Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship/Archive 4

"Formula One" vs "F1" in team names
Did we come to a consensus towards spelling this out over just using F1? I understand we stick to the sources at all times, but with the names nowrapped, I feel it adds unnecessary width to an already wide column. There are previous season articles where long team names are wrapped to avoid this. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 03:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the presence of the flags prevents us from wrapping this in a workable manner. Tvx1 05:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It'll work, but it's agreeably far less presentable. But why spell out F1 in this column to begin with? Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 19:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because that's how their name is correctly written, contrary to the case of Haas and Sauber. Tvx1 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Then do we just live with the comically wide column in favor a wrap solution? The rows are all already (will be) at least 2 tall. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Formula One really written out in Force India's teamname? The FIA entry list gives the name as SAHARA FORCE INDIA F1 TEAM... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Force_India.svg
 * Yes.Tvx1 21:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the spelling on the entry list supersede how it's spelled on the logo? Also, I don't think our Entrant column is unnecessarily wide. And it seems par for the course for racing articles. Teams tend to have long names. Eightball (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote, I've removed the Force India logo from this page, per WP:FAIRUSE, which says fair use images should only be used in article space (not talkpages). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The official entry list should be used over the imagery of a graphic. By using the other logic, then we must not capitalize "India Formula One Team" in Force India's team name box, as it is all lowercased in the image. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Alas, the latest FIA entry list shortens "Formula One" to F1 for all but one team name (Mercedes). I think a level of discretion needs to be applied here. There's no reason the column needs to be so wide to accommodate a full-written team name, especially so when convention puts sorting priority to the constructor name. Also, this is the only season article this practice is in place. Given these reasons, I have reverted it to the abbreviated version. Let's use this space to gain consensus, since the change is obviously contested. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really having trouble understanding your issue with the width of the box. Eightball (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too. It is not wide at all, even on a 4:3 screen... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it looks a little nicer with a narrower column, but the wider column isn't breaking anything, and this table isn't close to fitting on a mobile screen regardless of what we do. I don't see any reason we should value a few pixels of width over the correct full team names. Eightball (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Only person is really objecting here. The names on previous articles can be dealt with as well. That's no justfication to revert this one. Tvx1 16:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Still doesn't address that the FIA shortens the names as well. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by yourself, they only shorten some. It seems to be a personal whim from whoever made that list. Also bear in mind it is a provisional entry list. Tvx1 16:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, fair enough. It just seems counterintuitive to dedicate such a large portion of the table to the complete spelling out of Formula One when A) everyone and their grandmothers know what F1 stands for to the point that the FIA doesn't have a problem shortening it on an official document, and B) the team name is a complete non-factor in the way we sort and organize teams in the table.


 * But, as I can see, I'm the only one that sees the logic this way, so I guess we'll go ahead with the changes. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 22:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It'll balance out once the table inevitably expands with more information. Tvx1 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what, now that the table is filled with the full team names and engine models, I kind of get what he's saying. It just looks awkwardly wide. Nonetheless, I don't think there's anything we can do about it. The names are what they are. Eightball (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Manor/MRT Constructor name
Recently, someone changed the constructor name to "MRT". Much like past reports, without official confirmation from Formula 1 or Manor Racing themselves, we cannot do this, just based on rumours. I believe the constructor name should stay as "Manor-Mercedes" until we have official confirmation. LumaParty (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per the source, I moved MRT to the chassis column where it belongs, and for the constructor put it as TBA, as it is yet to be known of they will honor Bernie's wishes for them to use initials instead of a form of their team name. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 03:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And I removed it from there because there is nothing in the source that clearly indicates it will actually be part of the chassis designation, as in RB12 and MP4-31. The source actually hints that it would be the constructor name, as in HRT F112. Tvx1 16:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, so far the MRT heading is complete speculation, and nothing of fact. Hosgeorges (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was supported with a source. Tvx1 16:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah,the Adam Cooper/Motorsport.com source explicitly states that the car will be entered as "MRT-Mercedes." Not sure where the confusion is here. If we can't trust reliable journalistic sources then there's really no point in doing this. Eightball (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

MRT is short for Manor Racing Team so both are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.216.214 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't Manor be used as Manor Racing's constructor name rather then MRT per COMMONNAME, we do this with Red Bull and Toro Rosso why not Manor?, plus the 2016 chassis has been confirmed to be called MRT05 so having an article called MRT MRT05 would look pretty silly. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * COMMONAME has only little influence on article content. The Red Bull and Toro Rosso names are currently under discussion. Besides the team has only confirmed their new names a couple of weeks ago. There's not much there for us to determine the commonname. I'm curious to see how the constructor will be called on the final season entry list and on the grands prix entry lists before making such an assessment. And how something looks should be the least of our concern. With the limited info we currently have at our disposal calling the constructor MRT is the only option we really have. It if turns out to be different we can change it then. Articles tend to find their way. And I doubt we really need an article on the car before the first race. The 2015 cars' articles need more attention currently. Tvx1 20:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I could go either way on this. There are credible sources saying MRT will be the chassis name, I'm not 100% sold, but as long as we can agree on something and keep it consistent until the entry list is out, that's fine. Also, I'm fairly certain that Red Bull's cars are listed as "RBR" because "Red Bull-Renault" could conceivably be interpreted as a Red Bull-sponsored Renault team. I don't have a source for this but I clearly remember that being the reasoning of the FIA/FOM way back when. The point being that these are two very different situations and how we handle Red Bull and Toro Rosso shouldn't necessarily dictate how we handle Manor. Eightball (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/championship/teams/Manor.html The Official F1 website has now updated the Marussia page, it now says Manor Racing. If you check under the Wehrlein's name, and under the TBC, it reads "Manor". If you look at some other pages; http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/championship/teams/Red-Bull.html http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/championship/teams/Force-India.html http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/championship/teams/Haas.html http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/championship/teams/Renault.html

