Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship

Changing flag icon to flagathlete.
This usage was recommended during the featured article review for and then implemented in accordance with WP:ACCESS. It should probably be applied here as well. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:34:9C3D:7E6C:903 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is necessary to comply with MOS:ACCESS. If we say that drivers represnt countries then those countries should be distinguisable for those with colourblindness/screen readers (or do they read flags) etc. SSSB (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:FLAG appears to be the appropriate guideline, which says that country names should accompany the flag icons ("Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue"). So I think we ought to change it to use either flag or flagathlete. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I think the guideline is quite outdated in that respect. Wikipedia has evolved a lot technically since that text was written and we already provide these flags in an interactive version that caters even to blind people. And don't forget that MOS is a merely a guideline and not policy, rule or law we must follow to the letter. We have presented flags through the flagicon template for years and I have literally never seen any reader complain that they cannot understand the meaning of any flag. Moreover, we have many GA's and FA's that do only use the flagicon template. This has been extensively discussed by the F1 Wikiproject and the consensus was in favor of the current usage (see this discussion which was initiated during a FA nomination of an article which was ultimately promoted with the use of the flagicon template). Thus I believe the issue is massively overstated and that the current usage reflects the actual community consensus. It works perfectly and there are no complaints with regards to the flags.Tvx1 00:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tvx1 here. The guideline and its application seem inconsistent with current usage. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 00:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tvx1 and 5225C. Flagathlete makes the wikicode harder to read/edit and I'm not convinced it provides any benefit. I don't believe that readers are any more likely to know the flag than the 3-letter abbreviation, but with the flag you put cursor over the flag to get the country name (or click for the page) but with "flagathlete" the flag tells you nothing and you still need to put your cursor over the abbreviation to get the full country name which is unintuitive (having the flag not tell you anything is unintuitive I mean). I wonder also how well flagathlete works on mobile? A7V2 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Side note: This was briefly referenced here regarding a Featured Article review and accessibility per MOS:ACCESS. Admanny (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 versus SARS-CoV-2
Rather than having an edit war can we please discuss this here and seek a consensus? "COVID-19" is WP:PLAINENGLISH and most, if not all of the cited sources use "COVID-19" rather than "SARS-CoV-2". I do understand that from a pedantic perspective "SARS-CoV-2" is more precise. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I made the first edit, I will chip in. Every article I've seen on F1 drivers or other personnel (or indeed, any article on anybody) who contracts the virus uses the phrasing "tested positive for COVID-19". This is an article on Formula 1, not a medical article. "Tested positive for COVID-19" is the most widely-used and widely-understood phrasing and therefore I think it should be used here to avoid unnecessary confusion. Jestal50 (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the potential for confusion is a problem, in particular because "SARS" as a term is primarily associated with... well... SARS, and not COVID-19. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree this isn't a medical article, and the common name used in sources is COVID-19. Therefore, we should use that. Casual readers will understand what "tested positive for COVID-19" means, but not what "tested positive for SARS-CoV-2" means. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying "tested positive for COVID-19 doesnt make any sense. It's as ludicrous as saying "tested positive for sneeze" regardless of what sources say. (Commonname is irrelevant here, that policy refers to article title). However, I do understand that some people dont know what "SARS-CoV-2" is. Saying "tested positive for coronavirus" seems like a suitable compromise as it is both accurate and simple. SSSB (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Tested positive for COVID-19" may not make sense in a very specific professional medical context, but it clearly makes sense in literally any other context because otherwise reliable sources wouldn't be consistently saying it. Arguing that "you can't say he tested positive for COVID-19, because SARS-CoV-2 is the thing they test you for" is a lot like saying "you can't say that you put a vegetable in your soup, because a tomato is a fruit". There are contexts where specifying that they tested for the virus is necessary, and contexts where it's potentially confusing for readers to go into needless levels of precision. Given that nearly all sources say "tested positive for COVID-19" I think it's fair to say that that is how the collective will of all Anglophones have decided that the English language works. "Tested positive for the COVID-19 virus" may be a fair compromise. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you actually think about what COVID-19 stands for, you soon realise that it makes no sense to say you test positive for a desease.
