Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Project Pitlane
I've just deleted a large subsection on "Project Pitlane" and all the things the teams are doing to support the fight against COVID-19. This subsection contained an excessive level of detail and nothing that it discussed directly affects the 2020 championship. I think that it should either be its own article, or details should be put into the articles of the teams involved. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the content is too detailed and its relevance to the 2020 championship is minimal at best. I complete disagree with 's edit summary for this edit. Readers expect to see the responses to the pandemic which are relevant to the season. Norris' haircut or the creation or project pitlane have no impact on the championship and are therefore not relevant. However there is a significant amount of potential content, a new article is therefore plausible, or a subsection in an existing article (e.g. Project Pitlane would be best suited to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom). If either of those 2 come to fruition then a see also should be added but until any of this actually impacts on the season and not just the individuals involved I agree that this information doesn't belong here. The title of this article is 2020 Formula One World Championship, not 2020 in Formula One, there is a reason for this. SSSB (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with you SSSB its called a logical conclusion. I am not going back through edit summaries and pointing fingers but I suspect it was one of you two who created that subsection title. If you don't like it, may I suggest you rename it and not just blindly revert everything that is outside your box without resolving the actual issue - which is namely the clumsy wording at best. The section at best (in your view) is the impact of corna on the season, in that section and not a response to it (which is what the title says). If you do not change the wording then what was written is entirely appropriate for that section because that would be a logical expectation. Games of the world (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that section currently doesn't exist. Logically that section would mean the 2020 Formula One World Championship's response to the pandemic. Not the response of the individual competitors to the pandemic. This is the logical conclusion becuase the article's title is 2020 Formula One World Championship. Also who put the header there is completely irrelevant to this discussion or its outcome. SSSB (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Very cleaver. Very cleaver indeed! it does exist but Mclarenfan17 conveniently deleted it. Therefore it does exist you're currently and conveniently ignoring it because that is what the page was when the information appeared and that is the version that we are discussing. So if your argument is based on "well it is not there anymore," then it is entirely irrelevant and detrimental to the discussion. And who put it there does matter because it is a good idea to get their thoughts on their thinking of what they intended the section to be about. Games of the world (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ''Very cleaver. Very cleaver indeed! it does exist but Mclarenfan17 conveniently deleted it. Therefore it does exist you're currently and conveniently ignoring it.
 * There is no conspiracy here.
 * ''The section at best (in your view) is the impact of corna on the season, in that section and not a response to it (which is what the title says).
 * So how, exactly, does Mercedes building a ventilator or Norris shaving his head affect the season? In nearly 8,000 characters of content, the closest the passage got to being relevant was noting that manufacturing ventilators did not fall within the realms of factory operation, and thus was permitted despite the summer shutdown. As pointed out, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom would be the most relevant place for those details, and I would also suggest Mercedes-Benz in Formula One, Lando Norris and Renault in Formula One for assorted pieces of information. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't ignore something that doesn't exist, even if it existed when you inserting the content. And given your entire argument is "the section title suggests that the info should be there" means that your argument has no basis now the section heading isn't there anymore. My arguement was never well it is not there anymore but rather that the section header in question would mean the 2020 Formula One World Championship's response to the pandemic. Not the response of the individual competitors to the pandemic. This arguement still stands. SSSB (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * SSSB you are entirety not worthy of anymore responses. You clearly do no want to discuss and have a proper conversation. And your logic and argument has more holes in it than a tennis racket. Games of the world (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's about enough. What started out as a conversation about the relevance of discussing Project Pitlane seems to have morphed into bickering about who changed a sub-heading, when they changed it and why they changed it, as if that has any bearing on anything. So let's either get back on topic, or leave well enough alone. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree what was added was excessive; however, I do think such endeavours are part of the 2020 season and should have some minimal coverage here. A sentence or two at the most. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read the source for project pitlane (the announcement of the intention and joining up) and find other links (Theres far too much news at the mo and stuff is getting lost, mean I can't even find the BBC articles on it) it is STRONGLY implied (and I think outright stated in some articles) that F1, not the brand or the championship, but the company are involved in this. Also the setting up of the virtual gp's would be relevant and possibly streaming of old races would also be worth a mention as they are things that F1 has done. Games of the world (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ''it is STRONGLY implied (and I think outright stated in some articles) that F1, not the brand or the championship, but the company are involved in this
 * "Implied" is not good enough, no matter how strong the implication might be. And even if it was explicitly stated, you still haven't answered the question of how it affects the 2020 championship. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Back to you have not proved how it affects. COVID 19 brought a suspension. The heading said reaction and this was the reaction so therefore it is right and proper. Now stop attacking me and stop ignoring the point I've previously made and rehashing the same argument. You along with SSSB are not deserving of anymore responses. Games of the world (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly if you find my argument flawed tell me, dont just decide to ignore me you also cant just ignore those who disagree with you. That hurts you more than it hurts them. The virtual Grand Prix may warrant one sentence. Something along the lines of Virtual Grand Prix featuring racing drivers and celebrities were run in place of cancelled and postponed races? The showing of old gp shouldn't be mentioned due to an absence of WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Finally, this article is not about F1 the company either. It is about the 2020 Championship. Project Pitlane is not relevant to the 2020 season just because project pitlane happens to be happening at the same time that the season would have happened. However, I do think that a couple of sentences on the subject would be acceptable. SSSB (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We are rehashing the same arguments because you have failed to respond to it. Again it is the response of the 2020 World Championship, not the response of F1, Liberty Media or the individuals in f1. SSSB (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ''Back to you have not proved how it affects.

You are the one making the claim that Project Pitlane affected the championship. The burden rests with you to prove it.
 * ''The heading said reaction and this was the reaction so therefore it is right and proper.

The reaction section discussed the way the sport responded to the pandemic in ways that tangibly affected the 2020 championship, such as race cancellations and postponements. Project Pitlane has not tangibly affected the championship as far as I can tell. That is why I am asking you to prove your claim.
 * ''Now stop attacking me

I am not attacking you. I am disagreeing with you, and I am quickly running out of patience. You are the one who has been on the defensive from the beginning. You are the one who has interpreted every comment as a slight against you. You are the one who declared that people aren't worth the time it takes to respond to them.

A word of advice, freely given: please don't assume that someone is attacking you because they are disagreeing with you. You won't get very far&mdash;in life and on Wikipedia&mdash;if you do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that 7,000 characters on this article isn't needed, only a couple of sentences about factories being used for ventilators, but that still counting as them being "shut down" in F1 terms. Agree that the Mercedes, Lando Norris, and UK coronavirus articles are the best places for the details, and we could link to them from the short text here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Having taken a thorough look a this, I agree that the relevance of Project Pitlane to the 2020 championship is too low for it to be included and described here. Moreover I had been having my reservations over the "reaction to the coronavirus-pandemic" subheading for a while. And imho the removal of it has improved this article.Tvx1 16:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Bahrain and Vietnam
There are currently three articles for races (that I know of) in the 2020 championship: Australia, Bahrain and Vietnam. Obviously, none of these have happened yet (and still may not). Therefore, I am proposing that 2020 Bahrain Grand Prix and 2020 Vietnam Grand Prix be redirected back to this article. I would, however, keep 2020 Australian Grand Prix as it is, even if it never happens. It was, to my knowledge, the first international sporting event cancelled because of COVID-19, and it was largely treated as an acid test in Australia&mdash;the attitude was that if the race could go ahead, all sports could. It didn't so pretty much everything was cancelled. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. If and when they go ahead we can simply revert the reapplication of the redirect and work from there. SSSB (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nothing interesting in the Bahrain article, and Vietnam is only interesting for being the first running. Which isn't true if it doesn't run. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Vietnam being new is really the only reason I expanded it earlier than usual.


