Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 46

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

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

→

Background colours

According to the FIA, drivers who fail to finish a race but complete at least 90% of race distance are classified. However, they are still considered DNFs. See the official classification for Austria 2016 as an example.

http://www.fia.com/file/44607/download?token=Yp5eZzQ1

Because these drivers were non-finishers, they should be coloured the same as other DNFs. This is distinct from non-classified finishers.

DrX au (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

They are already distinctly marked, it's what the cross is for. Since cars that are classified but fail to finish are treated the same as every other classified finisher (i.e, can score points and podiums), using the same colours as a retirement will be extremely confusing, particularly in situations where they have scored points. QueenCake (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I think we should move this discussion to WT:F1 (or possibly even WT:MOTOR). This issue affects hundreds of articles and the discussion should not be held on the talk page of just one of them.T v x1 20:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is it confusing? The cars in question actually were retirements. For example Perez crashed out in Austria. The colour key says blue is for non-points finish or not-classified finish. Purple is for DNF / retirements. According to the FIA, 17th-20th places in Austria were DNFs. Therefore the blue background is incorrect.

If other pages have incorrect entries, they can be fixed on a case-by-case basis. DrX au (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that not every classified non-finish is a non-points (i.e. blue) position. For instance, what would you suggest we do with the Monaco results on 1996 Formula One season?T v x1 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Monaco 1996 - 5th and 6th place were classified but didn't finish. If green is for points finish, then they've been coloured incorrectly. They are non-finishers and should be purple with a symbol and footnote. This accurately reflects their race result - DNFs. DrX au (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The colours as used are fine as they are. Purple is used for retirements but that is overridden when a driver is classified, so he gets the blue background. It's most definitely overridden when they score points, and they get a green background. It's really pretty clear. That's how it was designed. If there's any confusion for some people, they key can be reworded rather than trawling through thousands of articles dicking around with colours. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The colouring of the table is determined by template:F1 driver results legend 2, according to WP:F1 convention. There is no text list or table of finishing types with their corresponding colours. According to the original template, purple is for DNFs (classified or not), and blue is for non-points finishers (classified or not). The argument is about whether a driver who was classified can be considered to have finished the race or not. The FIA says that he didn't finish. Who are WP editors to override that?

Why is this even a point of contention? Purple means "Did not finish". The FIA official classification say that places 17-20 in Austria 2016 were DNFs. They did not finish, therefore they should be purple. Their classification is secondary to that, hence the footnote.

A classified non-finisher is not the same as a non-classified finisher, in fact it's the opposite. So why should it be the same colour?

If WP editors have a problem because articles contain errors that they missed, or the original conventions have not been correctly applied, then that's too bad. Errors should be corrected, instead of rewording the conventions to be consistent with the erroneous entries. You have to start somewhere. DrX au (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"The FIA does it" is not necessarily the best way of doing it. We are, after all, an encyclopaedia, and so we are writing for a particular audience. The matrices are written with the position and a dagger to signify that the driver did not finish; therefore colouring the cell as a finisher makes the most sense. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

DrX au, you make some good points. There are situations where the key notation and the actual race result are inconsistent. However, you are wrong in two important points. Firstly, classification is not secondary to whether a car finished or not; it is just the reverse. A classified non-finisher is placed higher than a non-classified finisher, and the esteem of a classified non-finish and a non-classified finish are more similar to each other than they are to an unclassified non-finish. Secondly, rewording the key template is the simplest, most elegant, and most factually accurate way forward here, not wholesale conversion of background colours. If we change "non-points finish" to simply "Classified", and keep using the superscript footnote for occasions where they don't cross the line than all is fine. This is more accurate representation of the 'meaning' of that result than making the background purple and calling them simply "DNF". Thanks for pointing this issue out, sometimes you end up looking at things so often that you don't see the detail. Pyrop e 01:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"A classified non-finisher is placed higher than a non-classified finisher ..." Maybe we need some examples of non-classified finishers. How can you finish and not be classified? Only if you were DSQed? Of course that would place you lower. Anyway, I think this point is moot, because the issue is about whether a driver who crashes out is a DNF (purple) or a finisher (blue). My point is that if you crash out at 95% of race distance, you had a DNF. Classified or not. DrX au (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it has happened quite frequently that a car is delayed for some reason such that they haven't completed >90% of the winner's distance but they are still running when the flag falls. Take a look back through many previous season summary tables and you'll see plenty of examples of "NC" on a blue background. You certainly don't have to be disqualified. As I said above, so far as the results are counted your distance covered matters more than whether you are running when the race ends. The 1996 Monaco Grand Prix saw only three cars cross the finish line (Frentzen actually pulled into the pits on his last lap rather than cross the line) but classified finishers stretched down to seventh position, from which three parked cars actually scored points. This is the way the sport works, and consequently this is how our results presentation should work also. Pyrop e 02:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

All right, I found an example. In the 2010 Malaysian Grand Prix, Alonso had an engine failure and retired on lap 55. He placed 13th above 4 classified finishers and 1 non-classified finisher. However, he had a DNF so his result should be purple with a number 13 and a dagger, according to template:F1 driver results legend 2. DrX au (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as I mentioned this doesn't really reflect the status of the result. Better to adjust the legend. Pyrop e 02:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If a driver's engine blew up, or his race finished in the barriers, then he deserves a lower-status result than those drivers who kept their cars intact till the finish line, and whose engines were reliable. DrX au (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not the way the sport works. Pyrop e 15:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Save for the fact that sometimes a driver who crashed out in the last laps of race gets classified ahead of on or more finished drivers. So you really think that a driver who was so slow all race that (s)he was so many laps down that they couldn't even overtake a driver who crashed out at the end of the race deserves a "higher-status result"?T v x1 14:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because they crossed the finish line and brought their car back undamaged. The driver who crashed out on the last lap made a critical error. But the idea of status wasn't mine, it was Pyrope's, supporting the argument why classified DNFs shouldn't be purple. I think it has nothing to do with status. A DNF is a retirement. The number gives the finishing order.

The counter-argument that "just because the FIA says so, doesn't mean WP has to agree" is also weak, IMHO. The FIA run the sport, make the regs, and decide the placings. If you won't accept the FIA's ruling, then this whole F1 project lacks credibility. DrX au (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, the splitting of dnf into a separate subheading is, so far as I can tell, new this season. The distinction was never made before and has no effect whatsoever on the calculation of relative placings in a race. You complete more distance, you finish higher. Period. If you can find me one single instance of a driver having completed more laps than another driver but then being placed lower in the results table, irrespective of whether they were running at the end, then maybe we can talk about credibility. Pyrop e 00:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The purple cell doesn't mean you placed lower. It means you didn't finish. The numbers give the placings. That's what the original template says, anyway. Apparently it was wrong the whole time. : P DrX au (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As an additional note, this FIA decision to list classified non-finishers under a separate subheading seems to be a recent thing. For older cases all the classified competitors were simply listed together. For example, see the final classification for the 2013 Canadian Grand Prix, where Gutiérrez is listed simply as 20th position and 63 laps. Pyrop e 03:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

DrX au, as someone who was around when {{F1 driver results legend 2}} was created, I can tell you that the intention was that:

a purple background only be used for results listed in the table as "Ret", i.e. for drivers who did not finish the race and were not classified, and
a blue background be used for drivers who were classified (without scoring points), even if they failed to finish the race. (A blue background is also used for drivers who did finish, but were not classified, which appears in the tables as "NC").

As Pyrope has indicated, it's the wording in the template that's wrong, not the colours in the tables. DH85868993 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I too believe it's the legends' wordings which need correcting, but I don't know how we should do that. Changing "Non-points finish" only creates more confusion as a classified non-finish can then be said to fit both the blue "classified" and purple "dit not finish" as well as the fact gold, silver, bronze and green also constitute classified finishes. I have been considering changing "dit not finish" to "not classified" but this then creates confusion with the blue "non-classified finish". I'm really struggling to find a solution here. T v x1 14:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You might be over-thinking Tvx1! We've used this form for quite a while now and the sequentially subordinate nature of the fields has never confused anyone before. The podium places also constitute points scoring finishes but nobody has ever asked that they be both their own colour and the points-scoring green. If you are really concerned the field could be named "Other classified position" and that works. Pyrop e 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution is to colour the DNFs purple, as per the template. Where is the evidence that the original intention was for classified DNFs to be blue, and only non-classified DNFs would be purple? Is there an archived discussion, table, or case list? DrX au (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

How about this:

Key
Colour	Result
Gold	Winner
Silver	2nd place
Bronze	3rd place
Green	Other points position
Blue	Other classified position
Blue	Not classified, still running at finish (NC)
Purple	Not classified, not running at finish (Ret)

We could put line breaks in the two "Not classified" lines, to keep the template narrower, if that's a concern. However, I'm also happy for the template to stay as is: as Pyrope points out, the template has been in its current form for a long time, with apparently little confusion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Simplifying the language and trimming the width gives:

Key
Colour	Result
Gold	Winner
Silver	2nd place
Bronze	3rd place
Green	Other points position
Blue	Other classified position
Blue	Not classified at finish (NC)
Purple	Not classified retirement (Ret)

Pyrop e 22:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I like the addition of the word "retirement" to the purple row, i.e. to explain why the abbreviation is "Ret". I'm not sure about "Not classified at finish" though. How about this?:

Key
Colour	Result
Gold	Winner
Silver	2nd place
Bronze	3rd place
Green	Other points position
Blue	Other classified position
Blue	Not classified, running (NC)
Purple	Not classified, retired (Ret)

noting that the change of "retirement" to "retired" was deliberate. DH85868993 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Pyrop e 21:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll explain how I found this problem. I was discussing season performances, and someone pointed out that only one driver finished every race (Ricciardo). To check the claim, I scanned the results table for DNFs. Perez had no DNFs either, at first glance. Then I had to read the footnote and the race report to find out that he crashed. Then I thought, he was classified, so maybe that doesn't count as a retirement. But in the FIA official classification, it is a DNF. I checked the table colour key and found the error. Blue for finishers, purple for DNFs. So I made the bold edit. Purple with a number is the accurate result, as opposed to purple with "Ret".

However, if WP editors favour the solution that requires the least work over the one that gives the best results, then I give up. DrX au (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with your stance is that "the solution gives the best results" is an entirely subjective choice. What you consider best isn't necessarily actually best. Now, there has never one single official colour for "classified DNF's" we always colored those according to the position they were classified in. Blue if they were classified in a non-points position and green for a points position. We have never had gold~~, silver to bronze~~ classified DNF's (yet). I for one do not consider potentially changing classified DNF points positions to purple as the best solution. To me that creates unnecessary confusion. There seems to be a misunderstanding from your part as well. Retirement≠DNF. A driver who is listed as "Retired" is a driver who failed to finish the races and wasn't classified. Anyone who was classified is considered not to have retired whether they finished the race or not.T v x1 01:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not subjective - it's based on the official classification and the colour key template. I'm not arguing about retired = DNF, even though those terms are synonymous. (Classified DNFs are still retirements.) I'm arguing that non-points finish = blue, and did not finish = purple. Finish ≠ DNF, therefore colours should be different. According to the template. The wording of the template makes the intent clear. Points finish, non-points finish, non-classified finish, then did not finish. Nothing about "positions". DrX au (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but everything you have stated in your above reply is wrong. Above all, a template is not a hard and fast law. In particular, the templates which are being discussed here were created by the same editors who write the articles in which they are used. The contents of them was decided at the discretion of the creators. The legend templates were created to supplement the tables and not the other way around. They can always be adjusted in case a potential for confusion is detected. {{Motorsport driver results legend}} (the original one from which the other ones were spun off) was created back in August 2005 following this discussion. {{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}} were later spun off from that one by Bretonbanquet, while I created {{F1 driver results legend 4}}. Crucially, as pointed out by Pyrope, all of them were created before FIA introduced their current style of listing results just this year. So 2016 race results by FIA were certainly not considered when these templates were created.T v x1 19:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1 is exactly right. DrX au, you say "The wording of the template makes the intent clear" – as the editor who created that template, I can confirm to you that the template does not dictate intent. Usage dictates intent. The colours are used as we intended them to be used, and the template (number 2 in this case) is not the arbiter of how the colours are to be used. It's just a guide. If there is any confusion (and there never has been until now), then the templates are to be adjusted, not the usage. I find the above suggestions to be very sensible. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's your original template and wording. The confusion is not about the use of colours, it's about whether a classified non-finisher actually finished the race or failed to finish. Seems obvious to me, to others perhaps not so.

In another argument, intent dictates usage, and not the other way around.

Colour	Result
Gold	Winner
Silver	2nd place
Bronze	3rd place
Green	Finished, in points
Blue	Finished, no points
Purple	Did not finish (Ret)
Red	Did not qualify (DNQ)
Black	Disqualified (DSQ)
White	Did not start (DNS)
Blank	Did not practice (DNP)
	Injured (INJ)
	Excluded (EX)
	Did not arrive (DNA)
	Friday test driver (TD) - 2003-2006 only

DrX au (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Tossed off in about two minutes, if I remember correctly. Looks a lot like you're trying to tell me what my intention was. I'm sure you can see how futile that is. As for whether or not a classified non-finisher finished a race or not – within the scope of these tables, it doesn't matter one bit. Classification is all that matters. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done As this discussion has apparently gone stale and we seem to have reached a consensus of sorts, I have adjusted {{F1 driver results legend 2}} per DH's suggestions above. Pyrop e 22:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the other two F1 results key templates ({{F1 driver results legend 3}} and {{F1 driver results legend 4}}). DH85868993 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Toro Rosso test drivers

An editor recently removed 4 of the 5 test drivers from Scuderia Toro Rosso's infobox. I'm not sure whether the change is correct or not. Does anyone have a reliable source for Toro Rosso's 2017 test drivers? DH85868993 (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am guessing we will not find out reliable information about that until later this month or even February... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Then it should be restored or removed completely until there are news. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say remove it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And I've removed them from the {{STR}} navbox template. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

TFA Jochen Rindt

Dear F1 enthusiasts, I wish you all a happy new year! It starts well: Jochen Rindt is scheduled to be Wikipedia's Featured Article of the Day on 23 January. You can check and edit the entry here. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Another IP to keep an eye on.

While we're still dealing with an IP disrupting historical articles on F1 cars, a new IP from Singapore has popped op up loading up the infoboxes of F1 Cars of the last two/three season with unnecessary detail. I'm also certain that the person behind the IP operates the users F1foreverf1 and F1W06. All three mainly edit articles on recent F1 cars (mostly Mercedes F1 cars) and on the terminals of Singapore's airport. I have also caught the IP and F1foreverf1 trying to game the system to elevate Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid to GA status.

Also, there is a guy from Malaysia vandalizing race and driver articles in their result sections. Pyrope was nice enough to start a page where we can store the multiple IPs used for these shananigans: see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mercedes in F1 template?

What's happened to the {{Mercedes in Formula One}} navbox template, shouldn't it be better to keep only Formula One information in the navbox rather then fill it with information that could be put into a separate one? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think the sportscar information could be split into a separate template - it was added by an IP editor in May 2014 with no explanation and has just stayed there ever since. I'd probably leave the pre-1950 "Grand Prix" cars in the template though, rather than splitting them out into a separate template - they don't take up much space. DH85868993 (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've managed to clean it up, It now only contains Formula One information like its supposed to, Also a template already exists for the pre-F1 Grand Prix information so it doesn't need to be included, ({{Silver Arrows}}). Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd forgotten about {{Silver Arrows}}. {{Mercedes in Formula One}} should now be removed from all the articles it no longer links to. DH85868993 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done! Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget the sportscar articles. DH85868993 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done that too, well the ones that I'm awear of that is. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I'll create a new template to reconnect the sportscar articles (something like {{Toyota Sportscar Racers}}) some time in the next few days, if nobody beats me to it. DH85868993 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyre column in season articles

Some recent editing at 2017 Formula One season is questioning the need for a column on tyre suppliers in the team and driver table of season articles. So far, this had been limited to a single season article, but the column is a part of every season article, and so changing it in one article may mean needing to change it elsewhere. Given the potential to affect all season articles, it's something that I think we should discuss before making changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but as I mentioned in my edit summary I really don't see the need to tabulate uniform data. Just say "Pirelli were the sole tyre supplier" in the prose. Pyrop e 04:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I have no opinion one way or the other. I just see the potential in a change affecting every season article and setting a precedent for future articles to observe, so I think it merits discussion first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely support Pyrope's position. Standardization of the tables is an important thing, but we should be flexible to prevent the pointless duplication. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Pyrope's position. There are 60+ years worth of season articles, and in the vast majority of them the tyre column actually has more than one name in it. You don't have to go back very far to find one. The column is retained in years with one tyre supplier because we chose to have a consistent look for all our season articles. It would just look weird to have a minority of our articles without one. Moreover once these articles have developed to their full, final size this column takes up but a little part of the whole article. This article even received FA status with the column in place. It's certainly not distracting once the article has reached it final, stable state.T v x1 14:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

1950-1973 tables don't feature number's column at all, since 2014 the teams and drivers aren't ordered by the numbers. So, we can't talk about absolute consistency, but we can easily omit tyre's column, like we did it with numbers. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because there were no fixes numbers before 1972. We simply cannot include them efficiently even if we wanted to. Tyres have obviously been used right from the start. And more often than not more than one brand was used.T v x1 18:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Weird alphabetical order of teams was introduced in 2014. So there is no consistency at all, as we have three different versions of table (without numbers (1950-1973), with order by numbers(1974-2013), and with order by teams (2014-present)). And the order by teams not only more recent, but also making more inconsistency than omitting the tyre column. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency of the table's order is not being discussed here. If you want to propose a new order, please start a new discussion about that. This discussion is about the consistency of which content is included in these tables. Tyres have a much much more important role in this sport than numbers, which are only an aesthetic thing.T v x1 16:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyre column had some importance, when we had different some suppliers. But since 2007 it's "only an aesthetic thing". Phrase that "all teams used Pirelli tyres" carries out the information function. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I support removing the tyre column from articles for all years for which one tyre brand was mandated, as I cannot see the value of a redundant column for something which is the same for each row. The fact that in years gone by the cars could have had different tyres was certainly a good reason for having a tyre column for those articles, but that is not a good reason, in my opinion, to have a redundant column for years where the tyres are all the same. I believe that the integrity of an individual article takes precedence over consistency for no good reason other than for the sake of it. -- de Facto (talk). 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer consistency to removing redundant information, so I'd leave the column in. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If someone wanted to, for some reason, go through every F1 article and find who supplied tires in each year, what would be most useful: having a column with that information in the same place every time, or writing it out in prose in seasons which there is a single supplier? The answer here should be obvious. Let's try to remember that people use this site. How are we helping them by removing the column? Wicka wicka (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

