Talk:2023 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

What's the point?
Sorry to be a a pain, but is there some sort of convention that dictates when we create new F1 championship pages? If there isn't, what is the gain to Wikipedia by creating a page about a sporting event that won't happen for 1 1/4 years? BMB YT 500000 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the convention is to create the page when there is enough unique content for the page (we generally want something beyond contracts, most relevant here is WP:TOOSOON). There is nothing to gain by this page existing now, as it falls foul of WP:TOOSOON]] which is why I tagged the page with Db-repost, citing a previous deletion discussion which yielded a delete consensus, which itself cited WP:TOOSOON. SSSB (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB Great, thanks. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023
please add the car name of McLaren is going to use in 2023, because the news has been released by Racefans.net also releases the car name, here is the link: https://www.racefans.net/2023/01/06/mclaren-confirm-february-13th-launch-date-for-mcl37/ 223.19.112.230 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ SSSB (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023
Section: Enactment of political gestures "was not used to help fufil drivers' "private personal agenda"."

fufil is mispelled; it should be either fulfil or fulfill Orly.junior (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (information presented in entrants table and calendar is correct according to current contracts) --GTDrift19 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. That was the case during the previous two deletion discussions, yet it was still deleted on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON. SSSB (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Creation protection
I think the block of "2023 Formula One Word Championship" should be removed. The reason given for the block in October 2021 was faulty since it is not the same to start this article in late 2021 or in 2022 as in 2020. A deletion reason that may have been valid in 2020 cannot necessarily be considered valid any more when the date changes. I doubt that the admin deleting the article in October 2021 had a real look at the article; he just saw that the article was deleted previously. Also, there is a draft for this article already and it should be moved to the article now since more info begins to come in and due to this block of recreation the development of the article is seriously hampered. --Maxl (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Right now there is no unique content for this article to contain, and therefore there is no reason to create the article. SSSB (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Says who? --Maxl (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, what content have you got? SSSB (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2023_Formula_One_World_Championship - I said so before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxl (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * SSSB was asking for unique content for this article. A list of contracts does not satisfy the GNG, and creating the page from that draft would make it elegible for deletion under CSD § G4 because it would be sufficiently identical to both previously deleted versions (which are all just lists of contracts). Until coverage of the season exists, an article can not. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Who says it does "not satisfy the GNG"? It is genuine information! --Maxl (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The only source about the 2023 season is the source about the Qatar Grand Prix. Even then, it only mentions the 2023 season in passing, so I agree that it doesn't meet the criteria laid out in WP:GNG (significant coverage being the issue). SSSB (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because some information exists does not mean an article should. Wikipedia is not a database and without coverage of the season, a list of contracts does not satisfy the GNG. If that draft were to be transferred to mainspace it would be deleted via G4 since it would contain the sufficiently same information as the previous two versions which were deleted as failing inclusion guidelines. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 06:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion
Although this version is substationally similar to previous versions, a large number of new sources now exist, meaning the grounds of the last deletion discussion (WP:TOOSOON) no longer hold true. See as an example:, , , , , ,. SSSB (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Spelling of diffuser
Diffuser is clearly spelt wrong (diffisur) in the following paragraph “Following large amounts of porpoising during 2022, the FIA is introducting changes to the regulations to limit excessive porposing. Floor edges will be raised by 25 millimetres (0.98 in) and the throat of the diffisur will also be raised, by a yet to be determined amount. Lateral floor deflection tests are also due to be more stringent.” Please correct it 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:F045:A264:B3B4:5B02 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , Tvx1 09:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This article should definitely exist
Actually, it should have existed a long ago. Historically, we have always had an article for the next season that covered all the development - proposed calendar, proposed regulation changes, confirmed drivers or confirmed retirements, etc. As a Wikipedia user, I expect this article to exist and provide the information I mentioned. When I want to remind myself who will be driving for which team next year (or which team still has a vacancy, i.e. no signed driver), or what races will be added or removed, my first choice is always the Wikipedia page for the next season. This time, through the stubbornness of the admins, who falsely believe there is nothing to be covered yet, Wikipedia has failed me. We are well into the part of the season when information about next year is being announced bit by bit and Wikipedia must cover that from day 1. Peepay (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How does this draft meet the GNG? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 15:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I have no idea what your fancy acronym means, I am providing a real-life, honest and authentic use case of what a Wikipedia visitor expects from it. You can either listen to your users' feedback, or you can keep doing what you are doing and watch your users slowly give up on you. If there was an option to provide a rating, I would give 1 star for not listening to the people the service should be for and refusing to provide the information the visitors are after. Peepay (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG is "general notability criteria", the criteria is outlined here: WP:GNG. SSSB (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We aren't a service with customers, we're an encyclopaedia, and we're in the 'business' (figuratively speaking) of producing encyclopaedic articles. If you can't demonstrate why it's worthy of encyclopaedic coverage, it doesn't get an article. