread part of what I wrote. There is no explicit uncertainty given in the sources. That's the point! The suggestion you and SSSB are making (about "accuracy") implies that the circuit length is 5278m to the nearest cm (and not to mention many other circuits which just happen to be this way), which is ridiculously unlikely regardless of how accurately the circuits can or have been measured. As the MOS states, where explicit uncertainty (ie sources do not give us the uncertainty) is not available (and clearly such uncertainty exists in this case unless you wish to accept that the circuit happens to be 5278m to the nearest cm) we should round the number. Rounding numbers is not original research. But I am happy to, as HumanBodyPiloter5 suggests, take this to a wider forum such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. A7V2 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No, our point is that we have a reputable source giving us explicit certainty and no other reputable sources challenging them. And no Snellman is not a reputable source. Your link doesn’t even deal with length but speed, which is a completely different calculation. There is nothing uncertain nor exceptional here. The information we present is verifiable to a reputable source. Your complaint would only hold water if only circuit lengths were given in sources and we would be deriving the race distances from them, which is NOT the case.Tvx1 09:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Also note that in the vast majority of cases race length≠circuit length*number of laps. This is because there is almost always on offset between start and finish line.Tvx1 08:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's true, but all the more reason not to report race lengths to excessive (and unnecessary) precision. A7V2 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Only you consider this precision to be excessive (and unnecessary). It's your personal opinion, not fact.Tvx1 23:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Only you consider this precision to be excessive (and unnecessary)..." (emphasis mine) - You can disagree with me, or even call me a moron or whatever for misinterpreting policy/MOS or for doing OR, but what benefit comes from lying so blatantly saying things which are evidently untrue (edit:I softened what I originally had here as I failed to AGF)? HumanBodyPiloter5 expressed agreement above, and if not for having read the piece by Snellman some time ago I'm not sure this issue would have ever occurred to me. So there are at least two other people who agree with me! A7V2 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That only one person, in the meantime refuted, agreeing with you came only hours before my comment. Snellman doesn’t count because he isn’t in this discussion and doesn’t deal with length but speed. Despite the one person admitting you might have a point, which I refuted, you’re the one who actually keeps stamping on this. And I really cannot fathom why. Why is this such a massive issue for you that you’re so adamant to get your way? Why’d you go to such as length as involving other projects or initiating time-consuming RFC’s to force your change through on such a non-issue.Tvx1 09:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I must be missing something, at what point does HumanBodyPiloter5 express te opinion that the precision is excessive (and unnecessary)? You, Tvx1 and now I are the only people in this thread to have even mentioned the word "excessive". And of the three of us, you are the only one who believes it to be excessive.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you bring up WP:OR. The only arguement that contains WP:OR is yours, because no source includes uncertainty when stating race distances. SSSB (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we are getting lost in the noise a bit, and my stupid attempt at conveying sarcasm has evidently only made this worse (at the risk of adding to that noise, note that it is just the final paragraph of the section [8] which mentions race distance, I should have been clearer the first time).

I also think we are getting stuck on the why without considering what the what is. What I am actually proposing/suggesting is that as a general rule we should be rounding race lengths in articles. This act is certainly not OR. Routine calculations are specifically allowed, and rounding is a routine calculation (see WP:CALC and Wikipedia:These are not original research#Simple calculations), and is expressly allowed or even encouraged in the MOS (see MOS:UNCERTAINTY) WITH THE CAVEAT that it be "appropriate to the context". The calculations I did above are not OR for the reason that they are not in article space, but if I did add them or similar (which I am NOT going to do!) that would of course be OR.

So then given all of that, we can round the numbers given in a reliable source if it is appropriate which of course is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, race articles should, at the very least (or should that be most?) give race lengths to the same number of significant figures as the circuit length is given. This primarily due to my mathematical objection above, but also I feel that such precision is not actually informative to the reader, whether it is "correct" or not. The metres and tens of metres are simply of no importance over the duration of a ~300km race, in my opinion. A7V2 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What is the length of a circuit, anyway? Is it measured along the centre of the track; along the inner kerb; or along the optimum racing line? It's clear to me that the actual distance travelled by a car making one lap will not be any of these. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Does that even matter? I’d say the only thing that matters is that the figures are properly sourced.Tvx1 12:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It matters if different sources have used different methods. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the mainstream sources actually make physical measurements themselves. They would just cite the figures provided by the FIA. For modern circuits and races for which the FIA provides us the data, their method doesn't really matter. It's an official figure and we can source it as such. For older races, like the Pescara one, it's more complicated. But then again, the sources we use for such races don't tend to explain methods at all. So I don't think it's a thought process worth delving into.Tvx1 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The FIA always use the center of the track for official track lengths. The actual distance travelled by a car doesn't matter.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  14:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

DYKs

Hi, I posted quite a few DYKs a while ago at Portal talk:Formula One/Did you know, I'd really appreciate if someone gave them a look. Cheers! X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 04:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review 1994 San Marino Grand Prix

I have nominated 1994 San Marino Grand Prix for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Notes rename

@EnthusiastWorld37: it looks like you're on a campaign to change the "Notes" section header to either "Explanatory notes" or "Footnotes" in a wide swath of racing articles. Before you continue, I think it would be a good idea to explain why you think that change is necessary and get a consensus for it. Just trying to save your time and everyone else's time in case there's a consensus that those renames aren't desirable. For what it's worth, "Notes" is a pretty standard header name across the English Wiki, but maybe there's a reason for it to be different on this particular WikiProject? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

F1 driver results legend 5 / 6

I've noticed a lot of season results with a ... 6 legend which also include references to Sprints, which aren't appropriate for 2020 and back. Is there any reason a lot of these have been changed? 1996 Formula One World Championship being a good start... Spa-Franks (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Presumably you mean {{F1 driver results legend 6}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Not “a lot have been changed”. One template was update incorrectly to include the sprint in the legend, while a new legend template should really have been created for seasons with sprints.Tvx1 16:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Having look around, the usage of the legend templates is far from correct. Legend 6 was simply updated when the sprints first appeared in Formula One, when really a new one should been created and Legend 6 be reserved for season article pre-dating the introduction of sprints. Legend 7 and 8 should not have been created as they are. The articles that use legend 8, should use the original legend 6 and the eSports articles, which use legend 7, should have their own legend.

On a side note, the remaining season articles that still use bold and underline fonts for poles and fastest laps should be updated to use P an L icons so that over time legend 4 and 6 can be merged.Tvx1 19:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Superscripts/notes on the race count in 2021 and 2022

@Island92: It seems excessive to have the superscripted notes on "Race XX of 22" in both 2021 and 2022. It may seem important in the present-day editing while these things have only recently changed. But taking a longer perspective, why is it relevant to have it in the individual races' articles? It's probably sufficient to have it mentioned in the seasons' articles, while keeping the counts in the individual GPs articles to what they ultimately are (or "expected to be" while the season is in progress). This would also be consistent with our treatment of FISA-FOCA wars period (otherwise the counts would have to be complicated unnecessarily in individual race articles for those seasons as well). cherkash (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I involve @HumanBodyPiloter5:. He's the user who added first these notes in 2021, providing that I reckon well. Island92 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Also the 17 Grands Prix in 2020 boxes feature notes, starting from 2020 Austrian Grand Prix. Island92 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with cherkash, how many races were expected to be held at the time is of minimal to no relevance (unless the removal of a race secures someone the championship, because there are no longer enough races in which to close the gap) but that situation has never actually arisen.

In any case, if we insist on including these notes they would be better suited to running prose, where we say "it was the 2nd round of 22 in the 2022 championship.[link footnote saying at the time there were due to be 23]", rather than the infobox. SSSB (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Result tables wrapper

I just visited the McLaren MCL36 article, and I noticed that the results table there has a div wrapper with some styles:

<div style="overflow-x: auto; margin: 1em 0">
<!--Table here-->
</div>

The wrapper above makes the gives a side scrollbar on the bottom. This is a good thing for me personally, I like it because it doesn't cause side scrolling. I'm a translator, so I use two windows side by side all the time, and I just don't like side scrolling. This has some weakness though, as the scrollbar doesn't appear until you scroll all the way to the end of the bottom of the table; so if you want to look at the results to the right you have to scroll down first.

I suggest we implement this wrapper on all (or just in specific cases, like the results of an F1 car) results tables. What do you guys think? Klrfl Talk! 13:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No objection from me (unless there is some kind of accessibility issue. SSSB (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't encountered the scroll down issue you mention, but the reason I use it is because it works in all circumstances: on wide monitors like mine it disappears, on small monitors it keeps the page the right width, and on mobile it is replaced by the built-in table scrolling. As far as I can tell <div> tags of this kind don't affect accessibility and no one has ever suggested otherwise to me. I would support its implementation on all results tables everywhere in the project. It doesn't seem to carry any downside and makes sure the page loads correctly on screens of all sizes. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok then, I will start implementing this wrapper in Formula One cars articles. Klrfl Talk! 10:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nationality in infoboxes

All references to nationality in driver infoboxes are now banned, apart from in certain unusual circumstances. Including flags. This is because a handful of editors... I don't know, just thought nationality was meaningless, I suppose. If you think I'm joking, here it is: WP:INFONAT. One or two editors are already trawling around enforcing this. I asked one editor questions about it, and she refused to answer them, just telling me to raise it somewhere else. Isn't Wikipedia great? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What on Earth. Who decided this was a good idea, and where? Is there a discussion I've missed? Bonkers. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's here. It involved around seven people, and as far as I can see, no WikiProjects were informed. It's easily the most ridiculous idea I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and there's a lot of competition. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think your giving an overly simplistic account of the outcome of the discussion. First of all, MOS is a guideline and cannot ban anything. Secondly, this section of it seems to only deal with the personal information section of infoboxes. It doesn’t for instance override MOSːFLAGS stating that it is acceptable to including the sporting nationality of sportspeople in an infobox.Tvx1 21:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm giving the account that was given to me. Guidelines are there to be followed, and it is pretty clear. It has been relayed to the editor who is removing the nationality field that it does not override MOSFLAG – she says it does, and continues to remove the field. Short of edit warring, it's going to need more organised opposition. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If the rogue editor continues to edit in defiance of MOSːFLAGS, they should be reported to the administrators. Pure and simple.Tvx1 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You'll find her reverting me at Peter Revson, Mark Donohue et al. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My personal inclination is to simply ignore it. The discussion, which appears to be very poorly thought out, has introduced a conflict between different sections of the MOS. The quickest resolution is to simply revert the most recent change to INFONAT. A new centralized discussion (that actually involves some people affected by the change) will probably be needed though, and while that is done a significant amount of damage could be done in the mean time. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively we could rename our parameter "License nationality". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not licence nationality. And even if it were, this editor would still claim that their guideline would apply. I would still revert her arguing a something alone the lines of the following:

Firstly, that MOS is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule and we have ever right to use a local, WikiProject specific, consensus. Secondly, we say there is no evidence that this overrides MOS:FLAGS (because it doesn't), thirdly, we point out that the scope of the discussion she keeps mentioning doesn't extend to F1 driver's infoboxes, as sporting nationality wasn't brought up in the discussion at all. And finally, we inform her that she may be brought to WP:AN/3RR if she doesn't stop edit warring. SSSB (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that approach is that they did address WikiProject consensus in the discussion by referring to WP:CONLEVEL. They did touch on sports articles in the RfC as well. Any argument that INFONAT or other parts of the MOS are open to the inclusion of representative nationalities is going to be shot down very quickly. I suspect the only two solutions are either for the entirety of WP:F1 to ignore INFONAT given its innapropriate application to sports bios which would force the local consensus to be enforced, or to start a new centralised discussion that inserts a specific allowance for sports bios to include nationalities. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that CONLEVEL is on our side. The consensus used to establish INFONAT was among a much smaller group of editors than the group which agreed MOS:FLAGS. WP:F1's local consensus isn't that INFONAT doesn't apply (the fact that several of us think so is irrelevant, that's not the point of the discussion). Rather the local consensus is that we should follow MOS:FLAGS over MOS:INFONAT, as the two contradict each other. SSSB (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

While sports biographies were indeed adressed in the RFC and the later discussion, neither concluded with a prohibition on sporting nationalities. Thus MOS:FLAGS wasn’t changed and still applies. They don’t even contradict each other. They deal with a different nationality concept. And we still have community consensus on our side. This one rogue editor is just wrong and should simply be reported for the editor instead of being given so much patience.Tvx1 10:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That They deal with a different nationality concept is definitely amibguous. I agree we should ignore any attempts to remove sporting nationalities from infoboxes etc., but in the interest of long-term clarity it would be best to ammend the MOS to deal with this issue explicitly. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So were are we with regards to this issue? The rogue editor has apparently weirdly limited their objections to just the article of Damon Hill and invests heavily in a discussion on that talk page only. How are we going to proceed from here.Tvx1 02:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Continued opposition to any innapropriate application of INFONAT to F1 bios. Supposing that fails, a new central discussion to explicitly allow for international representative nationalities. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. As far as I can tell there's a clear consensus within WP:F1, that's all that matters in my opinion.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  17:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If it only were that simple. That will always be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that cannot override MOS. The real issue here is one rogue editor who is acting against MOS.Tvx1 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but WP:IAR can. Anyways.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  23:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I prefer not to go about it that way though. I prefer more constructive and colleborative ways. For instance, others could weigh in in the discussion at Talk:Damon Hill? Note that it’s a featured article and we thus need to be careful on how to deal with the issue there.Tvx1 03:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

March 87P Overwrite Redirect and Page Creation

Hi Guys, just one more thing. I was thinking of creating an article the aforementioned Formula One car above. There's a lot of good and readily available information on German Wikipedia (German), again, that English Wikipedia doesn't have. I would just like everyone's opinion, and make sure that there's a general consensus between everyone, and that there's a unanimous decision between everyone that this article is necessary and should be create. Again, I'm willing to translate and bring across all the information, it's just I received the same message before as stated above ("Please do not re-create an article at this page or for this car without initiating a discussion at the Wiki F1 Project talk-page, in order to establish that it would satisfy notability and that there is a consensus for a page to exist. Thank you."), and I didn't want to create anything without everyone's honest opinion and decision. What do you think guys? Thanks again. Davism0703 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's a notable car for an article. So as long as you have sources, it's lights out and away you go translating,

mate. Klrfl Talk! 03:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't. Not for a standalone article. It was an F3000 car upgraded as a temporary solution. It only entered one race and didn't even start it. I don't know why German Wikipedia has a separate article for it, but we don't have to copy them. Having read their article, I found that 90% of it doesn't even deal with the 87P car. What's worth mentioning about this car, can easily be mentioned as part of another article.Tvx1 11:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, these redirects with the 'hidden advice' were put in place to discourage a long-term disruptive and not very competent editor from creating sub-standard articles about F1 cars that did not really meet notability guidelines. I.e. there was little in the way of SIGCOV relying mainly on databases for sourcing. Long-term project members will recall the editor concerned; he was eventually blocked indef. (after using over 250 different IPs, which made it impossible to communicate effectively, he did create an account) but several socks later, he still re-appears from time to time. The 871/87P was one that at the time was borderline and could be worth an article. After the recent 'kerfuffle' at WP:NSPORT and the tightening of guidelines, there may still be issues, possibly. Eagleash (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that car was only entered for one race and didn’t even start it. That’s not even remotely close to the notability treshold. So I oppose creating a separate article gor this. This car’s history can easily be covered within March Engineering.Tvx1 10:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1: The 87P (F3000) maybe, but for the 871 (the F1 version) see Stats F1 for races. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Eagleash, Davism0703 is asking about an article for the 87P. We already have an article on the 871. I oppose a separate article for the 87P. It's not much different than the Ferrari F2002B or F2004M in reason for existence and the latter two even started races and managed notable results.Tvx1 11:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Oh yeah, so we do; I was under the impression that the 871 had been redirected back 'then' as well. I agree the 87P is not worth an article and already has a mention in the 871 item. I have tweaked the redir. accordingly. Eagleash (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

March 711 Redirect Overwrite and Page Creation

Hi. I was thinking of creating a page for the aforementioned Formula One car in the title above. Does anyone think that would be a good idea? I was just about to do so now, but then I saw this message: "Please do not re-create an article at this page or for this car without initiating a discussion at the Wiki F1 Project talk-page, in order to establish that it would satisfy notability and that there is a consensus for a page to exist. Thank you.", and I didn't want to create something and then be yelled at for doing something wrong. So, does anyone think that the page should be created? Or is it not necessary? I guess it would be nice to have as many F1 car articles we can, but if the general consensus between everyone is that it isn't needed, then I'm fine with that. Thoughts and opinions everyone, please? Davism0703 (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted to add one thing if I could. There's a really good corresponding article on French Wikipedia for the March 711 here: fr:March_711 - It actually uses a really good, nice, neat format, and a lot of the available information could be translated from Italian to English. I'm happy to do that, but I would like everyone's thoughts first. Actually, the German, French and Italian Wikipedias actually have a lot of good motorsports and automotive-focused and related articles that English Wikipedia doesn't have. Just a thought, but I would like everyone's opinions first. Davism0703 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The 711 certainly looks like it should be notable, so I don't see any issue with creating an article for it. Content translations don't really need discussion, if we're lacking an article another edition has we should make use of it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lights out and away you go translating the article, mate. Klrfl Talk! 12:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're not confident with French, try Italian, Japanese or Polish. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There is many articles about F1 cars on different language versions of Wikipedia but not in ENWP. Eurohunter (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Davism0703: What about linking article to Wikidata? We always add interwiki - then on Wikipedia, now on Wikidata. Eurohunter (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Davism0703: Can you start linking your articles to Wikidata? Eurohunter (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. :) Davism0703 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Davism0703: Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Over the last few days an IP has been doing many unconstructive edits to the calendars of multiple season articles. This has included test edits and outright vandalism.Tvx1 23:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Mos violation in Template:Infobox F1 driver

See a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_F1_driver#Nationality about fixing a potential MOS violation in the Infobox SSSB (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Hi all, I'm sure you're all busy people, but if anyone wants something to do, could they please pick up my GAN at Talk:McLaren MP4-18. Hope this doesn't violate WP:CANVASS, or any other policies. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 20:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

List of wins

I notice that a list of wins has recently been added to Red Bull Racing Grand Prix results. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Unnecessary cruft. The wins are already included in the above matrix.Tvx1 11:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Tvx1. There is no need to repeat this information. SSSB (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Circumventing policy

This discussion (and its aftermath) is the absolute circumvention of any concept of policy Inavolbe (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Inavolve: we can't do anything about that here. You need to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. SSSB (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see why. The proper procedure was followed. A proper consensus was achieved. An adminstrator judged it. Just because one editor doesn’t like the outcome, that doesn’t mean it was wrong.Tvx1 21:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ross Brawn

See my post at Talk:Ross Brawn#Contradictions -- if anyone has any insight or sources, that would be great. --RFBailey (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Zandvoort Grands Prix

I've started a discussion at Talk:Dutch Grand Prix about whether the 1948 and 1949 Zandvoort Grands Prix should be included as part of the "Dutch Grand Prix" lineage. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd treat them separately. Motor Sport mentions that in 1950 the organisers decided to run it as a "fully fledged" single race Grand Prix, the two previous races were hearts and a final. In any event they are not named as the Dutch GP. Maybe put a bit of text in the article to clarify. Halmyre (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Pitstops columns

I notice the recent addition of a "Pitstops" column to the race classification tables of 2016 Belgian Grand Prix and 2016 Italian Grand Prix. What do we think? DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Previous discussion in 2012, 2013, and 2016 seems to suggest a consensus that this is excess detail and out of scope for encyclopaedic coverage. Personally, I am indifferent as to whether they are included or not, but consistency is obviously desirable. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• This column constitutes a violation of WP:NOSTAT ("Excessive listings of unexplained statistics."). We should not be listing these details if we can't justify why it's of encylopdic significance (which we can't, because it isn't). SSSB (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  It is not an "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". Everyone who watches F1 knows what a pit stop is. The items listed are factual data with citation, not some personal opinion. Pit stop info is not excessive or unexplained info. Nareignda (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  None of which addresses my opinion that it is excessive and unexplained to list them all in a classification table (I've explained why I have those opinions below). SSSB (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I am the homosapien who did that. Race strategy is important in F1. It usually concerns pitstops and tyre compounds. It will be a good value add to the reader, above the standard Race Classification to get tad bit perspective about the race. The standard race classification table is available on any decent website - it is a matter of link and/or copy/paste. The F1 official web site has good data about each race. The pitstop data is available but not tabulated. So it has to be carefully tabulated first and then added to the Race classification table. So it is not a simple matter of copy-paste.