 * Saying tested positive for COVID-19 only makes sense in English if you don't think about/know what the D stands for because saying "tested positive for coronavirus disease-19" doesn't work in English. I know it's being a little pedantic but we are not simple wikipedia and we can afford to make things not wrong for the sake of very very little addition complexity.
 * Your compromise is acceptable, but I still prefer mine (which is basically yours truncated after "COVI" with "COVI" spelt out. SSSB (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not simple write: "tested positive for the corona virus that causes Covid-19"? --Mark McWire (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Equally acceptable. SSSB (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not "being a little pedantic", it's a view of linguistics that's at least 60 years out of date. "They tested positive for COVID-19" makes sense and is grammatically correct because people understand what it means. End of story. That's how language works. I will concede that "they tested positive for the COVID-19 virus" is probably the best compromise, as "tested positive for (the) coronavirus" seems to have fallen out of favour in recent months. "SARS-CoV-2" should be avoided in all non-technical contexts, however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This starting to become WP:FORUM but something being understood and being grammatically correct are not the same thing in any universe. That's not how language works at all. SSSB (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn’t make sense. Tested positive for COVID-19 is fundamentally wrong because they do not test for that all. They test for the virus. COVID-19 is a very serious disease and luckely far from everyone infected contracts that disease. In fact so far none of the infected F1 drivers have contracted the disease. We’re dealing with living people here so BLP applies. Claiming they have/had a disease they never actually had is unacceptable. “tested positive for the corona virus that causes Covid-19" is something that I cannot support either as it implies that getting the virus and contracting the disease are inclusive, which is wrong. If the full abbreviation is problematic, we could also write part of it out, e.g. SARS-2-coronavirus. Tvx1 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "In fact so far none of the infected F1 drivers have contracted the disease." What do you mean by this? Perez, Stroll and Hamilton were all infected with the virus, and hence contracted the disease. All of them had symptoms. Official communication from Formula 1, and all news publications, stated that they "tested positive for COVID-19". Jestal50 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn’t make sense. Tested positive for COVID-19 is fundamentally wrong because they do not test for that all. They test for the virus. COVID-19 is a very serious disease and luckely far from everyone infected contracts that disease. In fact so far none of the infected F1 drivers have contracted the disease. We’re dealing with living people here so BLP applies. Claiming they have/had a disease they never actually had is unacceptable. “tested positive for the corona virus that causes Covid-19" is something that I cannot support either as it implies that getting the virus and contracting the disease are inclusive, which is wrong. If the full abbreviation is problematic, we could also write part of it out, e.g. SARS-2-coronavirus. Tvx1 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "In fact so far none of the infected F1 drivers have contracted the disease." What do you mean by this? Perez, Stroll and Hamilton were all infected with the virus, and hence contracted the disease. All of them had symptoms. Official communication from Formula 1, and all news publications, stated that they "tested positive for COVID-19". Jestal50 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

contracting the virus is NOT the same as contracting the disease, in any way. Saying that they tested positive for COVID-19 is just wrong. That's not how diseases work. Nor is showing symptoms definitive evidence of having contracted the disease, there is more than one instance where someone can have those symptoms. Flu and common cold share some of these symptoms. Someone having symptoms is not relevant to discussing if they tested positive for anything and you can NOT test positive for COVID, that's basic medicine. In fact Pérez symptoms are so common I would argue that there is NO evidence supporting that he had the disease, only the virus. SSSB (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See, this is exactly why I believe we should not deviate from the wording stating that they tested positive for the virus. Being infected by that virus is patently NOT the same as contracting the disease called COVID-19. Just like being infected with HIV does not automatically mean one has developed AIDS. There is a reason we have two separate articles for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and I strongly suggest you thoroughly read them. It's exactly that sort of misunderstandings that we should try to avoid by providing accurate information.Tvx1 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we just say "the coronavirus" then? To a general audience "SARS-CoV-2" or "SARS-2 coronavirus" or whatever you want to say implies the SARS-CoV-1 virus which can cause SARS, and not the virus which can cause COVID-19. If we say "the coronavirus" general audiences will likely understand what it means but there wont be the alarmist implication that [x person] has (had) SARS. As for the BLP thing, if primary sources are saying "[x person] has had COVID-19 symptoms" then we may be able to mention that alongside saying that they tested positive for the virus, which would again go further to clear up any confusion. As far as I'm concerned the possibility of implying to a readers that "[x person] has (had) SARS" is a bigger potential BLP issue than implying that "[x person] has (had) the disease which can be caused by the virus they tested positive for". There's also the issue here of treating "COVID-19" as being short for "Coronavirus Disease - 2019" in all cases, when in reality at this point the etymology is meaningless outside of a professional context and to the general public "covid" is both the name of the disease and the virus. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If it's "basic medicine" that testing positive for COVID is impossible and there is no evidence that any driver contracted it, then, as I said before, how has every news organisation, article, and Formula 1 themselves got it so apparently wrong? The FIA, Formula 1 and Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team can today confirm that (...) Lewis Hamilton has tested positive for COVID-19. Racing Point's Sergio Perez tests positive for Covid-19 Perez (...) reveals positive Covid-19 test etc. etc. All the evidence points towards these drivers having contracted COVID-19, and nobody has yet presented any articles/publications that suggest otherwise, i.e. that say "tested positive for SARS-CoV-2". If a wiki article on a topic completely unrelated to medicine is going to pick one way or the other to phrase it, it should clearly be the former. Jestal50 (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * While I do agree with more or less everything you're saying, I do think the WP:BLP issue does mean that we should just avoid the names of the diseases unless we have a primary source saying that someone has been diagnosed with said disease. "They tested positive for the coronavirus" is probably the best compromise. "They tested positive for COVID-19" is stating that they have (had) a disease which they may not have (had), while "they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2" very directly implies to a general audience that they have (had) a disease (SARS) which they almost certainly don't have/haven't had. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Breaking up discussion and adding a quick summary
Firstly, I'd like to apologise for getting somewhat heated earlier on in this discussion. I said some things which probably crossed over a line in terms of being impolite and possibly strayed off topic a bit. As of writing this no real consensus exists, but it's clear that implying someone has a disease when they have tested positive for a virus is a potential WP:BLP issue and that therefore we must be cautious.

A large part of the issue stems from the fact that SARS is the name of a disease which can be caused by the SARS-CoV-1 virus, while COVID-19 is the name of a disease which can be caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In the absence of the word "COVID", the phrase "tested positive for SARS-CoV-2" strongly implies to a general audience that someone has (had) SARS, which defeats the whole purpose of avoiding the word "COVID" in the first place. WP:NPOV may also be an issue here, as using the "SARS-CoV-2" name in a non-medical article could be interpreted as a declaration that "COVID-19" is actually just a different name for "SARS", or some other similarly contentious statement.

Personally I think that this issue is not something which can be easily resolved just by Formula One fans, and that a more general outreach to those on Wikipedia who may have a more specialised knowledge of scientific and medical communication may be necessary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The wording of the article still isn't great. For example, it currently reads "a day before the British Grand Prix weekend, Racing Point driver Sergio Pérez tested positive for the coronavirus and was ruled out of the race weekend". The problem here is "the coronavirus". "Coronavirus" refers a family of viruses; the name is derived from the crown-like appendages on the virus as "corona" means "crown". Thus there are other coronaviruses which are not COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2. The wording of the article should reflect which specific coronavirus Perez, Stroll and Hamilton tested for. "The coronavirus" is a definite artice and implies that there is only one coronavirus, while "a coronavirus" is an indefinite article and is unclear as to which coronavirus it is (and there are several which could be caught without needing a driver to be sidelined). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.174 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Contextually it's relatively clear, although I agree it's far from perfect. The issue right now is the WP:BLP concerns that have been brought up about implying someone has (had) COVID-19 or SARS when all we know is that they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (even if nearly every reliable source says they tested positive for COVID-19). Right now the first usage of "coronavirus" provides a wikilink to the article on SARS-CoV-2, although wikilinking each example may be preferable in this case. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but it's still a problem. Coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 are two different (though somewhat related) things. Furthermore, Perez and Stroll were showing symptoms of the virus whereas Hamilton has tested positive for carrying it (and is likely showing symptoms as he was more tired than usual after the Bahrain race). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.172 (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to combine several replies here because, frankly, I can't bo bothered to re-indent.