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 03:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment makes it sound like you use Wikipedia for news, or to remind yourself about old news. But Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia is not a news site, or an archive of old news. SSSB (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not news. Just a summary table with the information - information that is based on the news, that can be referenced to. There is a list of races that are not yet contracted to be run next year, there is a list of teams and drivers, each can be linked to the announcement when the driver was retained, etc. This is all encyclopedic information, just like in the page for this season. Many pieces of information for next season are already available, so it should be taken for granted that there will be a Wikipedia page that shows the list, the table, etc. Peepay (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should be created. I think that the recent sources covering Vettel's retirement and who should replace mean that GNG is satisfied, and it arguably was before. These sources are unlikely to feature in the article itself, as they usually speculate, but the sources do exist, meaning that (although the revision would be substationally the same) I believe it would survive a new AfD, and if it is speedily deleted again, I will take it to WP:DELETION REVIEW. SSSB (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As an after thought the coverage of potential regulation changes for 2023, vis-a-vis the floor mean that a new revision would be substantionally different (I will add it to the draft tomorrow, and then request removal of page protection, if I remeber) Generally speaking, I would suggest that in future we create season articles in around the June the year before (i.e. 2024 Formula One World Championship would be created by June 2023, am open to other months) with a WP:IAR approach to WP:GNG as a Formula One season can reasonably be presumed notable even without sources that specifically discuss that season (due to a lack of news). Because I feel that with this article we have gone from one extreme (created in early 2020) to another (still not created in August 2022). SSSB (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If sources don't specifically discuss the season, the season isn't notable. This article might be worth creating (mainly because of upcoming regulation changes) but I would strongly oppose making an arbitrary assumption about when we start writing a season article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I picked June because that's generally when sources start speculating about the following. And if you google "2023 Formula One" you see that this is broadly accurate. I just feel that we are applying the criteria of WP:GNG excessively harshly or even incorrectly. Particularly given your statement of "How does this draft meet the GNG?" The draft doesn't need to meet GNG, the subject does. Even though the draft is substantially the same as the deleted draft, I believe that it wouldn't/shouldn't be deleted due to the breadth of sources that cover the season in the media. SSSB (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speculation does not make an article though; it does not demonstrate notability. I mistakenly thought this was the draft's talk page when it first appeared in my watchlist, but the point I was making was the same as that made in all the deletion discussions: there needs to be coverage of the season, not of its constituent parts. I would consider the recent regulation changes to go some way towards meeting the GNG. Regardless, I wouldn't be willing to support any guideline that allows for the creation of a season article before the usual notability requirements are met. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 08:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speculation does demonstrate notability, as it is extensive coverage of the season. there needs to be coverage of the season, not of its constituent parts. is also wrong. No source is going to cover every part of the season until someone publishes a pre-season preview in the week preceding the opening round. This is exactly what I mean, you are applying WP:GNG in an overly strict fashion. Later today, I will request the unprotection of this page, citing the variaety of sources that are now speculating over next year's calendar and driver line up. SSSB (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We clearly have different readings of inclusion requirements, but I look forward to seeing the variety of sources you will present to demonstrate notability. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 08:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , demostrate extensive coverage of the 2023 season, satisfing WP:GNG.  SSSB (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Like 5225C, I strongly oppose putting an arbitrary date forward at which this sort of articles is created. The creation of these articles should only occur when there is sufficient unique content for the season in question. There is no rush and Wikipedia does not work with deadlines.Tvx1 10:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian Grand Prix
It seems highly likely that the 2023 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix will be held at the Jeddah Corniche Circuit, as the official circuit social media accounts are saying preparations are underway for a third race there. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cg2Wbxaom4D/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link Norgz1328 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's wait an announcement made by Formula One first. It's too much early for the time being Island92 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022
Are we allowed to add date of 2023 Australian GP? proof: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/date-set-2023-australian-grand-prix/10353304/ Marcusyg (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Typically we don't add any dates until the draft calendar is published. It doesn't really make a great deal of sense, from an encyclopedic point of view, to list the confirmed dates of Grands Prix when most are unknown. In short, I feel this addition would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. SSSB (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Official Calendar released
The official 2023 calendar has been confirmed by the FIA https://www.fia.com/news/2023-fia-formula-one-world-championship-calendar-approved-wmsc JamesVilla44 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What are we waiting for? XT RedZone (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * we were waiting for someone to get round to it. We have lives outside of Wikipedia, you know. SSSB (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Piastri Driver Number
Piastri’s driver number is listed as #81 has this been confirmed yet? 5.68.144.17 (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he tweeted the hashtag OP81, which would likely mean that's the number he's using and its free as well Norgz1328 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OR, I'm removing it. SSSB (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? He, personally, confirmed it. Island92 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A hastag is not confirmation. Unless he used the words "I'll be using number 81" (or something of that ilk, text or speech, either is fine), it is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It has now been confirmed on Racefans.net, attached is the headline for it confirming that Piastri will race with the car number 81. https://www.racefans.net/2022/09/27/piastri-explains-why-he-chose-number-81-for-f1-debut-in-2023/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:2E10:900:207D:9256:C91A:8A86 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's been added- agree that with this new source confirming it, it is fine to add. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022
As of 06/10/2022, the Belgian Grand Prix Weekend (28-30 July 2023) clashes with the TOTALENERGIES 24 Hours Of Spa, a Fanatec GT World Challenge Europe event. Ojoj149149 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it does not, since this was resolved an entire 2 weeks ago. A simple Google search would have resolved this. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