The popularity of F1 is growing, along with the successful propagation of racing games/sims. So audience not only can watch a live race F1 race, but can also experience it in a game/sim. There is an audience of a slightly more discerning kind. Even a casual viewer who may have watched F1 live on TV is aware of how the commentators obsess over pitstops for the various drivers and how that affects the outcome of the race.

My intention is to add pitstop info to all the races where the info is available. If not in the table, might as well make a graphic about it then.

In general, info about pitstops, tyre compounds and weather (info on the latter 2 not easily available) can make the article/page more rounded and complete. (Feature level?)

Thoughts pls. Nareignda (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are all reasons to include it in the article for selected drivers. But none of those reasons justify including it for every driver or in the race classification table (hence the excessive I mentioned earlier), especially given that pit stops aren't relevant to the classification. The details of who pits and when is something which cannot only be expressed with sufficient context through prose - did they pit for mechanical/puncture, penalties, or because it was a viable statergy? (hence the unexplained I mentioned earlier). I have no problem outlining the strategies that were used by various drivers in the race - in fact I would encourage it. I am just opposed to it's inclusion being in tabular form. I don't think it's a useful or helpful way to present pit stop data. SSSB (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sophie Kumpen

Anyone can help me for reviewing a draft article: Draft:Sophie Kumpen?

I developed the article since June, but no one has reviewed it yet, thanks :) F1fans (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, she doesn’t even satisfy WP:MOTOR’s notability guidelines, let alone WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited, so just because her son, ex-husband and cousin are notable she isn’t automatically either. Also the draft contains false information. Anthony is not her uncle, but her cousin.Tvx1 19:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have seen this article 'in passing' and thought it lacking notability. As Tvx1 and I agree seemingly, I have gone ahead and declined it. Eagleash (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Circuit locations in calendar tables

I notice a lot of calendar tables in season articles will list venues by saying "Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" or "Circuit Zandvoort, Zandvoort". To me this seems largely redundant and unhelpful. I don't know if there's currently any Wikiproject consensus on this, but I think where possible we should avoid these redundant listings, for example by saying "Circuit Zandvoort, North Holland" (In Silverstone's case it's a bit more ambiguous, as the circuit crosses over a county boundary, although the venue's address lists the post town as Towcester and the county as Northhamptonshire). Of course, we should be careful to ensure that a venue is actually in the location it is named after to begin with (ie. the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya is in Montmeló) rather than just automatically jumping one level up in terms of specificity, and in some cases it may be best to just list the name of the circuit by itself (for example, the 1981 season article currently lists "Autodromo de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires", but doesn't really need anything more than "Autodromo de Buenos Aires" as we already know the race is in Argentina). This part of articles seems like a potential magnet for slow-motion edit wars and a broader consensus may be helpful. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see the issue.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  07:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an issue either. Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya is the perfect example why Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone isn't redundant or unhelpful - circuits are sometimes named after towns they are not in. I don't care if we use the name of the town, or the county - but we should be consistent within the article. "near Towcester" is deliberately vague, and unhelpful. SSSB (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think consistency is necessarily possible or even the most helpful thing here. What matters is avoiding redundancy and giving readers the best possible chance to work out where the venue is just by looking at the table. I expect most readers to intuit that a venue is in the place implied by its name, so it's important to highlight when that isn't the case, but I don't think it's important to emphasise when it is the case. We also need to take into account how likely it is that readers will have heard of the place whose name appears in the circuit's name. Readers are relatively likely to be familiar with Detroit or Valencia, so ideally one would want to give readers a sense of where in-or-around Detroit or Valencia those venues are, but towns like Silverstone, Zandvoort, or Hockenheim are relatively obscure to those who aren't locals or motorsport fans, and giving a sense of where those places are is probably more productive. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also note that the current situation isn't very consistent. The current calendar table on 2022 Formula One World Championship includes both "Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone", a redundant statement relating the venue's location to a small nearby village, and "Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore", relating the circuit's location to a country with a surface area of more than 700 kilometres. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The format of the table is consistent, it includes what population centre the circuit is located within or nearest to. It's just that the size of these population centres aren't consistent. Some are within or nearby small villages, some are nearby or within large cities or, in the case of Singapore, a city-state. That's just the nature of race tracks.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  10:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Nearest population centre seems like a strange way of defining a circuit's location to me. To me the purpose of indicating the location of the circuit in the table is to help readers understand where the races take place, not to help readers understand where to move to if they want to live close to a motor circuit. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed to help readers understand where the race tracks are located, and Silverstone Circuit is located just across the A43 from Silverstone. We could of course use the county it is located within instead, but that would be much less precise and inconsistent with the circuits where we define their location by city.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  10:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

But Silverstone isn't a city, it's a village of a couple of thousand people. If we count Silverstone as a "population centre" then surely whichever neighbourhood is closest to the tracks in Montréal or Mexico City or Singapore or Melbourne also counts as a "population centre". Saying "Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" is not meaningfully more informative than just saying "Silverstone Circuit" given the track itself is larger (and frankly far more well known) than the village it shares its name with. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez is located centrally in Mexico City. Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is located centrally in Montréal. Silverstone is not in the middle of a city, but located next door to Silverstone. I think these are all equally good descriptors of the location of these circuits. Some are substantially larger than others, but I suppose my argument is that they don't have to be the same size to be equally the main population centre of their respective circuits. That's the argument of consistency I believe is relevant here; I think it's reasonable to stick to villages, towns and cities, and not mix villages with city neigbourhoods, or counties with large cities, with the sole purpose of aproximating their size and adjust for how centrally the tracks are located. I think the size of the location just adds to the description of the circuit, actually. To add, if the reader does not know where e.g. Silverstone is, then that's why we have H:WIKILINKs. With one click they can get to information about the main population centre of or nearby the circuit.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  11:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Except Silverstone isn't "the main population centre that serves the track", is it? If an overseas visitor attends the Mexican or Canadian Grands Prix, then sure, they're going to stay in Mexico City or Montréal. But Silverstone is far too small to provide accommodation (or other services) for tens of thousands of people. If we're going by those standards then "the main population centre that serves the track" is probably Milton Keynes or somewhere, which is in no way indicative of the circuit's location. That also ties into the issue that this isn't Wikivoyage. It doesn't matter what population centre "serves the track", what matters is informing readers in an encyclopaedic manner. Either we specify the locations of venues in whichever way is most likely to immediately give a reader a sense of where the venue is (which vague and redundant information like "Silverstone Circuit is in Silverstone" or "the Singapore Grand Prix is held in Singapore which is in Singapore" doesn't), or we just trust readers to click the wikilink to the venue's article and leave the location information out of the table. Either is fine. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about literally serving the track with accomodation for visitors. My perception is simply that the natural description of the location of the Silverstone Circuit is Silverstone. It's not in the middle of a city, it's right next to a village, and thus, it's location is practically that village. That's just the reality of the track, it's not a problem that Silverstone isn't the same size as e.g. Montréal. Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is located in the midle of a big city, Montréal, and thus it's location is that city. That's my argument, agree or disagree, if there comes a consensus for something else then that's completely fine.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  11:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Montmélo and Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot are prime examples of why nothing in that column is redundant. You are assuming that every potential reader will know beforehand that Silverstone Circuit is located in Silverstone. We can’t do that.Tvx1 11:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

But the purpose of the calendar table is to show at which circuit the race took place. If you want to know where the circuit is, why not just follow the link? Halmyre (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, yeah. As it currently stands there isn't any real consistency to the presentation anyway ("nearest population centre" may be a single criteria but it is no way a consistent one), and this isn't Wikivoyage. Either we find a method of specifying the location that is actually likely to help readers form a better understanding of a venue's location, or we just trust them to click the link to the venue's article and only specify the country. I think either is fine, but the current situation just seems like the worst of both of worlds. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ved havet: My perception is that Silverstone Circuit's location is Silverstone in the same way that Circuit Gilles Villeneuve's location is Notre Dame Island, and Silverstone Circuit's location is Northamptonshire in the same way that Circuit Gilles Villeneuve's location is Montréal. Both are correct, the question is just "which is actually more meaningful to most readers?" HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a fair opinion that you'd want one of those alternatives, but the consensus doesn't have to be either of those.