 * It might be worth keeping the content as is, but sticking a redirect at the top of the article so that the content is saved in some form. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Or you get rid of the content and hit undo in the page history to restore it. SSSB (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The redirect doesn't work how it's supposed to if there's other content. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, it did for me. Besides that's moot, I just removed the content from those pages. As I said above if and when we need to restore that content we just hit undo. SSSB (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Targeted 2020 Calendar
A statement from Chase Carey, published on formula1.com, describes a targeted 2020 calendar (accompanied by a graphic). Should we mention this in the 'Rescheduled calendar' part, and if so, how? A Doctor Who (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's speculation for now, and that graphic doesn't match the text either. It has Asia in September-October and October-November, but Asia is all coloured in green (the Sept-Oct colour). We should just wait until an actual calendar is announced- it sounds like they may be close to releasing one after all. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. The article itself has a partial calendar (that being an Austria start and the final two being Bahrain followed by Abu Dhabi) - do we include that, or should we treat it in the same way?A Doctor Who (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the smartest thing to do is to just include the calendar that is used. Any races that are cancelled outright&mdash;such as Monaco and France&mdash;or rescheduled from the original calendar can have those changes discussed in prose. Including the original calendar amounts to "this was going to happen, but then it didn't". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Treat it the same way. This calendar represents what Carey and Liberty Media would like to happen combined with something that could resonable resmeble something that could work. The proposed calendar would require all the venues to play ball. Austria may still be postponed, Bahrain may decide that none of the proposed dates work for them. There is simply no knowing. SSSB (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I added the information before seeing this discussion. Given that comments from Brawn and Ecclestone about the future of the 2020 season have been included in the section, I think Carey's statement definitely holds weight and is worthy of being included even if the eventual calendar differs from what he says. The section is intended to be a "season report" and in my opinion this is an important development. Jestal50 (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I think Mosley and Ecclestone's opinions should be removed. Neither of them are involved in the organization of the championship in any way or form anymore and it's nothing but their personal opinion.Tvx1 16:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed and removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * They are two former and experienced administrators offering advice on how to handle the sport in the middle of an unprecedented global crisis. Their voices are certainly notable. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. These are old men now long removed from F1, which has changed dramatically since their departure. And reverting my edit seems to violate WP:BRD. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ''"These are old men now long removed from F1, which has changed dramatically since their departure."

You're right. I totally forgot about all those other global pandemics that caused mass disruption in the years since they left the sport.
 * ''"And reverting my edit seems to violate WP:BRD."

Nope. Those edits have been in there for ages. They hardly count as bold anymore. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think their opinion shouldn't be included because it is just that, an opinion. But their opinions no longer carry any weight with how the sport is run. Also how the fact that this is unprecedented doesn't mean that their opinions should be given any more weight than if this happened more regularly. SSSB (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ''"the fact that this is unprecedented doesn't mean that their opinions should be given any more weight than if this happened more regularly"
 * On the contrary, they are experienced administrators and so their views carry some weight. They were the last ones in charge when a global event&mdash;the September 11 attacks&mdash;threatened the sport. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the article only 2 people have called for the entire season to be called off. Mentioning this would therefore give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority view. Who holds this minority view or how unprecedented the situation is are irrelevant. This is a minority view and should therefore not be mentioned (especially when those who hold this view have no weight in the sport anyway). SSSB (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ''"Mentioning this would therefore give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority view."
 * In the context of the pandemic, it is highly relevant. There is considerable debate worldwide about when and how to revive things. Formula 1 is in an unusual position in that it is one of the few truly international sports&mdash;unlike most national sporting leagues, it routinely traverses the globe. Can you name another sport that travels to every continent each year?


 * At the very least, Ecclestone and Mosley's views should be contained in the article until such time as a replacement calendar is published. Carey has said that Liberty want the sport to visit Europe, Asia and the Americas, but we still don't know if that's even going to be possible. The United States and Brazil in particular have serious problems, Britain and Italy aren't out of the woods yet, and Singapore and Japan are struggling with a second wave of infections. Most countries are expecting a resurgence. There is still no guarantee that the plan to get started can happen, so cancellation is not out of the question. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tennis and athletics travel globally each year just to name two.2A02:A03F:50F2:3600:8CB1:92B8:D48:79B4 (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not as extensively as Formula 1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tennis goes to 32 countries (on atp tour excluding davis cup) so that is more that F1 (and they travel to multiple locations each week, F1 has weekends off and a summer break in normal circumstances). Games of the world (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No-body denies that the season might get cancelled and today Carey admitted as such. But the opinion that it should be cancelled now is a minority one and including a fringe opinion is WP:UNDUE. Also they themselves are not administators of the calendar. They run the sport and they had influence in deciding which races featured on the calendar but they didn't put it together. They weren't responsible for securing the dates for the events, they would have had a team of admins and planners to do that for them. The idea that the race should be cancelled now is a minority viewpoint held by people who are no longer involved in the sport (if Horner argued for cancellation it would be different, but he's not). The decisions made on the sport do not directly effect them and they do not affect the decision. ThereforeI think that viewpoint should only be expressed if it is a widely held view, which it is not. SSSB (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article should reflect what is likely to happen, based on information provided by those on the inside. To date that has all been that the season won't be cancelled. May end up happening, but that hasn't been stated to date. Bernie and Max are on the outside, and their opinions are nothing most than personal ones. Venskert (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Virtual Grand Prix
Is there any mention of the Virtual races happening? And should there maybe be a mention of it in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGrobler (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say a sentence at most though I dont think it should be mentioned at all. We shouldn't mention something just because it happened. It certainly isn't notable. Liberty only introduced it as a method of self promotion. SSSB (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe a link in the F1 eSports article, but not here. The virtual series has no effect on the actual championship. From what I can tell, it's not as organised as the Supercars and Indycar virtual championships. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Map
The map is wrong in showing Crimea as a part of russia, which is unrecognised by majority of the world. It has to be changed or completely removed RMN120501 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The map cannot display lands which are in dispute, as the current map at the top of Russia does. Having a map without Crimea as part of Russia could equally be viewed as wrong by prats of the world.  Therefore there is no simple solution, and the map should not be removed solely on this basis.  The359  ( Talk ) 21:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Than maybe writing a comment like I tried to do could be an option RMN120501 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not appropriate because this article does not deal with the sovreignty of Ukraine. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with - if the map is contentious then it should not be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that we should stop Making mountains out of molehills. Stop bringing international politics into Formula One. This problem is being blown out of all proportion. The map is currently showing de facto borders, not only with the Crimea but with Azerbaijan and others as well. The map is therefore not 'wrong', it just doesn't fit with 's political position. Simiarly a Russian would argue that the map is currently right. As far as I am concerned no-one comes here to analyse political borders and therefore it should not matter if it shows de facto or de jure borders. Just move on (And if your going have a tantrum about de facto v.s. de jure for Crimea make sure you do it every where else too, see List of territorial disputes for details) SSSB (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ''"The map is currently showing de facto borders, not only with the Crimea but with Azerbaijan and others as well."
 * To be fair, the Naxcivan and Nagorno-Karabakh borders in Azerbaijan are areas so small that they would not be visbile in the image. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution would be to use a third colour to mark terrotory which is disputed as being hashed, or indicate it using a footnote which says something like The terrotory of the Crimea is disputed by Russia and Ukraine, this way the article isn't unitentionally politicalised and people can still use the map. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * international politics were brought into the article when a map of the world including political boundaries was added to the article. I agree that politics should be excluded, and perhaps the best way to do that is to exclude the political map. An alternative would be to exclude nation borders and just mark the host cities. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the most appropriate thing to do would be to use the internationally-recognised borders. Yes, Crimea is disputed by Russia and Ukraine, but it's not like Jammu and Kashmir, which both India and Pakistan have laid claim to since they both achieved independence. Crimea was recognised as part of Ukraine when the USSR dissolved in 1991, but Russia laid claim to it with the annexation in 2014. The international community has not recognised Russia's claim to it. While The359 has a point that Russian readers would disagree with a map that recognised Crimea as Ukrainian territory, no-one else recognises it as Russian. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , no-one else recognises it as Russian and yet if you ask me "In which country is the Crimea?", I would awnser Russia. The Russian Prime minister states that Crimea is fully intergrated into Russia and Ukrainean law reconises that Russia temporaily occupies the Crimea. (occurding to the relevant article.)
 * Besides it's not that simple because the map belongs on wiki commons and incidently the map is also on Russian Wiki, if we change it a Russian user will go to commons and change it back starting an edit war on commons where this discussion will have no basis. Based on this I think the best solution is to include a footnote which simply states this map represents de facto borders or something to a similar effect. If this doesn't satisfy RMN12051 and others then we can consider taking more drastic action. SSSB (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ''"and yet if you ask me "In which country is the Crimea?", I would awnser Russia."
 * That doesn't mean it's true. Apollo wept.
 * ''"The Russian Prime minister states that Crimea is fully intergrated into Russia"
 * That also doesn't mean it's true.
 * ''"Ukrainean law reconises that Russia temporaily occupies the Crimea"
 * That's not the same as recognising Crimea is part of Russia. And again, does not make it true.
 * ''"if we change it a Russian user will go to commons and change it back starting an edit war on commons where this discussion will have no basis"
 * So we should just do the wrong thing because a minority group of editors from a nation with no recognised claim to the peninsula are going to be unhappy with it? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly it's not wrong, it just doesn't fit with you political position on the matter, this is a key difference. Also That doesn't mean it's true. - never said it did, just making sure that you are aware of some of the legal details.
 * Firstly it's not wrong, it just doesn't fit with you political position on the matter, this is a key difference. Also That doesn't mean it's true. - never said it did, just making sure that you are aware of some of the legal details.