They all read the constructor name below the drivers, and the "teams/Constructor.html" (replace "Constructor" with the constructor name), always has the constructor name in place. The drivers page (http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/championship/drivers.html) lists "Manor" under Wehrlein's name as well. Now, I believe we have actual conclusive evidence that the constructor name is indeed "Manor" not "MRT". LumaParty (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, those are the team names and not constructor names. Manor Racing is the team name. Last year that name was Manor Marussia F1 Team, whereas the constructor name was simply Marussia. Why can't you just wait until an updated entry list is published. Tvx1 17:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Normally, the names under the drivers are always the constructor name, but I guess it can change. By the way, when should we expect an updated entry list? The latest provisional one still says Lotus, and has Red Bull without a confirmed engine. LumaParty (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The provisional list came out at the end of November 2015, so some info would be outdated. Thus, any changes since then have additional references to support the changes. As far as the final entry list, it usually comes out around testing time, so I imagine within the next two weeks. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 19:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that grid is now complete, I don't think it will take long for new entry list to be published. Tvx1 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And they have, with Manor's constructor name being listed as MRT-Mercedes. Tvx1 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the official F1 Twitter feed refers to them as "Manor Mercedes" in the timing screen of this morning's testing (here). So no concensus even within the FIA. Will anyone actually call them "MRT" anyway? People were referring to them as "Manor" last season even if "Marussia" was showing up on the screens. Clcpang (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The FIA has nothing to do with the official F1 twitter feed. That's published by an entirely different organisation. Tvx1 14:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, FIA or not is perhaps not the point. The point is, no media outlets, including Official F1 ones, are referring to "MRT", and it would look really wierd if that's what we call them in Wikipedia. Clcpang (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed this source
 * No, I got the memo. I get that "MRT" is the official designation. I also concede that "MRT Mercedes" is now appearing on timing screens since this morning (or maybe yesterday afternoon). Still doesn't stop the fact that everyone are referring to them as Manor. So at least have consistantly Red Bull Racing, STR, MRT; or Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Manor. (And I know that is being talked about.) Also the last T seems to have appeared from nowhere. The team name is Manor Racing. If turned into initials it should have just been "MR-Mercedes". I also hate how they're deliberately stripping Manor of their identity. The rescue last season was nothing short of miraculous. But I guess that's not really relevant.  Clcpang (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The T stands for "Team," though that's otherwise not an official part of the team name. We're getting off-topic here, but the reality is that Fitzpatrick has no interest in owning the team for the long haul. He's just cruising along until he can find a megabucks buyer, and it's easier to get buyers onboard if they don't have to run the "Manor" name for a year or give up prize money to change it, hence the generic "MRT." Also, from our perspective, it just logically makes sense to include both Manor and MRT, thus providing the most information for people who come to this article without the knowledge we all have. Eightball (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying
Is it actually the case that the qualifying overhaul will come into place in 2016 already, if confirmed in early March? See Autosport. At first I thought it would be 2017, but Sky said 2016 already? Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BBC Sport also says it might be 2016. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposal needs to be approved by the FIA (through its WMSC), though. We can only mention it here if it does. Tvx1 16:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Red Bull's engine name
The multitude of sources already say that it's a Renault engine branded as Tag Heuer. Would this in turn mean that instead of the engine being a Renault RE16, as it is for the Renault team, it would be a Tag Heuer RE16?? Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 09:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not wait until it is announced? --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's well-known and well-sourced that it's the same engine Renault uses, which is an RE16 with a Tag Heuer badge instead of a Renault one. Nothing is said whether the name of the engine is changed as well, just the branding. Just a curiosity if an announcement is even needed. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 14:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There have several examples in the past of rebadged engines having their own designation so we will need a source for the full engine name instead of simply assuming it. Tvx1 17:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see, fair enough then. Thanks for the clarification! Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Tyre selection for races
According to the FIA meeting in December, I interpret the section regarding tyres to mean that Pirelli will always bring THREE compounds to each event. Pirelli will select TWO compounds as their choice, and ONE (the softest available) for Q3, and the remaining TEN to be chosen by each driver between any three available for the remaining sessions, including the race. In other words, the drivers/teams may use any set of the three compounds during the race, as long as one of them is one of the two sets that Pirelli chooses out of the thirteen (minus the Q3 set) total available.

Example: Pirelli's states that for Australia, they will bring Medium, Soft, and Super Soft to the event. Pirelli picks their two sets to be Medium and Soft. Teams can use Super Soft for Q3. For the race, teams can use ANY of the three compounds, so long as one of the sets they use is one set of the Soft OR Mediums that Pirelli designated. So a team could theoretically run Super Soft, Medium, Super Soft, or a back team could run Soft, Super Soft, Medium, etc.

Currently, it's not worded this way as it states teams/drivers are limited to two of the three compounds for the race. Should this be changed in the article, or am I misinterpreting? Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's indeed what I too though the sourced stated. I'd say you should change it. I mean the WMSC publication literally states the following: "Unless intermediate or wet-weather tyres have been used, a driver must use at least two different specifications of dry-weather tyres – at least one of these must be the one chosen by the tyre supplier." That's clear to me. During the races they have to use at least one set of one of the compounds chosen by Pirelli and they are free to use at least one of the other compounds. Tvx1 17:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made a rough edit. The wording could probably be a little clearer though for a casual reader if you or anyone else wants to tidy it up. I also broke up the bullet points to avoid a long section. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 17:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I found what happened. this source incorrectly stated that teams would select two compound of the three Pirelli would bring, contrary to the WMSC briefs. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 15:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on 2016 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140904125936/http://formula1.ferrari.com/news/ferrari-power-unit-haas-f1-team to http://formula1.ferrari.com/news/ferrari-power-unit-haas-f1-team
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150929095922/http://www.foxsportsasia.com/motorsport/news/detail/item80828/ to http://www.foxsportsasia.com/motorsport/news/detail/item80828/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140608153525/http://www.autoweek.com/article/20131224/f1/131229938 to http://www.autoweek.com/article/20131224/F1/131229938
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150205025108/http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/9635080/Korean-GP-dropped-from-F1-calendar to http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/9635080/Korean-GP-dropped-from-F1-calendar
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150108165416/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2015/1/16755.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2015/1/16755.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

New qualifying format
Can someone add the new quali format to the article? ,. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. DH85868993 (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can do it yourself as well. Tvx1 02:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was busy, and it took 1 minute to ask here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Double checking
Since I have been out for three months, I just was to double-check a few things:
 * Are we still using the national flag of the host venue instead of the EU flag for the European Grand Prix?
 * Are we still abbreviating the race as EUR, or did we choose something else, like AZE or BAK?