Both are indeed correct, but your examples mix city neighbourhoods with entire towns and counties with cities, and that's certainly not consistent at all just because they're the same size. They're completely different kinds of location categories. Some circuits are central, some are not. Thus, some are in big cities, some are in or next to small towns. That's the way it's been and I to answer your question, I think that's the most helpful. I've read and understood your position, I simply disagree.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  12:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A perception that is completely incorrect though Northamptonshire and Montréal are not the same level legal subdivision. Northamptonshire is actually similar to Quebéc for those locations. Meanwhile, Ile de Notre-Dame is just a geographical feature.Tvx1 12:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, that's the term, level of legal subdivision.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  12:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

And that's the actually criterium we have always used. The lowest level of independent legal subdivision. Sometimes that is a large city, some times that is a small municipality and yes sometimes when city is also a country (e.g. Singapore, Monaco) that is a city-state. But the common thing is that they are on the same legal level. Anything else is beyond the scope of these tables, not for seasons articles to detail. If readers want a more detailed description of the geographical position, they can go to the articles of the circuits.Tvx1 12:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a rather arbitrary and not particularly helpful criteria to me. I don't care about arbitrarily listing the lowest possible legal subdivision, I care about conveying contextually relevant information to people. Northamptonshire is comparable to Montréal because it's a place people who don't already know where the circuit is located will have heard of. I can guarantee that (possibly excluding a few dementia patients) 100% of people who know where the village of Silverstone is will also know where Silverstone Circuit is. In contrast, many people know where Montréal or Northamptonshire are but do not know where the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve or Silverstone Circuit are located. The notion that a tiny village is more similar to Mexico City than Northamptonshire is to Montréal seems utterly absurd to me. Either the locations are included in the tables to help people immediately get a better sense of where the circuits are located without having to visit the respective articles on the venues or they're superfluous to the table and should be removed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the opposite of arbitrary, it's systematic and consistent. Arbitrary would be choosing a location name based on our personal opinion on what most readers will recognize or not. There's a precedent where we name the circuit and where the circuit is located, not based on the name itself being recognizable to people, but because that's just... where it is. Factually. And if they don't recognize it, they can click on it and find out. You might argue that it's superfluous because this information will also be available in the circuit's article, but I think it's a good precedent because you're not relying on every circuit having it's own article (although it's common when there's been a Formula One race there), it saves you a click, and I think it's WP:RELEVANT to the season article as well to mention where these circuits are.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  13:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I am never to agree with you on this. I do not understand your logic on any level. I do not think it is arbitrary to apply basic WP:COMMONSENSE and realise that all "Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" conveys to a reader who does not know where the circuit is located is "the Silverstone Circuit is named after the place where it is located", whereas "Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montréal" conveys that "the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is located a large city of international renown" to a large number of readers. The information conveyed by saying "Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" is no more relevant to the season schedule than just saying "Silverstone Circuit". It serves only to distract readers and make them feel patronised. Consistently applying a criteria is not the same thing as having a consistent criteria. If a village of a couple of thousand people is considered more similar to the entire nation of Singapore within your criteria than Northamptonshire is to Montreal then your criteria is clearly wildly inconsistent. Most reliable sources I can remember encountering introduce Silverstone Circuit as either being in Northamptonshire or as straddling the border between Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire, I am not sure if I ever remember any sources saying "Silverstone Circuit is in Silverstone", although some may say "Silverstone Circuit, named after the nearby village" or something to that effect. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that I'm not going to convince you, and I won't agree with your perspective either, that's not really my objective. I'm simply responding to your comments. What action will be made (if any) will be decided based on if others agree with your points or not.

"Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" conveys that the circuit is located in a place called Silverstone (and as a result of that, that the circuit is named after it, sure). "Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montréal" conveys that the circuit is located in a place called Montréal. How many readers know where Silverstone and Montréal is, is in my opinion completely irrelevant. If they would like to know where it is, they can click on the name of the location. Including the location in the season article rather than removing it is still WP:RELEVANT.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  14:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

For me a big part of the issue is that having a large number of redundant locations listed just adds visual noise to the table. If we want to emphasise that certain venues are not in the places they're named after (ie. "Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot") then those venues specifically having their locations listed as opposed to venues which share their name with their location would get that point across more clearly to me. Whether that is a point that it's even necessary to get across is debatable (again, this isn't Wikivoyage), but that seems like another point in favour of removing the redundant location listings in one manner to me. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As we have pointed out already, these are NOT redundant. We simply cannot assume that every reader will know that a circuit like that of Silverstone is named after its location. And you should really avoid making general statements in the name of others like "It serves only to distract readers and make them feel patronised". That's nothing buy your own opinion and I see nothing that supports it. You are literally the only person complaining here. I also do not understand why you are so obsessed with our named locations needing to have roughly the same geographic size. That's even more arbitrary than what you claim what we do now is. Please stop trying to fix something that clearly isn't broken. Tvx1 15:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

From my aesthetic point of view, a cell in a table should only have one piece of data! Halmyre (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Aesthetics are not our most important concern. Tvx1 17:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to find the precise comment to reply to, so I'm just going to mention a couple of general points in response to the last comment from someone I disagree with.

Readers are relatively likely to be familiar with Detroit or Valencia, so ideally one would want to give readers a sense of where in-or-around Detroit or Valencia those venues are, but towns like Silverstone, Zandvoort, or Hockenheim are relatively obscure to those who aren't locals or motorsport fans, and giving a sense of where those places are is probably more productive. - this argument is fundamentally flawed, because we have readers from around the world. I know exactly where Zandvoort is. But the only thing I could tell you about Detroit is that it is in the USA. I am from the UK, but can only identify where Northamptonshire is because I know where Silverstone is, I certainy don't know where Towchester is. I daresay there are plenty of readers who couldn't even identify spain on a map, let alone know that Valencia is in it. What you are trying to do is provide location information based on what you know about the geography of these places.

The criteria that came up here seems to be "a name place most people recognise" - in my opinion, based on what I know about other people's geography skills, this leaves us with "Silverstone, England", "Hockenheimring, Germany", "Red Bull Ring, Austria", "Long Beach, California", "Circuit Gilles villeneuve, Montral" and "Baku City Circuit, West Asia" - surely you can see this is both inconsistent and completely subjecitve. In other words, impractically - we can't have a discussion about every new venue.

Also, please get your sub-divisions right. It is Montreal and Silverstone which are comparible, not Montreal and Northamptonshire, nor Silverstone and Ile de Notre-Dame.

Likewise, Montreal (and Silverstone) and comparible to Singapore, as they are the Human settlements the circuits are located in or are closest to. The fact that Singapore also happens to be the name of the country is not relevant.

If I WP:OWNed wikipedia, I would just have the circuit name, and let readers us a wikilink if they didn't know where the circuit was. But I realise this is probably an opinion to extreme to be implemented.

What I also think is we should use a consistent sub-division, though I don't really care what that sub-division is. SSSB (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Except there's no such thing as a "consistent subdivision" in the context of a world championship held across twenty-odd countries which all have completely different ways of dividing up land. Even then, I completely disagree with what other people's conception of a "consistent subdivision" is for these purposes. Going back to the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve/Silverstone Circuit comparison, in that case Canada would be at the same level as the United Kingdom, Quebec would be at the same level as England, and Montréal (a territory equivalent to a regional county municipality) would be at the same level as Northamptonshire (a ceremonial county). Below that level the potential comparisons become increasingly arbitrary and subjective. I also don't understand how listing the arbitrarily defined nearest population centre is actually relevant to the season calendar table. To me the primary benefit of writing "Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montréal" or "Circuit Paul Ricard, Le Castellet" is that those circuits are commonly referred to as "Montréal" and "Le Castellet" by sources, so listing the alternative names in a naturalistic manner may help readers correlate what they're reading in the Wikipedia article with what they read in other sources. No such benefit exists for tracks like Silverstone or Zandvoort which simply share their names with their locations and aren't commonly referred to by other names in sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If I WP:OWNed wikipedia, I would just have the circuit name, and let readers us a wikilink if they didn't know where the circuit was. – I'm with SSSB on this one. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

HumanBodyPiloter5, you've just correctly pointed out that sub-divisions are not always directly comparable, and then continue to directly compare Montreal and Northamptonshire, based solely on how many levels they are from the top. This is self-contradictory. In the case of Montreal, it seems we have Silverstone and Montreal on an equivilant level, and Northamptonshire and Urban agglomeration of Montreal on another equivalent level. At the same time, putting Circuit Paul Ricard, Le Castelet while putting Silverstone, Northamptonshire is even more contradictory, as the Northamptonshire equivalent of Circuit Paul Ricard would be Var (department). Either they should be use the town they are nearest to (even if that town is it's namesake), or the county (or it's equivilant). SSSB (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not arguing there that we should be listing "Silverstone, Northamptonshire"; I'm arguing that we should see how sources tend to discuss the location of each individual venue and then select whichever wording is most likely to help readers understand what circuit the race was held at. "Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" is no more helpful than "Silverstone Circuit" for that purpose, since the circuit is rarely referred to as anything other than "Silverstone". "Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot" is not more helpful than "Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps" for that purpose, since the track is rarely if ever referred to as "the Stavelot Circuit" and since we aren't writing a travel guide the fact that the venue is not located in Spa (although it does come closer to Francorchamps than it does to Stavelot) is not particularly relevant. But with examples "Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne", "Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montréal", and "Circuit Paul Ricard, Le Castellet" it is helpful, as those venues are all commonly referred to by the listed locations. I suppose my ultimate point is that the current criteria is not consistent ("Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" is either equivalent to "Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Parc Jean-Drapeau" or "Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Ville-Marie", a civil parish like Silverstone simply is not comparable to a large city/county like Montréal) and to my mind it would be far more consistent to analyse how independent reliable sources describe a venue and treat each listing on a case by case basis rather than cluttering the table with redundant statements. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It is comparable, and although your opinion is fair enough, that is simply not how consistency works.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

How am I not describing how consistency works? I am arguing that the most relevant thing to the relevant column of the relevant table is seeking consistency with how reliable independent English-language sources commonly refer to the venues that are listed in the column, so as to make the column as easy for readers to comprehend as possible. The current situation is not consistent at all either. Silverstone is a civil parish, the smallest local government subdivision that exists in England. Singapore is an (albeit relatively small) country, the largest subdivision that could possibly be considered relevant (also " Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore" is redundant in a different way to " Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone"). If we're going by "nearest population centre" as the criteria then both "Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot" and "Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Montmeló" would seem to be inconsistent with that criteria, as the Spa-Francorchamps circuit is closer to Francorchamps than it is to Stavelot, and Montmeló is just one part of a larger urban agglomeration that surrounds the circuit. In both of those cases "smallest legal subdivision" would seem to be being obeyed, in which case we should probably be saying "Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Ville-Marie" if we want to be consistent.