 * We also need to bear in mind that this is an inappropriate place to discuss moving from de facto to de jure borders on the map itself, that discussion must take place on commons with the oppurtunity for all the users of the map, across all wikis to contribute to the discussion. I see the discussion on this page ending in a number of ways listed in order of my preference:


 * Add a note stating that the map represents de facto borders (my preference)
 * Create a new map which shows de jure borders (i.e. A Ukrainian Crimea) and state the map shows de jure borders in a footnote#
 * No consensus to change
 * Remove the map (this should be a last resort)
 * Take this discussion to commons and negontiate with other users of the map a solution. (this could take forever)


 * Ultimatly it appears that the consensus is currently leaning against option 1. Therefore it would appear to me that option 2 is both the easiest to implement and provides a solution which I think we can all be happy with. SSSB (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)( curently leaning was added at 22:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC) following subsequent comments identify that I had misrepresented my thoughts )
 * I think that at not even 24 hours since the discussion started it is way to soon to talk about a consensus. All your options are viable, they just just need a response now.Tvx1 17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think a consensus has developed yet. I would support removal of the map completely as I cannot see what it adds, even if its content wasn't disputed. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ''"it just doesn't fit with you political position on the matter"

I don't have a political position on "the matter". I'm making a simple statement of fact: the international community recognises Crimea as Ukrainian and under occupation by Russia. You will notice that the map does not highlight Taiwan as Chinese territory despite Beijing's claim, so why is it of such importance that we recognise Moscow's claim to Crimea despite the internstional community's position? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the international community reconises it as Ukrainian and most of the international community (in terms of nations) reconise Taiwan as part of China so it should be highlighted as China by your logic (see Foreign relations of Taiwan). Its still not wrong to say that Crimea is Russian as it is occupied by Russia and several states reconise it as such, it just doesn't reflect the political stance of the vast majority of the international community. Anyway, thats moot.
 * What your basically saying is that you support the map showing de jure borders. This would mean that Taiwan would be coloured together with China as Taiwan is only de facto independent. This maps representation of Taiwan and Crimea is therefore actually consistant in showing de facto borders. If we move to de jure the Crimea move to Ukraine and Taiwan moves to China, unfortuantly you can't have it both ways. SSSB (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What your basically saying is that you support the map showing de jure borders. This would mean that Taiwan would be coloured together with China as Taiwan is only de facto independent. This maps representation of Taiwan and Crimea is therefore actually consistant in showing de facto borders. If we move to de jure the Crimea move to Ukraine and Taiwan moves to China, unfortuantly you can't have it both ways. SSSB (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ''"What your basically saying is that you support the map showing de jure borders"
 * I don't know how you came up with that idea, since I'm saying the exact opposite: the map should show the borders that are recognised by international law. That means Crimea is Ukrainian, not Russian. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is though, that wouldn't resolve a thing. Sooner or later, a Russian editor will start a section that the map we show is wrong because the Crimea isn't colored in. We are just making a mountain out of a molehill and I really wonder why we allowed such a fuss to be created out one lone user's complaint... Tvx1 19:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been pointing out all along, including in previous discussions. This is exactly why we need a footnote explaining that we use de facto/de jure borders to justify and then we can just move on. Unfortuantly other editors seem oblivious to the fact that this is not a black and white issue and I'm starting to give up trying to explain it. SSSB (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sooner or later, a Russian editor will start a section that the map we show is wrong because the Crimea isn't'' colored in"
 * And that's what a consensus is for. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , de jure describes practices that are legally recognised, regardless whether the practice exists in reality. which is what colouring the Crimea as Russia would be, representing the legal situation (what is regonised in UN law) rather than the reality is that the Crimea is Russian territory. SSSB (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's not reality at all. The reality is that Russia is occupying Crimea, which does not automatically make Crimea Russian territory. For Crimea to become Russian territory, the Russians would need to re-draw the borders and have those new borders recognised by the international community. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the reality, Crimea is de facto Russian because they occupy it, have control over it etc, it is Ukrainian in law only (see the lead of Political status of Crimea), i.e. it is de jure Ukrainian. If the borders are redrawn and international reconised then the Crimea becomes de jure Russian and then we needn't argue because the situation becomes black and white. SSSB (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ''"it is Ukrainian in law only"
 * And law is the only authority in determining borders. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , right, so if we go back up a few lines I was right when I said What your basically saying is that you support the map showing de jure borders. So efectivly you would support changing the map from showing the current de facto borders (Crimea as part of Russia) to de jure borders (Crimea as part of Ukraine). So if we go the options I laid out above which do you support, or can you think of another solution. SSSB (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I say we upload a map that shows the internationally-recognised borders. Nothing else. There is no need for footnotes or anything else. If a Russian editor changes the map, we can just change it back if we have a consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If your prepared to make that map fine by me. SSSB (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we have a consensus first, before making changes. As far as I can see there are mainly mixed opinions. Mclarenfan17 and the OP want to change to de jure borders (though the OP has also supported keeping the map as is while adding a note), me and you don't want to change it while supporting adding a note if it's deemed necessary, The359 appears not to want the map to be changed and DeFacto prefers that the map is removed alltogether. I can't get a clear consensus for changing to de jure at all.Tvx1 15:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that a consensus has been reached nor that any changes should be made now. I'm just stating that I wouldn't mind a change to de jure. Let me also reiterate my position. I would prefer de facto, I wouldn't mind de jure (so long as it is consistantly de facto/de jure) and I insist that there should be a note stating if we are using de facto/de jure as it would eliminate accusations of your wrong etc. SSSB (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would recommend VISIBLY mark all disputed territories (also including Nagorno-Karabakh and Taiwan) with unambiguous notation instead of current map, which definitely favours Russian violation of Internalional law. Crimea issue is related to a major war conflict in Europe regarding Russian invasion into Ukraine that claimed over 13,000 lives already, including those perished during Crimea annexation. FIA during each TV intro shows world map which marks borders of countries recognised by international community (try googling "F1 Circuit Guide | Russian Grand Prix"), such as United Nations, without any notation on disputed territories. Other issues are also involved, e.g. the repression of Crimeas Tatar muslims, in a racist way. You cannot avoid the problem of the disputed territories in a simple way! Unas964 (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * VISIBLY mark all disputed territories [...] with unambiguous notation, do you mean mark disputed territories as being disputed? - This is inpractical. We would require at least 3 new colours (one for disputed between current host and previous host, a second for disputed between previous host and never hosted and a third for disputed between current host and never hosted.) Otherwise it is already unambiguous as territories are consistantly shown as de facto. (also including Nagorno-Karabakh and Taiwan) - Nagorno-Karabakh is so small you can barely identify it on the map, but should be marked as not Azerbaijan for consistancy - that I agree with - as for Taiwan it is currently consistant with the Crimea. Taiwan is de facto independent, de jure part of China instead of current map, which definitely favours Russian violation of Internalional law - How? The map consistantly shows de facto borders around the world (apart from a couple of small regions which we should all assume good faith on. There is no evidence to suggest the map favours any viewpoint apart from Bad faith accusations. Crimea issue is related to a major war conflict in Europe regarding Russian invasion into Ukraine that claimed over 13,000 lives already, including those perished during Crimea annexation. - This is irrelevant, we don't deal with war casulties and it doesn't change the fact that the Crimea is de facto Russian. FIA during each TV intro shows world map which marks borders of countries recognised by international community (try googling "F1 Circuit Guide - Also irrelevant. We are independant to both the FIA and the UN. Other issues are also involved, e.g. the repression of Crimeas Tatar muslims, in a racist way. - Also irrelevant. Alleged human rights abuses doesn't change the fact that the territories is disputed. You cannot avoid the problem of the disputed territories in a simple way! - Yes we can! We choose either de facto or de jure and include a note stating that we are using either de facto or de jure. SSSB (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nagorno-Karabakh is so small you can barely identify it on the map - this region is clearly seen on the map, unlike, say, Luxembourg (another examples of note needed since actual hosts are depicted instead of affiliated countries). This is inpractical... Taiwan it is currently consistant with the Crimea... We choose either de facto or de jure - according to this paradigm, the map ought to mark Abkhasia, Tskhinvali Region, Transnistria and separatist East-Ukrainian occupied territories green as well (de facto controlled by Russia), Northern Cyprus as dark grey as controlled by Turkey. One might draw a map even more controversial and unpractical, because "de facto" could be treated in a vague ann speculative way (what about the UK Overseas Territories?).Unas964 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * map ought to mark Abkhasia, [...] Northern Cyprus as dark grey as controlled by Turkey. - I absoulutly agree. Unfortunalty it appears the creator forgot these in good faith - these are less well known. One might draw a map even more controversial and unpractical, because "de facto" could be treated in a vague ann speculative way (what about the UK Overseas Territories?) - If they are expliclty mentioned in relaible sources as being de facto/de jure belonging/not belonging to nations then they should be marked ocordingly. If not then it should be determined in a case by case basis. But this is off topic. Although I don't see how the map can be controversial. So long as consistancy is achived there is no reason this map should be contraversial. Lets get back to the point, do you support de jure or de facto (lets be explicit). SSSB (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * de jure or de facto de jure: it is consistent with FIA (graphics during intro on TV) and is easier to implement (by adding one colour for Taiwan only or/and note explaining legal status). De facto status would require Azerbaijan being shown smaller, which could trigger even more controversy. A note with explanation is essential in this case, mentioning both Crimea and Nagorno-Karabakh explicitly. Unas964 (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One more thing. I STRONGLY DISAGREE with the term "disputed territories": the Crimea case is not disputed, it ought to be called "temporarily occupied territory" instead, which btw is consistent with de facto status. There was a whole government ministry established, hence the term "disputed" is against the Ukrainian law. Unas964 (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But we don't follow Ukrainian law and the terrotory is disputed between Russia and Ukraine as both claim it, how legally justified those claims are is irrelevant. Further my understanding is that the Russians have no intention of temporaliy occuping an terrotory. However this is irrlevant, the only note necessary would be a note stating that the map shows de jure/de facto borders. SSSB (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. You may also claim that the