I suspect that the answer to both questions is yes, but I want to make sure I'm on the same page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes to both. There's a discussion in the archive regarding the name, but I don't believe we touched on flag use.  That being said, the current state (EUR abbreviation and Azerbaijan flag) is consistent with previous seasons.  If it becomes clear that the FIA/promoters/media consistently use something else, we can always change things. JohnMcButts (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that archived discussion. It just went around in circles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Renault car and engine type designations
I noticed that Renault Sport write their car's and engine's type designation with periods in between, i.e. R.S.16 and R.E.16. But I hardly see any media outlets doing the same. What's the agreement on this page regarding that (or not)? Lustigson (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been discussed here yet at all. Tvx1 12:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Car pages need doing
Since I seen six cars that need pages, Williams FW38, Toro Rosso STR11, Sauber C35, Red Bull RB12, McLaren MP4-31 and Force India VJM09. They have redirects so I think they need changing as soon as possible.92.21.243.90 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It will happen. Just give it some time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * MP4-31 article has been created. I probably won't focus on it as much as I did the MP4-30 last year. The European GP will probably be my pet project for the year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, they're all done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! In order for them to make more sense than last year though, we'll all have to pull together and make the car articles better. They do not need to be as comprehensive as PM's article on the last McLaren, but a good prose on performance over the season (and please not just "finished xth there, qualified xth there", that's what the table is for!) and some decent info on car development should be possible if we all chip in. Ceterum censeo that the new qualifying is complete crap. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Chassis Names
Some corrections are required to chassis names on the 'teams and drivers' and constructors tables: Red Bull-Tag Heuer should be 'Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer' ('teams and drivers' and constructors tables) Manor-Mercedes should be 'MRT-Mercedes' (constructors tables) 78.145.16.197 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

McLaren Honda!
The Name of the Team is just McLaren Honda according to their Homepage! The German Wikipedia Page already changed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:A82:A400:D051:CEBB:2428:89A0 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's "McLaren Honda Formula 1 Team" on the FIA entry list. Eightball (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying
This points out that the qualifying system hasn't been reverted (yet) at all, and that for the next we will either still have the knockout system in place, either have a hybrid version. Tvx1 23:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this should be a problem as long as we stick by the sources. It is clear what all the key players want: The teams have in their majority voted to go back to the old system with some voting for compromise, now the FIA stubbornly holds on to the chance of compromise. Certainly, we cannot put it as drastically as this in the article, but that is what happened. As long as we write what negotiation happened, we will be fine (all the sources are there). Zwerg Nase (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But this article currently claims the format has been reverted. Surely that's not correctly representing the sources. Team bosses want it to to be, but it hasn't happened (yet). Tvx1 13:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We're stuck with this crappy system for the time being. Motorsport is reporting McLaren and Red Bull refused to return to the 2015 rules. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Read that source again, please. I clearly states that the FIA refused to go back to the 2015 rules and that Red Bull and McLaren would only accept to go back to the 2015 rules and not to the hybrid format the FIA gave as an alternative. Tvx1 01:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct. I misread it. In fact, the FIA didn't even offer an option of returning to the 2015 rules, which I am sure the teams would've jumped at. Ecclestone and Todt effed everything up, as usual. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

World Drivers' Championship standings
Hello, can I suggest to the editors of this page that they put the starting position on the grid next to the final position in the race in the World Drivers' Championship standings. So for example. Rosberg would read (2)1 and (2)1, Hamilton (1)2 and (1)3, and Ricciardo (8)4 and (5), etc. 4. As it is, you have to go to each race report to see the starting position compared to the finishing position and a quick analysis of an individual racer's race, from start to finish, compared with their teammates and the other racers around them is not possible.

I think such an addition would be simple, elegant and useful. Here is the grid I am referring to, Bodhadeepika (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC):