 * I could throw you a hundred Medical sources which definitvly say that these tests are NOT for covid-19 but are instead for SARS-CoV-2.
 * The reason vast portions of the media say "tested positive for COVID-19 is because it is easier and simplier than saying tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, even though it's completely wrong.
 * However, this is not justification or reason for us to be wrong, we have the benefit of, among other things, wikilinks.
 * Which brings me to a potential compromise where we say tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19 with which causes COVID-19 potentially being in a footnote (obviously if it does go in a footnote it would have to be re-worded again. SSSB (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying "they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19" may well be the best compromise. It avoids directly stating "they have COVID-19", while not doing the thing of conspicuously excluding the word "COVID" while including the word "SARS", which is the name of another, more deadly disease. Ultimately it's very difficult to avoid the WP:BLP issue of implying that someone has (had) a disease (which we can't necessarily tell) while still stating that they have tested positive for a specific virus. The other potential option would be "they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which can cause COVID-19", although I worry that that may be interpreted as downplaying the severity of the pandemic.
 * However I do think that ultimately this isn't an article about medicine, and the World Health Organisation will refer to SARS-CoV-2 as "the COVID-19 virus" in public communications as "COVID" is commonly understood plain English and it avoids any potential confusion with SARS-CoV-1. Usage dictates meaning, and if usage is different in different contexts then the meaning of words may be different in different contexts. As I said before, if you're making ragù, a tomato is a vegetable; but if you're doing botanical science, a tomato is a fruit. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I still can't support that wording because it implies they are inclusive. Again being infected with that virus does not automatically result in contracting that disease. I really believe this is a case of overconcern. We have used the current wording for months without any complaining of having misunderstood. This appears to be a solution looking for a problem. We have wikilinks for a reason. Other than that, I have already suggested writing out part of the abbreviation.Tvx1 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it ain't broke.... SSSB (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tvx1 also raises another good point. The wording above should be Virus which can cause COVID-19. And I dont see how this downplays anything. It's a fact and government advisors (at least here) do use the can cause distinction. SSSB (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so long as we avoid having the word "SARS" appear in contexts where the word "COVID" is conspicuously missing there isn't a problem. You could say "they tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which can cause COVID-19". Or you could say "they tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In order to avoid potentially causing other people to contract COVID-19 they entered self-isolation for [x] days". Adding the word "virus" after "SARS-CoV-2" would also help avoid the implication that someone has contracted SARS, even if "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus" is technically redundant from a pedantic perspective. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first option is accepetable, your second is needlessly long and tedious. SSSB (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I wasn't suggesting the second as an alternative to the first option, I was giving it as an example of when the first option would be unnecessary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I already suggested something like "SARS-coronavirus-2".Tvx1 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tvx1 also raises another good point. The wording above should be Virus which can cause COVID-19. And I dont see how this downplays anything. It's a fact and government advisors (at least here) do use the can cause distinction. SSSB (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so long as we avoid having the word "SARS" appear in contexts where the word "COVID" is conspicuously missing there isn't a problem. You could say "they tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which can cause COVID-19". Or you could say "they tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In order to avoid potentially causing other people to contract COVID-19 they entered self-isolation for [x] days". Adding the word "virus" after "SARS-CoV-2" would also help avoid the implication that someone has contracted SARS, even if "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus" is technically redundant from a pedantic perspective. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first option is accepetable, your second is needlessly long and tedious. SSSB (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I wasn't suggesting the second as an alternative to the first option, I was giving it as an example of when the first option would be unnecessary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I already suggested something like "SARS-coronavirus-2".Tvx1 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Free practice drivers
Haas had announced Robert Shwartzman as driving in Abu Dhabi FP1. They've now announced Mick Schumacher is driving in Abu Dhabi FP1. Do people know if this is instead of Shwartzman or as well as him? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea. But I see no reason why it cant be both. SSSB (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would infer it's the latter source. Not to be sounding like original research, but considering Mick was just announced to drive in 2021 it would make more sense for him to be driving FP1. Admanny (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the source is correct. But will Shwartzman still be driving? Actually, if Grosjean isn't cleared to race they may back-track (to allow his replacement, who is TBA for the event, time to settle. After all, Haas hasn't signed a contract with either driver. I would put both in as this would be correct to the best of our knowledge at the time. Saying that Shwartzman won't be driving is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If required, per source, doesn't mean Schumacher will be driving for sure during FP1. Only Robert Shwartzman, according to the source being reported, will drive during FP1.--Island92 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting from above source: "[Schumacher] has already been confirmed for a Friday FP1 session in Abu Dhabi". SSSB (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok.--Island92 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Racing Point standings revisited.