whole world map is disputed because some radical unrecognised states (e.g. like ISIS) claim their rights to this or those land. If we completely reject the Internalional law - the only point of reference - we may claim anything. And under this law Crimea is occupied, not disputed. Large sporting events are not held in Crimea, under ISIS flag, in Taiwan etc, because, though trying to be apolitical, the organisations like FIA avoid denying de jure status. Russians have no intention of temporaliy occuping an terrotory - sheer lunacy! Not only they had the strict intentions, they planned the annexation long before. Moreover, there are plenty of evidence, historical and from their politicians, that the whole existence of Ukrainian state, Ukrainian nation and culture are questioned, as was for centuries. I may go on and give more references, but you are definitely biased towards the viewpoint of the aggressor, hence it is pointless. You didn't even apologise for the scornful depiction of the war in 40+ - million state as "Making mountains out of molehills"! Unas964 (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You may also claim that the whole world map is disputed - no you couldn't besides this argument is about de jure borders or de facto so that is beside the point. Not only they had the strict intentions [...] as was for centuries. - this is irrelevant as it doesn't change the political situation, Crimea is still de facto Russian. but you are definitely biased towards the viewpoint of the aggressor, - This is absoulutly ludicrous, I am not biased at all. I just have a different opinion on how this map should be presented. I will see to it that whatever position is adopted will be applied consistantly, therefore there is no basis in your accusations of bias. You didn't even apologise for the scornful depiction of the war in 40+ - million state as "Making mountains out of molehills" - thats because I don't need to apoligise for anything, if anyone should apoligse its you for taking my comments out of context. I was saying that I think this discussion is making mountains out of molehills because the map is mostly consistant. And under this law Crimea is occupied, not disputed. - occupied by Russia, therefore de facto Russian, therefore it is niether wtrong nor inaccurate to show it as Russian so long as the map is consistant, which it mostly is. organisations like FIA avoid denying de jure status. - and yet the IOC (olympic equivilant to FIA) regonise Taiwan as independant to China despite it being de jure Chinese. The reason sporting events don't take place in Crimea is becuase of instabillity, not because they are "unlawfully" occupied. Once again we don't follow international law nor Crimean or Ukrainian law, we follow consensus, the consensus before this discussion started was that we use de facto borders which we are currently doing. SSSB (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the FIA considered Taiwan to be independent as well. Racing drivers from Taiwan compete under the Taiwanese nationality in FIA events. That's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to change the map. The scope of it should be related to the sport. I mean, Wikipedia's article on the FIFA World Cup has a map of hosts as well. It does not color the entire de jure borders of the United Kingdom to mark the 1966 edition that was hosted by England. And that's normal, simply because the United Kingdom does not exists in FIFA events. There are separate teams from separate areas of the United Kingdom and the article follows that. I think we should stick to the same principle of keeping the scope to the sport involved in this article.Tvx1 14:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your latest post is full of manipulation and proves once more your bias towards RF. I have no intention to conduct the discussion with someone who utilises 1984 approach. The key points do show a problem: the map is inconsistent, not de jure (Crimea) nor de facto (other parts of countries occupied by RF, Nagorny Karabakh - by Armenia), no international sporting organisations support de facto status and, most importantly, there are still no consensus reached here. Unas964 (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Curently the map is inconsistant yes. Proabaly because the creator missed some in good faith, but once consensus has been established I will ensure that the consistancy is there. I am not biased towards Russia, I am biased towards de facto borders. no international sporting organisations support de facto status - they do, most sporting organisations, including the FIA, regonise Taiwan's de facto independance as has been pointed out to you above. there are still no consensus reached here. - 2 points here, 1 that is not your decision to make as you will have bias towards your side of this contenious issue, an uninvolved editor, most likley an admin will decide where the consensus lies, more importantly I never claimed this discussion had reached a consensus which your above comment seems to imply. SSSB (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Curently the map is inconsistant yes. Proabaly because the creator missed some in good faith, but once consensus has been established I will ensure that the consistancy is there. I am not biased towards Russia, I am biased towards de facto borders. no international sporting organisations support de facto status - they do, most sporting organisations, including the FIA, regonise Taiwan's de facto independance as has been pointed out to you above. there are still no consensus reached here. - 2 points here, 1 that is not your decision to make as you will have bias towards your side of this contenious issue, an uninvolved editor, most likley an admin will decide where the consensus lies, more importantly I never claimed this discussion had reached a consensus which your above comment seems to imply. SSSB (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just made a request at WP:AN/RFC for this discussion to be closed. SSSB (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not closed as the dispute has not been finished and no consensus was reached. BTW, the author of the map on Wikimedia Commons has somehow disabled the option to change the file. I strongly object against the current version which does not depict neither Internationally recognised borders, nor according to FIA list (Taiwan and Hong Kong are separate members), nor "de facto" status (Azerbaijan issue, other lands occupied by Russia, Northern Cyprus...). In fact, the obvious reason of uploading the current map by its author is to conduct the fake idea of Crimea as Russian territory, and nothing was done in order to prevent such propaganda. Unas964 (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This discussion is not resolved! WP:ANI Unas964 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * the discussion has not received any new contributions. I therefore made a request for an uninvolved admin to come and determine the consensus (if one exists). This is a natural process, otherwise these kind of disputes will simply never be resolved and we will find ourselves going in circles for all time. And to be clear, no consensus means we keep the status quo which is de facto borders. It will also be helpful if you stopped accusing us of making bad faith edits without any evidence to back up your accusations. It is evident to me that is missing lesser known de facto borders in good faith. SSSB (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The rest I have already argued against. SSSB (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, Unas964, you posted some personal attacks here on Christmas day? That's about the lowest I've seen here. None of us have any political motives here. The only thing we want we this map is map within the scope of this sport.Tvx1 15:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Creating a new map is the way to go. A discussion here should decide which one will be used (de jure could be legitimate, but Taiwan would probably cause disagreements, disputed territories is probably a route that would cause the least dissension. Disputes over a Commons map between local wikis should generally be solved by creating a 2nd image - consensus on Commons isn't binding here. "Option 1" is definitely insufficient. I'm not sure discussion here is concluded. A minimum level of "disputed" should probably be determined, at the minimum requiring a state actor, and possibly more rigorous. Discussions on that have been held on more dedicated talk pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * having read the discussion to date, I'm going to go ahead and make the following proposal:
 * The map should be redrawn according to FIA member states (which means Crimea is part of Ukraine, Taiwan is independent, etc.).
 * The map is only limited to countries hosting races in the current calendar year; countries that have previously hosted races can be covered elsewhere.
 * If someone from another wiki (eg Russian Wikipedia) objects to the way the borders are drawn, then they are free to try and estsblish a new consensus here and/or create their own map for use on that wiki. But I think it's a bad idea for us to be in the habit of prioritising the political views of a minority of editors over the interests of the article when the subject of the article is inherently apolitical. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that is a sensible proposal.Tvx1 23:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems a reasonable route round it Nosebagbear (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also add that venues which hosted races that have since moved to a new circuit (eg Adelaide, Magny-Cours) should not be included if the focus is on the current calendar year. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never been convinced that we need this map at all, mainly because the weight given to a GP location is exaggerated in proportion to the size of the country it happens to be located in. So if we are convinced we need a map, for whatever reason, and we are going to create a new one, then I think we should add the GP location cities, but not mark the countries. That way we'll get a much clearer and representative picture of just how widely spread the GPs are, and without the problems of controversial borders. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * that doesn't solve the problem of borders at all. Even if all the countries are the same colour, you still need to show borders of some kind. If there are no borders, you're banking on the reader being really good at geography to know what the dots represent because some of the circuits&mdash;think Hockenheim, the Red Bull Ring and the Hungaroring or Paul Ricard, Monaco and Monza or Spa snd Zandvoort&mda sh;are really close together. It's less of an issue than when a country like Russia is highlighted, but we still need to show some kind of border.
 * The only other solution I can think of is a Ukrainian Grand Prix ... Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * just have the city names on the dots, with a tool-tip text for the country. It is the borders and differently coloured countries that add false weight to the relevance of the city dots. The fact that the dots will be clustered will convey the true sparse coverage of the globe, which is masked when the countries are coloured to suggest wider coverage. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tooltips don't work on the mobile site. You're supposed to hover the cursor over them to see the additional text, but there is no cursor on the mobile site.
 * From what you say, it sounds like you're thinking of something along these lines, but that's incredibly ambitious. I know the markup is difficult, and I have never seen it done particularly well on the mobile site. In that example, the markers don't line up with the geogrsphic co-ordinates, so according to that map (on the mobile site, at least), Sydney FC and the Western Sydney Wanderers are based in the Pacific Ocean somewhere north of New Zealand. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we are on the right route with this proposal. Unfortunately the issue because of which this discussion started persists. Even when we make the made according to the FIA members it's unclear what we should do with the Crimea. There is a claim here that the FIA considers it part of Ukraine, but no real evidence to support that claim has been provided. The only evidence that has been presented is TV graphics, but these are provided by FOM, not the FIA.Tvx1 19:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FIA uses proper borders on the official site: [1 ] Unas964 (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't think that is a very practical source. It doesn't show the borders of countries, but rather continents. And it is not very accurate. For instance, Russia is listed with their European members but is for some reason highlighted with the Asian continent.Tvx1 17:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of that is because filters have been applied. The unfiltered map gives you a better starting point. But yes, it's still pretty useless for our needs. It does reinforce my view that the map is a dumb idea though. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, it just crudely marks continents for the simply reason of providing interactivity for the visitors of that page to scroll between continents. In the mean time, I have found this document on the FIA site among the event and timing information of last year's Russian Grand Prix; which on page 101 features a map of Russia which includes Crimea.Tvx1 17:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not much of a surprise, given F1's cosy relationship with Putin. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Map: convenience break #1