 * I think 1) it would make the table much harder to read and 2) the starting positions have nothing to do with the championship standings, so it does not make much sense anyway. Pole and fastest lap are enough in that category... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it really make the table that much harder to read? Have you tried it? I'd say the starting positions have everything to do with the championship standings, because they have everything to do with the race results, which are presented in the table. As I said, it would allow for greater insight of individual racers' progress throughout the season. Plus, if you only want to get a cursory understanding of the championship standings you need only look at the far right of the table to see the point total, and the far left, to see who is where. Why not give it a try? Bodhadeepika (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Grid position has everything to do with the race? Seems like someone failed to inform John Watson ;) Serioulsy, the table is confusing enough as it is with many numbers and colors. Adding more numbers in brackets makes it harder to get a quick overview. In addition, you wouldn't just need numbers, but also (PT) at times, making the columns even wider, making the whole table wider. All very impractical... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a pity Gatekeeper Zwerg. :) There is unfortunately no website where you can quickly assess two F1 teammates' performances against each over an entire season. Or if there is, I haven't come across it yet. In order to quickly understand how well Verstappen outperformed Sainz Jr. or vice-versa over a season, for example. The F1 website is just as bad. It makes you go into each individual race. Any true fan obviously keeps a close eye on intrateam rivalries, so I would have thought it would be useful, and wiki could maybe step up to the plate. :) Bodhadeepika (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * F1Fanatic has detailed in-team comparisons both at mid-season and after the end of the season. Like here for instance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thank you. They even use my bracket suggestion for grid positions on their result table. Doesn't look too messy! ;) . Cheers, Bodhadeepika (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a F1 fansite and it is not our duty to provide in-depth analysis of driver performances. Moreover, just counting the number of places won in comparison to start position, does not give you a reliable picture of drivers' racing/overtaking performances. One can perfectly win many places simply through accidents in the early phase of a race, through other drivers retiring with reliability issues, through teams making strategic errors, a timely safety-car period, etc...
 * Take today's Bahrain Grand Prix for instance. Rio Haryanto started in 20th position and finished 17th. You wou probably say he put in a good performance winning three place during the race. I say he started second-to-last (1 car started in the pit lane) and finished last, thus he actually lost a place, and it's a race to forget quickly for him. The only reason he "won" some net places is because three drivers ahead of him retired and two others didn't even make it to the starting grid. Just tallying up the difference between start and finishing positions gives you a misleading image. Race reports are the far better measuring instrument for driver performances. Tvx1 20:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with a lot of what you have said, however, having easy access to grid starts for a whole season would tell us a lot about the performances of the drivers in the qualifying sessions, and that is important. Obviously, there are many factors as to why drivers end up where they end up by the end of the race: crashes, red flags, yellow flags, racing incidents, sloppy driving, etc. Race reports may be better but that doesn't mean a new table couldn't be knocked up for world championship points with the grid positions included. I won't ask any more though. But I don't think it would be that confusing, nor unaesthetic, nor beyond or out of character for wikipedia to provide that information. Consider it a positive challenge. Like racing with a Renault engine, or trying to overtake in Monaco. ;) Bodhadeepika (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This table is for the World Championship standings, not for data analysis. Comparing driver start positions and finish positions is possible, you just have to do work to do it, or go to a more specialist website that displays such information.  We are not here to provide you with ease to find ever conceivable statistic.  Start positions does not tell anyone anything about the driver's points totals, therefore it has no immediate purpose in this table.  The table does exactly what it says, overloading it with non-related trivia is not helpful.  The359  ( Talk ) 21:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides, start positions aren't synonymous with qualifying positions. Nearly every race there are drivers who are demoted after qualifying due to penalties for technical infringements or sporting violations or even drivers who have to start from pit lane due to mechanical problems. Tvx1 22:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Table Style
May we stop reverting custom table style that is broken on Firefox. There has been no consensus over using broken style. And couldn't be, as there is an official Wikipedia design for tables. Elk Salmon (talk)
 * *sigh* This is a neverending topic... I have tried several times in the past year to go back to the usual wikitable style, but there was never a consensus to go back. Personally, I do not understand one bit why we keep this crude style... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is consensus for this. Moreover, the style being "broken" is just an opinion. The lines are just a bit darker in Firefox, that's all. That's not exactly broken. Wikitables were ditched because it creates even more issues with even more other browsers. Reverting only caters Firefox while ignoring the others. Tvx1 11:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not really true, since the issues with the Wikitables were fixed at Village Pump, on our initiative. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or are the tables now completely weird? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A follow up discussion to the one I linked above was held and their were clear differing opinion on whether the new table style looked better or worse in Firefox. Not everything was solved with wikitables. The borders are still pretty light on most mobile browsers if you ask me. This is especially annoying for the championship standings' matrices. Tvx1 12:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now, the constructor's table still looks off. HTML 1995 like off... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that bad. The lines are clearly visible now. They are barely in the other tables. Tvx1 14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are just few persons in discussion. Some against official wikitable style, some in favor. It's not what is called consensus. And it's not just a little darker. They look completely out of place. Hello HTML3. Still, we've been discussing it before and agreed to wait a bit until Wiki lands new mobile style. It's there now. It works, . Elk Salmon (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Zwerg, and I don't see the problems that apparently exist with wikitables that justify creating a bespoke table just for this article. If there is still an issue with using a standard wikitable, then surely this would have manifested itself at a project level by now. We really shouldn't be diverging from the norm on a design issue. QueenCake (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know what's going on, but I'd like to point out that currently the drivers' and constructors' standings look different from each other, with the constructors' being the odd one (in the sense that tables never looked like that as far as I can remember). Luxic (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a first thing for everything. And obviously this isn't intended solely for this article. Tvx1 18:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know how the table looks in your browser but I highly doubt that you actually want the table to look like it does for me (see screenshot)... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? Tvx1 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, that works, thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * whatever the style, using a smaller font is not good to me. I set the text size to a size confortable for reading, and then the tables break it. I either have to further increase the text size (thus rendering the normal text to a extra large, also not confortable, size) or strain my eyes (not everybody is a 20/20 vision 20 year old reader, you know?...). Or give up. - Nabla (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That was my initial argument for going back to the wikitables all along!! They are far easier to read. But no one listens... *sigh* Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I have already explained this to you a previous time this was raised, but font size has absolutely nothing to do with the table's rendering style. The font size is currently set at 85% and we can perfectly change this without changing the table's class. Tvx1 11:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then this raises the question why, when these table were initially introduced in early 2015, was such a small font chosen? Was there ever a debate about this? Or was it just the usual "It looks better on my mobile device" argument by PM? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all. This font size has actually been in use from way before when this table style was adopted. Tvx1 18:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I can see, the race reports pre-2015 have 95% font size wiki tables. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The season articles don't, though. Even 1950 Formula One season has used 85% for ages. The same for constructor articles. I think this is to prevent the championships' standings tables from becoming too big. To add to the confusion though, driver articles seem to use 90%. Tvx1 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know which size was anything. I do know that if we make the font small enough we could fit the whole Wikipedia in one page :-) I mean, using a small font just make the data fit is a poor argument, from my point of view. If I can not read the data, because the font too small, having a lot of data is the same as having none (allow me the hyperbole, but you get the point). I also do not know about other pages, but the tables on this page could *easily* be made to fit while using a normal font size. Other solutions are certainly possible, just as examples
 * Signed teams and drivers: drop the flags, shorten the team names ("Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team" to "Mercedes", use the full name on the team's article not here), split the drivers to another table.
 * Scheduled events: I presume it is using 85% font only to be consistent with other tables.
 * Results: Drop the flags (if needed they would be on the initial tables already), shorten the Grand Prix names by removing "Grand Prix" (it is in the heading) or using GP
 * Standings: harder to shorten except for the team's flags. Also team names are already in a shorter form. So, split in two. Either 10/11, 11/10 races each, or 12/9 if that larger August break has some special reason. PS: there is a "key" table so far to the right that I missed it! Split that out.
 * Just giving out a few ideas, as a reader, not trying to change everything in a large blow :-) Thanks! - Nabla (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Season report
Okay, so after all that nonsense we went through about the relevance of the season report, we're just going to completely ignore it? We're five races into the season and all that been filled in is pre- and mid-seaaon testing. Either fill it in, or remove it&mdash;you can't have it both ways. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, someone needs to do it. Unfortunately, I am pretty busy, mainly with the race reports, still need to finish off Russia and do China almost completely... Can someone else jump in? maybe? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, there's nothing that prevents you from having a got at it yourself instead of lecturing other users. Tvx1 12:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with, I am only a novice but at least I am TRYING to expand the section. We can all sit here and say that things need to be done but its different to actually doing it. There is definitely a need to have it there as there are no dedicated pages for the testing reports therefore this information would not be anywhere else on Wikipedia. MetalDylan (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2016 (BST)
 * There is good reason why you don't find no dedicated pages for testing reports. It is of very low importance. It's that same lack of importance that means that testing has no televised or streamed live coverage. Heck, there isn't even any official timekeeping. Right now our season report has a massively disproportionate amount of coverage of pre-season and in-season testing. Tvx1 16:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "You know, there's nothing that prevents you from having a got at it yourself instead of lecturing other users."
 * I'm still opposed to its inclusion; I still feel that the race articles are the more appropriate place for detailed reports. Just because a consensus was achieved, that doesn't mean that I am going to agree with it. And if I don't agree with its inclusion, why am I going to spend the time building it when I have other Wikipedia projects that I do want to be working on? Last year, editors made a big song and dance about the necessity of its inclusion, but here we are a year later and those same editors have neglected it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So what? You want a season article without any prose that tells who won the championship and how? That's just ridiclous. Even before last year we have always had season reports in our season articles. If you don't care about it I don't see why you're bossing around other users over it. And those "same editors" are not all around anymore. Some have disappeared from the project, others have newly joined it. That's how wikipedia works. Tvx1 22:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have started an opening rounds report on the page, please feel free to butcher and add to if you can, otherwise I will try and pick it up when im free. Apologies in advance if it is not great! MetalDylan (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2016 (BST)