De Vries Driver Number
The driver number de Vries is going to use in the 2023 season is listed as TBA while he has had previous sessions using #45. I'm unsure if a procedure has to be completed to verify #45 for the 2023 season but isn't it highly unusual to change a driver number? --Jurgenwesterhof (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * when De Vries participated this season he was standing in for another driver, and #45 was assigned to him as a temporary number. For next year, he will be allowed to pick his number, hence the TBA. List of Formula One driver numbers probably explains it better. Ps the reply link is added automatically to the end of signatures. It isn't something you need to manually add. If you sign your comment, the reply link will appear. SSSB (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @SSSB: Thanks for explaining Jurgenwesterhof (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Reserve driver 2023
Anybody know who will be reserve/test driver per team for 23 season? All i know is

Mercedes: ricciardo Aston martin: drugovich & varndoorne Haas: fittipaldi Alfa romeo: theo 36.80.147.102 (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Then you know more than me, although Ricciardo's role is still unconfirmed speculation. But, please only discuss the article here, not the subject of the article per WP:FORUM. If the point you are getting at is: why doesn't this article list the reserve drivers? It is becuase they don't play a part in the season, at least not anymore than the engineers, or stratergists, so it would be outside of the scope of the article to discuss it here. When the final race of the season is over, next year's confirmed reserve drivers will appear in the infoboxes of the relevant teams. SSSB (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nico Hülkenberg confirmed in the Haas team
Nico Hülkenberg has been confirmed by the Haas team for a seat in 2023. It was announced by Motorsport.com