I could nitpick all day, but that would just distract from my main point, which is that the current way of listing locations isn't clearly relevant to the column it is a part of and only serves to add visual clutter to the table. Specifying the country is usually enough to convey the logistics of the season schedule, and in the case of very large countries like the US or Canada just listing the state or province would be enough for that purpose. I think that listing the locations can be relevant to the table when the circuit does not share its name with its location, but is commonly referred to in sources by the name of that location, but if making the column visually consistent is absolutely essential then readers can still be trusted to click through to the relevant article if they aren't sure whether the "Albert Park Circuit" is the same venue as the "Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit" they read about in a source.

I would also note that I'm not arguing for any single alternative way of filling out the column. I just find the current solution to be particularly clunky. So long as the country is specified I think the encyclopaedic purpose of "conveying the logistics of the schedule" is usually served. If this was a database or a travel guide then I would expect greater detail, but I can see the encyclopaedic merits of specifying certain locations for the sake of clarity (such as with "Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne"). To me the current solution doesn't serve that encyclopaedic purpose very well, and would also be inadequate for a database entry or a travel guide, which only makes it seem more incongruous to me.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet again you display how little knowledge you have of the concept of legal subdivision. The circuit of Spa-Francorchamps does not lie “closer to Francorchamps than to Stavelot”. Francorchamps IS Stavelot. For over forty years now the former has been nothing but a borough of the former. The circuit lies on the territory of the municipality of Stavelot. For the rest you’re making a problem where none exists. You remain literally the only person who complains about the current situation. And the issue is not even the way we have chosen, but that simply some circuits lie in small municipalities and others in gigantic municipalities which are in fact cities. But that’s not our fault. Tvx1 13:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting my statement. I know that Francorchamps is in the municipality of Stavelot. However, Francorchamps is still a toponym that applies to a village in a separate geographical location to the town of Stavelot. The fact that the two places make up a municipality called "Stavelot" does not stop the two toponyms from also referring to the relevant settlements, both of which can be considered some sort of "population centre". Reading this discussion it is clear to me that some editors have been going by the standard of "what is the nearest population centre to the circuit?" while others have been going by the standard of "what is the smallest legal subdivision that the circuit falls inside the boundaries of?". In the case of Spa-Francorchamps, the answer to the first is Francorchamps and the answer to the second is Stavelot. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It just happens to be the case that "nearest population centre" is often synomous with the sub-division. As far as I can tell, the locations in 2022 Formula One World Championship are entirely consistent - the city/town/village the circuit is part, or municipality if it doesn't belong to a town/village/city. Hungaroring is considered part of Mogyoród, Spa-Francorchamps (according to its address) isn't officially part of Francorchamps, but (as I explain in the next paragrapgh) I could be wrong.

The only reason that there appears to be a different standard in this discussion is that we, like you, aren't 100% familiar with it Montmelo counts as a town, or a municipality or both, or neither.

In the case of Montreal (which you brought up in this discussions earlier), Ville-Marie is just a borough - whatever you try to claim, that is not consistent with Montmelo or Stavelot. The Montmelo/Stavelot equivilant would be Montreal (technically Urban agglomeration of Montreal but that is synomous.)

What I am 100% sure of, however, is that there is no consensus for your proposal (which I'm a bit confused about, as you've change it at least twice) so continuing to go around in circles arguing about what the equivilant of Montmelo is for Zandvoort is a waste of time.

If you have an issue about how we describe a specific location, because Silverstone Circuit isn't actually part of Silverstone (but other locations are. This is an example, I'm not saying that it's true) I suggest you bring that up in a specific discussion and actually do some research before you compare regions which aren't comparible. SSSB (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the others have just poorly expressed themselves. They should have really written “what is the nearest legal population centre to the circuit” which is just another description of the “other” criterium you describe. The only inconsistency I can see is Monaco and Singapore where we maybe should link to the municipality of Monaco and Singapore City Area respectivelly instead of the countries. Tvx1 11:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Motorsport regarding Qatar venue

I have started a discussion at Wikiproject Motorsport regarding the venue which hosts the Qatar Grand Prix. I am leaving a notification here and on the motorcycle racing Wikiproject in case any interested users do not have the relevant page on their watchlists. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Herbert's result at the 1996 Australian Grand Prix

Sources differ regarding Herbert's result at the 1996 Australian Grand Prix. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Free practice drivers in entry tables

What is the current consensus on the inclusion of drivers who have only participated in free-practice sessions in entry lists in season articles? An IP editor has been adding them to various articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• The consensus is to have them in prose only, but I've never been directed to where this discussion actually took place. My suggestion (which in my opinion should be implemented retroactively to past seasons as well) is to add a separate table listing them like this:

Constructor	Test drivers	Rounds
Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	Robert Kubica	7, 12–13
AlphaTauri-RBPT	Liam Lawson	14
Aston Martin-Aramco Mercedes	Nyck de Vries	16
Ferrari	Robert Shwartzman	19
Haas-Ferrari	Antonio Giovinazzi	16, 19
Mercedes	Nyck de Vries	12
Red Bull Racing-RBPT	Jüri Vips	7
Williams-Mercedes	Nyck de Vries	7, 12

There's going to be at least 20 occasions on which drivers are entered for free practice (see article 32.4(c) of the sporting regs) and to be honest listing them all in prose is a bit ridiculous and just unnecessary. Objections that "they don't have an impact on the championship" are also misguided: sure, they don't score points, but their participation is mandatated by championship rules and they are participating in championship sessions. I get not putting them in the season entry table, that seems obvious enough to me, but the insistence that we can only use prose to explain this isn't a viable strategy and it's getting increasingly convoluted. The above example table is up-to-date for this season but only Williams has satisfied the requirement. Alfa Romeo, Haas, Alpine, and McLaren haven't run any drivers in free practice, so there's at least four more lines coming. AlphaTauri, Aston, Ferrari, Mercedes, and Red Bull have only done one of two sessions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC), expanded 09:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@HumanBodyPiloter5: the consensus is prose only, until it is no longer reasonable (due to the number of drivers), then we convert the prose into a table. However, there was consensus against slapping onto the side of the entries table.

@5225C: the problem with your suggestion is that it ignores MOS:USEPROSE for no justifiable reason. SSSB (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• I mean I've pretty clearly explained why this content is not understood easily as regular text so I think I've actually provided plenty of justification why it should be a table. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 18:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, you haven't. The section in the 2019 article is perfectly easy to understand. The same could be said for 2020, and 2021. I'm not going to go through and list all the ones I believe would be best as a table, and which as prose - but a blanket rule is not appropriate, as it only became compulsory recently. For what it's worth, I do think the time is right to tabulise the 2022 info, if only because listing De Vries three times means the prose is a little confusing. SSSB (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• So we're in agreement then. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• On the 2022 season? Yes. But I don't agree with the inclusion of the rounds column, or implementing a table for 2019-2021. I can't comment on pre-2018 - not knowing there current state. SSSB (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Shouldn't there be some indication of the events they were entered in? Presently we start off listing events and sometimes switch to just giving the number of appearances. It's not as though it overcomplicates it or reduces readability, and it definitely doesn't add undue weight - I'd argue excluding it would be refusing due weight. Regarding previous seasons, I think we should split out the pre-2018 articles where FP drivers are included in the championship entry list. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think indication of the events they were entered in should be limited to the number of appearances, or a list of the Grands Prix (names, not round numbers) though I don't really care if it is included at all. Saying rounds 7 and 12 is not helpful. Can you tell me you remember what round 7 was without looking it up? If you can't do it now, how do you expect to do it 5 years down the line? It works for regular drivers, to highlight races they missed, and if they were consecutive. But for drivers who participate in two rounds, rounds 7 and 12 may as well be rounds 8 and 11 for all useful information it conveys. As for pre-2018 (or any season), there is no debate that they don't belong in the main entry table - the only discussion to be had is if it should be in prose or tabulated. This is something which should be determined on a case-by-case basis. SSSB (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm happy with names. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Table updated with latest announcements.

Constructor	Test drivers	Rounds
Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	Robert Kubica	6, 12–13
	Théo Pourchaire	19
AlphaTauri-RBPT	Liam Lawson	14
Aston Martin Aramco-Mercedes	Nyck de Vries	16
Ferrari	Robert Shwartzman	19
Haas-Ferrari	Antonio Giovinazzi	16, 19
	Pietro Fittipaldi	20, 22
Mercedes	Nyck de Vries	12
Red Bull Racing-RBPT	Jüri Vips	6
Williams-Mercedes	Nyck de Vries	6
	Logan Sargeant	19

--Island92 (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect:what's the point of showing an updated table. What's your point exactly? (P.s I think you've made an error you've got de Vries down for round 12 for two different teams). SSSB (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This table is a guide, just in case it should be added in the article season pending ultimate consensus, rather than prose. Fixed Nyck de Vries rounds.--Island92 (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Since it's been a week, and there has been no opposition to having a table at 2022 Formula One World Championship, I suggest you just be bold and make the change. SSSB (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok.--Island92 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

New category suggestion

An editor has suggested creating a new category for F1 teams founded by active or former F1 drivers. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Verstappen career achievements article

An editor has requested a "career achievement" article for Max Verstappen at Category talk:Career achievements of Formula One drivers#Max Verstappen. I thought I'd mention it here as I figured not too many people would have that category on their watchlist. DH85868993 (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 car articles

I notice the recent creation of Aston Martin AMR23 and Mercedes W14. Is it too early for these articles? DH85868993 (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If they pass WP:GNG, they can stay. But right now the only car that comes close (from what I've read, I've done no active search is the Mercedes - this article gets it some of the way. There may be other sources too. But if the content is the basic: "Car constructed by x to compete in 2023 championship. Driven by y and z. Powered by a ..." (i.e. basic details about the car), it isn't suitable encyclopedic content and should be deleted. As we can realistically assume there is discussion about the direction of next year's cars, I think we need to do a proper WP:BEFORE check before we decide if we should go down a W:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:AFD route. SSSB (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