They could also use the table on Formula One tyres. JohnMcButts (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but maybe there's some other information on the main season pages they want to correlate it with. But I ask again: how we are helping readers by removing this column? Wicka wicka (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It would help readers because they wouldn't have to look at a column that may as well be blank for what it's worth. It's a minor simplification which is worth doing. Of course, it wouldn't help them by removing it for seasons where more than one tyre supplier is used. Sr88, talk. 18:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not an explanation of how it helps them, that's your own subjective value judgement. How does removing that column make it easier for users to read to page? To find that information, if that's indeed what they're looking for? Give me an actual answer or don't change the page. It's ridiculous to suggest making Wikipedia worse and harder to use. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

What 3 letters are being used for the abbreviation of Azerbaijan GP? {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:F1 Drivers Standings and Template:F1 Constructors Standings (which are currently hidden in 2017 Formula One season) use "AZE", which seems reasonable to me. DH85868993 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

AZE is also the country's official country code.T v x1 00:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor adding best finish to F1 championships parameter

An editor (here) has today added best finish in the WDC to multiple driver articles. Only seems to have added second and third places (example here). Some other motorsport infoboxes do have a parameter for best finish in a series but the one for F1 driver does not. Is this addition a good thing? Eagleash (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion that doesn't belong in the infobox. It just takes up the unnecessary space. So unless there is a parameter created, it shouldn't be included. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Team personnel behind the F1 W0x Hybrid sections

I notice the recent addition of the following article sections:

Are these necessary/desirable? DH85868993 (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The chief designer and other key engineers are necessary to the car articles. They should probably worked into the prose, not included as a list section. The flags are definitely not desirable however, per MOS:FLAGS, as their nationality is irrelevant. QueenCake (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor is currently sitting on Mercedes F1 W08 Hybrid and insists on adding details that do not typically get added to car articles, arguing that the article should be brought in line with the W05, W06 and W07 articles. Most of this is excusable, but they keep adding details of the car's launch to the article. We haven't done this for some time as per WP:NOTNEWS, but they insist on its inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a well known Singaporean IP which mainly edits articles on Mercedes' F1 cars (and other Mercedes F1 related articles) and articles on Singapore Airport's terminals. They have also nominated the F1 W06 Hybrid article for GA at some point only to start reviewing if themselves through a sock puppet account.T v x1 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Put in a request at RFP, but it was declined. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Template parameters

Does anybody here know the ins and outs of templates? I'm looking at Template:F1 season and it has parameters for the WDC and WCC winners, and I think that would be really useful if it was expanded and applied to Template:Motorsport season. Normally, I would go and edit them in myself, but I am vety hesitant to because I once managed to create an infinite loop of redirects by moving templates around because I didn't understand what I was doing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be difficult to add a "champions" parameter to Template:Motorsport season. But you may care to discuss the matter first at WP:MOTOR to gain consensus for the change. DH85868993 (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's that big of a deal. It doesn't take anything away from the articles, and editors can use it at their discretion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. Anyway, the good news is that the functionality is already there: Template:Motorsport season has a (previously undocumented, now documented) field called "subheader". In fact the "champions" parameter in Template:F1 season is just a wrapper for the "subheader" parameter in Template:Motorsport season. DH85868993 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.^[1]^[2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

See submissions through external academic peer review
Format accepted articles
Promote the journal

Authors

Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Ecclestone

The article on Bernie Ecclestone has been nominated for appearing in the ITN section of the main page. However, there are some referencing issued that need addressing before it can appear, should consensus be gained for its posting. Assistance requested please. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

EU Parliament to probe F1 practices

It's being reported that the EU Parliament has voted to open an investigation into anti-competetive practices in F1. Should this info go into the 2017 season article or the general F1 article? Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That depends on if it will have implications on this season or not. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to see it having any impact on the 2017 season. For one, the investigation could still be going when the season ends. More importantly, it deals with the financial structure and commercial agreements of the sport. Even if the investigation concluded tomorrow and demanded substantial changes, it would likely require the negotiation of a new Concorde Agreement, and that will also take time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest Formula One Group as the relevant article to report this, as the investigation is basically centered on them. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@The359: FYI: "Formula One Management (FOM) is the main operating company of the [Formula One] group, and controls the broadcasting, organisation and promotional rights of Formula One." Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a misleading statement. The EU Parliament has not "voted to open an investigation"; they have passed a bill, part of which is worded as a request to the competition commission to please, if they would be so good, open an investigation sometime. The commission is not bound by this in any way, it is merely an advisory request. Leave it out until something actually happens and, please, read the sources properly. Pyrop e 17:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Statistics table issue

Comment requested; Talk:Silverstone Circuit#Progression of records --Falcadore (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Power output

Do we have a position on the use of the power output parameter when filling out Template:Infobox racing car? An IP editor keeps filling it in for Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+. They started out claiming that it was it was "> 900bhp", but had no reference; then they found a reference and made it "750 – 975bhp", but I think that a range of 225bhp is too vague. Now it's "900 – 975bhp", but they're using the same source as before.

The editor in question is right when they say that power output will vary depending on the engine setting, but between that and the general unwillingness of constructors to discuss (much less commit to) an actual figure, I have to ask: do we really need to include the power output in the infobox? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't include considering that constructors don't divulge exact figures. I removed it from the article in question because neither the listed minimum nor the maximum was stated in the source. This essentially made it guesswork by the IP and that is not encyclopedic writing.T v x1 05:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it's our friend the completionist—the same IP editor who felt compelled to add absolutely everything to the article earlier in the year. Even if it was only remotely related, like listing Geoff Willis as "Geoffrey Willis". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

I've started a discussion at talk:Lewis Hamilton re the removal of referenced text without summary, its reinstatement and subsequent reversion. Please join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Season article names

Should season article pages still be named "19XX/20XX Formula One season"?

Looking across Wikipedia, I cannot help but notice that the "season" moniker has largely been dropped. For example, the current WEC season is located at 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship, rather than "2017 FIA World Endurance Championship season". To my mind, "season" should only be used in the case of something like "2017 WEC season" (not the greatest example, I know, but you see what I mean). This change was mostly made because "championship season" is largely redundant, but also because in some cases (though not in Formula One), there is a top-level article above the primary championship article, one that unifies all lower-level articles, such as 2016 V8 Supercar season (top-level article) and 2016 International V8 Supercars Championship (primary championship article).

Within the context of global motorsport, there are five categories that the FIA awards "World Championship" status to—Formula One, rallying, rallycross, touring cars and endurance racing. But we don't name articles consistently. Here are the five season articles corresponding with the five championships:

As you can see, Formula One season articles are the only ones that are inconsistent with the wider scope of global motorsport. Therefore, I think that season articles should be moved to a new location: either 2017 Formula One World Championship or 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship (I am unsure about the latter; I would have to look at season articles for sports outside motorsport to see if sanctioning bodies are incorporated into article titles; it might be an issue for WP:MOTOR once this is resolved).

This does constitute a fairly significant way to the way we present content, and that there may be some resistance, so please allow me to put your fears to rest:

Firstly, this does involve some degree of work. We do need to move sixty-nine articles to new homes, but it's a very straightforward process, and moving automatically generates redirects. A few years ago, the WRC season articles were moved from "20XX World Rally Championship season" to "20XX World Rally Championship", and it went off without a hitch. More to the point, editors adapted to the change quickly. If we move everything up to and including 2018 Formula One season, then by the time we need to create something new, it will be second nature.
While we are moving the articles to something consistent with the wider context of global motorsport, this is not an issue for WP:MOTOR. The issue is exclusive to Formula One season articles, and so falls entirely within the domain of WP:F1.
I appreciate that some people might want to keep the current names as per WP:COMMONNAME. However, COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia "generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and I generally cannot recall the last time I saw the season referred to as "20XX Formula One season" in reliable sources. Maybe "the upcoming season" or "the current season", but never to refer to the season as a whole. Just about everything that I have seen refers to it as the "20XX Formula One World Championship", and so I feel that this is a better fix under COMMONNAME.

Given that this potentially affects the first point of contact between the reader and the article, I'm going to tag as many regular editors as I can think of who might want to contribute. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Here we go, in no particular order except the order in which I thought of you: Tvx1, MordeKyle, Wicka wicka, Mjroots, Pyrope, DH85868993, Eagleash, Sabbatino, Corvus tristis, Zwerg Nase, QueenCake, Bretonbanquet

I apologise if I missed anyone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that the "FIA" bit could be dropped, as they run almost all motorsport outside the USA AFAIK. Now, when you say "2017 Formula One World Championship", do you mean the "2017 Formula One World Driver's Championship" or the "2017 Formula One World Constructor's Championship", both of which are to be fought for during the 2017 Formula One season. In other words, the current style is fine. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots — 2017 World Rally Championship details the 2017 World Rally Championship for Drivers, 2017 World Rally Championship for Co-Drivers, and the 2017 World Rally Championship for Manufacturers. 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship details the World Championships for drivers and manufacturers, as well as the championships for four classes of competition. The WTCC season articles also detail multiple titles that are contested parallel, as do the World RX articles. So not only is it not unheard-of to include multiple titles within an article, it's standard practice.

While the current style might be "fine", "fine" is not necessarily the best way of doing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the current names are the most suitable. Factors to consider:

The articles don't just cover the championships, they also cover non-championship F1 races held during the year.
None of the races comprising the 1952 World Drivers' Championship were run to Formula One regulations (the majority were run to F2 regs; the Indy 500 was run to AAA/USAC regs), so I believe "1952 Formula One World Championship" would be an inappropriate title for the article. Noting that I believe the current title, "1952 Formula One season" is appropriate because the article does cover the F1 races held in 1952, in addition to the 1952 WDC. Likewise for 1953.

DH85868993 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In which case, those articles could be kept as is. But the 2017 article, for example, shouldn't retain a name that doesn't accurately fit it simply because that name does suit the 1952 article (and an overall minority of articles). There is no policy that says articles should have an homogenised naming structure, especially when differing naming conventions can reasonably be applied as the situation requires. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no policy that says articles should have an homogenised naming structure, but I do not agree that the name "2017 Formula One season" does not accurately fit the contents of the article. DH85868993 (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Because of previous sets of rules that haven't been used for decades? How is "2017 Formula One season" a better fit than "2017 Formula One World Championship" given the context of global motorsport on Wikipedia? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

One format that might work is "(year) in Formula One", which would fit with other articles such as 2017 in aviation, 2017 in rail transport, 2017 in science etc. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Why Formula One articles retain the season suffix has been carefully explained in the thorough discussion which preceded the big change of the titles of motor racing season/championship articles. The reason why 2017 Formula One season" does accurately fit the contents of the article, is because it, just like all the previous F1 season articles, deals with all the competitive Formula One racing in the given year. The difference between the other mentioned 2017 FIA World Championships is that the other four do not cover all competitive racing that year in the relevant class of motor racing, whereas the F1 article does. 2017 World Rally Championship, does not cover all World Rally competition in 2017, 2017 FIA World Rallycross Championship does not cover all competitive Rallycross racing in 2017. 2017 World Touring Car Championship does not cover all Touring Car racing in 2017. 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship does not cover all competitive Endurance Racing in 2017. 2017 Formula One season, however, patently does cover all competitive Formula One racing in 2017. That's why the season suffix is entirely appropriate for Formula One articles. The change of the names of Motorsport series/season articles was never intended to create a completely homogenised naming for all Motorsports. Its intent was to remove the season suffix, or replace it with a championship/series suffix, where its presence was inappropriate. For F1, it's not inappropriate at all.T v x1 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to the addition of the word championship. Formula One is known as Formula One, not Formula One Championship. WEC, WRC, WTCC, they are all know with the word Championship in the name. It is part of their name. 20xx Formula One season is the most accurate description of what it is. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"The reason why 2017 Formula One season" does accurately fit the contents of the article, is because it, just like all the previous F1 season articles, deals with all the competitive Formula One racing in the given year."

Please give me an example of competitive Formula One racing that is covered by the article but run outside the championship.

"Formula One is known as Formula One, not Formula One Championship"

Except by the FIA and FOM. Everything that they produce in relation to the sport describes it as the Formula One World Championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please give me an example of competitive Formula One racing that is covered by the article but run outside the championship.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 20:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

.

I really don't see the point but if you insist: 1957 Pau Grand Prix, 1966 South African Grand Prix, 1978 BRDC International Trophy, 1983 Race of Champions and many many more. All of them Formula One races outside of the World Championship which are covered in the relevant season articles nonetheless. But that's not even the point. The point is that there is no competitive Formula One racing other than which is covered in the season articles. This is a clear difference to the other cited examples. For instance, in addition to the 2017 World Touring Car Championship, there is also a British Touring Car Championship and a German Touring Car Championship among others. That's where there is a difference and why we don't have an article on "the" 2017 Touring Car season.T v x1 21:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"For instance, in addition to the 2017 World Touring Car Championship, there is also a British Touring Car Championship and a German Touring Car Championship among others."

Those are structured as completely separate championships. Nowhere is it stated or implied that they have any relationship to the WTCC.

"The point is that there is no competitive Formula One racing other than which is covered in the season articles."

I would dispute that. Formula One is the top tier of formula racing—bespoke, open-wheel racing cars built to a formula: a specific set of rules and regulations. That's what the "one" designates: the primary class. We also have Formula 3 and the FIA has made clear their intentions to revive Formula 2. In that sense, Formula One is no different to the World Rally Championship and the WRC-2 and WRC-3, or MotoGP, Moto2 and Moto3. There may not be Formula One racing outside the World Championship, but there is formula racing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see what you're saying with this, but I'm not convinced that this changes the encyclopedic value of the content, nor would it make it any easier to for the purposes of indexing as far as searching goes. There would be a massive amount of stuff that would have to be changed, for basically no real benefit. The encyclopedic value between 2017 Formula One season and 2017 Formula One World Championship is basically null. If you wanted to do redirects, or change the name going forward, with redirects, I don't see a problem with that. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"There would be a massive amount of stuff that would have to be changed"

The season articles are the only things that would be moved. Moving "2017 Formula One season" to "2017 Formula One World Championship" automatically creates a redirect at "2017 Formula One season", so anything that links there—such as McLaren MCL32—will instead send the reader to "2017 Formula One World Championship" without needing editors to manually change the wikilinks.

"nor would it make it any easier to for the purposes of indexing as far as searching goes"

Wikipedia's software automatically takes care of this. If we move "2017 Formula One season" to "2017 Formula One World Championship" and somebody searches for the former, the search function will automatically identify the change.

"The encyclopedic value between 2017 Formula One season and 2017 Formula One World Championship is basically null."

There is no value in accurately representing content and keeping the article titles consistent within the context of global motorsport? Like I said, there are five disciplines with "World Championship" status, and Formula One season articles are the only season articles that are improperly named. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I know how redirects work, my concern was with the amount of renaming to be done. I think the best thing to do is to name each season the way it would be officially named by the governing body, if there was one. So for example, probably leave 1949 Grand Prix season alone. Otherwise, I support whatever the official name is of the season, being the name of each article. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: In 1958, the two Formula One championships were called the "1958 World Championship of Drivers" and the "1958 International Cup for F1 Manufacturers". What name would you suggest for the article which covers both of those championships (and also all the non-championship F1 races held during 1958)? DH85868993 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993:Do we not have the same thing now? Again, I think we should use whatever the official title of the series/championship is/was. I honestly don't suggest we change the name of articles like that. If there are non-championship races in a season, maybe it's best to leave it alone. Or if we do change the name, explain it in the prose. I don't think it's really that big of an issue. {MordeKyle} ☢ 01:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If there are non-championship races, do what Supercars articles do. The series runs a non-championship round at Albert Park in support of the Australian Grand Prix, but because it's a non-championship round, it isn't included in the championship article. It's included in the top-level article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't use the Supercars way because we don't have top-level articles and separate articles for the championships for F1. We only have the season articles. And it has always been their intention to cover all of the international competitive Formula One racing in any given year.T v x1 01:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I would use "1958 Formula One World Championship" for the article and use the prose to explain that there were two separate titles contested as part of the chsmpionship. The two titles are for two different groups—drivets and manufacturers—so it should be okay.

Even then, "1958 Formula One season" is still acceptable, even if we change every other article to "World Championship". All I am suggesting is that we rename season articles to have the most appropriate name. Articles shouldn't be forced to have an inappropriate name simply for the sake of having homogeneous article titles that only benefit a minority of articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

True, but the only flaw in your reasoning is that you're the only one considering the current naming scheme inappropriate. {MordeKyle} ☢, there is no 'official name of the f1 season" nor has there ever been one. We have had two championships (since 1958, one before that), with their own official names but they are not synonymous with the seasons. As said before, for years these championships were known as the "World Championship of Drivers" and the "International Cup for F1 Manufacturers" (thus not only in 1958). The name "FIA Formula One World Championship" has only been used since 1981. So I really don't see how retroactively applying a name to years when it didn't even exist yet is more appropriate than using the current title which is descriptive of its content. Moreover during its first two decades the world championships would contain a myriad of F1, F2 and AAA races. So changing the titles to XXXX F1 World Championship really doesn't make any sense.T v x1 01:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"the only flaw in your reasoning is that you're the only one considering the current naming scheme inappropriate"

That's what the process of achieving consensus is for.

"The name "FIA Formula One World Championship" has only been used since 1981. So I really don't see how retroactively applying a name to years when it didn't even exist yet is more appropriate than using the current title which is descriptive of its content."

So only apply it from 1981 onwards. Having a name change halfway through a series of articles doesn't compromise the entire series. Look at the Supercars articles. They started out as the Australian Touring Car Championship, then became V8 Supercars when the series underwent a name change, even though drivers still compete for the title of "Australian Touring Car Champion". When the series was granted "International" status, the articles were created with the name International V8 Supercars Championship. And now that the series has been revised again, the articles are known as the Supercars Championship. That's four different article names in the past thirty or so years, but that doesn't compromise them.