″I was not prepared to going into the Aston Martin, but into Haas i have yet.″ Nico Hülkenberg https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/haas-set-to-announce-hulkenberg-f1-deal-for-2023/10399888/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matulda4 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * expected to confirm ≠ confirmed.  set to announce ≠ announced--H4MCHTR (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, right now this is nothing more that speculation. SSSB (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022
Change

Chinese Grand Prix	China Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	16 April

to

Chinese Grand Prix Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	16 April [CANCELLED] Rohitpad (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No, not until it has been confirmed, see above. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ricciardo as Red Bull reserve driver
Helmut confirmed this during FP1 at the Abu Dhabi GP 2022 Lineupandwait (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Reserve drivers have never been mentioned in the season articles afaik. H4MCHTR (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus he's not reserve driver, Liam Lawson is. Red Bull didn't help by using the meaningless term "3rd driver" but Helmut Marko made it clear.  As OP says though, unless he actually races that's not something that's historically been noted anyway. Duds 2k (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022
Remove the AMR-23 and the Merc W14 from the entry list as it has not been confirmed yet and also add car number 81 to Oscar Piastri as the car number has been announced by himself on his twitter already 218.188.208.98 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Piasti hasn't announced anything. He used a hastag. That's not the same thing, and using the hastag "#OP81" to cite this material is WP:OR. Aston Martin's team principal has used the name AMR23, that's sufficient confirmation. W14 is more questionable, it is merely the writer's assumption, so I'll leave that one open for further discussion. SSSB (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Piastri number has been done based on a proper source now: . Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * for the chassis name, can you give any link for proof? 218.188.221.130 (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The links are in the article, next to the content (in the entry table). SSSB (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022
Remove the AMR23 and W14 link and their references in entry list as the chassis name has not been confirmed yet 218.188.221.130 (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: From what I see, both links are reliable sources. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Chinese GP
The Chinese GP is "expected to be cancelled", but this hasn't been officially confirmed yet, so it is WP:SPECULATION to claim on here that it's been cancelled. Read the sources: Crash, BBC, Planet F1 all say expected or set to be cancelled, but we must wait until F1 actually confirms this. Pinging who I reverted on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And ping also to . --Marbe166 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also, in my opinion, a sentence that the race is "expected to be cancelled" is unnecessary in the article. H4MCHTR (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. For today's this source Formula One says the Chinese Grand Prix remains on next season's calendar. "We continue to monitor the Covid situation in China and maintain a close dialogue with the promoter and authorities". I restored old version.--Island92 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s cancelled now. Tvx1 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * you've just removed the TBA slots for the Chinese GP saying "it will not be replaced". There has been no announcement from the FIA or F1 that it would not be replaced, to the contrary the search for a replacement is ongoing and circuit representatives have been making statements even in the last 12 hours. Why has it been removed? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per this source the 2023 calendar has been updated without the slot to replace the Chinese Grand Prix.--Island92 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
please change name of engine of Red Bull to Honda RBPT as that was how fia mentioned in the 2023 entry list, proof: https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2023/2023-fia-formula-one-world-championship-entry 223.19.112.230 (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done SSSB (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * i didn’t see the change, it is still RBPT  instead of  Honda  RBPT  218.188.221.130 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The constructor column reads "Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT" and "AlphaTauri-Honda RBPT". Or are you talking about somewhere else? SSSB (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m talking about the row “Power Unit”. 223.19.112.230 (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022 regarding to add a new section “Car release date”
Please consider add a calendar of the launch date of each team’s car as Aston Martinhad revealed their date of car launch. 223.19.112.230 (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is unnecessary for the season article, can be appropriately covered on each of the cars' articles (when they are eventually created). 10:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. It fails WP:TENYEARTEST, in fact it doesn't even satify a ten week test. SSSB (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