Center align columns in table
Why is the constructor column center aligned but the chassis and power unit not, it is better looking to have them all centrally aligned. I know it's only aesthetic and doesn't "add" anything but hey maybe that's just me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.163.19.100 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the constructor column being centered... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The constructor column is definitely centred, the entrant column isn't and rightly so as there are flag icons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.163.19.100 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you post a screenshot of how it looks on your computer? Because in my browser, the constructor column is definitely not centred... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On Chrome it is indeed center aligned. I'm not sure of the wikitable terminology, but by starting a cell with an "!" it creates a bold, centered text, with a slightly darker background.  It's the same for the column headers for all the sections.  I'm guessing here, but I believe the original intention of having the constructors column stand out, was to point out that that was what the table was sorted by. JohnMcButts (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the darker background was put in the table manually, not from the exclamation point. JohnMcButts (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * When I watch i Safari of Firefox it's center-aligned as well. And that's how I've always known it. Tvx1 17:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "I know it's only aesthetic and doesn't "add" anything"
 * You're right&mdash;it is only aesthetic and it doesn't add anything, and editing decisions should not be made based on aesthetics. Because it's such a large table, left alignment is better because our eyes are programmed to read from left to right. Centre alignment disrupts that process, making it harder for the reader to follow along because the eye struggles to hold the line that it is reading. The problem is compounded by the way Wikipedia uses a sans serif font for its default font (which cannot be changed in-article).


 * The constructor column is the exception to the rule here. First, it highlights the names of the constructors that readers will most likely know them by; this is important because teams have three names: the constructor name (the name to which all results are credited), the formal name (the name the team uses to refer to itself, usually incorporating sponsors), and the trading name (the name that the team is registered under to trade as a business; this name does not appear in the table). Secondly, it highlights the name that is used to refer to the team throughout the article; for example, you will notice that Williams is always referred to as "Williams", not "Williams Martini Racing". Thirdly, the table is arranged alphabetically by constructor name. This is a decision that was made to promote stability in the table year after year following the introduction of custom racing numbers. By highlighting the constructor name, we show how the table is arranged.


 * The names of the power unit supply, power unit model and chassis are of tertiary importance at best (constructor names and drivers being the most important, followed by the rounds competed in). By centre-aligning them, it places at greater emphasis on them when no such emphasis is needed. It also does this without giving any indication of why those entries are important enough to be presented in such a way.


 * Hence, centre alignment of those columns is a really bad idea and a perfect example of why we don't make editing decisions based on aesthetics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Error in Driver Standings
In the table Palmer is placed above Gutierrez, which is incorrect. Both their best finishes is 11th but the latter has achieved this result more times. Below is a link to the official standing from the FIA. Please can someone better experienced rectify this?

https://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/championship/results/2016-driver-standings.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalDylan (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Aesthetic change to race classification
This is just a suggestion so feel free shoot me down (as im sure you will). but i think this is a nice visual representation...