 * I shall emphasise again, that this discussion is far from reaching the consensus and yet some uers with biased views towards RF are imposing their outlook, even removing notation about disputed takls on state borders on captions to the maps Unas964 (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC) — Unas964 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * - yet some uers with biased views towards RF are imposing their outlook, even removing notation about disputed takls on state borders on captions to the maps - this is a bad faith accusation. I advise that you start being civil, something which you have constantly failed to do.
 * Besides even if we did have a consensus (I am not going to try and assess the current consensus) to take your view point (to show FIA recongised borders), then there is still no indication on what those borders should be. As indicated above the FIA is itself inconsistant on the issue. SSSB (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that the map content is controversial and disputed. I favour removing the map altogether as I don't think we should include politics, and particularly political controversy, on this page. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Remove the map until an uncontroversial map can be created. A map with just the dots showing the location of the races would be uncontroversial, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of commenting out this highly controversial map. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Unnecessarily, I've reverted it for now. cherkash (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You should self-revert. It makes no sense to have a controversial map in the article, particularly as it has little value in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The maps isn't as controversial as you claim it to be. As we have carefully explained throughout the discussion this maps does not deal with politics.Tvx1 16:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe that you are naïve enough to think a careful explanation on a talk page discussion can somehow make us all pretend it is not a political controversy. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever for the controversial green shading on the map, so why not just get rid of it? And all the while this map is allowed to continue being in this article, it will reek of controversy. Sporting events often claim they have nothing to do with politics, but of course they do! The map must be removed if it cannot be fixed. I think we are fast approaching the need for an RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is clearly political, and clearly controversial, and has no place in this article with the controversial content. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No this is not political at all. We depict the FIA member states on the map as they define them. We do not depict political borders. These maps are generated for the scope of the sport. They aren't any more political than a map on FIFA World Cup depicting England as a separate country (which it is for FIFA purposes).Tvx1 22:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tvx1, when you wrote: "[w]e depict the FIA member states on the map as they define them", who did you mean by "they"? If you meant the member state, then it is their (rather than that of any other nation disputing it) political view. If you meant "the FIA", then it is their political view on border disputes. Either way it is a political decision, and either way it is controversial. Or did you have another "they" in mind? Wiki policy demands a neutral POV here. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Tvx1, the map isn't contraversial at all, the way the borders have been dipicted is what is contraversial. A simply note stating borders are shown as defined by x is enough to satisfy WP:N, our job is to represent things as depcted in sources, just becuase people disagree with the source we use doesn't automatically make something contravertial. SSSB (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "The way the borders have been depicted is what is controversial." This is absolutely key. Right now, like it or not, the map provided by "sources" (you mean the FIA) is highly controversial. Ordinarily, I would agree with you and say "that's too bad, we go with what the sources say," but we don't have to because we do not need the map. It doesn't add any value to the article whatsoever, and unnecessarily creates a point of controversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * if controversial borders are included on the map, then the map is controversial. And NPOV requires proportionate weight for each viewpoint, not just one attributed viewpoint. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * if controversial borders are included on the map, then the map is controversial. - which is exactly why we are having this discussion, to find a way that the borders can be uncontraversial. NPOV requires proportionate weight for each viewpoint, not just one attributed viewpoint. - The first thing to point out is Neutral point of view/FAQ, this content should only be deleted for being contraversial as a last resort, we are a long way off this moment, we haven't even tried implementing other ways of determining borders. Secondly I can't help but feel that you are synthesising WP:NPOV. Neutral point of view states describe disputes, but not engage in them (yes it is bolded at {{WP:NPOV]]) and {{tq|including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight}}. The consensus established above is that the borders represented (should the map remain) should reflect the FIA position (although there is no concrete evidence of what this may be), any other viewpoint in my mind doesn't have due weight in this article because the maps shows the borders as considered by the F1 world, not the whole world. It is also worth pointing out that any footnote added won't (to quote WP:NPOV) {{tq|stating opinions as facts}} but will instead reflect the fact the borders are by their very definition contraversial, a footnote along the lines of {{tq|This map shows the borders as defined by the governing body, see List of terrotorial disputes for details}} should be more than sufficent. In the same way that Ukraine and Russia each show the borders as they see them (they both state Crimea as there own terrotory), so this article (and others) can reflect the position of the FIA. Also note for example FIFA World Cup, a featured article which contains a world map and doesn't identify terrotory disputes.


 * Also I think we should hold of an RfC for now, this discussion has made significant progress in the last couple of weeks and it would be easier on everyone if we avoided going to an RfC. Concerning the arguemnts to remove the map, I think this discussion is best saved until after this one is concluded.