F1 vs Formula One vs Formula 1 in the teams' names
I can see there is a disagreement regarding McLaren's team name, namely that the entry lists show the team has entered as "McLaren Formula 1 Team" while we have previously displayed it as "McLaren F1 Team". Although McLaren is the point of disagreement, Mercedes and Aston Martin have entered themselves as Mercedes-AMG PETRONAS Formula One Team" and "Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant Formula One Team" but have been listed as "Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team" and "Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant F1 Team". This has been done for several previous seasons, but I am not aware of any existing WP:F1 consensus. I am of the opinion that the team name should be reproduced exactly as it appears on the entry list (minus capitalisation styling) but I can understand that abbreviating Formula One or Formula 1 to F1 doesn't really have a functional impact. Treating them consistently is, however, vitally important, so we wil either have to reproduce all team names exactly as they appear on the entry list, or abbreviate all team names. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We should either reproduce them exactly as they appear on the entry list (minus stylised capitalisation) or we should just render them as "Mercedes", "Ferrari", "McLaren", etc (which is already done in the constructor column and doesn't need to be repeated in an entrants column). I can't see the justification for somewhat arbitrarily abbreviating part of some of the teams names. If the entry list says "F1 Team" for some teams, "Formula 1 Team" for other teams, and "Formula One Team" for others, then we should reflect that accurately. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it is a minor difference. Last year we had "Formula One" for Mercedes and Aston Martin, then changed to F1 in the first race entry list. It will definitely be the same in 2023 for a question of room in the line in the FIA document. For McLaren is the first time ever and it will not be an issue-room whether FIA list them as F1 or Formula 1 in Bahrain. Hence imop let's keep McLaren Formula 1 Team for the time being. Island92 (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The point about room in the document causing the need for abbreviations is interesting, and I’m unsure of how to handle it. One solution is to simply stick with the season entry list for team names, but there might come other changes in round entry lists like sponsorship changes, and there’s a question to be asked about at what point it becomes WP:OR to differentiate between what changes should be included or not.
 * Regarding McLaren specifically, I think "Formula 1" makes sense, at least at the moment. It’s the first time it’s been changed, it’s not because of room, and last but not least, it’s how they spell it in their logo. It’s always bugged me personally how it’s not been abbreviated in the logo, but has been in the fully written out name. Made no sense. But that’s a subjective opinion, not an argument. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 14:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is definitely no issue-room for McLaren, whether they are listed Formula 1 Team or F1 Team. The case is different for Mercedes and Aston Martin. Listing them Mercedes-AMG Petronas Formula One Team	and Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant Formula One Team, respectively, like currently in the general championship entry list, will force a double-line in the first race entry list. To make it simpler and to be read on one line, FIA choses F1 Team. In their logos, however, there's always been Formula One both for Mercedes and Aston Martin.--Island92 (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They always put F1 Team. I found a 2016's case in which was indicated Renault Sport Formula One Team for example, which means they could have added Renault Sport Formula One Team in the first race entry list, following the same name reported in the general entry list, rather they put Renault Sport F1 Team, no issue-room involved in the document. I widely think will be the same for this year's McLaren, hence I put again McLaren F1 Team.--Island92 (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023
please add a section in the technical regulation change that there will be a weight reduction from 798 kg to 796kg, source: 2023 FiA Formula One Technical Regulation (2023; issue 4) (external site, from fia.com)

"The mass of the car, without fuel, must not be less than 798kg 796kg at all times during the Competition"