If the FIA started formally considering the season a World Championship, then the articles should be called "World Championship" instead of "season" from that point on. After all, teams and drivers compete for the World Championship titles. If your argument boils down to keeping "season" because the articles have always been called "season", then I don't find that to be a particularly valid argument because these things can and do change, and that that argument doesn't take changes into account or make any allowance for them.

"19XX/20XX Formula 1 World Championship" is the name that is most representative of the sport—both now and from an historical perspective. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Formula One not a top level article? {MordeKyle} ☢ 02:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an overview—it deals with the sport in the broadest possible sense, and does not focus on specific seasons (though it may give details from specific seasons to better-illustrate a point). A better example would be the articles that unify all of the Formula Renault championships run in a year, which contain links to specific season articles (where such articles exist), such as 2015 Formula Renault seasons. I think NASCAR does something similar, too. In the case of formula racing, the top-level article would be "2017 in Formula racing" (that name is off the top of my head) and would contain links to the individual Formula 1, Formula 2 and Formula 3 season articles.

I should note that "top-level article" is a term of my own invention, largely because I needed a way to describe it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahh ok. {MordeKyle} ☢ 03:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Look at the Supercars articles. They started out as the Australian Touring Car Championship, then became V8 Supercars when the series underwent a name change, even though drivers still compete for the title of "Australian Touring Car Champion". When the series was granted "International" status, the articles were created with the name International V8 Supercars Championship. And now that the series has been revised again, the articles are known as the Supercars Championship. That's four different article names in the past thirty or so years, but that doesn't compromise them.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 02:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comparison constitutes a logical fallacy because the name of the series we are discussing never changed. Formula One has always been Formula One since 1946. The only thing that changed over the years, is that the formal names of the championships F1 Drivers and Manufacturers compete in were altered a couple of times. But as explained before, the season articles have never been intended to exclusively deal with the World Championships.

If your argument boils down to keeping "season" because the articles have always been called "season", then I don't find that to be a particularly valid argument because these things can and do change, and that that argument doesn't take changes into account or make any allowance for them.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 02:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not the argument and you know it. Don't make claims I have made arguments I haven't made. The argument is that the premise of every F1 season article is that it covers all international competitive Formula One racing of said year. Please provide one instance of current international competitive Formula One racing not covered in the 2017 article.

"19XX/20XX Formula 1 World Championship" is the name that is most representative of the sport—both now and from an historical perspective.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 02:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, so please don't act like this is fact. I am one of many who have stated their disagreement with that stance during the course of this discussion.T v x1 04:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"Please provide one instance of current international competitive Formula One racing not covered in the 2017 article."

I have already asked you to do that, and you ignored it. You know perfectly well that the only instance of current international competitive Formula One racing is the World Championship, and yet you continue to insist that "Formula One World Championship" is inappropriate as an article title despite an overwhelming majority of reliable and verifiable sources referring to it as the "Formula One World Championship". You're the one who insists that the official FIA sources take priority over anything else, and can only be over-ridden by another official FIA source—as evidenced by your argument here, where you insist that MRT must remain in the table despite dozens of reliable sources that say they have closed because the FIA hasn't issued a new entry list—but here, you're ignoring those same official FIA sources that refer to the season as a World Championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read other people comments before making (an actually your own as well) claims about what they wrote. This is what you asked:

Please give me an example of competitive Formula One racing that is covered by the article but run outside the championship.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 20:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

And this is my reply to that:

I really don't see the point but if you insist: 1957 Pau Grand Prix, 1966 South African Grand Prix, 1978 BRDC International Trophy, 1983 Race of Champions and many many more. All of them Formula One races outside of the World Championship which are covered in the relevant season articles nonetheless.
— User:Tvx1 21:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

So clearly, I patently did not ignore your request. So please stop telling these untruths. Now here is my question:

Please provide one instance of current international competitive Formula One racing not covered in the 2017 article.
— User:Tvx1 4:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you spot the difference between the questions?

Now I indeed think it is inappropriate to rename the article, but whether or not your proposed name has been used in real life has nothing to do with it. I think it's inappropriate because the proposed new name does no fit the purpose, the intention we have given this articles through the years, which is to cover all international competitive formula one racing in any given year. The current titles give a descriptive explanation of what the articles deal with. I can't see the encyclopedic benefit in the proposed renaming, nor do I see why we must implement a change just for the sake of it despite no one having complained about failing to understand what the F1 season articles are about. Also I'm going to tag Falcadore here, a regular contributor you forgot to mention in your opening statements.T v x1 14:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The language used in individual race reports and templates specifically refers to the season as a World Championship, not as a season. The only place "season" is used is in article titles. "World Championship" is a much more accurate name to use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrarily chosen wording in articles has low meaningful value on this. But even so, your claim is simply incorrect. All of those articles use the wording "Formula One season". It would help your argument if you'd actually bother to do some research before making conclusions. The last sentence is yet again merely your personal opinion, not a fact, and it is clearly based on an incorrect assumption of the content of our articles.T v x1 11:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the most contrived wording imaginable:

"The 2018 Formula One season is planned to be the 72nd season of FIA Formula One motor racing. It is scheduled to feature the 69th Formula One World Championship, a motor racing championship for Formula One cars."

It is vague and unclear; you start talking about the 72nd season and then switch to talking about the 69th championship without reason, explanation or subsequent reference to the 72nd season. The talk the season featuring the World Championship implies that there is racing outside the championship, but a) there is no further reference to it, and b) there is no Formula One racing outside the championship.

The whole thing appears to have been written specifically to get out of renaming the article title. The older version worked just fine until now, and there is nothing wrong with that wording except that it leaves open the door to renaming the article with something more accurate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

More personal opinion. It's the exact same style of wording used for every season article. No one has complained about it through the years, so I'm pretty sure it's quite clear. And why would one have to go into detail about basic calculus. The first Formula One race was the 1946 Turin Grand Prix. The first full season of Formula One races was 1947. That makes 2018 the 72nd season. The WC started in 1950, which makes 2018 the 69th one. Your also overfocussing on one individual article and not looking at the greater picture. Sure there is no racing outside the championships now, but many of the season articles using this wording did include such races. Most importantly, the only intended implication is that Formula One racing existed before the first world championship was held. Why should our dealing with Formula One racing be exclusive to the World Championship? We even mention the 1913 and 1914 editions in the Russian Grand Prix, even though they were held well before the creation of Formula One. Furthermore, your claim that this appears to have been written specifically to get out of renaming the article title is simply ludicrous. In fact this wording actually is the older wording and it is your newer wording which appears to have been deliberately entered to create justification for the renaming you have been demanding. No sooner did you make your change on the 2017 article, reverted by deFacto, or you came here to state that it was proof in favor of the demanded change, while at the same time making the completely inaccurate claim that your wording is used in "all" the article. In reality every world championship race report states "....... Grand Prix was the XXst/nd/rd/th round of the XXXX Formula One season" while their infoboxes state "Round XX of XX of the XXXX Formula One season".T v x1 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"It's the exact same style of wording used for every season article"

Bullshit. It's a recent addition at best—it's only been added in the past few weeks at most, not the decades that you claimed elsewhere. I know because I came up with the original draft of the wording for the lead that has been applied to the articles, and I know that it hasn't changed much.

"Why should our dealing with Formula One racing be exclusive to the World Championship?"

Please point out a single example of Formula One racing that has taken place outside the World Championship in the past twenty-five years. There hasn't been any, so there's your answer. The article wording implies that there is racing outside the championship, which we know is untrue, but you insist that the articles should all maintain homogenised wording even though this wording is currently redundant, unnecessary and implies things that we can prove to be untrue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It is the wording that has been used for decades-worth of season articles for ages. That you refuse to accept that doesn't change it. Just take a look a the histories of the dozens of season articles. As for your second question. That has been replied to in full previously. Every F1 season article covers all international competitive Formula One racing in said season. And that claim applies just as much to 1950 Formula One season as it does to 2017 Formula One season. That the current wording implies non-championship racing, even it doesn't say there is anywhere, is just your opinion. I disagree with it and have already explained what the only thing it implies actually is.T v x1 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"It is the wording that has been used for decades-worth of season articles for ages."

Correction: it has been used for weeks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Do some research before making claims. If you look in the history of season articles, you'll see that in most of them it has been used for years.T v x1 20:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's bullshit. It has not been used for years as you claim.

But let's talk about something else: the massive hole in your argument. You claim that "season" is the most appropriate name to use because the article addresses all Formula One racing, not just the World Championship. This implies that there is racing outside the championship, which has not been the case for decades. So why do you continue to support an argument that is patently untrue and push for a wording that is misleading and inaccurate? More to the point, why do you refuse to address this in conversation? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's bullshit. It has not been used for years as you claim.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. You refuse to accept the truth and you also refuse to do any research to back up your claim. So allow me to prove I'm telling the truth. Let's take a random example season article. Say, 1985 Formula One season. This is how it looks like now. This is what it looked like one year ago. This is what it looked like two years ago. Three years ago, Four years ago, Five years ago. Get the picture? So please stop your incorrect claims that this style of wording hasn't been used for years. It patently has been.

You claim that "season" is the most appropriate name to use because the article addresses all Formula One racing, not just the World Championship. This implies that there is racing outside the championship, which has not been the case for decades. So why do you continue to support an argument that is patently untrue and push for a wording that is misleading and inaccurate? More to the point, why do you refuse to address this in conversation?
— User:Prisonermonkeys 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not my stance and I have already pointed that out to you before in this discussion:

That's not the argument and you know it. Don't make claims I have made arguments I haven't made. The argument is that the premise of every F1 season article is that it covers all international competitive Formula One racing of said year. Please provide one instance of current international competitive Formula One racing not covered in the 2017 article.
— User:Tvx1 04:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

And now matter how much you keep refusing to accept it, it doesn't change fact. Every season article covers all international competitive Formula One racing in the relevant year (thus they do if all of the racing was for the World Championship as well). It really baffles me that you keep desperately clinging to an incorrect assessment of my stance for more than two weeks now in thinking that would help your argument in away. As the passage above indicates I patiently have not refuses to address this in conversation. How difficult is it for someone who claims to be an English-language teacher to understand plain English language? In summary, nothing of what you wrote in your last reply is even remotely correct.T v x1 13:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Every season article covers all international competitive Formula One racing in the relevant year"

And yet your argument and the wording of the articles imply that there is racing outside the championship. The word "includes" suggests that the championship is one part of a greater whole. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't use the word "includes at all.T v x1 21:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Scheduled to feature" - different wording, same problem. It implies that there is racing outside the championship when there is none. The only Formula One racing is the World Championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't imply that. That's just what you claim it does. You're just being overconcerned. What matters is what the article actually mentions. There is no mention of non championship races in the article so our readers are not being misled there is some. Season articles dealing with seasons including non championship races mention right away in the lead. In the above example the wording has existed for at least five years, yet no one came to the article's talk page with the question: "Hey what about non-championships the lead hints there have been?" The practical reality shows that our readers currently perfectly understand what the articles are intended to tell them.T v x1 23:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"There is no mention of non championship races in the article so our readers are not being misled there is some."

The first question a reader who is not familiar with the subject will ask is "The season features the World Championship? What else does it feature?". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you know that? Why do you think that? Why would they do so? Why has no-one complained if that's the case? Why can you not accept that you might be overconcerned? Nothing else is mentioned, so why on earth would anyone ask that question? It's abundantly clear that there is no other F1 racing this year but for the World Championship. We really should not be concerned about utterly hypothetical problems.T v x1 11:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Why has no-one complained if that's the case?"

Because I'm thinking of the average reader here—someone with no prior knowledge of the sport who clicks on "Random Page" and winds up in the article. You're forgetting that we're an encyclopaedia and that we're writing for a broader audience than fans of the sport.

"It's abundantly clear that there is no other F1 racing this year but for the World Championship."

So why make the distinction between season and World Championship in the article? It's an unnecessary point to raise. If you're doing it because other articles with racing outside the championship do it, you should remember that there is no requirement for total homogeneity between articles, and editing decisions should be made based on the interests of the article in question, not the potential for introducing change elsewhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Homogeneity is not required but isn't prohibited either. The homogeneity we have introduced over the years works just fine and I can see nothing in this discussion that justifies ditching it. I cannot see how anything you proposed brings in any improvement. As said, there is no mention of non-championship racing in season's there wasn't any, so even the "average" reader will easily see that all F1 racing was for the world championship in such a year. The distinction between season and world championship is made because it exists in real life. Formula One racing and the world championship are not historically synonymous. In fact the former is even older than the latter and a couple of world championships didn't even feature any Formula One races at all. So the only thing the contested text does is providing our readers with accurate information.T v x1 23:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"I cannot see how anything you proposed brings in any improvement."

It's more specific; "World Championship" is a title rather than a generic descriptor.

It's more accurate; the article only discusses the World Championship.

It bring the article in line with other, related articles—World Rally Championship, World Endurance Championship, World Touring Car Championship and World Rallycross Championship; the five disciplines recognised by the FIA as World Championships. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have already explained to you what the fundamental difference between Formula One and the other four is. These other four forms of motor racing have racing outside the aforementioned championships, F1 doesn't. These forms of motor racing are all run independently, so why on earth should we describe them in an identical manner? I'm getting awfully confused by your arguments. First you say that we should not have homogeneity within F1 articles and now you're demanding we create homogeneity between different, independent classes of motorsports. Being more specific isn't synonymous with improvement. In this case that would simultaneously be exclusive. The articles have always been intended to describe all of the international competitive Formula One racing in the relevant year and that's how it's presented to our readers.T v x1 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"These forms of motor racing are all run independently, so why on earth should we describe them in an identical manner?"

Because, as I have explained to you, the FIA is the only body with the power to declare what is a World Championship and what is not. It is a title that is formally issued to a championship; the text of articles points out that it is "a championship for Formula One cars recognised by the sport's governing body as the highest level of competition". That's what World Championship status is—the formal recognition that the championship is the highest class. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that they are all run independently and that there is the fundamental difference between Formula One and the other four. As said before, Formula One racing and the world championship are not historically synonymous.T v x1 22:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither are all of the others. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Update

A resolution to this would be helpful. As pointed out by an IP user, we currently have the 2013 Formula One season stating that it is the "64th season of the FIA Formula One motor racing." and the 2014 Formula One season stating it is the "68th season of FIA Formula One motor racing." due to this debate over Formula One season versus Championship season.

I would also point out that I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of "season" when it comes to non-championship events. Are we basing "season" solely off of calendar year? For instance, the end of 1960 had three races in South Africa in December, including the South African Grand Prix on December 26th, and the Cape Grand Prix on January 2 1961. Literally one week apart, but somehow this is a different "season"? As there is no championship, let alone series or league, non-championship events are not a "season", they are stand-alone events that happened to take place during a calendar year. Grouping them together this way may be convenient but I think it is a bit disingenous to treat them as a "season".

Because of this I believe "19XX in Formula One" is a good article to cover championship and non-championship racing, with a seperate article to cover the World Championship in detail. As non-championship races eventually ended in 1983, there would only be a need for a single World Championship article from 1984 onward. As for specific naming, that's bits and bolts, the core of the matter is that there should be a clear distiction between a well organized series and championship and other races that simply used the same formula. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@The359 – I whole-heartedly agree. I still struggle to accept the argument that because the articles cover all Formula One racing in a year, "season" is the most appropriate term to use when the article is only covering the World Championship. While technically correct, it is confusing and the argument implies that there is racing outside the championship. While this might apply to the 1983 article, the decision to continue to use the naming convention in 2017 feels like we are making decisions for the 2017 article based on what is best for the 1983 article because of the fear of having inconsistent naming conventions. I see no good reason as to why two related articles cannot have two separate titles if those individual titles are most representative of the content of their respective articles.

Your argument for having two separate articles is a common practice within the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. I don't see why Formula One should be any different. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears you didn't correctly understand The359's proposal. They are proposing to rename all the season articles to "Formula One in XXXX". They did not agree with your proposal of renaming all the season articles to XXXX World Championship.T v x1 16:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I believe you have misunderstood. My proposal is to split the articles in two for each year from 1950 to 1983. "19XX in Formula One" and "19XX Formula One World Championship" or whatever name is agreed upon to title the championship. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I got that. PM didn't. My point is that you are not agreeing to their proposal of changing all season articles to XXXX World Championship.T v x1 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The359, I won't object to renaming all the season articles to "Formula One in XXXX" (in fact that's how the Dutch wiki does it). However I don't see how it changes much from what we have now. If anything it's merely an aesthetic change. The lead wording has now been corrected in all season articles so that is no longer an issue. As for the defining of a season, we have always tied a season to a year because that's how the sport itself does it. if you look at this you see that the FIA writes "Formula One Season 2017" in the big blue bar. This is also how the regulations are defined. Cars are designed for specific rules for a specific season applying to a specific number of races. Of course there are some rare anomalies and unfortunately occasionally some errors. In the example you mention, you are indeed correct that the 1961 Cape Grand Prix is incorrectly listed in the 1961 season article. From what I find on it. It was indeed part that series of races in South Africa at the end of 1960 and was contested with the 1960 cars. No 1961 cars were there yet nor did new 1961 season regulations appear to apply. Bottom line, we should aim to edge out this errors and (where possible) anomalies (or clearly explain them to the readers) instead of changing all the rest of the content to match those errors and anomalies. As for the common practice of having separate articles within WP:MOTOR brought forward by PM, that's just a blatant untruth. For instance, there are no parent articles for World Rally racing in 2017, American Open Wheel racing in 2017, Touring Car racing in 2017, Endurance Racing in 2017, Grand Prix Motorcycle Racing in 2017, etc. I really don't see how it's helpful to create a parent-daughter article scheme within one specific formula of one class (open-wheel racing) of motorsports. This is just makes things much more confusing, when every reader can now find everything they need to know about one particular season of Formula One in one place. I would not be opposed to creating a parent article on all FIA Open-wheel racing, but splitting up articles on a lower level is really overkill. Also note that we already have parent articles on all motorsport in a given year.T v x1 16:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Your example of how the FIA defines season only applies to the World Championship. We are using season to define something that falls outside the FIA's spectrum because they were non-championship events run by independent organizers with no linking from event to event other than the fact that Formula One cars participated. In fact, many of the non-championship events are defined by the fact that they were run outside the Formula One and FIA regulations. I have to ask, what exactly is the criteria for inclusion in the non-championship events list? The 1962 Cape Grand Prix specifies that closed bodywork was allowed. Is this still a Formula One race or is it Formula Libre? We all know the story of the Brabham BT46B being banned after 1978, yet it raced in an event which we list in 1979 Formula One season. Hell, it wasn't even a race, it was a time trial run with five Formula One cars in a charity event. We list the 1971 Questor Grand Prix, an event held with Formula A/5000 cars alongside Formula One.