For info, they've been moved to Draft:Aston Martin AMR23 and Draft:Mercedes W14. DH85868993 (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• It seems like this has been resolved, but in my opinion car articles typically meet the GNG sometime in January. Anything earlier than that is a bit of a stretch, and as far as I'm concerned it isn't really worth the effort to create them since the article is (in most cases) unlikely to contain meaningful information. I support making early drafts (which is what I did last year with the MCL36 and am doing this year for the MCL37) because I've found it's significantly easier to write about development as information becomes available rather than trying to piece together the chronology after the fact. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

American WDC

If an American becomes World Champion anytime soon, would the usual British English be replaced with American English for the season's article? Ricciardo Best (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

No. That would not change the fundamental heritage of the sport.Tvx1 14:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It comes down to what vocabulary is typically used within the sport itself. In Formula One it's typical to say "the safety car came into the pit lane" (which is British English) while in Nascar or Indycar or IMSA the same thing would be worded as "the pace car came onto pit road" (which is American English). Aspects like spelling are incidental and one variety of spelling is favoured for the sake of consistency with the vocabulary used. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was because of MOS:RETAIN. Formula One is an international series - so claiming a variety of English based on MOS:TIES seems rather flawed to me (Tvx1's arguement). An for HumanBodyPiloter5's argument, this is personal taste, and not a reason at all. SSSB (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No it isn’t. With have duscussed this plenty of times. Formula one is an international series but with strong European heritage. Only next yus three of the twentty-three races take place in the USA. All the teams are based in Europe or at the least one of their bases there. There is no justification for giving preference to American English. And I really cannot see why an American World Champion would justify a change. We don’t even tend to use American English ik articles dealing with American F1 driver.Tvx1 18:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Tvx1 is (indirectly) alluding too, I believe, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions#General and the sport's European origins. Whatever nationality the WDC maybe, does not change that. Eagleash (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Sprint wins

An editor has suggested adding a "sprint wins" field to Template:Infobox F1 driver. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The Constructors' Entries Ordering

The long-standing standard for the ordering of the constructors' entries in the "Entries Table" has been the alphabetical order. However, when FIA has the dilemma of ordering constructors, they sometimes use past performance as the key. The teams (besides the WCC, which can choose) are placed in the pitlane following their previous season's performance.

I propose we start doing the same for the entries table because, for some, this ordering is more natural, and easy to be surveyed.

I understand that the alphabetical order is useful for some. However, one that wants to see a table sorted by alphabetical order is always able to do so easily by using the header-row sort button.

(Did I make the first step right @Joseph2302?) Joserobjr (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, we are not the FIA, so what they do isn't really relevant. Secondly, you argue that htis is more natrual, and easy to survey. I have to disagree, I would actually say the complete opposite. Ordering a table by a metric not present in that table (i.e sorting by Construcotrs Standings of the previous year, when the table doesn't include the standings from the previous year) is only confusing for those who attempt to understand why the table is sorted in the way that it is.

P.S. You did make the right first step. SSSB (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree. I doesn't even make sense to still have previous season's constructor's standings order after the end of the season. I mean that would lead to a 2021 table with Mercedes on top while the championship was won by a Red Bull driver.Tvx1 20:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Tom Pryce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Las Vegas Grand Prix code

What 3-letter abbreviation should we use for this one? LAS, LVS, LVG, LAV, or something else entirely? cherkash (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

My first instict would be "LVG" or "LVS". "LAS" makes sense too (also code for their airport). Maybe even "VGS" or "VEG" (the place the GP is named after is freqently refered to as simply just "vegas"). "LAV" seems like an odd choice though. SSSB (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

LAV is used for the non-championship Lavant Cup, e.g. Luigi_Villoresi#Non-championship_Formula_One_results. I would suggest LVG. Halmyre (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My vote is LVG. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Does it have to be three letters?Tvx1

I say yes, it's what we've always done and it would be quite a jarring change. I see no advantage to changing a longstanding practice and inviting an enternity of discussion re "why does Vegas only have a two letter code?". Settle on an abbreviation now in the same way we've done for every other new GP. It worked fine then so changing it up for whatever reason is just pointlessly disruptive. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

For info, {{F1GP 2020–2029}} and {{F1R2023}} currently use "LAS". I'm not saying that means we should/have to use "LAS", just noting that if we decide something different, those templates will need to be updated. DH85868993 (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

{{F1GP 2020–2029}} and {{F1R2023}} have been updated to use "LVG", as do {{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}}. So I think that means we're now using "LVG" everywhere. DH85868993 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Brabham BT19

Template:Formula One World Drivers' Runner-up

I notice the recent creation of Template:Formula One World Drivers' Runner-up, which I have nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Turkish Grand Prix

I notice the recent creation of Template:Turkish Grand Prix, similar to Template:Monaco Grand Prix, which has existed since 2015. Do we think templates like this are useful? If so, would we like to see them for other Grands Prix? DH85868993 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:Oguzkaan76 (who created Template:Turkish Grand Prix) and User:PrimeHunter (who created Template:Monaco Grand Prix). DH85868993 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• For events like the Monaco Grand Prix that have run for a long time and hold a high level of prestige I can see their utility, for events like the Turkish Grand Prix which have only been held a few times (nine in the case of the Turkish Grand Prix) I'm more sceptical, but so long as they're not adding clutter to the wikitext (particularly if there are issues with template limits or the number of links in the article, etc. I lack expertise in that area) they seem relatively harmless and somewhat useful for navigation. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
• There was a brief inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 51#Navbox for specific Grand Prix. I still support such navboxes which are very common for other sports and recurring events but I don't work on Formula One articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
• Monaco, I'm alright with because it contains links to the historic and the e-prix. But I don't understand why we would have one for Turkey, it feels superfluous to Category:Turkish Grand Prix. And as far as I'm concerned Istanbul Park has too many navigation templates, without adding another one. Although, my bigger concern is {{Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom}}, which is so busy, I don't think it has any usefulness at all. SSSB (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Categories get very few page views. For example, "Page information" under "Tools" shows 9 views in the last 30 days for Category:Turkish Grand Prix versus 1627 for Turkish Grand Prix. But I don't know any data on navbox usage. The template pages have very few views but that just means readers don't click "V", and they have no reason to. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative. I often work on navigation in Wikipedia and it's odd for me to see a navbox on 2021 Turkish Grand Prix with a link to a single other edition out of nine, and even that can be hard to spot with "TUR" much closer to the end of 2020. The navbox says "Formula One Grands Prix (2020–2023)" but the absence of other navboxes could mean all Turkish Grand Prix were in that period and readers may not try to search for them elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Fastest lap at the 1970 South African Grand Prix

There's a discussion in progress regarding which driver(s) set fastest lap at the 1970 South African Grand Prix. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Honda RBPT

To which entity/ies are we planning to credit any achievements by this season's "Honda RBPT" engines? Honda? Red Bull Powertrains? Honda AND Red Bull Powertrains? Or (new entity) "Honda RBPT"? Based on previous project practice, my guess is "Honda RBPT", but I thought it was worth having a discussion/establishing a consensus before the season starts. DH85868993 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• RBPT seems like the intuitive answer to me. RBPT bought out the rights to the engines. Honda is assebling them, sure, but to me it's more like a badge deal than anything else. Like Ford Cosworth I suppose, where Cosworth had the rights and Ford was doing the badging, and we list the results under the Cosworth name. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• But more recently when Tag Heuer had the rights, but Renault did literally everything else, we credit Tag Heuer, not Renault. SSSB (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • But that was Red Bull-Tag Heuer, not Red Bull-Tag Heuer Renault. This is comparable to Aston Martin-Mercedes vs Aston Martin Aramco-Mercedes. Adding a title to the constructor name doesn't necessarily mean a new constructor. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    Aramco is part of the constructor name, not of the engine make name. That example is irrelevant here. Tvx1 17:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with DH85868993, I think "Honda RBPT" makes the most sense and sources like StatsF1 appear to also credit the results for "Honda RBPT". We already have a recent precedent for this with BWT Mercedes, which was considered a separate entity from Mercedes. In my opinion the above comparison with Ford Cosworth is not really comparable, because I think they never actually entered the engines under the "Ford Cosworth" name. I also believe Honda still has the rights to the engines, with Red Bull just funding them to some extent. Carfan568 (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • We didn't consider BWT Mercedes a seperate entity though, we counted the results with Mercedes, so that precedent works against you. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Actually we do count BWT Mercedes as a separate entity - see Formula_One_engines#World_Championship_Grand_Prix_wins_by_engine_manufacturer and the stats in the infobox in Mercedes-Benz_in_Formula_One#Engine_supplier exclude BWT Mercedes' win and pole. DH85868993 (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
      • But they are counted at Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains#Formula One engine results and Mercedes engine customers' Grand Prix results, which is inconsistent. Anyway, having looked at List of Formula One engine manufacturers, I can see we've seperated out any and all variations on engine constructor name, except Toro Rosso in 2017 by the looks of it (which is another discussion we will need to have, because there is no reason for it to be an exception to this rule). Honda RBPT seems the way to go. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC); expanded 09:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
                   I've added Toro Rosso to the table. If we have "Acer", "Petronas", "Osella" and "Sauber" in the list, the "Toro Rosso" should be included too. DH85868993 (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

        What we want to do is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is how other sources consider this. The only source I have seen is by StatsF1, which shows them as seperate to Honda and RBPT. SSSB (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, there seems to be consensus to credit the achievements to "Honda RBPT". So how do we want to implement this? Do we want a new article for "Honda RBPT"? Or do we want to cover "Honda RBPT" in the existing Red Bull Powertrains article? DH85868993 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not the Honda in Formula One article. I'm not saying we should, only that it should also be considered. SSSB (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. DH85868993 (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think it would probably be best to cover it at Honda in Formula One#Red Bull Powertrains support (2022–2025), where the infobox could also be placed. Red Bull Powertrains isn't really involved in the programme that much, and 2022 will probably end up as an anomaly where the Honda engines were solely badged as RBPT, so I think the Honda article is therefore more fitting than the RBPT one, and RBPT will likely enter as a fully-fledged manufacturer in the future anyway. Carfan568 (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Have we reached a decision/consensus on this? Does the announcement of "Red Bull Ford Powertrains" from 2026 onwards affect things? I notice that (hidden) 2023 rows have been added to the table at Red Bull Powertrains#Formula One engine results. DH85868993 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we won't be able to make a proper decision until the season starts and we get a clearer idea of how sources decide to cover this. We can always move it. At this time think the best approach is as a separate entity - but keeping it within an existing article. I.e. the results of RBPT (or Honda) is split into two. SSSB (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

External Links sections in driver pages

First off, hello all, I'm new to this WikiProject, so apologies if I'm repeating a done discussion or in the wrong place. I'd like to carry on a topic I've just started in the Lewis Hamilton talk page regarding the external links sections found in all driver pages. I've noticed they're occasionally inconsistent at best and contain outdated links in more concerning cases. I replaced a link to a 13 year old McLaren profile with a live link to the Mercedes team version, but having looked through the other driver pages, I think there could be a small bit of standardisation (I've noticed Wikipedia:F1C exists, so perhaps this could be relevant to there).