 * Also, a general question, does any one have any concrete evidence to indicate what the FIA position is other a race progamme (if there were a race in Ukraine I can virtually guarentee that the programme would show a Ukrainian crimea) or the WP:SYNTH of a map? SSSB (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, SSSB, but you have it all wrong. First of all, you claim a "consensus established above" when there's no such thing (I mean, we're all still arguing about it!). Second, while I am arguing for removal on the basis the map doesn't add value to the article, I would be happy to settle for a map that simply eliminates the green areas that are controversial, and leaves the points that are not. Finally, I would argue this is absolutely the right time to launch an RfC, because it is clear from last few days of debate that the two sides have become entrenched, meaning outside opinion is needed. I am only hesitating, in fact, because I am inexperienced in launching RfCs and I'm mulling over how to present the case in the most neutral way. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * as this is an article about a sports competition and not about the Russia/Ukraine border dispute, I cannot see the need to keep this political controversy active within it. The easiest way to deal with it is the remove the map altogether. An alternative is to remove the country colouring and erase the borders from it. If we are to keep it, with borders, I think we need to show all versions of the border to comply with NPOV, not just one relying on the get-out clause that the article could get balanced balanced at a later date. And I don't think the FIA view should be given any priority over other views on which border should be used. That way, the likelihood of continuous edit wars is reduced too. I do support the idea of an RfC to try to to get more views on all this. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I already started an RfC below. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also letting everyone who has participated in this discussion know about the RfC on the map below: {{ping|RMN120501|The359|Mclarenfan17|DeFacto|SSSB|Tvx1|Unas964|Cherkash}} -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

{{od|:::::::}}Ahhh, I misunderstood, I thought you wanted a RfC on the way borders are drawn, not on the scope of the map/if it should be there at all. At least this means we can get back on the topic of how the borders should be drawn (assuming they will still be there). However I recommend placing this discussion on tempory hold pending the RfC so as to not waste anyones time. We can get back to debating the state of the borders if the RfC concludes they should remain. I will also post a simliar notice at requests for closure. SSSB (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Scope of the map
While we're on the subject of the map, why does it show all host nations/venues past and present? This is the article for the 2020 championship, so the fact that South Africa, India and Argentina previously held races is moot. The 2020 map should be limited to 2020 nations and venues. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful for context. For example it shows that F1 has barely ventured into Africa, Western Australia, Western Asia. (Although Eurpoe is so busy its starting to lose its usefulness) SSSB (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * what does that have to do with 2020? If it's context you want, then surely List of Formula One Grands Prix is the best place for it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not particulary fussed, I'm just presenting a potential arguement for the inclusion. I'll ping (the image's creater) he might have a better rational for the inclusion, but once again because its on commons and used on other wikis it will be necessary to make another map. Anyway that's for latter SSSB (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Mclarenfan17 here. On an article for the 2020 World Championship we only need to show the 2020 races. The encyclopedic context of the geographic history of the sport lies in List of Formula One Grands Prix and the general article on Formula One.Tvx1 17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Point of the map
As I've said in the talk pages of previous years, why do we even need this map? It adds little value to the reader, if any, and all it seems to actually do is give us all something to argue over. I say get rid of it. The venues are listed in the schedule, and that is more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a visual representation of the calendar. I don't think it only gives us something to argue over because the above dispute is not about the existence of the map, but rather about how the map represents its borders. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that arguing over the borders is a profound waste of time when the very existence of a "visual representation of the calendar" is pointless. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Can this discussion be added to WP:LAME? 141.92.67.43 (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this pointless comment. Also, WP:LAME is for edit wars, which this is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Williams potential sale
User:Mclarenfan17 It is made clear in both citations you’ve used that the sale of Williams is ‘potential’ and they ‘could’ sell the team. Please refrain from doing bold, unsourced edits saying that the team will be sold as it hasn’t been decided yet. Thanks JamesVilla44 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Also a partial sell of the team doesn't necessarily mean a team change. They could sell part of the team and the team could still be called "Williams Racing". There is no evidence to suggest a)any deal will be made before the year end and b)that a deal will mean the end of the William's team. SSSB (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * remember the time when Force India was sold, but stayed known as Force India? It was notable enough for inclusion in an article then. Furthermore, Claire Williams has made it clear that the team intends to find new investors and/or buyers within four months:
 * ''Williams also stated that the team would see out the 2020 season, but would prefer to complete the process inside four months.
 * ''"We haven’t put a timeframe on this process, but we want to complete it within the next three to four months," she explained.
 * But what would she know? She's only the team principal.
 * ''"Please refrain from doing bold, unsourced edits saying that the team will be sold as it hasn’t been decided yet."
 * I never said that the team would be sold. I said it would be put up for sale because Claire Williams said that it would be put up for sale. Could you at least read the edits and the sources instead of just assuming that the edits are without merit? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this results in a change in Williams' status in the championship, e.g. it ceases racing, misses some rounds, or is rebranded, then it is worthy of inclusion. But at the moment all that has happened is that Williams have put the 'for sale' sign up. Best to wait until something eventuates. Fecotank (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We aren't saying it isn't notable, we are saying it is relevant (yet). When Force India was sold it didn't stay as Force India, it became Racing Point Force India. It was relevant because Racing Point Force India were a different entry, hence it was relevant. The Racing Point situation is completely different to this one. We don't even know how much of Williams is being sold, it could be just 20%, or less, they might not even sell any of it.
 * And although she would like it to be completed within 4 months, what team prinicipals want and get are two different entities, I don't think Claire Williams (deputy team principial by the way) wanted to end 2019 at the bottom but yet they did. It may not sell until next year, it may not sell at all. Even if they sold it, it could still be Williams. It should only be listed under team changes if the team changes (not the ownership). I agree with Fecotank, until it is longer Williams, or withdraws (either from individual rounds or the whole championship) the partial (or complete) selling of the team bears no relevance to the 2020 season. SSSB (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And although she would like it to be completed within 4 months, what team prinicipals want and get are two different entities, I don't think Claire Williams (deputy team principial by the way) wanted to end 2019 at the bottom but yet they did. It may not sell until next year, it may not sell at all. Even if they sold it, it could still be Williams. It should only be listed under team changes if the team changes (not the ownership). I agree with Fecotank, until it is longer Williams, or withdraws (either from individual rounds or the whole championship) the partial (or complete) selling of the team bears no relevance to the 2020 season. SSSB (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And although she would like it to be completed within 4 months, what team prinicipals want and get are two different entities, I don't think Claire Williams (deputy team principial by the way) wanted to end 2019 at the bottom but yet they did. It may not sell until next year, it may not sell at all. Even if they sold it, it could still be Williams. It should only be listed under team changes if the team changes (not the ownership). I agree with Fecotank, until it is longer Williams, or withdraws (either from individual rounds or the whole championship) the partial (or complete) selling of the team bears no relevance to the 2020 season. SSSB (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ''"I don't think Claire Williams (deputy team principial by the way)"
 * And that somehow makes her less qualified to comment on this? She's the daughter of the team principal (and the team's namesake), who given his age and his physical health&mdash;he's 78 and wheelchair-bound&mdash;has little to do with the day-to-day running of the team. Sir Frank's title of team principal is largely ceremonial at this point; Claire Williams might officially be the deputy team principal, but she's the de facto team principal at this point. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was simply correcting you. My argument still stands. There still isn't any evidence that Williams will no longer be Williams at any point this year. SSSB (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And my argument remains the same: a) the fact that Williams is publicly advertising the team as being for sale&mdash;even if they remain as Williams&mdash;is itself notable and b) a change in ownership, even without a change in name has been treated as notable in the past. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But you are yet to explain why the team being put up for sale is relevant to this article. No-body ever said it isn't notable, that's why it is mentioned several times at Williams Grand Prix Engineering, but the team being put up for sale is not relevant to the 2020 championship as there is no evidence at this time that the team being put up for sale will affect the championship in any way. SSSB (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only think relevant about it at the moment is why Williams will have had 2 names and 2 liveries (only because it is not a testing livery) as they have got rid of their title sponsor Rokit, but even that's a push for this article considering we haven't started the season. Games of the world (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be more suited to the article on the car, I think.Tvx1 18:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

ROKiT never had a stake in the team, and liveries change fairly frequently. Haas did it last year after the Rich Energy debacle and we never mentioned it.