 * No worries, I'm not shootin'. However, I have two problems with this. 1) I am quite conservative when it comes to format changes. I am still ranting against the latest change in table style in this WikiProject actually. 2) and more importantly, while there is precedent for such a format, it is used in instances when there are actually medals given out, such as at the Olympics. However, that is not the case in Formula One.


 * On a side note: This discussion should probably be moved here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say no as well. I really don't see the need for it. It's pretty obvious that the drivers are listed in the order that they finished, so marking them with gold, silver and bronze achieves nothing. The colour-coding in the results matrix is necessary because individual results vary from round to round. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Table Style, next round
It was again revert to custom style. Since mobile style was fixed, may be we go ahead and fix borders in Firefox, as it was agreed before? Elk Salmon (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And what needs to be "fixed". Sure borders are a tad darker in Firefox, but I don't see why that's a problem. I actually think their readability is better. Tvx1 14:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not darker, but black. This makes them very difficult to read. So, as there is no more problem with mobile style we getting style reverted to standard wiki style. Elk Salmon (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Results and standings
I would like to add the driver number to the World Drivers' Championship standings. It wouldn't add anything to the drivers' standing table, but it would make it easier to interpret the constructors' table, which, for good reason, uses the drivers' numbers, not their full names. The numbers used in the constructors' table appear only in the table at the top of the article, which means that anyone who wants to attach names to the numbers has to scroll backward through most of the article to find them. There's plenty of horizontal room to add the numbers to the drivers' table, so it seems like a useful compromise. Before I do that, does anyone have any thoughtful objections? Rks13 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed and opposed here. The drivers' numbers have little relevance to the championship standings, so they would just take unnecessary place there. The names already tell who scored which result. I'm not even convinced we need the numbers in the constructors standings either. After all, it does matter for the championship who scored which result. Regardless, those numbers are linked so that when you click on them the corresponding driver's row in the drivers standings is brought to the top of your screen.Tvx1 16:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's mostly a discussion about colors, although it started with a discussion of the numbers. Yes, the numbers are linked, but to a table that doesn't include the number that's used to link them, so I need extra information to figure out that the link has taken me to the relevant driver. I want to know, while looking at the constructors' standings, which drivers have contributed points. Right now, I can't do that. I can look at the constructors' standings, or I can see the drivers' names, but I can't do both. If we added the numbers to the drivers' standings, which is directly above the constructors' standings, I could see both on the screen at the same. Yes, all of the information is already available in different places, but this would improve the readability, simply by adding a very narrow column to the drivers' standings table. Rks13 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the links in the constructors table should instead take the reader to the "Teams and drivers" section, as that is where the relevant information is. Mattlore (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Save for the fact that who contributed points isn't really important for the constructor championship. Whether Hamilton or Rosberg scored their wins has no bearing on Mercedes' position in the constructor's standings. You can see who scored which result in the drivers' table. That's why it's there for. The constructors' table is only concerned with which results were scored by which constructor. Tvx1 20:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rks13 that the drivers' numbers should appear next to their names in the World Drivers' Championship standings table. This would make cross-referencing quicker and easier for readers. -- de Facto (talk). 20:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this is beyond the scope of the tables and the numbers are already linked for just that. Tvx1 09:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "beyond the scope of the tables" mean? Also, again, yes, the information can be assembled from other places, including through the badly link numbers, but what exactly is the problem with adding one small column to the drivers' results table? It would improve the readability of the pair of tables. This isn't a normalized database; it's OK to include the same information in more than one place if doing so makes the article easier to read. As for whether who contributed the points is important, it's important enough that the table includes separate lines for each driver, it just doesn't provide an effective way to figure out who that driver is; instead it provides an ineffective way. My suggestion is to provide a more effective way to identify the driver. Rks13 (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Beyond the scope of the tables means that a) the constructors' table isn't concerned with whom scored which result for them, and b) the information that's included in those tables is not intended to be meant to help understand other tables. Both tables are designed to be independent self-sustained tables. I cannot see how adding those driver numbers to the drivers' table improves the readability of the drivers' table. I doesn't add anything. The names already provide distinction. Possibly improving readability of an other table should not be a consideration when adding content to one. The constructors' championship is independent and has its own outcome. Which driver scored which result is utterly unimportant for that championship (See for an example of when there were differences between Drivers' and Constructors' results). Likewise we don't split those rows for chassis variations because it has no bearing on the outcome. In the constructors' table we don't have different rows for different drivers, but for different cars. Each constructor enters two cars for a race and thus scores up to two results per race. Each result (but not the identity of the driver) affects the outcome of the constructors championship, hence why we list all of them. Prior to 2014 it was abundantly clear just how less the sport cares about which driver scores points towards the constructor championship. Numbers were tied to cars back then and we would just have one row per car no matter how many drivers drove the same car. For instance  has just one row for each of the five drivers who drove the #11 Lotus and one for each of the five drivers who drove #32 Simtek. And you know why? Because who drove the car is unimportant for the constructors' championship. Tvx1 11:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you say "In the constructors' table we don't have different rows for different drivers, but for different cars". Have Red Bull, Toro Rosso and McLaren all entered 3 cars this season? Adding the driver's number to the drivers' table adds clarity and removes one source of frustration when trying to understand it. I haven't read a convincing case for leaving it out, so am still of the opinion that it would add value. -- de Facto (talk). 06:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The convincing case is that the identity of the drivers isn't important to the constructors' championship. How adding driver numbers to the drivers' table adds clarity to that table is something I fail to see. And we shouldn't be adding to content to one table to explain the content of an other. If you must include the driver's names to the numbers in the constructors' there are much easier ways to achieve that. For instance, you could use tooltips. Regardless we don't just oblige to whim of one our two editors who demand that they should be able to find out some information. Someone made a different proposal for adding content to those tables and we didn't implement that either. Your arguments would actually support reverting to the pre-2014 way of writing constructors' table: just two rows for each constructor. One a side note, I have found another previous discussion on this matter, which didn't seem to get any support in favor of the column either. Tvx1 22:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The number column of the constructors table is only there to add a bit of verisimilitude between the tables. The content of each matrix is identical, but the order is different. The number column serves as a supplementary aid to help the reader make sense of the table if they need it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Testing
Having read through the race report section, I noticed every test session held this season is being detailed. We have never done that before. It's my understanding that consensus has always been not to do so. Our edit notices even contained a requested not to do so. So what gives? Tvx1 11:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that when I started the first test section. Feel free to delete it if the consensus dictates so. However, I feel that if we cover testing, which surely has some impact on the championship, it should be here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I was just coming in here to raise the same point&mdash;there is as much detail on the second test as there is on the mid-season rounds. It's an insane level of detail.