My suggestion is not to change things to fix anomalies, my suggestion is to change things to address the fact that non-championship events that we currently list are a completely different realm of event from the World Championship. We currently give zero context or explanation for the non-championship events listed under our season articles, and we give the reader the false sense that they are somehow conjoined into a "season" of some sort. We aren't explaining anything at all, how exactly is the reader understanding things? We have a chart, it lists races, winners, and occasionally links to a report that likely isn't fleshed out. Quite honestly, I'd say it'd be far better for the understanding of a reader to simply remove the non-championship events table and dedicate the season article solely to the World Championship. But I know people aren't going to want to do that. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@The359 –

'But I know people aren't going to want to do that."

I do. Albeit for different reasons, but I agree with every last word that you said.

@Tvc1

"The lead wording has now been corrected in all season articles so that is no longer an issues."

That's not an argument against doing it. With an agreed-upon wording, half a dozen editors could change every article overnight, and a single editor could do it within a week. "It's too much work" is never a valid argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Tvx was discussing time and effort, just that the initial problem I mentioned of various editors fiddling with "XXth season" had been corrected for now. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You raise some good points. You are right about the lack of context and explanation in many of the older season articles and I think it should be added to them. It appears that we should also take out our brooms and make it considerable sweep through the non-championship races in these articles. It looks like through the years every F1-like event was included as a non-championship race. Some F1 season articles even include non-championship F2 races. They should definitely be removed. I really thought that official, full weekend non-championsip races (one with practice, qualifying and a race) were held throughout the history of this sport. Events that don't fit that format should not be included. This means that the time trial, which appears not to be different to a test, should be removed. All in all we need some serious clean-up to do. It still feel however that overhauling the whole naming system of the season articles is an overreaction and therefore unnecessary. As for your question whether or not a race was a F1 race or not, I'm sure we can find an answer for that ion the sources. And lastly, it's not because there has not been any non-championship racing for thirty-three years, that it's guaranteed never to happen again.T v x1 18:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are making editing decisions based on what might happen. You're saying "we can't change the name because there might be non-championship races in the future". That's CRYSTAL by omission. Rather than focus on what might happen, how about we focus on what we can demonstrate through reliable, verifiable sources? Right now, we can demonstrate that the FIA regards the season as the 19XX/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship. You frequently point to FIA documentation as being sacrosanct, so why are you resisting it here? To make matters worse, you are doing so on the basis that at some indeterminate point in the future, the current status quo might change. How about we deal with that if and when it happens, and in the meantime edit based on sources? I got blasted for suggesting that we come up with a plan for how to handle articles if the Scottish and Catalonian referendums affected the races and article naming conventions, but here you are doing the same thing—you're making decisions based on what might or might not happen instead of what is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made any decision at all. Why did you launch in to a rant of personal attack again? Show some respect for the other contributors or stay out of the discussion.T v x1 17:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out the contradiction in your arguments. On the one hand, you argue that the FIA sources are absolute, but here you're disregarding their position and you're doing so on the grounds that the current status quo might change, which violates CRYSTAL. It's difficult to take your arguments here on merit when they contradict your arguments on similar topics elsewhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Pre-qualifying tables

There is a discussion about F1 pre-qualifying tables over at WP:MOTOR. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wehrlein/Australia

There's a discussion in progress regarding whether the 2017 Australian GP should be counted as an entry for Pascal Wehrlein. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Formula One drivers from...

User:Holdenman05 and I had a dispute about the look of timeline in the articles. I prefer the clean format (Formula One drivers from Brazil), that helps easily see all drivers and compare them, while he proposes total mess, example of it we can see in the Formula One drivers from Spain and Formula One drivers from Switzerland articles. Wide tables should be avoided, as they are uncomfortable for users with mobile devices. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have come up with two forms of compromise, which you can see on Formula One drivers from Denmark and Formula One drivers from Venezuela. The information in the form of the Brazil article is merely re-stating what is written above, whereas the others give an easy, visual cue as to when compatriots raced. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the visual format. I'm happy with either the "Denmark" or "Venezuela" formats. DH85868993 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And with Spain or Switzerland? If there no other comments and opposes to visual format within a week from the start of discussion and we decide to keep the visual format, than I suggest to make the table vertical. It will allow not to break timeline to separate tables. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Like this? Even with smaller gaps that would look ridiculous. Holdenman05 (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This was really ridiculous. But this is not Corvus tristis (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Maybe not in this particular version, but there is still a chance for an overlap which is why every driver needs his/her own column. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The chance of mistake is possible everywhere, even in your format. It doesn't mean that we should make table with indefinite width, it is simpler to limit width by the number of drivers per single season. It seems that you never tried to visit Wiki from your mobile phone. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You can always scroll across on mobile, especially if you hold it horizontally. That way the Danish solution would also work, meaning that it (so far) by default would be the format used (pending other involvement). You don't need to submit errors if you use the preview screen. As for indefinite width, that's where the necessary evil comes into play (i.e. the broken-up table). Holdenman05 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course we can scroll, but there is no necessity to overuse the possibility because of one obstinate user who doesn't want to reach a compromise decision and doesn't hear any opinion different from his. At least I am trying too understand your position. But is difficult because you just stuck with one format and doesn't want to do any improving. It is pretty fine with the Japanese drivers. And will work even with British drivers, without stupid breaking of the table. If you want to prove the opposite, than make the table for drivers from the United Kingdom. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A format that is well made in the first place and works for most does not need a complete redux as you are suggesting. I will not create a table for the UK until we reach a consensus here first, as it is simply a waste of time. Your antics are tiring not just for myself but others who will come here wishing to make a valuable contribution, and your complaints and insults about and towards myself are childish. I am only unreasonable if you are, and I'm sure others here will agree. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't work proper due to size and breaks. At least now you have remembered about reaching consensus first. But you are forgetting that some time after the start of the discussion you have started your controversial edits (which are really antics like in the circus). I'm pretty sure that when you create timeline table for the British drivers it will be like a giant disaster which will totally bury the article. Your insults are more mature? And who are the others? Corvus tristis (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The two of you really need to stop bickering. It doesn't lead anywhere. The format used for the Venezuelan and Danish drivers might work in those articles because they deal with barely a handful of drivers. But if you apply it to countries like Switzerland and Spain you get something utterly ridiculous. It's ugly and in some of these articles those timelines take up far more space by themselves than the rest of the articles. The alternative format proposed in Corvus tristis' sandbox doesn't solve the issue at all. If anything it's even more confusing. I can't begin to fear what effect either format would have on Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom. And that's what makes me really think. If you take a look at the Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom article, is there a problem with the way its content is presented? I can't see any. Does it need a timeline? Not for me. Looking at it, that article looks just fine to me. The most important drivers are detailed in the prose. And a list with the other noteworthy drivers is given at the end. So here is my proposal: get rid of those ugly timelines. Focus on providing information in a readable way instead of in a fancy but ununderstandable way. I'm sure our readers can understand what's written in the prose. And I really can't see a desperate need to provide detailed years for every driver from every country in those articles. If readers want to find out more about a particular driver (e.g. when they competed), they're just one click away of finding out in the driver's article.T v x1 14:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's nice to see someone coming up with a logical conclusion for this discussion. I agree in the case of the British drivers, it doesn't necessarily need one due to scale (hence why I never added one, even before this discussion) - however for the sake of consistency I would still like some sort of overall conclusion made that we can apply to all articles; and seeing as many of these articles are on the short side a timeline may be the only solution. I am also working on an article for all the drivers that have been the only representatives of their nation, however seeing as there is only one for each I do not propose the inclusion of a timeline there. This article could also include Rhodesians, although there's an argument to be made that the country no longer exists but is now effectively Zimbabwe so I don't know what we do there. Holdenman05 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, I think that you are right and we should delete the timeline tables from the "Formula One drivers from" articles. As it will be probably impossible to make one timeline format for all the articles that wouldn't take up more space than the rest of the articles. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Holdenman05, an article for all the drivers that have been the only representatives of their nation. This article could also include Rhodesians. Congratulations, you defeated "rarely beaten logic". Corvus tristis (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This argument against me makes no sense. How does including Rhodesians defy logic? Look at the working title - Formula One drivers from Other nations. Rhodesia no longer exists. The only reason it could be under contention for it's own article is because it is mostly modern-day Zimbabwe. Seeing as the rest of the countries have one driver, it would be illogical to include a timeline as they have no-one to "compete against". Holdenman05 (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is any logical connection between the only representatives and the drivers from country that no longer exists? Why Rhodesia is "the other nation"? It had more drivers than India, Russia, Colombia, etc. I hadn't say anything about a timeline in my last comment that I have addressed to you. In my comment to Tvx1 I said that we don't need any timelines at all "Formula one drivers from..." articles, not only in "the other nations" article. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the basis for these articles being notable in the first instance? --Falcadore (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Practiced only versus Withdrawn

As there is no consensus about when to use which one in result tables I thought I would bring it up here. When a driver only participated in practice the result given in the driver's result tables is usually "PO" (Practiced only). As seen here Eddie Irvine Sergio Pérez

However, in the Drivers' standings in the individual seasons pages the result given is a "WD" (Withdrawn). As seen here 2000 2011

For the sake of consistency I think we should make sure that all the pages state the same. Which of the two should we use when a driver only participates in free practice (excluding Friday drivers of course). Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be "WD" in both cases. Both drivers' entries were withdrawn an they were replaced by an other driver.T v x1 14:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Lella Lombardi

Today would have been Lella Lombardi's 75th birthday; I've added her to March 26#Births. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: 76th if born in 1941 or 74th (1943) according to Small, Guinness Complete Grand Prix Who's Who (1994) and Small; Grand Prix Who's Who (3rd ed.) (2000). Anyone else got anything? Eagleash (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also 1943 here but 1941 here (Motor Sport magazine database). Eagleash (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I should have written "76th". I was flipping around articles after today's Aus GP, and for whatever reason, landed on Lella Lombardi - saw 26 March, thought "oh, that's today"; saw "March 1992 (aged 50)" and subtracted 1992 from 2017, giving 25 - and added 50 to that.

I do have a copy of Small (1994). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Alex Zanardi/1993 Belgian Grand Prix

Sources disagree over whether Zanardi was a "DNQ" or a "DNS" at the 1993 Belgian Grand Prix (where he crashed heavily during Friday free practice and was physically unable to drive for the rest of the weekend):

FORIX (subscription site) says "Not started"
grandprix.com says "ns" (i.e. did not start)
formula1.com used to say "DNQ" but now just omits him altogether
StatsF1 says "np" which I believe indicates "did not start"

I think the result should be "DNS" on the basis that although he had not set a qualifying time, I believe he would have been allowed to start the race if he had been physically able, since only 26 cars were entered for the race. What do others think? DH85868993 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Motor Sport magazine database has him as DNP here but Small (1994) states DNS; ditto the 2000 edition. Overall, think that it should be DNS. Eagleash (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Did he apply to the stewards for permission to start despite failing to qualify?T v x1 16:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. DH85868993 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tables in season articles

Having just spent 40 minutes regularising flags on season articles, I can't help thinking it would make quite a lot of sense to try and use a template to help avoid doing the same things over and over again when we have standardised elements of pages like this. This would also have the advantage of ensuring consistency between articles, not just in terms of flags but also in terms of other elements of presentation.

Unfortunately, my template-coding skills are somewhat lacking. Would this be a worthwhile project and do we have any template gurus here who can do the coding? Kahastok talk 10:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Images in article lead

At the moment, a user, Sashaporsche, has been making edits to season articles, removing the images of championship leaders and inserting them—seemingly at random—elsewhere in the article. He is justifying this by claiming that the images in the lead interfere with his view of the article, inserting a large white space that he finds to be ugly, and ignoring the way this affects the way other readers view the article. He has so far refused to engage in conversation, claimimg that because there is no specific Wikipedia rule about the inclusion of images in the lead, he doesn't need to get a consensus. This is actually a very common practice across season articles—Formula One, the WRC, MotoGP, V8 Supercars, the WEC, Formula E, IndyCar and NASCAR all do it (albeit to various degrees depending on picture availability). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I suspect that he is a sock. He has developed the unusual habit of claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is offending him, and threatening to run to the admins. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

A sock of whom??? Just because someone makes some controversial edits to an article it doesn't straight away make them a sockpuppet of someone. That is a very serious allegation. One that needs specific evidence. Moreover, looking at the discussion you had on their talk page, you were the first one to bring up asking administrators' intervention. Given that this user has been on wikipedia for 8 years without any block I feel these allegations are misplaced. This user is also a regular contributor to the F1 articles on the Dutch wiki and based one my interactions there with them I have no reason to assume bad faith. Oh and you misspelled their name, as a result of which the ping didn't work. Both of you need to stop berating each other and start cooperating. For the record, I agree that moving pictures to random spots in these articles is wrong. This pictures or carefully placed where there are because they are intended to complement the text they are put next to. I don't think the white-space issue is so problematic that it necessitates some action. I do think however that in the 2017 season article some of the pictures are too big, unnecessarily exacerbating the problem. I refer in particular to the pictures of Vettel, Rosberg and Bottas. Moreover I think it would be better to crop the image of Vettel somewhat, so that only his head is displayed.T v x1 20:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"A sock of whom???"

Lucy-marie. She hasn't been a problem for years, but the editor in question has displayed some very specific behaviours that Lucy also used to display—such as claiming that editors needed to form a consensus to continue established editing practices more than she needed a consensus to change said practices; demanding that editors "co-operate" with her when she means dropping any disagreements and immediately accepting her edits; and trying to make out that any disagreement over content amounts to an ad hominem attack. Maybe it's just coincidence, but it's curiously-specific behaviour to be sharing with a notoriously disruptive serial sockpuppeteer.

"This pictures or carefully placed where there are because they are intended to complement the text they are put next to."

A point completely lost on said editor. They make edits based on what benefits them with no regard for the way their changes affect other readers.

"I do think however that in the 2017 season article some of the pictures are too big, unnecessarily exacerbating the problem. I refer in particular to the pictures of Vettel, Rosberg and Bottas."

If it's problematic, it can be adjusted by tweaking the parameters such as the width. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to accuse someone of being a sock puppet, you have to go to WP:SPI, not here. These are serious allegations and honestly I think you got it wrong here. You're simply overreacting to the removal of picture and the short discussion accompanying it. Also, note that this user was already active before Lucy-marie's indefblock and remember that you have gotten sockpuppet allegations wrong in the past. It's also worth noting that this user is fluent in Dutch. Is there any evidence Lucy-marie is as well. I'm going to ping Saschaporsche, since your ping didn't work.T v x1 15:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

ITNR discussion

A discussion which may be of relevance to this WikiProject is being held ITNR, to discuss the status of Indianapolis 500 and Monaco Grand Prix on the ITN Recurring items list. Input welcome. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to F1 driver infobox

An editor has proposed adding the driver's three-letter abbreviation as used on the TV broadcasts to the F1 driver infobox. Interested editors are welcome to express their views at Template talk:Infobox F1 driver#abbreviations?. (I thought I would advertise the discussion here as I wasn't sure how many people would have the template on their watchlist). DH85868993 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Olivier Beretta/1994 Spanish Grand Prix

Sources disagree regarding Olivier Beretta's result at the 1994 Spanish Grand Prix, where (according to User:Bigmike) he retired on the parade lap:

FORIX (subscription site) and Sky Sports F1 say "DNS"
StatsF1 says 'np' (which I believe means "did not start")
formula1.com says "DNF"
grandprix.com says 'r' (= "Retired")
ChicaneF1 says "ret"

So what do we think: "DNS" or "Ret"? DH85868993 (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Small 3rd Ed. (2000) states DNS ("engine failed on parade lap"), as does Motor Sport (magazine) archive (same reason given) here. Eagleash (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity, you can see the incident on the parade lap here [1] at 1:20 so there is no question of it being factually incorrect, just lack of attention to detail by primary sources. Bigmike (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Bigmike. BTW, when I wrote "according to User:Bigmike", I wasn't meaning to question the validity of your statement - apologies if it came across that way. DH85868993 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries it didn't, everything is taken in good faith :) Bigmike (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed it in the articles of Beretta, Larousse, Larousse's 94 car and the 1994 season as well.T v x1 16:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And I've fixed List of Formula One drivers. I think that's everything now. DH85868993 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Also for a note, Damon Hill retired on the warm up lap of the 1997 Australian Grand Prix. - J man708 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are many examples of this. Sebastian Vettel suffered an engine failure during the warm-up lap of the 2016 Bahrain Grand Prix while Daniil Kvyat and Kevin Magnussen even retired while driven from the pit lane to the grid for the 2015 Australian Grand Prix.T v x1 16:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Still, nothing beats Perry McCarthy lasting 18 metres in pre-qualifying. - J man708 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Drivers' standings after the 2017 Chinese GP

For the sake of accuracy and verifiability, consistency between our articles and our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view, I think we need to try to agree exactly what the Drivers' Champions standings were at the end of the 2017 Chinese Grand Prix, and how the table showing them should be filled to represent that. The reason I think this is important is because the standings at that stage are stated differently in 2017 Chinese Grand Prix and 2017 Bahrain Grand Prix articles. This was originally discussed at Talk:2017 Formula One season#Championship leader (after 2 races), but as inclusion in that season article was only for the few days remaining until the Bahrain GP had run, it was left undecided there and that article was left with the disputed standings data until it changed, and became history, following the Bahrain GP.

The problem is that Vettel and Hamilton were equal on points and had one first and one second place each at the end of the Chinese GP, but there was no consensus amongst the reliable sources as to what the standings were: some gave Vettel as first and Hamilton as second, others gave it the other way round and others gave them as equal first.

My preference was to give them both the same placing numbers, and to arrange them in alphabetical order (random and neutral). Other editors had other ideas.

Can we please discuss this, providing reliable sources to support assertions. Thank you.