Furthermore, the consensus is that we treat the Australian Grand Prix as if it never happened&mdash;despite the entry list&mdash;so the team was never known as ROKiT Williams Racing in 2020. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at some other examples, mid-season ownership changes at Minardi, Mercedes and McLaren are not mentioned in the 1996, 2011 and 2017 articles. Fecotank (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

F1 70 logo
I'm not sure what the addition of the 70th anniversary logo is meant to achieve. The infobox it is attached to does not support the inclusion of an image. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that explains why it is not showing. This is the 70th year of F1 and they have made a special logo, which from what I understand was meant to be part of wider events, I think some stuff was planned for Silverstone, obviously due to the situation it's not happening. It is worth a mention as the only time I remember a special logo was for the 1000th race last year, no other anniversary has been marked in this way, purely for these factors: Bernie does not understand modern branding and social media worth / F1 owned by American's who imo culturally like to commemorate stuff like this more than the rest of the world. There is precedence for this, see NFL 2019 season or the 2015 NFL season and 2016 Super Bowl for inclusion of information like this. Games of the world (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ''"This is the 70th year of F1 and they have made a special logo"
 * I understand that much. I'm questioning why it was added to the article because I cannot remove it, even though the template does not support images.
 * ''"There is precedence for this, see NFL 2019 season or the 2015 NFL season and 2016 Super Bowl for inclusion of information like this."
 * NFL editors are free to include images in their articles as they see fit. That does not mean that we should do it, though. We should only add it if it contributes something to the article and I don't think it does given that the article points out that this is the 72nd season of racing, Formula 1 regulations having been introduced two years before the creation of the World Championship. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the infobox template really simply needs to be edited so that an image can be included. However for some reason I can't seem to get that function to work. It's probably just some minor tweak though.Tvx1 10:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Drivers standings dagger
In the drivers and constructors standings tables it really is not necessary to have the dagger† for drivers who did not finish but were classified. It adds clutter and is not particularly relevant information for these large tables (a more detailed overview is available on the individual race articles). Tboa talk. 17:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, without these daggers readers will be confused as to why Albon is listed as 13th for the 2020 Austrian Grand Prix despite not finishing. Readers will undoubtedly try to change the tables because they are "incorrect". So these daggers are completely necessary. SSSB (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Austrian and British Grand Prix names
According to, the second Austrian Grand Prix is named the "Formula 1 Pirelli Grosser Preis der Steiermark" i.e. the Styrian Grand Prix, and the second British Prix is named the "Formula 1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix". Should these names be used instead of Austrian and British Grand Prixs for these events? Similar to the Luxembourg Grand Prix in Germany, and the United States Grand Prix West, both of which were used when multiple events were held in the same country. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply yes, I think yes. The Styrian Grand Prix is an easy one (at least for me) and should be covered at 2020 Styrian Grand Prix at this will likly be the common name for the event. The Formula 1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix is more complex, really I think this is one those sitautions where the comman name happens to coincide with the official one. SSSB (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One second thoughts I'm not convinced that Formula 1 is a necessary disambiguator. However the redirect is still worth creating. For know in the article we have called them "2020 Syrian Grand Prix" and "70th Anniversary Grand Prix". SSSB (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Styrian Grand Prix should redirect to Austrian Grand Prix and 70th Anniversary Grand Prix to British Grand Prix, since they're one-time-only events.


 * Also, in terms of the codes for the matrices, I would suggest STY and 70TH. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Styrian Grand Prix should redirect to 2020 Styrian Grand Prix and 70th Anniversary Grand Prix should detail the events of that Grand Prix. As an IP pointed out in #Targeted 2020 Calendar I suggest the names for race 2 in Austria and Great-Britain are not kept the same as for race 1, since they are not the same event. and I am yet to see a article to contradict this. SSSB (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how we should treat the second Silverstone race&mdash;should it be the Anniversary Grand Prix or the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix? If we were to use the "2020" modifier in an article, would we call it the 2020 Anniversary Grand Prix or the 2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix? I ask because I think the "70th" is being used in the same was "2020" would be used in an article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * well, I am yet to see a source that only calls it the Anniversary Grand Prix and a google search suggests that the Nurburbring hosted a "Anniversary Grand Prix" in 1952 for sportscars. There was also a 40th Anniversary Grand Prix for Pontiac. A google search for "2020 Anniversary Grand Prix" yielded no sources which actually called it that.
 * I definietly think that including both 2020 and 70th are redundent as disambiguators. The only policy reason why 70th would be included is becasue there are no sources which call it "Anniversary Grand Prix" (none of the other Anniversary Grand Prix are notable and therefore it could redirect back to 70th Anniversary Grand Prix)
 * So to conclude a rather longwinded arguement, I think the article shoud be called 70th Anniversary Grand Prix. SSSB (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , in regards to your final statement, we will have to wait and see. Will the have this: The race is due to mark the first running of the Anniversary Grand Prix? (in case if future Anniversary Grand Prix, F1 may decide they like the idea, I don't mind, in List of Formula One Grand Prix we have simply called it 70th Anniversary Grand Prix). We will have to see, but really that is the only appropriate place where 70th can become a substitue for 2020. SSSB (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call 2020 and 70th redundant disambiguators. It's no the first time that a Formula One race only occurred once. See the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix or the 1984 Dallas Grand Prix for instance.Tvx1 11:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that using both disambiguators (70th and 2020) would be redundent given that the 70th anniversary year occurs only one (just as 2020 does) SSSB (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that specific case using 70th should be sufficient. But in the case of Styria I would maintain 2020 Styrian Grand Prix.Tvx1 19:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that using both disambiguators (70th and 2020) would be redundent given that the 70th anniversary year occurs only one (just as 2020 does) SSSB (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that specific case using 70th should be sufficient. But in the case of Styria I would maintain 2020 Styrian Grand Prix.Tvx1 19:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my thoughts (I don't usually get involved in F1 pages). Definitely neither of of these should be called Austrian or British GP... it is an oddity in F1 when there is more than one in a country, but my understanding is that there can only be one 'British' GP per year. So yes, naming already proposed is ok (although I would have gone with the "Steiermark GP" as per the BBC... if Styrian means 'from Steiermark' that's fine!).
 * The bigger problem I think is to decide which three letter codes we use (for tables templates etc.) I am tempted to use STY (styrian) and 70 or 70A or ANI (70th anniversary GP) SSSB (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

More concerning to me is still the calender, which currently looks a little confusing. I get that this may improve when we have more clarity. My preference would be to scrap the table listing postponed races and replace with a simple table showing the complete original schedule. I.e Here is how the season was meant to be, and here is how it was after all of the changes. Would seem a lot clearer to anyone looking back in the future (imo). Bs1jac (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * A calendar that was "meant to be run" is a calendar that was never used. Where is the encyclopaedic value in that? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What you reverted was a lot simpler and neater than the mess of a calendar that we have below the current calendar. Both calendars convey the same info. Why not remove all then? Personally I liked the originally calendar with no nonsense on it per say and a replacement calendar underneath both explained by prose and have edited as so being BOLD. Games of the world (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the encyclopaedic relevance of a calendar that will never be used? There is none.
 * ''"I liked the originally calendar with no nonsense on it per say and a replacement calendar underneath both explained by prose and have edited as so being BOLD."
 * WP:BOLD does not mean that your edits are automatically accepted and cannot be touched by other editors. It's part of the WP:BRD cycle. You make a bold edit, it gets reverted and so we discuss it. If you want to add the table, you need a WP:CONSENSUS first. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want to stop being rude for a second. Quoting bold is pointless as no one is complaining about any reverts. Also repeating the same thing over and over is not helpful please try and be constructive. Games of the world (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be constructive. I just don't agree with you. I don't think anyone would take my comment as being rude unless they were taking the discussion personally. So I think you need to stop acting so defensively and remember that it's not personal if people disagree with you. Otherwise we wind up in a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation. A criticism of your ideas is not a criticism of you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You could equally say that the current table showing cancelled races is a list of races that didn't happen. The original calendar has some value, although to be honest I am looking for ways to get that second table removed. Could have neither that or the original calendar, and only have the actual calendar as races get confirmed. The original schedule and news of cancelled GPs could then be in the text with refs. Just my thoughts, no stress. Bs1jac (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed, that is the best route forward. SSSB (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Using two tables is the best way to provide our readers a structured overview of the situation. Bear in mind that over time the second table will become smaller and smaller as more and more of the actual calendar is finalized. Thus ultimately we'll end up with a large calendar of the actually happened races and a small list of cancelled races. This coupled with intermittent prose will provide our readers with the most efficient story of the situation. We're going through a unique season in the sport and the cancellation of some races and reshuffling of the calendar were very notable events in the reliable sources.Tvx1 11:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But is it necessary to put cancelled races in a table. Wouldn't be simplier to simply list them in prose, either using bullet points a written list. SSSB (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not absolutely necessary in the sense of "we must use a table at all costs". But I genuinely believe it is the most efficient way to convey this information to our readers. Using prose only would make it just less efficient and if you're going to use a bulleted list you might as well use a table. This season's situation was unique and would certainly be justified for this article's calendar section to be a bit different to that of other season articles.Tvx1 19:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * my only concern with prose is that since everything has been cancelled for the same reason, it's just going to be a lengthy list; i.e., "the Australian Grand Prix was due to be run at the Albert Park Circuit, the Dutch Grand Prix at Circuit Zandvoort, the French Grand Prix at Circuit Paul Ricard and the Monaco Grand Prix at the Circuit de Monaco, but all four were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic" and I'm already hating it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a less detailed list along the lines of the Australian, Dutch, French and Monaco Grands Prix were all cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, without the listing of venues. Do we really need to list the venues? SSSB (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I don't want to stick my head in here too much but my suggestion is since those two events are the result of special circumstances, we do NOT include 2020 in their names at all. Simply "Styrian..." and "70th Anniversary..." for the *specific races* with the race result, background, infobox, etc be included there. The actual race name should be kept as Austrian GP and British GP but then that would cause issues as Baku was both Europe and Azerbaijan... Just throwing my thoughts around... Admanny (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. That would just be factually incorrect. The actual race names are Styrian Grand Prix and 70th Anniversary Grand Prix. Naming theme anything else is wrong.Tvx1 11:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you've misinterpreted what he said. He is saying we should not have on the race page 2020 F1 70th anniversary gp, but the page just be called f1 70th anniversary gp. However there is a prescient 1970 Houston Women's Invitation Was a one off event and someone moved it to have the prefix of 1970. But certainly I agree that any redirecting to Austrian or British GP pages is incorrect Games of the world (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why did Admanny write "The actual race name should be kept as Austrian GP and British GP"??Tvx1 13:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tuscan Grand Prix
The same goes for the Tuscan Grand Prix: according to F1.com this race is the Tuscany Ferrari 1000 Grand Prix. Should this be reflected in the table as well? Lustigson (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , not now per WP:COMMANNAME. If the common name changes we can revist it then. SSSB (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Just another thing: is Tuscany Grand Prix (note the -y) a better common name? I'm not sure. Lustigson (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * firstly it's grammatically incorrect. More importantly, I am also yet to see a source that calls it that. For a page to be moved a majority of sources would have to call it that. SSSB (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All right. My English is quite OK, but I'm not a native speaker. The 'Tuscan' sounded a bit weird, hence my question. Lustigson (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another remark about Tuscan-Tuscany: I think my confusion was/is that the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is not the Abu Dhabian GP, but it's named after the city (or emirat, I guess), so the Grand Prix in Tuscany could be named after the region, so Tuscany GP. Oh, well... :-) Lustigson (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * F1.com calls it "Tuscan Grand Prix", Autosport calls it "Grand Prix of Tuscany", so no consensus. We also have some Grands Prix that use the adjective (Styrian, British, Italian), and some that use the place name (Abu Dhabi, US). Not sure which is best. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Tuscany Grand Prix is not necessarily grammatically incorrect. The place name does not have to be and adjective. We have plenty of GP names were that isn't the case. United States Grand Prix, Monaco Grand Prix, Azerbaijan Grand Prix, San Marino Grand Prix, Pescara Grand Prix and so on.Tvx1 11:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Other races table colouring
I'm very perplexed at the resistance to adding sensible colouring to the table of cancelled/postponed races. It's been reverted twice now (likely contrary to WP:DONTREVERT), and clearly aids comprehension, especially for visually-impaired users. Such table colouring is clearly visible across the wiki.