 * As much as I appreciate that this is the season article and thus deals with events that affect the season, there needs to be a point where we rein it in. The season summary should be just that: a summary. It should be succint and touch on the major points, but it should not grow to the point where it threatens to make the individual race articles redundant.


 * Honestly, I think the best guideline for this is WP:FILMPLOT, which states that the plot section of a film should be between four hundred and seven hundred words. If we think of the season as having a narrative, then I think that we can apply the same logic, though seven hundred words is probably too brief.


 * In a twenty-race calendar, I would suggest breaking the report up into four or five sections, each with a limit of six or seven hundred words. Details of testing could of course be included, but I would limit it relative to the races; I would suggest no more than two hundred or two hundred and fifty words. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just went and gutted ~2000kB of content from that section on the grounds that there was too much detail in the old version. This, I feel, is what a section on a mid-season test should look like. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ocon's starting number
Esteban Ocon has announced he will race with #31 in the Manor/MRT, however, he is stated as running with #45 in the Renault. Is the latter incorrect? Or has Ocon in fact changed numbers? Lustigson (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, do you have a source for his statement? Secondly, free practice (and test) numbers aren't chosen by the drivers. So yes, if he does use 31 while driving for Manor, he will have used two numbers this year. The sources for him using 45 are in the sources cell in the bottom of the table. Tvx1 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ferrari Engine Designations
There seems to be some confusion around the proper designation for the 2015-spec Ferrari engines run by Toro Rosso, the 2016-spec Ferrari engines run by Sauber and Haas, and the works engines run by Ferrari themselves. Here is the most official info I was able to find:
 * Specs of the STR11 from the Toro Rosso website, designating the engine as "Ferrari Engine 060 - 2015"
 * VF-16 specs from the Haas F1 website, designating the engine as "Ferrari 061"
 * Specs of the SF16-H from F1 Technical, where the engine is designated as "Ferrari 059/5". Curiously, Ferrari's F1 website does not provide a designation for the engine.

Now, there's a forum post on F1 Technical, it's probably not official, but while discussing the STR11, the post states the Ferrari 060 is based on the 059/4. Since: It stands to reason that the 2015-spec Ferrari engines run by Toro Rosso in 2016 can not be perfectly identical to the actual 2015 engines run in 2015, if only for the "screamer pipe." It seems this 2015-spec engine (typo 059/4) has been designated typo 060, as stated on the Toro Rosso website.
 * Toro Rosso are running 2015-spec Ferrari engines in 2016 in their STR11,
 * 2016 regulations require a "screamer pipe,"
 * 2015 engines did not have a "screamer pipe,"

According to Haas's website for their 2016 car, they are designating the engine as Ferrari 061, and Haas had been announced as running 2016-spec engines in 2016. Further to this, Andrian Newey is claiming that some engine suppliers are not providing truly "works" engines to their customer teams, especially where the software, lubricants and fuel are concerned. This could explain the separate designations for Ferrari's 2016-spec "works" engine, the typo 059/5, and the 2016-spec customer engine, the typo 061. Real tlhingan (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your thoughts, but I'm afraid that it is flooded with WP:OR and synthesis. We always have to support out content with reliable sources. So you're recent edit where you supported content with your own claim of "this is how the power unit is called" wrapped in ref tags is simply unacceptable. The only designations we have from the teams actually using the Ferrari power units is 060 for 2015 and 061 for 2016. So we have to reflect that. The only ones we have not calling it that are from the likes of omnicorse and F1 Technical. But they have always seem to have made their own assumptions how they were called. The addition of a screamer pipe is not enough to claim a different power unit type. Similarly a [Ferrari F300 with x-wings is still a Ferrari F300. Lastly, Adrian Newey did not claim the customer's power unit is different. He told that the software is different. In essence the physical power unit's are all the same, but there are variations in how they are operated. [[User:Tvx1|T]]vx1 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Mercedes has 593 points not 588
After the Japanese GP, Mercedes has 593. Who put 588??? just add 313 (Rosberg) and 280 (Hamilton).. Alexsd27 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing out the error. DH85868993 (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Season report wording
I have taken issue with the wording of the season report; in particular, this section:


 * "He [Hamilton] was forced to run a race of recovery, using pit strategy to reclaim third place going into the final phase of the race. He could not get past Max Verstappen for second though, the Dutchman blocking his attempt on the penultimate lap, and so he finished third."