Pinging all the other editors involved in that original discussion and who have edited the standings data in either of the two GP articles @OZOO, Mark McWire, Prisonermonkeys, The359, QueenCake, Tvx1, Sabbatino, Wicka wicka, Zwerg Nase, DragonFury, Respublik, Babymissfortune, and FactualCollector7d1: with apologies if I've missed anyone. -- de Facto (talk). 19:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"My preference was to give them both the same placing numbers, and to arrange them in alphabetical order (random and neutral)."

We cannot do that. The overwhelming majority of sources place one driver ahead of the other. Even if the sources contradict one another as to who was in front, the one thing that they all agree upon is that the drivers were not joint championship leaders. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If we can't find an RS consensus on order, then the only NPOV solution would appear to be not to give either a lead over the other. -- de Facto (talk). 22:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that's OR since none of the sources support it. The best thing to do would be to tally up as many sources as we can find and count how many put Vettel in front and how many put Hamilton in front. I have noticed that a lot of the British press put Hamilton in front, but the wider international coverage puts Vettel in the lead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the FIA Sporting Regulations, If drivers are tied on both points and finishes in every position, then the "FIA will nominate the winner according to such criteria as it thinks fit". This means that the standings of Vettel and Hamilton after the Chinese GP are at the discretion of the FIA. The only piece of evidence that I can find that shows the FIA's disposition on the matter is this document. It places Vettel above Hamilton in the championship standings. While by itself this could be coincidental, a very similar situation happens a few lines down. There we can see that Vandoorne is placed above Palmer in the standings with Vandoorne having a 13th place in Australia and a DNF in China, and Palmer having a DNF in Australia and a 13th place in China. From these standings, as both examples go against alphabetical order, it appears that the FIA has implied that the criteria it thinks fit is the chronological order of finishes, in which the driver who achieved the better result first is placed above the other driver in question. From this, I think that the best approach would be to put Vettel above Hamilton in the standings after China. However, I think we can all agree that the most important thing is for the approach to be uniform across all articles. Thank you, -- FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that using the chronological order of finishes (i.e. Vettel was first in the standings after the first race, thus he remains first in a tie) is the best way to do this, particularly since that's the way FOM does it. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I wrote most of the 2017 Chinese F1 GP article (most of the tables were added by others, which I appreciated as it is a task I wasn't looking forward to doing), and I plan on adding to the article and nominating it for GA, and the slow-motion edit war over the championship order would kill that nomination, so I am hugely in favour of this dispute being resolved. I recognise that, per WP:OWN, this means that I have absolutely no more power / authority / control over content, but as a newcomer to this WikiProject, I thought it worth noting that I am not just a random passer-by. FYI, I have followed F1 since Villeneuve's rookie year / Damin Hill's championship year in 1996. To be open about my biases, I am a Hamilton fan and have disliked Vettel since some of his unsporting behaviour at Red Bull towards Mark Webber, though I like to think of myself as fair and would readily concede that Hamilton's penalty at Bahrain was thoroughly deserved, for example. My view on this topic has been that Hamilton and Vettel were equal on points (everyone agrees on this) and while my personal inclination would be to treat them as equal first (as order really only matters at the end of the season), I heard Sky Sports F1 coverage that the order determined by the FIA places Vettel first on chronological grounds (consistent with the evidence FactualCollector7d1 notes), and I can see no basis on which other sources could lead us to disregard the FIA determination. I don't see this as a place for a consensus view but rather a following of the only RS which is definitive, and absent evidence that the FIA has contradicted itself somewhere, I can only conclude that 1. Vettel, 2. Hamilton is the official position. If no one can point to an FIA source to dispute this conclusion, and no one can fault my reasoning (and I am open to being corrected if I am wrong), then I see there is only one possible position which WP can take that is policy compliant. Possibly if there was a wealth of material disputing the FIA conclusion then an exploration in the text of different views might be warranted. Absent further evidence, I propose listing Vettel as first and adding a note on the reasons in the table and in the text. I also would welcome any comment / suggestions on what is needed for the article to reach GA standard. I have specific plans but all other contributions are valued, of course. Regards, EdChem (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Without an RS to support it though, that theory about how the FIA makes up its mind is only hearsay, so probably cannot be included. And as we saw in the other discussion about this in the season article, there is no clear consensus amongst RSs about the order, and even different pages on the FIA website apparently contradicted each other (although the FIA pages have been superseded now since the 3rd race). I think the best we can do with, the RSs we so far have, is describe the uncertainty and not try to call it. -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

4th and 5th in the 1988 WCC

There's a discussion in progress at Talk:1988 Formula One season#4th and 5th in the WCC regarding which team (Lotus or Arrows) finished 4th in the 1988 WCC and which finished 5th. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Red Bull Racing

An editor has claimed that Red Bull raced under a British licence for their first 2 seasons (2005 & 2006). They have pointed to the fr.Wiki page where this is stated but not sourced. It is quite possible that a UK licence was in force in the early years as the team was effectively a continuation of Jaguar. Can't find anything on the web to verify this though. Anyone got any relevant information or know where to find it? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the takeover in name was pretty sudden back then, which would support the hypothesis that the licence remained the same. But I could not find out more than that so far, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Back in 2005, formula1.com simply called them "Austrian-owned": [2]. Does that point to them having a Brisith licence while being Austrian-owned? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Zwerg, the Autosport article refers to a 'change of name' (if I've read it correctly) which might indicate that the team continued with the same licence but under a different name. The second link also indicates that, as you say but it is not altogether definite. Eagleash (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's two things we need to source here. Red Bull Racing using a British license initially and Red Bull Racing chancing their license in between 2006 and 2007 and not before or after. I always remembered them originally competing under the British flag but struggle to find conclusive sources as well.T v x1 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Doing some more digging I found this reliable source. It states that Red Bull would be applying for an Austrian license. The source article was published in June 2006, so at that point they were still using a British license. However, I still haven't found conclusive evidence as to when their license was changed.T v x1 11:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Intereted editors are welcome to join in the conversation. DH85868993 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The RFC has been closed. DH85868993 (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

2019 Formula One season

FYI, 2019 Formula One season has been recreated and nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Test/reserve driver duties in the RACING record section

IMHO, it should be covered in a text form rather than in a section which covers racing record stats not testing. I.e. Pedro de la Rosa, Adrian Sutil, etc. What do you think? Corvus tristis (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Casimiro de Oliveira/1958 Portuguese Grand Prix

There's a discussion in progress at Talk:Casimiro de Oliveira regarding whether or not de Oliveira was entered for the 1958 Portuguese Grand Prix. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Pirelli

An editor has proposed that the rather long section on Formula One tyre issues, currently located in the Pirelli article, be moved to Formula One tyres. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sauber in 1993

Does anyone know what the official title of the Sauber team was during the 1993 season?, I cant find any solid sources so Its displayed as "Team Sauber F1" as that's what it says on the drivers overalls but I was wondering if that's correct and if anyone here has anything better then old pictures? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not "official" sources by any means, but both FORIX (subscription site) and ChicaneF1 list the entrant for the (season-opening) 1993 South African Grand Prix as just "Sauber" (and likewise for the season-ending Australian GP, so I presume (without checking) that it's the same for the whole season). DH85868993 (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Small; Complete Grand Prix Who's Who (3rd edition, 2000) also just gives the entries as merely 'Sauber'. Eagleash (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The Entry List in the Official Programme for the 1993 Foster's Australian Grand Prix lists the Entrant as Sauber. GTHO (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Race flags in season articles

Apparently "There is a longstanding consensus on Formula 1-related articles that the flags should be the flags of the country where the race took place, not based on whatever arbitrary name happens to be used", leading to the situation wherein @Kahastok: insists that races such as the 1982 Swiss Grand Prix need to be shown with the French flag, as the race was held in Dijon, France. I understand their point, but think that it is completely ridiculous, as this is an encyclopedia built around user-friendliness and this "consensus" completely goes against that logic. I guarantee you that you'll find IP editors finding these incorrect flags and making the good faith edits that to change them to the nationality of the race name.

So, we're left with two options. Keep the way that Kahastok has insisted upon, wherein the location of the races dictate the flag, or this proposition wherein...

RULE 1) - The flag is dictated primarily by the country naming the F1 race in question.

RULE 2) - Races named after multinational unions/continents shall utilise their continental union flags (ie.

European,

Pacific, African, etc). This overrides issues where the country in question isn't apart of the union (ie. Japan is only a dialogue partner with the Pacific Community, Azerbaijan isn't a European Union member, etc).

RULE 3) - Should Rules 1 and 2 not apply, we maintain the nationality of the location of the race (when named after states, provinces, counties, casinos, etc).

In short, we'd see these amendments:
1950 Indianapolis 500 - Maintaining the nationality of the location. (Rule 3)
1957 Pescara Grand Prix - Maintaining the nationality of the location. (Rule 3)
1977 United States Grand Prix West - Aligning flag with race name and also maintaining the nationality of the location. (Rules 1 and 3)
1981 San Marino Grand Prix - Aligning flag with race name. (Rule 1)
1981 Caesars Palace Grand Prix - Maintaining the nationality of the location. (Rule 3)
1982 Detroit Grand Prix - Maintaining the nationality of the location. (Rule 3)
1982 Swiss Grand Prix - Aligning flag with race name. (Rule 1)
1983 European Grand Prix - Race named after multinational union, further disambiguating from the British race. (Rule 2)
1984 Dallas Grand Prix - Maintaining the nationality of the location. (Rule 3)
1994 Pacific Grand Prix - Race named after multinational union, further disambiguating from the Japanese race. (Rule 2)
1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix - Aligning flag with race name. (Rule 1)
2009 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix - Maintaining the nationality of the location. (Rule 3)

This would clear up any future foreseeable issues that could arise and also would make navigation of the pages much more user friendly. - J man708 (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm the long standing consensus does exist and nothing needs to actually change. This has been thrashed out over years of discussion and there is nothing new that could possibly be added to the discussion that has already taken place. I suggest prior to you taking this topic any further, that J man708 reads over the past discussion before any action on a new discussion takes place.

In short, review what has already happened before re-hasing old arguments. --Falcadore (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could give reasons as to why the current consensus is better? - J man708 (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the above user is one of a few refusing to accept anything else than the current consensus regarding flags. I don't believe that this having been discussed before disqualifies discussing it again. J man708: We could actually always use the name of the named locations as well. This would produce the following:

1950 Indianapolis 500

1957 Pescara Grand Prix

1977 United States Grand Prix West

1981 San Marino Grand Prix

1982 Detroit Grand Prix

1982 Swiss Grand Prix

1983 European Grand Prix

1984 Dallas Grand Prix

1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix

2009 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

I can't put the Caesars Palace Grand Prix in that list because its flag file is on Wikipedia under fair use meaning I cannot post it on a talk page. Alternatively the flag of Las Vegas could be used for that race (i.e.

1981 Caesars Palace Grand Prix). The clear of advantage of this is that it would vastly improve the accessibility of the tables. When trying to find out the results of a certain race in a championship results table the flags are very handy tool to scan for the particular race you're looking for. However, if I read the 1982 season article and I want to find out the results of the 1982 US Grand Prix (west), I'm met with three US Flags in the results table. That's unnecessarily confusing. The above system would be providing each race with its distinctive icon making navigation easier. Regardless, at the very least we should use the flags of the nations organizing the Grands Prix. This means using San Marino, Luxembourg and Swiss flags for the namesake races as the national governing bodies for racing in those countries actually organized those races and those races were subjected to those countries' laws (e.g. Tobacco advertising was allowed during the Luxembourg Grands Prix even though it wasn't in Germany). Dignitaries from the namesake countries were also in charge of presenting the trophies after the race. Regarding the rule 2 you propose, that has some flaws. I have no qualms with using the European flag as every race which hosted such a Grand Prix is represented by that flag. Even Azerbaijan. The reason for this is that the European flag is primarily the flag of the Council of Europe an organization of which Azerbaijan is a member. The CoE created the flag in 1955 as a symbol to represent the entire European continent. The European only adopted it themselves thirty years later, instead of creating their own unique flag. The flag of Europe has actively been used though to represent the whole of Europe though. Case in point, the Ryder Cup, use the flag of Europe for the European team even though players from outside the European Union can represent that team as well. The European Grand Prix itself is clearly named after the continent and not after the multinational union. The problem with rule 2 is the Pacific Grand Prix. That event is not named after or associated with the Pacific Community or its flag in any way. The race is named after a geographical region or even an ocean. Using the Pacific flag is a big leap there. Moreover, the Pacific Grand Prix article deals with editions held in the US as well. This makes the use of the Pacific flag (and even the current use of the Japanese one) in that article inappropriate. It would be much more appropriate to use the flag of the community which hosted the race (i.e.

1994 Pacific Grand Prix)).T v x1 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice ideas, Tvx1. Using state/provincial flags works well for Champ Car/NASCAR races on their articles. I'm very happy with your proposal, but would like to try look into other options for just the Pacific GP flag, not that using the Okayama flag is wrong or anything, I just feel that a name as broad as the Pacific GP could use with a broader flag, but that's just me. Cheers Tvx1! - J man708 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS#FLAG, subnational flags should not be used to represent something unless the article is specifically about that subnational state. They are not easily identifiable to the common public. So no, state flags should not be used. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG is a guideline, not a rule. Not even a policy. The presence of the flags itself isn't entirely MOS compliant in the first place. Also, Templates, Mouseovers, Links. They are presented in a way that makes them easily identifiable. Moroever, in these cases the content IS directly related to the subnational entities. Lastly I didn't use state but city flags.T v x1 17:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

CART (both Champ Car and IndyCar included) and NASCAR are mostly American championships and they are quite different from F1. The flags are fine as they are now and there is no need to change them. San Marino GPs should use the Sammarinese flag, American GPs (all of them regardless of race's name) should use the United States' flag, Pacific GPs should use the Japanese flag, and the list goes on... The country, where the race is being held, should dictate the race's flag. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I never took those championships into account in my proposal. The races discussed are F1 races and I simply use the flag of the city named after. Pescara isn't even in the US.T v x1 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:The359. Pescara, Detroit, Dallas, Abu Dhabi and other city flags are not easy to identify, while when you see the national flag you can easily understand in which country a Grand Prix was held. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, while we may not be strictly required to follow MOS:FLAG it has good reasons for its requirements and I see little reason to override them here. Who knows what the Pescara city flag looks like? We might as well just not bother with flags and just pick a colour for each race.

Sabbatino: The country, where the race is being held, should dictate the race's flag. San Marrinese GPs are held in Italy. Hence the Italian flag. You can't have it both ways. --Falcadore (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I mistakenly mixed the San Marino part and now my thought is a two-way deal... I know that San Marino GP was held in Italy, but name should mean something. How it would look if we posted a German flag next to Luxembourg GP? – Sabbatino (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

In terms of changes to the status quo, I'd move the flags from the names of the races to the locations, so that we'd have

Imola instead of

San Marino Grand Prix. But I don't think there's a consistent rule that we can adopt - other than to always use the actual host country - that doesn't raise significant problems of its own. Kahastok talk 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This again? Really? Shall we resurrect those users who got indef blocked over this? Stick to what we've got, for God's sake. MOSFLAG is a pain in the proverbial, but let's not forget – the rule we established about flags representing the country in which races are held was a compromise. MOSFLAG adherents wanted us to stop using flags altogether, and they very nearly got their way. MOSFLAG is just a guideline, but you do need a pretty good reason to deviate from it. We don't have a good reason. We don't actually need any flags at all, and lots of people will be very quick to point that out (again) if we're going to dig up obscure flags to put on F1 pages. Let's not rock this boat again, it's full of holes already. In fact, if any plan goes ahead to use the flags of Pescara and Detroit and suchlike, I will side with the MOSFLAG guys and advocate removal of all flags representing races on F1 pages. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion for a compromise is actually similar to Bretonbanquet's, remove flags from race article pages, leave flags solely for the circuit listed in the calender, and remove flags from the results matricies. Teams and drivers can retain flags, but events do not inherently represent a country as drivers and teams do. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Having been discussed before does not mean it can't be discussed again. But it does mean that questions can be answered without yet another month long debate.

Just asking that research be performed.

Also it should be remembered that the best way to dissipate any confusion is to click onto the provided link. If someone is confused by

San Marino Grand Prix, then you click on the link. It is explained in the first paragraph. This is exactly the purpose of hotlinking and you should not be dismissive of this exceedingly common Wikipedia function. --Falcadore (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Corvus tristis and Kahastok, as I had already explained, these flags are actually self-identifying. They are generated through templates which are programmed to tell the readers what they stand for. You just have to put your mouse over them to find out. That the readers don't have pre-existing knowledge of their meaning doesn't matter at all. The MOS:FLAGS wording was adopted well before the development of said technologies. Right now, even blind people using screen readers are told what these flags stand for. In casu, the race calendars would function as natural legends and one can easily scan for the race results of a particular Grand Prix in the results tables using the same icons they encountered in said calendar. Its user friendly in every possible way. Using the same icon multiple times with separate content within the same table isn't.T v x1 02:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, adding to the point, in the Wikiproject Football pages, we show clubs like Swansea City (a Welsh team playing in the English league) as English, Wellington Phoenix (a New Zealand team playing in the Australian league) and AS Monaco (a Monegasque team playing in the French league) as French. We show the 1956 Olympics as being Australian, despite Equestrian events held in Sweden. Why should F1 be solely different and show that races such as the San Marino GP as Italian? Simply put, we've got issues wherein blanket rules aren't set. It's annoying. There's no one place to bring this up, which incorporates all sports. The reason why we need a change is because we're currently left with this:

AS Monaco - French club, playing geographically in Monaco, shown as French.

Swansea City - English name, English club, playing geographically in Wales, shown as English.

San Marino GP - Sammarinese organisers, "playing" geographically in Italy, shown as Italian.

Luxembourg GP - Luxembourgish name, Luxembourg tobacco laws, "playing" geographically in Germany, shown as German.

Come on, surely we need to disambiguate this? - J man708 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, what about mobile users who need to load another page to find out? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't they currently already have to load another page to see why the San Marino GP has an Italian flag? - J man708 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

IMHO it is less evil than obscure city flags. My proposal is to use in the tables abbreviations of the circuits instead of the Grand Prix names, it helps to keep geographical connection for flags like in the calendar table, it works fine with 2016 GP2 Series article. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If San Marinese organisers is the defining characteristic, then we had better change the 1980 Italian Grand Prix to San Marino. That's your logic.