While looking at the source for the championships' standings, I noticed that the FIA in the constructors' championship lists Racing Point as having scored -1 point at the Styrian Grand Prix. So while we assumed during an earlier discussion that the 15 point penalty that has been applied to Racing Point for a breach of the technical regulations had only been applied to their total, it turns out that it has been actually applied to the specific Styrian Grand Prix results. Therefore I think we should we tweak our table to reflect that.Tvx1 02:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since that's what the official stance is, I'm open to changing the table, but how can we show this on the table? We can't just set their cells to blue to show a no score because they've scored a negative number of points, and there's no formatting to show this. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would change the color and add a note to explain the situation.Tvx1 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 23:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They lost 7.5 points per car, didn't they, for Styria, but the colour system is done based on position, so how would one go about doing this? The table for 2000, whereupon McLaren lost their 10 points on Hakkinen's car for Austria, doesn't change the colour? Spa-Franks (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From my experience in dealing with similar tables in series in which cars were either invitational entries not scoring championship points or finishers who failed to meet minimum requirements to score points, the race result is list the same while the non-scoring/non-classified color is used. The359  ( Talk ) 00:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perez's car should be green (a net 0.5 pts), then, but Stroll's car (a net -1.5 pts) needs a new colour altogether. And it needs a footnote. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Put it the same colour as scoring 0. Adding another colour for negative points that almost never happens is not needed- we have way more than enough colours and situations on the standings tables anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Joseph2302. Negative points almost never (read: don't) happen. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 09:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A new colour is silly. This is the first case of negative points ever, in over 70 years of F1, we have other Championships going back even further, 80 years of more. Introducing a new colour is ridiculous. We can use green for Perez (half a point) and just use non-scoring (because he didn't score) for Stroll. We can just leave the note where it is and adjust the wording to say the ruling was applied specically to the Styrian GP and therefore Perez scored 0.5 points and Stroll lost 1.5 (for the team not as individuals, needs to be made clear). I'm thinking something along the lines of Racing Point drivers scored 210 points, but the constructor was deducted 15 points (7.5 points per car) at the Styrian Grand Prix after a protest from Renault was upheld regarding the legality of their car. As a result, one car scored 0.5 points, and the other -1.5. SSSB (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mark both cars as the same colour as would be used for a non-score. Overall the team didn't score any points (and actually had one point removed), worrying about the specifics of how Pérez scored 0.5 constructors' points and Stroll scored -1.5 constructors' points isn't helpful for communicating that as it's the team result which matters. Explain the specifics in a footnote as is already being done. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the worst of all worlds for me, as that's just, categorically, wrong on both cars. Leaving aside Stroll's car, Perez's car has a net +0.5 pts so that's no different to, say, Malaysia 2009 or Australia 1991, surely? I've also changed the 2000 page now to be more consistent with 07. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * it is very different. At those races half points were given to all compeitors. Here one team had points deducted for a regulation infrindgment. They are not remotly the same at all. SSSB (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The calendar map
, an RfC established that countries would not be coloured in maps and was implemented here. Unless there has been a new consensus established since then (I couldn't find one), I guess this one still stands and the map with countries coloured that you restored needs to be removed again. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. User should be aware of this talk because of being the user you added this images for 2021 and previous articles. Island92 (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cherkash was involved in the original discussion, so they are well aware of the established consensus already. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The map here should urgently be updated, though. We should display what happened, not what was at one point planned to happen.Tvx1 16:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That picture is being used in List of Formula One Grands Prix.--Island92 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)