I've noticed most follow the (unwritten?) sensible convention of "Official Website" followed by "[name] career summary at DriverDB.com", however some are followed by a link to a team biography, of which most are out of date. Some cases are also found of social media links, which I'm led to believe are advised against, blog posts and profiles by national clubs. IMDb links are also present but these are inoffensive. By driver, some quick notes are:

• ZG - A mess, social media sites, no official website and not one but two out of date and dead links to previous team profiles
• VB - Official website present but ESPN profile is a dead link, not relevant. Also lacks DriverDB profile
• NdV - Official site and DriverDB but followed by Internet Archive link to old blog post on Renault site
• YT - No complaints
• PG - No complaints
• EO - No complaints
• FA - Another mess, Official website followed by a deadlink to the F1 site, a deadlink to the McLaren site, an archived stats database page and finally another unnamed stats database site. All of this somehow misses off DriverDB
• LStr - No complaints
• CL - No complaints
• CS - Official website is fine, but followed by twitter link, redeemed by DriverDB and then complicated with a stats page in a Spanish newspaper
• KM - Mostly fine but reversed link order and off convention formatting of the DriverDB link
• NH - No complaints
• LN - Mostly fine but BRDC profile adds nothing not already in wiki page
• OP - Off convention formatting of Official Website but otherwise fine
• LH - Not going to repeat myself
• GR - Same as Norris
• MV - No complaints
• SP - Spoilt by "Sergio Pérez's Racing Point profile Archived 2 October 2020 at the Wayback Machine" but otherwise fine
• LSar - Missing official site but it appears he doesn't have one (for now)
• AA - No complaints

This all seems to paint the picture of a convention along the lines of

• {{Official Website}}
• {{DriverDB driver|ID|NAME}}

I've noticed however that plenty of these pages attempt to place a biography by a team in here, which is prone to link rot but has good intentions, as I first saw in the Lewis Hamilton page. Whilst I corrected that link only to point to his most recent team, I've had a thought that all of these could be standardised to include the above with the addition of

• [https://www.formula1.com/en/drivers/NAME.html/ NAME] biography at Formula1.com

to eliminate the chances of link rot at least until a driver retires or all these links break at once. If this isn't appropriate, then really all these driver pages should be trimmed down to only include the most universally found two. Of course, IMDb pages etc would be exempt.

Apologies for the longish talk post, all comments welcome. FJones2123 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

First all, hello and welcome to the formula one WikiProject. It's always nice to welcome a new member. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Having checked WP:ELNO, it seems none of these external links actually belong on these articles.Tvx1 01:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

List of wins by Max Verstappen article request

Hello I have been informed that a an article on list of wins by Max Verstappen was rejected for publication . I quite frankly do not understand this as Wikipedia has similar articles for Damon Hill,Nico Rosberg and Kimi Raikkonen all of whom have less wins and championship titles. The draft article that was rejected for publicatiion can be viewed here. Perhaps we should discuss and re-review this decision not to give Verstappen such an article?--MKL123 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I do not see why any of those lists should exist. They are essentially derivates of the § Complete Formula One results tables from each of the respective articles and add nothing of substance. My preferred solution would be to delete all of the derivate lists. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree they are an important archive resource MKL123 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Tvx1 21:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  We should suit action to words and delete these other win lists. I remember similar list being deleted before - eg Juan Pablo Montoya. --Falcadore (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I've been meaning to put together a joint nomination for a while now - I just haven't got around to it. SSSB (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I’m not entirely certain that nominating all of them together is the approach with the highest chance of the desired outcome. Some of these might be successful defended by inclusionists. And in such a case, a joint nomination of all articles might be denied on technical reasons. I’ll point that some of these list of wins articles remarkably became featured lists. Tvx1 17:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not suggesting doing all of them together. Maybe I should have said bulk nomination instead of joint nomination to make myself clearer. But, Hill and Rosberg can easily be bundled together - similar number of wins, both 1 time champions, neither hold any special win records. The only way I can think that one could stay and the other be deleted is because Rosberg raced in the technilogical age, and there is therefore more info on his wins. I'll also point out that the featured list criteria doesn't include notability. Presumably because an article nominated for FL status is presumed to pass WP:NLIST. But, if no-one does a WP:BEFORE check, there is no guarantee that it does. SSSB (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I fully agree with you, but I nominated the Senna wins article before based on more or less the same arguments as yours and no-one agreed with me. Tvx1 17:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  We cannot simply delete these ourselves. We can only initiate a deletion discussion, but are then dependent on consensus. Tvx1 16:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• One of the reasons that it keeps getting rejected is because of the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen) meaning that any creation of this list is subject to WP:G4. If you want this article in the namespace you are going to have to make a case on Talk:List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen (or the draft talk, while it is still a draft) or why the previous deletion discussion no longer applies. SSSB (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you I have left my request where you suggested. MKL123 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  @MKL123: you left it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen - no one is going to see it there. You need to leave it at Draft talk:List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen. There you need to do two things. You need to argue why the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen no longer applies, and you need to argue that WP:NLIST is satisfied. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument you keep making (Other drivers have these lists) isn't going to cut it. SSSB (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks I have now done this. MKL123 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I notice the recent creation of List of Formula One Grands Prix won by Max Verstappen, which looks to me like a copy of Draft:List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen. DH85868993 (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleted via G4 subsequent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen. Eagleash (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I nominated it. Anyone who thinks that AfD should no longer be used to justify speedy deletion is invited to take it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As much as I love stat, WP:NOSTATS, WP:NLIST and that AfD consensus takes precedence. SSSB (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we ask to salt the article?Tvx1 16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I was actually going to do exactly that, great minds really do think alike! However, I noticed that List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen (that's the name of the draft and the naming pattern of the other articles) already is. This time around the list was created at a different variation: List of Formula One Grands Prix won by Max Verstappen (differences bolded for emphasis). This is the first time of this new variation. So I'm not sure if the grounds for protection are met, or if its necessary. Always worth a go I guess? SSSB (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything on WP:SALT that suggests salting variations on a salted title is unreasonable. There even is a list of blacklisted titles. Anyway, who did even create that article. Whith it having been deleted its history is too and so there is no more way to see now. Tvx1 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ricciardo Best. You can see it in the page logs

How we'll deal with these lists articles

I'll add a subsection here because I feel it was getting a bit too confusing dealing with a general approach to these articles in the middle of the discussion of Max's article. I fully agree that we need to put a halt to these. They're really growing wild. And now lists of polepositions start to appear as well and I already nominated a full content fork of Fernando Alonso's article. I'm going to nominate the pole positions lists shortly. But we have to take a firm stance regarding the win lists too.Tvx1 17:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The pole positions articles have been nominated.Tvx1 17:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Now that the pole positions articles have been deleted, I think it's team to deal with the other articles in Category:Career achievements of Formula One drivers. I intend to nominate the wins articles of Hill, Mansell, Rosberg and Räikkönen for deletion now, unless someone objects here or prefers another approach.Tvx1 19:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I nominated a couple of the wins articles for deletion.Tvx1 20:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I nominated more of these articles for deletion.Tvx1 21:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

So the majority of these articles have now been deleted. This leaves us with the four featured lists (Senna, Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton) and Fangio's list of wins. How do we want to proceed from here? Should we nominate these for deletion as well, or not? And if so, what is the best approach? Another bulk nomination, like with the other ones, or separate ones for each? What are your thoughts? Pinging 5225C, Falcadore, SSSB and DH85868993, who are involved in the above discussion, but of course any opinion is welcome. Tvx1 21:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of list articles which may fail WP:LISTN, it might be worth revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian racing drivers. That was a disappointing discussion as many keep voters claimed it met WP:LISTN, but no sources were offered until very late in the discussion, and when I objected to these sources the discussion was closed just a few hours later. A7V2 (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That might certainly be worth it, given that it had ended with no consensus the first time round. Tvx1 02:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There were two problems with that AfD: firstly, the rational sounded a lot like a clean-up attempt, and secondly, nobody contested that NLIST may not be satisfied until Tvx1 argued it a fair way in - if an editor can't see that it is contested then there is no real reason to supply the evidence. The best approach is to make the rational that NLIST is not satisfied and declare that this is a second nomination, but the previous nomination didn't discuss NLIST (only breifly), and that it was 3 years ago (to rebut WP:DELAFD arguments before they even show up). SSSB (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Bulk should be fine. The reasons are the same for all. -- Falcadore (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree: bulk should be fine. Noting that Prost also has a (featured) list. DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure though that the the remaining ones all fail WP:NLIST. I do for instance own a couple of books that do discuss the entire set of Michael Schumacher’s wins.Tvx1 21:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Google sheets to automate standings tables

Hi, I'm new to dealing with WikiProjects so sorry if this is in the wrong place.