If it is down to who organises the race then the European flag could never be used because there is no pan-European motor racing organising body. There are the national bodies and the FIA. Same with Pacific Grand Prix, organisers were Japanese.

Tobacco laws? Since when has tobacco laws even been in the vicinity of defining? Luxembourgh GP has German organisers. Nationality of organisation was important for San Marino but it's not important for Luxembourgh? There are so many holes in your arguments.

You are effectively asking for selective arguments be used for any race you do not agree with, purely to back your belief that the name of the race rules above all. --Falcadore (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh but wait, you aren't even consistent to your own beliefs because you are fine with the United States flag representing Caesar's Palace GP. Because a picture of a statue of Julius Caesar would be silly. Oh wait the organisers were from the casino can we create a picture of a roulette wheel into a flagicon?

I'm sorry J man708 you are just all over the shop. And you've not even brouched to subject of non-championship races. Because this is a Formula One project so what we decide represents all of Formula One, not just the World Championship. How is your methodology going to cope with these races? Do you even care?

Flag of the country it is held in is consistent and effective. --Falcadore (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying for the umpteenth time is that we need a set of rules which actually make sense. As Tvx1 showed, I'm clearly open to ideas, suggestions and changes, but the current system showing the San Marino/Luxembourg races is surely incorrect. Rather than sticking your head in the sand or trying to bombard me with constant reasons why you think my suggestion doesn't work, perhaps you could address the point I made before about the football clubs and why a blanket rule for sporting anomalies such as this can't be created?

Also, for the record, the 1980 Italian Grand Prix would be shown as Italian, seeing as that would abide by Rule 1 of my suggestion. You're coming off sounding vicious now. Chill. - J man708 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to compare football with F1 in any sense. We're not here to follow what other WPs do. I'm increasingly inclined to abandon flag usage for races since these arguments will never go away and Christ, they're tedious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Bretonbanquet that football has no relevance here at all. There are dozens of examples both directions to be found in other sports. We could go on forever citing examples from other sports.

Head in the sand? It is quite clear there is no defence for Luxembourg. It is entirely cosmetic in nature. The 1997 revival of the Lux GP name only happenned because the European Grand Prix name was already in use for the second race in Spain at Jerez as a replacement for the cancelled Portuguese Grand Prix. Two years later the Nurburgring race name changed to European with the clash no longer in place.

As another example of the silliness of this argument, Nurburgring once hosted the only German GP one year because Hockneheim was refusing to share the German Grand Prix name during off years of their alternating arrangement.

You say that I'm unwilling to compromise, the compromise was made in previous versions of this debate over the last decade. You don't want to respect those compromises because you don't want to read those discussions. Just because you don't see the compromise does not mean it does not exists.

You say I should look at football team examples while making no consideration that Formula One is not the exclusive domain of the World Championship and Grand Prix racing likewise is not exclusive to Formula One or the World Championship. There have been Grands Prix held in many countries under many names, New Zealand, Rhodesia, Cuba, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Pau, Bari, Albi, Syracuse, Meditterreanean, Geneva, Ireland, Lviv, Coppa Acerbo (real name of Pescara), Masaryk, Detriot, Dallas, Oulton Park's Gold Cup, names given to Newspapers, San Sebastian and yet they can all be ignored in favour of football teams? You will not consider examples already within the sport.

Doesn't this just boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT ? --Falcadore (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. The situation we have now is as a result of compromise on all sides, which took a long time to reach. What J man708 and others are suggesting is that this compromise be abandoned, which is just a recipe for further arguments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it boils down to common sense. A race called the Luxembourg GP, which contained the Luxembourgish tobacco advertising laws (which went against the German laws), Luxembourgish dignitaries presenting trophies should be seen as German? Yeah, righty-o. The pre-existing races which are named after things (such as companies, papers, casinos), as I said in my first post could be classed under Rule 3, wherein they'd be defined by locale of the track.

Honestly, I'd rather see the flags gone than showing the incorrect flags for San Marino and Luxembourg. - J man708 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly sensible. Nobody cares about tobacco advertising laws or which suits handed out the trophies. The track was in Germany, hence the German flag. Couldn't be simpler. That's the rationale behind the flags. Totally with you on dumping the flags if it means we don't have to have stupid conversations every couple of years. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no clear logic in the choice of flag in the less obvious circumstances. Whichever way the consensus is, or changes to, it won't please all current editors, and will continue to baffle new editors, so will remain a bone of contention. Either way, it continues to conflict with MOS:FLAGS. For these reasons, I would support dropping the flags for all races. -- de Facto (talk). 19:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You can add my name to the list of people happy to dump the flags if it means not having this conversation over and over again. DH85868993 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

For info, earlier discussions on the topic may be found here, here and here. Feel free to add any others of which you are aware. DH85868993 (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Common sense? No clear logic?

The logic has always been clear. J Man is simply advocating a multiple of different rules to suit his own view. Of the dozen or so different Formula One races held across Italy, J Man says that San Marino must be the sole exception and carry the San Marino flag. You want one exception from all the Italian races because the name says San Marino. All the Italian races have different names but this Italian race is not Italian because it has a flag of convenience name because The Other Italian Grand Prix or Italian Grand Prix II was not used.

Luxembourg race was held at the Nurburgring. The same race has been held at the same venue, run by the same staff and yet somehow the race is no longer German because the name of the race was changed. Three times. And one of those changes was because Hockenheim race organisers decided they didn't want to share the name German Grand Prix.

The name is the ONLY thing Luxembourg related and that was dropped like a hotcake that moment "European Grand Prix" became free.

The names are essentially meaningless. Why cling to that? You say it is incorrect, but it is not. Not even remotely. Correct implies hard facts, but it is only your opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that last year, when the race in Azerbaijan was officially called the European Grand Prix, F1.com used the Azerbaijan flag (not the flag of the EU). Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet. Also, feels like this discussion has become extremely complicated when it doesn't need to be. Do the flags indicate the name of the race or the actual location? Is it confusing, in the latter case, if the flag icon doesn't align with the text next to it? These are pretty simply questions that we should be able to discuss without sniping at one another. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DH for the links. The logic hasn't "always been clear". If it were, you wouldn't have IP editors changing the flags, would you? The names are meaningless? Hah! Tell that to the FIA and their rule of "one race per country" and the nations who may find ways around it. Look, we know each other's stance on this. I've had yours shoved down my throat and am sticking to it. As has been mentioned many times before this by others, if it makes the arguments and ambiguity stop, then it's better to ditch the flags altogether. - J man708 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

We should care about nothing more than what makes these articles best for the people reading them. Regular users don't care at all about our petty arguments. To make a decision based solely on that is childish and idiotic. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Too many times issues are created by people wanting what's best for them and not what's best for the encyclopedia. - J man708 (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Vote: Simply put, should we just ditch the flags entirely on season and race articles, seeing as how there is too much ambiguity surrounding race names?

Yes - My view is that some races just don't conform to norms. They can be held in other countries, some are named after provinces and newspapers and some are even held in casino car parks. Because of this, a flag system is only going to cause issues. There's no definitive right or wrong answer, so the best thing to do is to show nothing at all. - J man708 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No - The current 2017 season article has the flag icons next to the race circuit, not the grand prix name. This means that the flag will always indicate the physical location of the track. I don't think this is ambiguous at all. Furthermore, I am extremely hesitant to remove anything from an article without a damn good reason. Readers aren't going to know about this conversation and will just feel like something is missing. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

While I hesitate to bring this up again, I note that List of Formula One Grands Prix is currently out of step with other articles on this. If there's no consensus for change to the standing consensus I'm inclined to say we should go in and bring it into line. There's a table done by Grand Prix name, so I guess the best thing in that table is to use {{Noflag}} for the European Grand Prix and both Swiss and French flags (in that order) for the Swiss Grand Prix? Kahastok talk 11:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that what the "By venue" table should be about, the anomalies of those races? It would be easier to remove all flags associated to race nationalities like this, only showing the nationalities of teams and drivers, where it's a lot more stable. - J man708 (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

EDIT - Either that, or showing the naming country's flag on the race table and the race's venue location country on the location table? - J man708 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's consensus for removing flags in the general case. My own view is that I don't strongly object to removing them but am a touch concerned that the TLAs in the tables are not always obvious.

That said, in the By race title section of that article, I am inclined to agree that getting rid of the flags is a good idea. But if we are to have flags in the Races by season section, they should be consistent with the season articles. Kahastok talk 14:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The List of Formula One Grands Prix was perfectly in line with the season articles until you changed the flags in them a short while ago. The flags in the table done by Grand Prix name are the ones decided upon through consensus on that article's talk page. So are the flags in the races per season section. Using the flags of the venue's nation in the "by Grand Prix name" section only creates confusion as that's not the scope of the section. In fact, there is a dedicated by host country section for that. It simply isn't feasible as there some grands prix which have taken place in multiple countries.T v x1 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kahastok, that's ridiculous. You'd only be prepared to delete the flags where they're listed by race title? Talk about having your cake and eating it, too. That only adds to the disambiguation. - J man708 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, my only mild concern with deleting the flags is that the tables topped with TLAs might not be very clear without them. That article doesn't have any TLAs. If removal were the consensus I would not particularly oppose it.

As to Tvx's point Using the flags of the venue's nation in the "by Grand Prix name" section only creates confusion as that's not the scope of the section. - well, note that I suggested using blank space in cases where a race name was used in multiple countries, or removing them entirely. When the San Marino name is used for a second Italian Grand Prix I see no reason not to use the Italian flag for it in that table - but I can quite see that putting four different flags and then the European Grand Prix is undesirable.

That said if the project is insistent that the articles be inconsistent and that List of Formula One Grands Prix must break WP:MOSFLAG, then there's not a lot of point in pushing this too far. But if that's the conclusion of this discussion, I would expect the discussion to come back. Kahastok talk 09:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Save that it was not a "second Italian Grand Prix", but a San Marino Grand Prix organized by the Sammarinese motorsport authority. You clearly have no clue about the workings of the organizing of a Grand Prix, yet you insist on knowing what's the only way forward. As for breaking MOS:FLAGS, writing

San Marino "breaks" it even more than writing

San Marino because you willing combine a country name with the flag of a different country. It's also clearly at odds with the "people don't know all the flags" argument, as this jeopardizes recognizability even more.T v x1 16:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

100% with Tvx1 and would like to add "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." There's literally no foot to stand on to show San Marino as Italian! Showing San Marino with the Italian flag is not easy to comprehend for the average reader. This is exactly why IP addresses edit the articles in question and show it with the flag of the race's name. This is what shits me about Wikipedia. People filibuster the crap out of any changes to the point people give up.

EDIT - It's not a second Italian GP at all. If it were, surely they'd call it Italy GP West or something. They set the precedent for that in the 80's. If the FIA in all their infinite logic can disambiguate it with a Sammarinese flag, then surely we can, too? Hell, the MotoGP wiki pages currently show the San Marino flag, too! (As well as flags of sub-national zones!) - J man708 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

So, where do we stand on this issue, guys? - J man708 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

By my reading, there's no consensus for any change here. That means, the season articles stay at the flags of the countries where they were held, and List of Formula One Grands Prix stays a confused mix of unrelated flags with no particular system. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at how abusive you and Tvx1 got given the history of the question, but given how relatively small a point it is I was surprised nonetheless. Kahastok talk

Abusive? How on Earth were we abusive?!... Of course it's a small point, but when it causes an argument or discussion, then it's still a valid topic to bring up. - J man708 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, but I don't think we were abusive. I really don't see why that personal attack was necessary.T v x1 09:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No response? Lovely.

Could we please find a resolution to this issue? It's not going to go away by avoiding talking about it. - J man708 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, seeing as there's now no response here, I'm assuming that nobody now objects to this? I'll change them in a few days then. - J man708 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion came to a natural end well over a month ago. Please drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Kahastok talk 21:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It didn't though. You just stopped responding rudely when I asked how Tvx1 and I were "abusive". I am trying to come to some sort of resolution to this. As an encyclopedia, we should disambiguate stuff like this as much as we can. - J man708 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We reached a resolution. There was no consensus for any particular change so the existing consensus stands. Drop The Stick. Kahastok talk 17:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

A resolution where you called Tvx1 and I abusive and then stopped responding? Yeah, that's helpful. Perhaps you should try WP:DBAD? - J man708 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sauber C20 photos

An editor has cast doubt over the photos used in the Sauber C20 article. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Vettel/Hamilton in Baku and related articles

Can we all keep an eye out for discussions about Vettel's contact with Hamilton in Baku? Not just in the obvious articles (Sebastian Vettel, Lewis Hamilton and 2017 Azerbaijan Grand Prix), but in relates ones, too. I've seen a few instances where it is mentioned claiming that Vettel deliberately hit Hamilton, and in the rare instance where a source is provided, the source does not support the claim. Some of it I'm sure is an attempt to undermine Vettel, but mostly it seems to stem from uncertainty. Vettel deliberately pulled alongside Hamilton, that much is certain, but whether or not he intended to hit Hamilton is open to interpretation. The only source I have seen supporting the theory that it was deliberate is Hamilton's opinion on the matter, but he has no way of knowing what Vettel was thinking, tried to get Vettel in more trouble with the stewards, and is probably annoyed that Vettel served the penalty and came out ahead of him, so he's hardly a decent source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert Doornbos/2005 German Grand Prix

An editor has stated that Robert Doornbos raced with a Monegasque licence at the 2005 German Grand Prix, offering this image as evidence. (In case you can't see the image [I could see it at home but not at work], it's an excerpt from the TV broadcast of the 2005 German GP, showing a Monegasque flag next to Doornbos' name). I suspect it's just an error in the on-screen graphic, but just to be safe: Does anyone know of any other evidence that Doorbos competed with a Monegasque licence at this (or any other) race? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I would absolutely assume that it is an on-screen graphic error. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I never assume things. I check the sources. The FIA listed him as Monegasque in 2005 [3][4][5] and later in 2006 as Dutch [6][7][8]. So, it looks indeed like Doornbos competed for Monaco in 2005. Taking the FIA's rules regarding nationalities in their World Championships into account, I'd say Doornbos held more than only a Monegasque racing licence. Regarding the on-screen graphics, he was also shown with a Monegasque flag in Turkey, Italy, Belgium and China. The German graphics thus don't appear to be an isolated error at all.T v x1 12:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

DH85868993, The359, where are we on this matter? I think that we have sufficient evidence that Doornbos represented Monaco before 2006, so It think it's time we start changing the relevant articles.T v x1 17:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that he appears to be Monegasque in 2005, and Dutch in 2006. It'd be great if our 2005 season article had any references, because I'd be curious what any pre-race entry lists had him listed as. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The entries table in the 2005 season article does have references, which are both versions (pre-season and late season) of the official FIA website entry list. In the latter (archived here), Doornbos is clearly shown as 'MON'. As for a pre-race list for the 2005 German GP, I think you'll be lucky to find the press pack still up and linked anywhere, as from memory that was firmly behind an accreditation wall on the FIA website until relatively recently. Pyrop e 18:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree there's good evidence that Doornbos represented Monaco in 2005 and that we should update the relevant articles accordingly. DH85868993 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've also added sources to the results matrices in the 2005 season article. Those sources also show him being Monegasque.T v x1 13:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've updated 2005 Formula One season, the 2005 race reports, List of Formula One drivers and Minardi. Feel free to update any articles I missed. DH85868993 (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

AGS JH24

FYI, AGS JH24 has been created ... and tagged with a {{notability}} tag. DH85868993 (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

GA progress box

In case anyone's interested here's the 2015 GA progress box:

T v x1 14:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I nominated 2015 Formula One season for GA some time ago, but during its review some major concerns were raised. I'm not sure what to make of them, so if anyone wants to weigh in their opinion they can do so here. T v x1 00:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It has finally received GA status now. Only the car articles remain now. T v x1 02:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Since I do not feel that we will get the car articles there, I nominated the reports for Good Topic yesterday under the name "2015 Formula One season reports". You can weight in here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

2015 Formula One season is a featured article now. Congrats to all the contributors. T v x1 23:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

List of rescinded Formula One wins

Project members may be interested in the recently-created article: List of rescinded Formula One wins. DH85868993 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced and useless list with no value. There are barely 5 races where the original winner was stripped of his win. If rescinding was a common thing in F1 regarding race winner then such list might make sense. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a suitable speedy deletion criteria for this article? Clearly trivia.T v x1 17:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you'll have to AFD it. QueenCake (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Why hasn't it been done yet? These should have been AFD'd straight away before even being mentioned here.T v x1 23:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Since no-one else did, I went ahead and AFD'd it.T v x1 10:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

GA reviews

Are GA reviews of F1 articles still been carried out? I have nominated an article back in March and the review has still not been started.T v x1 10:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Which article? Pyrop e 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2016 Formula One season? According to the last update of Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Article alerts there are several articles awaiting the start of discussion. Eagleash (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I nominated our article on the 2016 season.T v x1 11:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — there's a backlog of GA reviews that need to be cleared. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton

Should List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton be nominated for deletion? His wins are not significant and Wikipedia is not a statistics database. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

We have List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher who has won the most races (Hamilton is second) and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna, both of which are featured list articles. On what (policy) basis would this new article be deleted? EdChem (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of us feel these list articles should all have been strangled at birth. But there you are. Britmax (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it should. This subject has not been discussed as a group in reliable mainstream sources. Most of it is duplication anyway. All of Hamilton's wins are already listed in his own article. Where he won and with which car is also there. The only thing this adds is the victory margin, which is not sufficient to justify a stand alone article. How these other two articles became featured articles is something I fail to understand.T v x1 12:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There is also now List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel. DH85868993 (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A list by a completely new user? I suspect users from the page about Hamilton's wins are involved, which means he/she might be using multiple accounts, which is forbidden. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed these should be deleted as they add very little new info. If there are indeed some snippets of interesting info hidden there beside the trivia, it could be saved into the relevant drivers' articles. cherkash (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Race 1 of the World Championship was not always Race 1 of the Formula One season