This implies that Hamilton was unfairly robbed of second place by Verstappen's move. "Blocking" has a very particular meaning in Formula One&mdash;deliberately impeding another competitor in violation of the rules. Thus, the article reads as if Verstappen's move was a blatant attempt to prevent Hamilton from successfully executing a pass that he would have otherwise completed, and in doing so finished second, which makes this a clear example of bias. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, especially as the text gives a specific point in time (the penultimate lap) implying that this was a single action that Verstappen did. However, the fact that Hamilton was unable to overtake Verstappen when he reached him is notable and should be included. I agree with your change (possibly replacing "pass" with "overtake") Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think it's ok now. On a side note, the whole season report is in desperate need of sources. The opening and European rounds sections cite just one source each, while the return to Asia section doesn't cite any source at all. Tvx1 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For some of those rounds, taking sources over from the race reports should be a fairly simple way of filling those gaps. Unfortunately, as some of you might have noticed, I have not had time in months to work on race reports, so many since about Canada do not provide enough sources as well... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought blocking is making a defensive move after the attacker moves as many drivers say in this video. This clip was used to demonstrate the difference between fair position defense vs. blocking in an F1 Fanatic article of late as well. Of course, I think this is not a per se definition so I'm open to accepting the current wording as a result. (Just wanted to point out that the definition itself is ambiguous.) Atticus32 22:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@ &mdash; it's not so much the definition of the word, but the implication that the move was illegal. By calling it a block, it's implied that Hamilton would have made the move and should have finished second. While the move itself was controversial at the time and Mercedes wanted to protest it, Hamilton himself said that he saw nothing wrong with it. It's subtle, but to call it a block introduces bias into the article. Especially if Hamilton loses the title by a point or two. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Season summary in lead
I'm looking at the lead of the article at the moment and trying to figure out how to word it once Abu Dhabi is finished. I know what I want it to stay, but I am a little bit unsure as to whether it's appropriate because of some of the policies regarding link targets. This is what it says at the moment:
 * "Lewis Hamilton started the season as the defending Drivers' Champion for the second year running, after winning his third World Championship title at the 2015 United States Grand Prix. His team, Mercedes, started the season as the defending Constructors' Champion, having secured its second championship title at the 2015 Russian Grand Prix. After twenty races, Nico Rosberg leads the Drivers' Championship, twelve points ahead of team-mate Hamilton, while Mercedes secured their third consecutive Constructors' Championship title."

And this is what I am thinking of:
 * ''"After twenty-one races, Nico Rosberg won his first World Drivers' Championship title, beating team-mate Lewis Hamilton by [x number of] points. In doing so, Rosberg became the second son of a Champion [link to Keke Rosberg] to become champion himself, after Graham and Damon Hill. Their team, Mercedes, successfully defended their World Constructors' Championship title for the second year running, beating [Red Bull/Ferrari] by [x number of points]."

Now, before anybody points this out, yes it is Rosberg-specific. I am not trying to predict the future; I have a Hamilton-specific version as well, and it's much more straightforward. I'm bringing this one up here because it has issues that the Hamilton version doesn't.

Here's the issue: Wikipedia has a policy on target links that says a reader should have a reasonable idea of where a link will take them before they click it. There's a link in there that reads "son of a Champion" and leads to Keke Rosberg's article. I'm not sure if this meets the policy, because although it's not immediately apparent where the "son of a Champion" link will go, the wording makes it pretty clear that there is a relationship between Rosberg and the subject of the "son of a Champion" link.

Secondly, there's an awkward transition from Graham and Damon Hill to Mercedes. The reader might not realise that the "their" of "their team" refers to Rosberg and Hamilton, not Hill and Hill. It's awkward, but I am still working on it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would change the former sentence to "In doing so, he and his father Keke became the second father and son who both won the world championship, after Graham and Damon Hill." and I would drop "their team" from the latter sentence altogether. Tvx1 11:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I did consider something like that, but felt that it put too much emphasis on Keke. Perhaps something like this instead:
 * '"After twenty-one races, Mercedes driver Nico Rosberg won his first World Drivers' Championship title, beating team-mate Lewis Hamilton by [x number of] points. In doing so, Rosberg became the second son of a Champion [link to Keke Rosberg]&mdash;after Graham and Damon Hill&mdash;to become champion himself. In the World Constructors' Championship, Mercedes, successfully defended their title for the second year running, beating [Red Bull/Ferrari] by [x number of points]."
 * It's still not the most eloquent solution, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the version by, since I find "became the second father and son who both won the world championship" sounds better than "second son of a Champion" as well as getting rid of the link issue. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is barely a difference in the "son of a champion" sentence in your second proposal. The link problem remains and one would expect to be directed to an F1 records article. Also If you write "Rosberg became the second son of a Champion" it is incorrect to follow that with "after Graham and Damon" because Graham is not a son himself of course.Tvx1 12:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The link problem remains and one would expect to be directed to an F1 records article."

Possibly, but I think the wording "son of a Champion" circumvents that because it makes it clear that there is a relationship between Nico and Keke, even if Keke isn't immediately identified as the subject of the article on the other side of the link.


 * "Also If you write "Rosberg became the second son of a Champion" it is incorrect to follow that with "after Graham and Damon" because Graham is not a son himself of course."

Then just swap "Graham and Damon Hill" to become "Damon and Graham Hill".


 * "I find "became the second father and son who both won the world championship" sounds better than "second son of a Champion" as well as getting rid of the link issue.

At this point, I think it might be worth expanding the paragraph to shift the focus away from the Rosbergs. Father-and-son champions might read like trivia, but it's incredibly rare and I think there is merit in mentioning it. Perhaps something like this:


 * ''"Nico Rosberg won his first World Drivers' Championship title in the final race of the season. With ten wins, six podiums and three hundred and six points, Rosberg beat team-mate and defending World Champion Lewis Hamilton. In doing so, Rosberg followed the success of his father in and became the second son of a champion to become champion himself, a feat previously achieved by Graham and Damon Hill. In the World Constructors' Championship, Mercedes successfully defended their title for the second consecutive year, beating Red Bull Racing by two hundred and eighty points. Ferrari finished third overall, a further seventy-nine points behind."

I've made up the numbers for the sake of readability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Who turned up the power
This is a quote from the season report "Mercedes countered the threat posed by Ricciardo by turning up the power of Rosberg's engine, risking increased wear and damage but allowing Rosberg to hold Ricciardo off long enough to win the race". Did Mercedes instruct Rosberg to turn up the power or did Merceded just turn up the power themselves? Mobile mundo (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)