Hopefully this isn't a case of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I would appreciate some clarification here. AtomCrusher (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not someone who has edited this table, but I just see the addition of colour as pointless. How does it aid comprehension? Any more than taking the table above it and making July races red, August ones green and so on? It might be clearly visible across the ether but to what end? And not clearly visible if you're colourblind, of course. It just looks like indiscriminate use of colour.


 * WP:DEW is about warring over different colours, not whether to use colour or not, and besides, it's only an essay. As for WP:DONTREVERT, then you'd have to ask those who are reverting you. For me, it's pointless, but maybe they have deeper objections. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The WP:DEW is linked from various other articles about tables and such, but I take your point about it being an essay. R.e. colours, it's a false equivalence to say that it's the same as adding colours for each race month. Personally I added the colouring because, at first glance, it wasn't particularly easy to see what races were cancelled and what were still being discussed. I'm not partially-sighted (which is much more than colour-blindless, of course), and I knew adding it would solve this issue. But "it's pointless" isn't a revert reason per WP:DONTREVERT, and as you say perhaps there are more strenuous objections that will come to light. AtomCrusher (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A more applicable guideline IMO is bold, revert, discuss. AtomCrusher, you were bold, and User:Mclarenfan17 reverted you; now is the time to discuss. I don't see any WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from anyone, this is just how changes on Wikipedia often work. But as the person suggesting the change, the onus is now on you to support it and gain consensus for it. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it would appear consensus is needed. BRD suggests that the initial revert was conducted poorly without adequate explanation, and none of us (myself included) have been following the BRD cycle with the re-reversions. To me the edit seems common-sense, useful for comprehension, and innocuous to those who don't have use for it. The question therefore, in my mind, is: why not? AtomCrusher (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how it helps the visually impaired, because that it's mentioned in MOS:COLOR? MOS:COLOR seems to tell you what to do if you choose to use colours, but gives no indication on why colours might be a good idea. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I cannot see any reason whatsoever for the colors. They add no benefit to comprehension at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If your reasoning is simply "why not" then this discussing is going nowhere fast. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll reserve judgement until tomorrow but AtomCrushers argument is that adding the colours makes it easier to identify the status of races (for those of us who are able to distinguish colour). SSSB (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is not "why not" - that is the question who are opposed to it are to answer, rather than just some vague mumblings about not liking colour, which we've already discussed is not a reason for reversion. I've given my reasoning: it aids comprehension (it did for me, and does in many other articles), and this could extend to those with visual impairments. It is not an unusual styling, in use across the wiki liberally for these very reasons. I must say, this is the most bizarre thing to have to defend, and definitely the most resistance to use of colour in this way I've ever encountered on here. AtomCrusher (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have to defend it so vigorously, perhaps that's because the use of colour is inappropriate.


 * Also, as someone with a visual impairment&mdash;I'm colour-blind, which is quite common&mdash;I can safely say that the colours do nothing to aid my comprehension of the article. In fact, it does the opposite. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I, like many others, do not see the point of the colours. They appear to be purely decorative at best and contextually misleading at worst. The red for cancelled I can understand, but green for postponed implies that the race is going ahead&mdash;which is no sure thing at this point. I cannot fathom the use of blue for pending. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that adding colours doesn't help accessibility in my understanding. And no rationale has been provided that it does improve accessibility (other than  unilaterally declaring it does with no evidence), so I'm against using colours. Colours don't add to the article, especially when seemingly randomly picked, and they don't acheive accessibility which was the other stated rationale for it. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it would appear we have "consensus." Some seem to have made up their mind before this discussion unfortunately. The friendlier way would've been to open this discussion before the second revert, or change the colours to something more appropriate. FWIW, my "vigorous defence" is because it's so bizarre to receive such a pushback on a simple change. A disappointing interaction, this. AtomCrusher (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Your only real defence of the changes has been WP:DONTREVERT. You haven't really given a reason as to why it should not be reverted and so it comes across as "the edits should not be reverted because they were made in the first place". You offered something about improving accessibility, but as someone who has a form of visual impairment, I can tell you it doesn't help; in fact, it's quite the opposite. If you can offer an actual reason for keeping the changes, then I'm sure everyone here will hear you out, but as it is you haven't done enough to persuade anyone. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you implied&mdash;in fact, you all but accused&mdash;that editors had reverted your edits because of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR without any proof except for the revert, which is a reasonably serious charge to be throwing around. Considering that I was one of the editors in question, this did nothing to endear yourself to me. I can be persuaded, but suggesting that I broke WP:OWN simply because I disagreed with you (and had in fact suggested that given the unusual circumstances, prior discussion to establish a consensus was warranted) only served to make it that much harder to convince me of the merits of the change. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I preferred the table with the colour. It adds clarity and is, otherwise, completely harmless. If there is an issue over which colours are being used, that can be changed easily. Tboa talk. 17:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As explained above. They actually do NOT add clarity.Tvx1 20:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Update to article needed - New races (and cancelled ones)
bbc reporting that USA, mexico, Brazil and Canada all officially cancelled. they also give dates for three new GP - Nurburgring on Oct 11, Portimao on Oct 25 and Imola on Nov 1. Please can someone update article. 141.92.67.43 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It’s clear from the source they are merely proposals at the moment. “Are to be added” are the key words. Nothing official yet.Tvx1 13:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, wait for Autosport or Formula1.com to confirm it. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now confirmed: & . Although the race names are "Eifel Grand Prix", "Portuguese Grand Prix" and "Emilia Romagna Grand Prix". <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Imola Grand Prix" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Imola Grand Prix. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SSSB (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)