The "Infobox Grand Prix race report" produces a line in the style "Race 1 of 7 in the 1950 Formula One Season" which is usually misleading when used on World Championship races from 1950 to 1983, i.e., in the era when there were also non-championship races in the "Formula One season". For example, the 1950 British Grand Prix is shown to be "Race 1 of 7 in the 1950 Formula One season" when it was in fact preceded by four other non-championship races. I suggest that the line for World Championship races should be in the style of "Race 1 of 7 in the 1950 World Championship of Drivers" up to and including 1980 and "Race 1 of 15 in the 1981 Formula One World Championship" from 1981. GTHO (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This sort of thing is being discussed a few posts above, although this particular detail hasn't been raised yet. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to lead the parameter out alltogether in the offending articles. Use the prose to provide context instead of the infoboxes. The proposed change to "Race 1 of 7 in the XXXX World Championship of Drivers" is also a poor choice as for mean years the race in question were also the relevant round of the International Cup for Manufacturers.T v x1 17:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not simply include both instead of removing it from the infobox? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "simply include both" means. GTHO (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the lead provides a much better venue to provide context instead of small font infobox line. The aforementioned article proves that. Its lead contains all the necessary context and in the infobox line isn't needed at all. Indianapolis 500 articles on editions which were part of the World Championship don't have it either.T v x1 18:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to remove the offending infobox line. However the "season" problem is broader than that, eg at 1962 British Grand Prix. The intro states that the race is the fifth race of the 1962 Formula One season. Can we fix these via a bot or do they need to be corrected manually? Happy to help if required. GTHO (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this can be done trough a bot. We would have to ask someone who's familiar with bots.T v x1 10:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that the Infobox for the 1952 French Grand Prix reads "Race 4 of 8 in the 1952 World Drivers' Championship". This is a step in the right direction but would better read "Race 4 of 8 in the 1952 World Championship of Drivers" to match pre-1981 FIA yearbook nomenclature. GTHO (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I propose that:

all relevant articles up to and including 1957 be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz World Championship of Drivers"
all relevant articles from 1958 to 1980 be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz World Championship of Drivers" and "Race a of b in the zzzz International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers"
all relevant articles from 1981 to date be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz Fomula One World Championship"
all "Race x" information be deleted from the Infobox in all relevant articles from 1950 to date

GTHO (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Question I have is, are you suggesting races not included in the woirld championship were numbered at all? Where does it say that the 1951 Gran Premio di Siracusa was race 1 of the Formula One seacon AND that 1951 Pau Grand Prix was race number 2, AND that the 1951 Richmond Trophy was race number 3 AND that the 1951 Swiss Grand Prix was race number 8? Where does it say that officially anywhere? Sounds like retrospective original research to me. --Falcadore (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My subject heading, comments and proposal relate only to World Championship races, i.e., races in the World Championship of Drivers 1950 through 1980 and races in the Formula One World Championship 1981 to date. I fully agree that numbering non-championship Formula One races would be counterproductive. GTHO (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I vote in favour of the above proposal GTHO (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As there appears to be no opposition to the proposal, I will start work on the cleanup, commencing with 1950. Would anyone like to look at any other year? GTHO (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the text of the seven race articles relating to the 1950 World Championship of Drivers. Where do we stand with the Infoboxes? Is the best method to remove the "Race = " & "Season = " lines from the "Formula One World Championship event - Infobox Grand Prix race report" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Grand_Prix_race_report and then remove the same two lines from the template on each of the seven 1950 pages? If so, I will go ahead with that. GTHO (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

An alternative (preferable?) solution would be to use the existing "Season_name" parameter which replaces the link text "19xx/20xx Formula One season" with the value of the parameter, e.g. adding:

"|Season_name = 1950 World Championship of Drivers

to 1950 British Grand Prix makes the infobox display "Race 1 of 7 in the 1950 World Championship of Drivers" instead of "Race 1 of 7 in the 1950 Formula One season". DH85868993 (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That would work well for 1950 through 1957 where we have only the World Championship of Drivers to consider and from 1981 to date for the Formula One World Championship. However, from 1958 to 1980 we have both the World Championship of Drivers and the International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers in the equation. We could just ignore the International Cup in the Infobox but I would lean towards removing the "Race x of y" parameters from the Infobox entirely. GTHO (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Mindful that the template is designed for/used in race reports for races other than WDC races, I'd suggest leaving the parameters in the template, but modifying the template so that the "Race x of y" is not displayed if the parameters aren't populated (I will make that change anyway as it's a sensible change regardless of whatever decision is made regarding the content of the infobox for WDC races). For 1958-1980 WDC races, the Season_name parameter could be used to make the infobox display "Race x of y in the 19xx World Championship of Drivers and International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers" if desired. DH85868993 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That might be too wordy for an infobox. You might want to test it before you make any changes.

That text occupies 2 lines in the infobox (the "Race x of y" text is in "small" font). Note that I don't necessarily support that solution; I was just mentioning it as an option. DH85868993 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In general, editors might also want to make sure they don't go too far in using contemporary terminology and paying too much attention to technicalities that you end up confusing our non-specialist audience. The term "1950 World Championship of Drivers" for example has no real meaning to all but a small proportion of motorsport fans with an interest in history. Most would know only of a 1950 Formula One championship, which it has effectively been retrospectively renamed as, and may wonder if there was more than one championship going. QueenCake (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with having "Race x of y in the 19xx World Championship of Drivers and International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers" in the infobox is that the Indianapolis 500 was part of the WCD through to 1960 but was never part of the ICFOM. Thus the 1958 Belgian Grand Prix was race 5 of 11 in the WCD but race 4 of 10 in the International Cup. Easy to explain in the text but not so easy in the Infobox GTHO (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I had forgotten that. DH85868993 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think it would be better to remove the contested line from the infoboxes as well as it does more good than bad. The lead is a far better place to provide context.T v x1 22:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. I have tested it (but not saved the result) on the 1950 British Grand Prix page and it would seem that removing the values from from Race_No and Season_No fields now results in no "Race x of y" line at the top of the Infobox. I will restate my proposal with the fourth point clarrified:

all relevant articles up to and including 1957 be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz World Championship of Drivers"
all relevant articles from 1958 to 1980 be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz World Championship of Drivers" and "Race a of b in the zzzz International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers"
all relevant articles from 1981 to date be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz Fomula One World Championship"
all Race_No and Season_No values be deleted from the Infobox in all relevant articles from 1950 to date

Do I have your support please? GTHO (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's OK by me. If/when you update the race report articles, consider whether you just remove the Race_No and Season_No values, or whether you remove the whole lines - leaving the lines in the article might act as a temptation for editors unfamiliar with this discussion to repopulate the fields in the future. DH85868993 (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. So my proposal now stands as:

all relevant articles up to and including 1957 be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz World Championship of Drivers"
all relevant articles from 1958 to 1980 be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz World Championship of Drivers" and "Race a of b in the zzzz International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers"
all relevant articles from 1981 to date be amended such that the "Race x" information in the text reads "Race x of y in the zzzz Fomula One World Championship"
all Race_No and Season_No lines be deleted from the Infobox in all relevant articles from 1950 to date

GTHO (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK by me. DH85868993 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have now amended the relevant articles from 1950 to 1969 inclusive. GTHO (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now amended the relevant articles from 1970 to 1974 inclusive. GTHO (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

These changes are weird. I feel like the original reasoning behind the changes as stated above (simplifying a bit: 1. for many years, the F1 seasons were not the same as World Championships, and 2. Indy-500 didn't count towards ICFOM for 3 years) which significantly affects ICFOM in only 3 seasons, can be handled much more gracefully. Otherwise, going along with the proposal above would remove very important information which is highly relevant to be presented in the infobox (i.e. "Race XX of YY of ..."). Personally, I feel it's a bit like a tail (a few notable exceptions) is wagging the dog here (all races in the 31 seasons: 1950–1980). Because of the three seasons (1958–1960) where the exception of Indy-500 not counting for the Constructors' Championship is a fairly well-known one, we are now on the way to change 31 years' worth of races. It was much clearer when the infobox stated "Race XX of YY", and now this is buried in the text. The whole point of the infoboxes is to provide relevant info at a glance, and we are failing at one of the most basic pieces of info about the race that any non-specialist and specialist reader alike would like to know at a glance. In addition, there are "succession boxes" at the bottom of every race, where nothing is being changed (and I feel it should NOT be changed), where essentially the same terminology of "previous/next race" in the "World Championship" is used without any controversy. Here's my counter-proposal (using pre-most-recent-modifications state of the world as a starting point):

Change the infobox line to read "Race XX of YY of the ZZZZ Formula One World Championship" (i.e. replace "season"->"World Championship"). Note that it's not "World Championship of Drivers" but simply "World Championship". This should be relatively non-controversial as 1. WDC was always considered kind of a primary championship, with ICFOM usually noting an exception to the points count with respect to the Indy-500, and 2. we always talk about "championship"/"non-championship" races as a (very small) simplification, instead of nit-picking and talking about "cup"/"non-cup" races as well (as we of course could/should, esp. in the way it relates to ICFOM's differences from WDC). E.g. to take the original proposal to the logical extreme, we should be talking about e.g. the 1958 Indy-500 race as a "championship, but non-cup race". Kind of a very pedantic point, which is easily handled with the current commonly-accepted "championship/non-championship" terminology, by additionally noting the three relevant exceptions (1958/1959/1960 Indy-500).
For all the races in the three seasons of 1958–1960 state clearly in each article's lead that "this race results were/weren't counted towards the ICFOM along with all other championship races with the exception of Indy-500". This would preferably be done in a simple language like this, rather than giving two race counts (as anything else in the manner of "Race 10 of 11 of the WDC, and Race 9 of 10 of ICFOM" is most likely an original research as I don't think an alternative numbering ("9 of 10" in this example) with respect to the ICFOM races had actually existed at any time in the past).

cherkash (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi cherkash. One issue with your counterproposal is that it's not accurate to refer to the 1952 championship as the "1952 Formula One World Championship" - it wasn't called that at the time and none of the races forming the championship were run to Formula One rules (all were run to Formula Two rules except Indy which was run to AAA/USAC rules). The same applies for 1953. DH85868993 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What's stopping us from using the most appropriate name for a given season? We'll end up making decisions in one article based on what's best for another, which isn't necessarily what's best for the actual article affected by the change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure DH85868993, but this is one of the few rather subtle exceptions where we still largely refer to it as "F1 season" and "F1 championship" while noticing that it was run to F2 regulations. E.g. the main article about the 1952 WDC is still the 1952 Formula One season, etc. This is exactly what I referred to above as "tail wagging the dog" and quite along the Prisonermonkeys's comment that we would otherwise end up making a lot of individual article decisions en-masse based on a few exceptions like this. cherkash (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

But 1952 Formula One season does also cover the Formula One races held in 1952. If it only covered the 1952 World Drivers' Championship then I would consider "1952 Formula One season" to be an unsuitable title for the article. DH85868993 (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash — I brought this up a couple of months ago, and it wasn't particularly popular. I suggested that article names should be changed; that "2017 Formula One season" should be "2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship" because the article only covers the World Championship. The proposal was rejected because the article covers all Formula One racing within a calendar year; when I pointed out that the World Championship is the only Formula One racing in said year, the response was that other years had racing outside the championship. Everything was being driven by the desire to have uniform article titles, so we were effectively naming the 2017 article based on what was happening in 1967. I thought this was ridiculous, seeing as how all of the articles only focus on the World Championship, so the net result was that we were naming articles based on the possibility of racing taking place outside the World Championship.

There are five categories of racing recognised by the FIA as having a World Championship: Formula One, rallying, touring cars, endurance racing and rallycross. Of the five, Formula One is the only championship where articles are titled "season". The others are 2017 World Rally Championship, 2017 World Touring Car Championship, 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship and 2017 World Rallycross Championship. Furthermore, there are dozens of categories that do not use "season" names—like 2017 Supercars Championship, 2017 European Rally Championship, 2017 FIA Formula 2 Championship and so on and so forth. Formula One articles are in the absolute minority when it comes to using "season" names (MotoGP is the only other series I can find that does it). 2017 Formula One season should really be called 2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship because that is the scope of the article (and would bring it in line with the conventions of the wider scope of motorsport on Wikipedia). As far as I am concerned "other years might do it differently" isn't much of an argument because it misrepresents the content of the article.

If there is a concern about racing within a calendar year outside the World Championship, other series have an elegant solution: 2017 Supercars Championship covers the championship, while there is a parent article for the series' non-championship round, plus links to other Supercars championship articles, like 2017 Super2 Series. I see no reason why Formula One articles cannot or should not follow this model. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — in the case of 1952, there should be two articles: one for the championship, and one for all racing outside the championship, with relevant wikilinks connecting the two articles. For example, 2016 V8 Supercar season covers all Supercars racing for the 2016 calendar year. 2016 International V8 Supercars Championship addresses the main championship, while 2016 Supercars Dunlop Series covers the second-tier Supercar championship and Supercars Challenge (event) addresses the regular non-championship round. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I have just re-read the discussion from February/March and find myself with a new appreciation for the merits of your proposal. Do you think the project has an appetite to revisit the topic? DH85868993 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — I think that if it was revisted, it would be revisited with an open mind. I think that resistance would come from the need to make substantial changes across the scope of the Project and the possibility of having inconsistent names across related articles. I am, however, firm in my belief that an article title should be chosen because it best represents the contents of the article, and I think the WikiProject will be able to see the merits of that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I would also suggest that last time around, the resistance only came from a minority of editors. I felt that I had most editors in the discussion open to the idea before the discussion got bogged down in semantics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I've also just read the March/April discussion now and agree your proposal there made perfect sense and it makes total sense to revisit at this point. I would be in favor of it. Please reopen or let's create a new discussion if you feel it's more appropriate. Meanwhile, let's finish here what we started ("Round XX of YY" discussion) as I truly believe the recent changes took away from the clarity of the hundreds of articles with only a marginal benefit at best for a handful articles only. cherkash (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have just amended the relevant articles for 1975, being unaware of the recent developments above. I will not change articles for any subsequent years until the issue of article naming is resolved. GTHO (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

De villota Mclaren M25

A lot of sources state that the car Emilio de Villota drove at the 1978 spanish was a Mclaren M23, however the car was actually a M25 (F5000) chassis built to F1 specifications. The site oldracingcars wich has a very complete and reliable documentation on racing chassis list the car as M25.

Here are some sources that list the car as a M25:

oldracingcars.com, motorsportmagazine.com, http://forums.autosport.com

I'm sure the car was a M25 but I wanted to bring it up here before changing anything. What do others think? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Motor Sport mag database does state that it was an M25, but if you read further down the report (and the accompanying PDF), it states that he crashed the M25 on Friday and resumed in the spare, M23/6 on the Saturday. Ultimately failing to qualify. It's "Jenks" who was pretty pedantic about chassis and numbers so would place quite a lot of faith in his report. Also Small 1994 (and the 2000 edition) have it as an M23. Eagleash (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we list both cars or only the M23 as that is the car de Villota tried to qualify with? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's good as it it now in all the articles. The M23 is the car taking part in the relevant session, so it should be the one included here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "relevant session", as the articles usually refer to the whole weekend. Depending on the championship and/or individual GP rules at the time, drivers driving in different cars were either considered separate entries or not. Don't remember off the top of my head how it was in 1978, but we should list both cars (either as separate entries – with M25 being "PO" in this case – or as one entry with two chassis/models listed together). cherkash (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention it in the entry list on the 1978 F1 season page. Maybe something like this? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyres	No	Driver	Rounds
Centro Asegurador F1	McLaren-Ford	M23^{[N 1]}	Ford Cosworth DFV 3.0 V8	G	28	Emilio de Villota	7

^ Originally entered a Mclaren M25, but reverted to the M23 after the M25 got damaged in a practice crash

I think this is better. cherkash (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyres	No	Driver	Rounds
Centro Asegurador F1	McLaren-Ford	M25/M23^{[N 1]}	Ford Cosworth DFV 3.0 V8	G	28	Emilio de Villota	7

^ Originally entered a Mclaren M25, but reverted to the M23 after the M25 got damaged in a practice crash

@Cherkash: I'm fine with both. But I'll go with your version wich makes it clearer the actually M25 took part in the championship. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Historic consensuses

It seems that time and time again, lengthy discussions/disputes breakout between established F1 editors and less established ones. The cause is often confusion about and misunderstanding of historical consensuses that the longer term editors invoke, but that newcomers or occasional visitors have no visibility of and cannot get access to. A case in point is the drawn-out wrangle going on in the lower reaches of Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship which is fundamentally down to whether WP:F1 require and can insist on something over and above the requirements of WP:VER when it comes to adding or changing team drivers.

Can we get together and try to dig out relevant old consensuses and try to somehow document them and reference them on the WP:F1 page. The objective should be twofold: 1) to make it easy to invoke them in content disputes and to be able to refer nonbelievers to them directly, and 2) to make them open and transparent so that all editors can read them, try to understand then, and even challenge them.

Let's try and make it a pleasure to edit F1 articles rather than a complete misery. Anyone up for it? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions, which lists out several previously determined discussion results etc. Whilst I remember, an editor has recently changed hyphens to ndashes at Frank Williams Racing Cars, and elsewhere, in respect of the Iso-Marlboro cars etc. As we use hyphens for "Manufacturer"-"Engine" should hyphens also be used for 'double-barrelled' car names? Eagleash (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I don't see any convention on when a driver should be added to an upcoming year's driver table though. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As I have said in the discussion on the season article, I'm open to adding it to the conventions, if you're that desperate for it. The consensus we speak of is one that has emerged through editconsensus. This is the most common practice on wikipedia. Contrary to what you two keep claiming, it isn't mandatory for every consensus to be listed somewhere as a guideline/convention. We have dealt with dozens and dozens of driver changes in the mentioned manner and I cannot see any reason why we should suddendly change that because two users just don't like it.T v x1 20:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On that, it has always been my understanding that a source needs to name and quote somebody with the authority to make an announcement in order to be an acceptable source. For example, in the case of the anticipated McLaren-Renault deal, the source would require the likes of Eric Boullier or Cyril Abiteboul to confirm it. Relying on anonymous sources in articles is not good enough, and the reputation of a publication as a reliable source is not an acceptable substitute. If we allow anonymous sources within articles, chaos rules. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: are you talking about in Wikipedia in general, or just for WP:F1 articles? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sure it's not simply a matter of some not liking it. It's more to do with the two editors who asserted that the new content was unacceptable not being able to explain the basis of their objection and why the data in question needed a higher level of "proof" than it would to be introduced into other Wikipedia articles.