I've put together a google sheets to automate the season tables at Template:F1 Drivers Standings, Template:F1 Constructors Standings and their equivalent tables for Formula 2 and Formula E (which don't have their own templates) and Formula 3 (WIP). It's currently set to comment-only to avoid disruptive editing, might be worth a discussion as to how editing permissions on this should work going forward. I've put some examples of the output in the talk pages.

Things the sheet CAN do:

• Fill in the correct background colour for the position
• Add superscript pole / sprint position / fastest lap (for F1, or italic/bold for FE, etc.)
• Calculate points for the race, sprint, and fastest lap (and if you get a point for fastest lap at all)
• Sort the table, including up to two iterations of countback
• Generate and sort the Constructors' table as well

Things I'll have to do manually:

• Deal with mid-season driver changes (e.g. if Lance Stroll can't drive in Bahrain, or if Red Bull swaps their second driver, etc.)
• Remake the table for 2024 or other series

Things the sheet CAN'T do:

• Handle unexpected formatting, e.g. in 2007 when McLaren were disqualified mid-season so all their results from then on were technically non-points-scoring positions (i.e. blue)
• Apply countback more than twice (see P16 in the Drivers' example)
• Put a single P in pole position in the one day between qualifying and the race

How the sheet will be used:

Race positions are added into the top-left table (F3:AH22). Pole position and fastest lap are added as driver numbers in rows 24 and 25.

Columns DG-EG on rows 3-22 produce the sorted Drivers' Championship table. You copy/paste the cells into a simple text editor (I use Notepad++) and replace all instances of a tab with a new line (in Notepad++ this is \t → \n with "Extended" search mode on). Then, just copy/paste that into the main body of the table here.

If something strange happens track-side (e.g. McLaren's 2007 DSQ), manual adjustment may be needed. I'll aim to hardcode any one-off weirdness into the sheet by the next race.

Please let me know what you think! AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of automation. But, I don't understand the practical side. How does this info get into Google Sheets? Why do we need Google sheets (i.e. why is it necessary to go through google sheets)? Dealing with my concerns: I don't like the fact that this needs to go through a hidden, off-wiki spreadsheet that is not accessible to editors who don't know about this disucssion. And it feels like this system would be completely reliant on one person, which I don't like either. Can't a bot do all this based on the entries we put in {{F1R2023}}? And if we do implenet this, won't we need WP:Bot approval? SSSB (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think calling this "automation" may have been a mistake - what this is is a tool that translates race results into formatted wiki code. The practical side is just that it's quicker to write in twenty numbers into a spreadsheet and get out some wiki table code than it is to manually format each cell in either on-site editor *and then manually calculate the points, change championship positions, sort the rows, etc.

WRT concerns,

• It's through google sheets because that's where I made it, there's nothing in any of the code that can only be done there. However, I do think a spreadsheet is the easiest way to deal with a standings table.
• I don't think this needs WP:Bot approval because it's not being hosted on Wikipedia and it's not interfacing directly with Wikipedia.
• I'm not sure that turning it into a bot would be necessary for this; results rarely change after the end of the race. (This is also why I'm unclear why {{F1R2023}} exists at all, please let me know what usecases there are that I haven't realised yet).
• The information can get put in to the sheet by any editor (I've opened the permissions to anyone-with-link-can-edit).
• The only remaining single point of failure would be deletion of the file from my account, but no information should be stored only there (race reports etc. will always be available direct from the FIA).
• Any automation solution would likely have to go up against eager editors who don't know about any discussion.

AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I should also mention that the wiki code that this tool generates is based off the wiki code from the 2022 standings tables, so its output should be identical to what an editor without the tool would create. It's just that it would be a lot quicker. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I appreciate the thought and effort that has gone into this, but it's a hard pass for me. Creating a dependency on an external service is unnecessary and improper for Wikipedia. There has been no issue with updating these tables in the past (typically, they're done within a few hours of a race finishing anyway) and I cannot see any conceivable efficiency gain. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, in that case I think I've misunderstood. You're saying that the Google sheets just generates the code and tables, and then editors will need to manually copy and paste the results into Wikipedia. In that case I don't see a problem.

{{F1R2023}} exists so that we can update the results in one central place, rather than putting Norris' Bahrain result in manually at Lando Norris, McLaren MCL60, McLaren Grand Prix results, Mercedes engine customers' Grand Prix results, Template:F1 Drivers Standings and Template:F1 Constructors Standings. SSSB (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Images of cars in entries section / team listed in drivers championship standings

Hello, I see there are many ways in which season articles can be improved. Looking on the German wikipedia for example, I feel it's visually easier for viewers to consume info. The use of images in the entries for example I think is a nice touch, why should people have to click on the link to the car when they could see an image on the page?. It's visually more appealing being able to see the livery and allows viewers to compare changes in cars from season to season.

I also think it'd be wise to add the constructor in the drivers championships standings section. It's slightly irritating looking at past drivers standings and having to memorise who drove for what team. I feel it'd make the drivers championship standings much easier to read than having to scroll back or forth from entries and memorise the teams. Xc4TNS (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• There are reasons we don't do these things. Images in entries aren't actually that relevant to the purpose of the season article. There are also substantial issues with this, since teams don't necessarily use the same livery throughout the season, nor do cars look the same throughout the season. Making comparisons between different cars is also not the purpose of the season article, these are relevant to the cars' articles instead. This is decision heavily skewed in favour of modern times, since in historical contexts a constructor could compete across many different car models, teams, and liveries, hence limiting the usefulness of a single image in the entry table, or bloaiting the entry table to ridiculous proportions to include a picture every entry. A similar issue is present with drivers: although a driver can only score once per race, they can in theory compete with a different constructor for every single race. In the past it has been common for drivers to race for three or more constructors per season (seen as recently as 2018 and 2019). This would necessitate multiple rows per driver yet change nothing about the substance of the table. For the same reason as we don't include driver numbers in the WCC table (who scored the points for the constructor isn't relevant to their final position in the WCC), we don't include constructor or team names in the WDC table (who the driver was driving for in each individual race isn't relevant to their final position in the WDC). What the German Wikipedia does is up to editors there to decide, but I do not believe the changes you are suggesting are wise or useful for readers. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have to concur with 5225C here. The fundamental flaw is that both concepts do not necessarily have one entry pe cell line. For the cars, in addition to the above examples there is also the possibility that a team uses more than one car per season (e.g. Benetton in 1991). And drivers can indeed drive for more than one constructor. If I look at how the Germans handle the 1996 season with two vastly different versions of the Ferrari F310 having been used or the 2015 article with three different variations of that year’s McLaren, they are a poor standard to follow. Tvx1 02:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • While I can see your point with images of the cars as the car model / livery isn't really related to the actual team entry in a given season, I disagree with teams next to drivers in the world drivers championships. I think who a driver drives for in a season is absolutely necessary information, it doesn't really matter if they drive for multiple teams. It's also mentioned on the F1 website when viewing archives of the drivers championships. It's very rare that drivers will drive for more than two teams in a season as well so I don't think space is an issue. The fact Verstappen is driving for Red Bull for example is an important factor in his season, it's not like he's just driving for himself. Same applies to car numbers shown in the constructors standings, in fact pre 2014 articles do show car numbers in the constructors standings.
    And why has in the current drivers standings the points tally be added twice on both sides of their results?. Xc4TNS (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    • It seems as though you want both the WDC table and the WCC table to perform the same role. You want to be able to see an individual driver's results in the WCC table and you want to be able to see a breakdown of team results in the WDC table. That's contrary to their purpose. As for the two points columns, see this discussion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Verstappen drivers for Red Bull is conveyed through the entries table. Tvx1 18:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is making the article easier to read for viewers. It isn't convenient for viewers of the article to scroll in between the team entries table and the championship standings. If it says the winning constructor in the grand prix results section, why shouldn't it say it in the drivers championship?. You have to remember not everyone who looks at season articles knows a terrible lot about F1. It just gets annoying having to memorise the team every driver races for when looking at the championship standings.

Same applies to constructors. It's simply more convenient to have info regarding teams and drivers right there rather than having to scroll in between the team entries section and the standings section. Xc4TNS (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Because it simply isn’t relevant to the drivers’ championship table. It’s sole purpose is to convey who finished where and through which results. Tvx1 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1. This is not the place to perform this kind of analysis. If we accommodated for everyone who wanted to perform irrelevant analysis of results (comparing teammates is another common example), the table would never end. SSSB (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement with Tvx1. Besides, having everything in one table won't make it easier to read, particularly if you're using a phone or a tablet. Halmyre (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of red-flagged Formula One races#Requested move 2 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of red-flagged Formula One races#Requested move 2 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. MaterialWorks ^{ping me!} 12:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Lap Leader Referencing

Pinging @TylerBurden who reverted this and took it to my talk page. I felt it was notable that Rosberg led the first 15 laps of Malaysia 2009 so I added it to his page. It was reverted for a lack of referencing, to which I contended that lap leaders are not sourced in our race articles in the infobox, even on FAs such as 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix. This may just be an easy fix with the FIA lap charts (although I'm not sure how recent they go up to) but it could be a big issue. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I never quite understood the argument that other articles being poorly referenced is reason to have similar standards everywhere, WP:VERIFY is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and without it I could say Rosberg lead 16 laps just as easily because it'd just be my word against yours. I agree it is notable, so now that a source has been added I do not think there is an issue, it just should have been added from the start. TylerBurden (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

StatsF1 shows the leaders of events (and has lap charts). I picked 1966 Dutch GP as a random example: laps lead and lap chart. SSSB (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Popular pages

Greetings, At the Assessment subpage, I added Popular pages wikilink. here. Useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. JoeNMLC (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)