Most of Wikipedia makes do with WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. but that's apparently not good enough for F1 articles, Yet when asked to substantiate that claim, all we got was misrepresentation of WP:VER, from one of the editors, at least, and a vague sort of "it's a long standing WP:F1 consensus that we do it that way", with nothing concrete offered as substantiation.

And yes, if a prior consensus is offered as the excuse to revert an otherwise WP policy compliant edit, then the least that would be expected is that a reference and/or link is given to that consensus to allow the reverted party to confirm the detail for themselves.

And no, WP:EDITCONSENSUS isn't appropriate either, it is how articles evolve with collaborative editors progressively tweaking content. It doesn't provide an excuse for blocking WP policy compliant content from new editors because it doesn't comply with some unwritten and inexplicable rule that the old hands (one of whom at least, doesn't seem to understand the fundamental policies of Wikipedia at all) conspire to enforce. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You want to open up articles to the inclusion of sources that make unsubstantiated claims by virtue of the publisher's reputation alone. Autosport have run a story that Sainz has signed a deal to join Renault. They don't quote anyone involved in the deal, so how do you know it happened?

In 2009, anonymous sources were used by reliable publications to claim that Fernando Alonso had joined Ferrari in April. When Alonso joined Ferrari, he said that the contract had only been signed in the week before the Italian Grand Prix in September.

Such is the danger of using anonymous sources: publications can use them to claim whatever they like and the reader has no way to substantiate that claim. Rather than blindly accept the claims to be true, we should be more critical in our thought processes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: if a reliable source states a piece of information as fact, per WP:VER we are entitled to include it as fact in the article, citing the RS to allow verification. How the source gained the confidence to declare the information as fact may not be revealed if they wish to preserve the anonymity of an informant, or whatever. It can only be OR to speculate as to why they aren't revealing their sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But we're not dealing with a subject matter where anonymity of the source is necessary. What is the rush to add these details to the article? It's expected that official confirmation will come within days, so assuming that's true, what is the problem with waiting?

Let me give you an example from outside the scope of WP:F1. A few weeks ago, Daniel Craig announced that he would play James Bond for the fifth time. This led to the creation of a Bond 25 article (now a redirect). The Hindustan Times, a reliable publication, followed up on this story with the claim that the film would be titled Shatterhand and that shooting would take place in France, Croatia and Japan. All of this was from an anonymous source. Readers had no way of confirming this for themselves, but what you're proposing would allow them to creat an article called Shatterhand and fill it with the details from The Hindustan Times.

The problem with Sainz-Renault-McLaren isn't just the reliance on an anonymous source, it's also a lack of supplementary articles to independently confirm it. Autosport and motorsport.com are the only two publications running the story, and they're owned by the same company. Every other publication I have seen—F1 Fanatic, SpeedCafe, news.com.au, etc.—quotes the article quoting the anonymous source, not the source itself. If the Sainz-Renault-McLaren deal goes ahead, it's a major reshuffle of engine suppliers and drivers—and yet, only one publication is reporting it, and nobody involved in the deal is talking about it despite the claim that it is going to happen. That should be an immediate red flag. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Look Defacto, if we're going to accept such low standard and vague sourcing, then right now whe should change Sauber to Alfa Romeo. After all motorsport.com published an article with claims based on "high level source" that this change passed. They even provide a when and where it would be officially announced. Needless to say, the date passed without any announcement from Sauber, Ferrari or even FIAT.T v x1 23:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And I strongly suspect that the like of Autosport run misleading headlines to make it look like they have an exclusive when they do not. I think it was last year that Ferrari gave the first photos of their car to Keith Collantine from F1 Fanatic—instead of Autosport—as he had them up two hours before anyone else. Since I doubt he broke the embargo, my guess is that Ferrari gave him the exclusive. A lot of Autosport's articles about driver changes and team deals are like this latest round: speculation and innuendo dressed up as fact to further their reputation as the leading publucation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: if a reliable source asserts something as fact (and not mere opinion or speculation) then there is no reason to assume it is "low standard". If a source repeatedly asserts as fact things which turn out to be speculation, rumour or opinion, then it is time to review whether they are actually reliable. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: a publication may have any of many reasons to preserve the anonymity of their sources. The source may be an employee of the team who has leaked confidential information, for example. Sure in the commercial news publishing world scoops may be sought and jealously guarded. However, if a publication repeatedly asserts mere speculation as fact, then it's time to review their reliability. Of course we need to read the source carefully to evaluate whether the story is speculation - carefully crafted to look like fact, or a clear unambiguous assertion of fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Asserting that it is fact does not make it fact. We can avoid that entire quagmire simply by waiting for a team to announce something, either through their own channels or a third party. Why is it so important for an article to contain details that have not been officially announced? Why is it worth risking breaking CRYSTAL, OR and NOTNEWS for the sake of updating an article early? Articles about future events are already controversial enough; all you're doing is opening the door to low-quality edits based on the unsubstantiated claims of various publications.

In short, what does adding Sainz to Renault do for the article now that cannot be done in two days or two weeks from now (assuming it is confirmed then)? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's pretty obvious that you won't be able to convince me that articles which rely on anonymous sources are valid (except maybe in extreme circumstances, like Crashgate). I seriously doubt that you will convince @Tvx1 and have similar doubts about your ability to convince the wider community. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: sure we all know that asserting that it is fact does not make it fact; we also know that asserting that it was from a certain named person does not mean it was from that named person. What we also know is that reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that they do not want to compromise. That is why WP uses reliable sources and why we should use them in good faith. However, if we have evidence that a particular source is repeatedly getting it wrong, and its accuracy is becoming more questionable, then we should review whether it is actually reliable, or not. So no, there is no need to wait for a further announcement if the source we already have is currently considered to be reliable. And WP:CRYSTAL isn't relevant here as it is concerned with unverifiable speculation, whereas here we have verifiable (per WP:VER) fact.

Your attitude towards reliable sources is incompatible, I think, with current WP policy. Perhaps you should take your concerns to WT:RS and/or WT:V and/or WT:NOR to try and persuade them that you are right and they are wrong.

In the meantime, can you help with the issue I raised this thread to deal with - the location and documentation of any of the historical consensuses that are often invoked in the long (and often acrimonious) disagreements that regularly erupt when newcomers or infrequent editors try to improve WP:F1 articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As Tvx1 pointed out, editconsensus addresses your comcerns.

As for your claim about "infrequent editors trying to improve WP:F1 articles", please show everyone concerned how accepting rumour and speculation as fact improves the quality of articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: and as I pointed out, WP:EDITCONSENSUS addresses something completely different, so no it does not answer the concerns. Editconsensus is the normal day to day editing to and fro, it doesn't excuse the invocation of some historical consensus as a reason for a revert without providing any evidence its existence. The concern here is that those claimed historic consensuses, though invoked, are not open and transparent and readily available for consultation.

Your second request is fallacious as it is what is known as the loaded question fallacy. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Under your version, anyone could post unsubstantiated rumours as encyclopaedic fact simply by claiming that the source is reliable. You're substituting a publication's reputation for its credibility. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: no, you are betraying your misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:VER. A fact sourced to an RS is substantiated, as far as WP policy is concerned. If you are questioning the reliability of motorsport.com as a source, then you need to collect evidence that they are repeatedly providing inaccurate data, and take it to WP:RSN to have it reviewed. If are judged to be unreliable, then sure disregard their data, and that could also have implications across all the aricles in Wikipedia that cite them. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You're the one suggesting that a source is automatically verifiable if it is reliable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: where have I suggested that? I don't know of any place Wikipedia policy talks about sources being verifiable. What I've been discussing is the requirement of WP:VER, which requires facts stated in articles to be verifiable (i.e. sourced to a reliable source) - like the Sainz move to Renault would be if sourced from motorsport.com. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Now matter how you try to turn it, this particular consensus was in reality achieved naturally through editing. If you genuinely believe that wherever you go on Wikipedia you will find every consensus listed somewhere, you clearly have no clue how wikipedia works. Now matter how reliable Autosport is, they also have the unfortunate habit of from time to time publishing articles which are utterly unreliable and are later proven to be wrong. This has only gotten worse since they were taken over by Motorsport. In fact I can't even remember that we agreed upon Motorsport.com being a reliable source. In fact, we agreed on the contrary because they use Wikipedia as a source. Since we are not finding a resolution here (as I predicted would happen with forumshopping) I have raised this matter to the reliable sources noticeboard.T v x1 09:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: previous edits, or even unrecorded (i.e. not on an article or project talkpage) editing decisions, can't provide a consensus that is binding for the future. How could they, the article could never evolve, and whatever gave you that idea?

What I'm suggesting here is that if there are genuine historic consensuses (whether on talkpages or by some unwritten mutual agreement or understanding, or whatever) that they should be at least referenced on the project page somewhere for the benefit of all, and particularly for newcomers and casual or fly-by editors. The current pattern of summary reverts and cursory allusions to vague, confused and ill-defined consensuses isn't conducive to collaborative editing at all, in my view. And you must concede that WP:F1 history is littered with the failed attempts of summarily rejected newbies who fell foul of the "reception committee" here.

I agree that (I even suggested it myself) any doubt about the reliability of a source should be brought up at WP:RSN. But until that is resolved we need to follow standard WP policies (or IMHO be able to cite alleged historic consensuses) with respect to the way sources can be used.

I hope that sounds rational and reasonable to you, and I'm sure you would agree that these long squabbles are tiresome and even damaging, and that the main objective of WP:F1 should be to encourage agreeable collaboration resulting in the creation of great F1 articles, and not as a self-serving support group for a select few editors who (perhaps unsurprisingly) are apparently jealously guarding their own special creations here. I think the problem lies in the fact that we are working from more than one hymn-sheet, let's try and get it all onto the same sheet - and the WP:F1 page is a good place for that! -- DeFacto (talk). 14:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here is breaking OWN. It's my experience that accusing another editor of breaking OWN is usually the last resort of someone who is running out of arguments. Everybody here wants the same thing—some of us just happen to believe that allowing the use of articles that rely on anonymous sources sets a dangerous precedent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I made no such allegations, and I'm disappointed with your attitude to this initiative. I was trying to paint a picture and speculating as to how the old guard here might be perceived by newcomers. Can't you see that from a newbie's point of view, it's like entering a viper's den. They come with what they might perceive as a news gem and get it summarily reverted, and if they reinstate or question the reasoning they get hit with a merciless wall of vague and unsubstantiated claims of precedents and consensuses and other excuses for why their humble addition is unworthy of these pages and end up either quitting or trying (usually in vain) to out edit war their assailants. Some get dragged in front of one or another of the admin noticeboards, and the more stubborn end up being chastised or even blocked there. I'm trying to investigate possible ways of being more welcoming and offering a scrutinisable reference for all the currently unwritten rules. Do you have any ideas that could help ease more new editors into WP:F1 more amicably, rather that scaring them off? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

" I made no such allegations"

Then what do you call this?

"not as a self-serving support group for a select few editors who (perhaps unsurprisingly) are apparently jealously guarding their own special creations here"

If, as you say, the following is true:

"I was trying to paint a picture and speculating as to how the old guard here might be perceived by newcomers"

It backfired spectacularly.

"Do you have any ideas that could help ease more new editors into WP:F1 more amicably"

Yes: think for yourself. Don't rush to add something to an article simply because Autosport posted a headline. Take the time to read the article and think critically about it. If it's making a claim about a major deal (ie Sainz to Renault, McLaren to get Renault engines and Toro Rosso to get Renault engines and McLaren gearboxes) based on anonymous sources and nobody from the affected parties (in this case, Sainz, McLaren, Honda and Renault) is talking about it and there are no other publications reporting it independently of Autosport (or its publisher, Motorsport Network), then ask yourself: "would this unsubstantiated claim be accepted as encyclopaedic fact?". And if the answer is no, don't add it to the article. Just because a publication has a reputation for being reliable, that doesn't mean we should unquestioningly assume they have verified everything. As a journalistic concept, verifiability means that the audience should be able to independently investigate and confirm claims. Since that is not always possible, the expectation is that claims are substantiated with evidence. If there is no evidence, the audience should question the claim. It's about creating a culture of critical thought rather than blindly accepting whatever a source tells you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about what WP policies require. Just a quick question though: have you read WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:NOR recently? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have. And when they allow editors to use articles with unverified claims as evidence, I don't think those policies go far enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it pretty amusing that you keep talking about "newcomers", when everyone involved in the discussion (and that includes you and GeoJoe) has been around here for yours.T v x1 22:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Right now, reliable sources claim that Charles Leclerc and Antonio Giovinazzi are being lined up for Sauber seats. But I have also heard reliable sources claim that it will be Leclerc and Marcus Ericsson. Nobody has claimed that they have signed a contract just yet, but you can see where I am going with this—if we allow articles that rely on anonymous sources, there's a distinct possibility that we will wind up with three drivers in one team and no way to tell who is actually driving. Or we could wind up with one driver reported to have signed contracts with two teams. Or drivers who are reported to have contracts when they do not.

That might sound ridiculous, but don't forget that Sauber once signed Ericsson, Felipe Nasr and Giedo van der Garde at the same time. And Jenson Button signed for Williams and BAR at the same time. And Luiz Razia had a contract with Marussia, only to lose it two days later. All three cases were resolved in the end, but they all required comments from the parties involved to understand (Sauber settled with van der Garde, the FIA ruled that Williams not met their obligations to Button and he was free to join BAR, and Razia's sponsors backed out at the last minute). Anonymous sources could not comment on these with any degree of authority. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@DeFacto, @Tvx1 — I just found something interesting: this isn't the first time Autosport has relied on anonymous sources like this. A source within Mercedes told them about Bottas move before it was announced. And a source told them about Hülkenberg's move to Renault, too. They also knew about Wehrlein joining Sauber in advance as well. And they're just the stories I checked; I'm willing to bet that this is a habit of theirs (once is an accident and twice might be coincidence, but three times is a pattern). It seems that Autosport have a habit of relying on anonymous sources to confirm major stories roughly a week before they are announced—but only after those stories have been repeated on the rumour mill. They had no idea about Rosberg retiring or Alonso going to Indianapolis until they were announced.

(PS — if the URLs don't work, you might need to insert a "www." into them.) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: what we can see from the Sainz article and the first two of these then (the third is not the story you suggest) is that they clearly have a good informant or good informants (a trait common in reliable news sources) based on the statements being later confirmed by events. And although you suggest they are similar stories to the Sainz one, they clearly aren't - neither of these two make direct assertions of fact as the Sainz one does, they make it clear that their informants "suggest" this to be the case. The Sainz article clearly and unambiguously asserts "Sainz will drive for Renault" (which was entirely accurate as Renault have confirmed it now). The evidence suggests to me appropriate editorial diligence and a continued reputation for accuracy - i.e. a reliable source. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You've gone from arguing "an article should be accepted based on its publication's reputation" to arguing "an article should be accepted based on the specific wording used". The easiest way to determine the validity of the article is based on the evidence it presents. If it does not present any evidence, we can never be truly sure as to whether it is accurate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: no I haven't. Reliable sources can be used to support what they say. If they assert a fact then we can assert the same fact, with them as a source. If they speculate or suggest opinions then we clearly cannot use that to support an assertion of fact (although we could use it to support a discussion of notable opinion). This is all covered in detail in WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:NPOV - you said you had read them recently when I asked you. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If they don't offer evidence of their claims, they are speculating. Ideally, I should be able to read a story posted by Autosport and then go to F1 Fanatic and read the same story and then go to SpeedCafe and read the same story again—and even though the wording of all three are different, they are all based on the same evidence. But as soon as one publication makes claims without evidence—and especially when no other publication writes about it—the source stops beung trustworthy. End of story. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrea de Cesaris

Results table says Alfa Romeo 182B has been used in 1982 Monaco Grand Prix. StatsF1 or Forix says that version called Alfa Romeo 182B or Alfa Romeo 182T has been used during the Italian Grand Prix practise. Dead links in Alfa Romeo 182. gpracing.net192.com from the article doesnt lists "182T" wariant name. Eurohunter (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Motor Sport states just '182' for de Cesaris at Monaco but does say the team had "one car to 182B spec. as seen at Zolder, but did not give it much use". Small 1994 and 2000 editions both also say '182'. At Monza, de Cesaris used the 182T in practice only, giving the new t/c version a trial run and the reverting to a standard 182 after sidepod damage. (Motorsport mag). Both Small editions also say 'practice only.' Eagleash (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

McLaren Mercedes

Some of you may have noticed that some of the content of McLaren has been split out to McLaren Mercedes. Two questions: (1) Do we think this is a good idea? and (2) if we do, should McLaren Mercedes cover just their Formula One partnership, or also their road car partnership? DH85868993 (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

IMHO it is terrible and inconsistent with the other team articles, especially after BMW Sauber period was incorporated into Sauber's. So these edits should be quickly reverted. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no basis to split the McLaren article in this way. QueenCake (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Page size is getting a bit up there. As things stand, even with the Mercedes partnership hived off, that page is almost 100kB in total, and more than 70kB of that is readable prose. The section that has been split (>17kB total, ~15kB readable) is mostly just a blow-by-blow account of the races that occurred during that partnership and is, I would argue, too detailed for a page covering the whole history of McLaren. Whether that is consistent with other teams is neither here nor there, as each team and its history are different. I think we do need to start thinking about making our main team pages a lot more streamlined, and start a process of systematically splitting the detailed season-by-season 'X did Y and then P did Q' descriptions into standalones. Pyrop e 15:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the McLaren article is overdetailed and the size should be reduced but it doesn't mean that somebody can haphazardly chop off part of the article. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The new page should be merged back to McLaren and the "McLaren Mercedes" namespace should be redirected to McLaren. That IP should have asked before doing this. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP doesn't have to ask anyone anything. This Wikiproject doesn't own the right to dictate how an article should or should not look. The editor has properly implemented the WP:BOLD principle, so now responsible editors assess that boldness on its merits and if a reversion is called for then it must be justified on better grounds than "they didn't ask". Pyrop e 13:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

[1] Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.

[2] "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

[3] Originally entered a Mclaren M25, but reverted to the M23 after the M25 got damaged in a practice crash

[4] Originally entered a Mclaren M25, but reverted to the M23 after the M25 got damaged in a practice crash

[1]

[2]

[N 1]

[N 1]