- FiA 2023 Formula One Technical Regulations - issue 4 - 2022-12-07, page 46 section 4.1 223.19.112.230 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I think this change in the regulation is so small (2kg, equivilant to a 0.25% reduction) that it risks moving the technical regulations section into the realms of What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not the technical regulations and therefore I feel that minor changes in the regulations (which aren't covered in a half-decent level of detail by secondary sources, like the roll-hope regs) shouldn't be included. For the same reason, I propose we also remove the section on mirror sizes.  SSSB (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023
Shall we also add the team change of Haas f1 team that they have got a new titled sponsor, which is MoneyGram? 223.19.112.230 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ - who sponsors a Formula One team doesn't constitute a noteworthy change to be mentioned here. These changes are regular and don't impact season, only the team's budget - so it isn't really relevant here. SSSB (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * what about the changes to team principals? shall we mention it as well? 223.19.112.230 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is a matter for team and personnel articles. Personnel aren't 'entered' into the championship, so who fills what role ultimately isn't that important. If necessary they will be mentioned in the season report, but we don't need to report that there has been in a change of personnel just for the sake of it. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 15:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Las Vegas GP date
Is the GP really on 18 November (a Saturday)? Robertpstubbs (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, around 10pm local time. SSSB (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2023
Please change the team name of alfa romeo back to “Alfa Romeo F1 Team ORLEN” as the team name of Alfa Romeo is still “Alfa Romeo F1 Team ORLEN” on the official entry list given by FIA. 218.188.221.130 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is a WP:COMMONSENSE situation. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Logan Sargeant is a U.S. Citizen and also an American. American is not an exclusive demonym of U.S. Citizens.
Clear as that. Needs to be changed. Lcville72 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If he is both, why do we need to change anything? And if he was one, but not the other, what would we need to change? I don't get it. SSSB (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, most recent AMERICAN to reach and race in F1 is Nicholas Latifi from Canada whom debuted in 2020. If anybody wants to comment about US Drivers, well, I believe U.S. Citizens should be used. Lcville72 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * American is the common English word to describe people from the United States. Here's an excerpt from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.
 * Found it in one of the sources on American (word).
 * JohnMcButts (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous complaint. Canada uses the demonym "Canadian". The United States uses the demonym "America". If you would like sources for that, see the respective articles. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok this is a discussion I am not going to win. I believe this is wrong because being from El Salvador and being American, I don’t like U.S. Citizens appropriate the term. I don’t care how they call themselves, they are as Americans as Canadians, Mexicans and another 32 countries. I firmly believe the term is wrongly used because it excludes too many countries. One more thing, don’t call me ridiculous please. Lcville72 (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not call you ridiculous, I said your complaint is ridiculous. And it is, because the term is not used in the way you are claiming it is. The term isn't being "appropriated", it simply is not used in the manner you describe. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 03:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Canadians, Mexicans and another 32 countries." are described as people coming from the Americas, not Americans (which is used to describe people from the USA). Respectfully, your complaint has nothing to do with Wikipedia or this article, but the English language and its evolution. SSSB (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me clear this up a little bit, if you will indulge me a momentary tangent. Someone BORN a US citizen and who predominantly lives in America or its territories is an American. Someone NOT born a US citizen who subsequently becomes "naturalized" is a  [ origin country demonym ] -American. For example, the comedian John Oliver is a British-American, but nobody would ever call him an American. should correctly refer to themselves as a Salvadoran-American, although that does not somehow make them any less American than a "natural born" American. Nicholas Latifi is a Canadian, not an American. A British driver who lives in Monaco is still a British driver unless they become a naturalised Monégasque, in which case they become a British-Monégasque (or British Monacan). In this instance, Logan Sargeant should be referred to as an American. Anyway, I'll shut up now. 🤣 -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Well thank you, I just think the text should say “first USA driver to reach F1” that’s it. Lcville72 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it should be American driver. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sprint in calendar section
can you explain the reasoning behind this please: Special:Diff/1140789253 (beyond "this is how we did it in the past", becuase I think this is an improvement on the past). Not only do I not see why it can't also be here? I don't see why it shouldn't be here in the first place? Your solution is to hide this in a couple of notes that explain why extra points are awarded at some events. If different events are held with different formats, that is calendar issue (it also being a results and standings issue is nothing more than coincidence) and I think it is an intergral part of the season's calendar. Can you therefire clarify why you don't think this is the case? SSSB (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The calendar section sums up each event and its race date with the entire table below, where the sprint takes place goes at bay. It is sufficient the note for the table results to distinguish where it took place for that event, but the calendar is something generic regarding the whole season. Island92 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Which events are sprints is a scheduling concern, and yet you want to leave it out of the scheduling section. And if I'm being honest, your arguement isn't making any sense to me. Are you seriously telling me that a note is sufficent? You're giving the location of sprints less importance than wing mirrors being made larger? the calendar is something generic regarding the whole season. - generic? The table, sure. But the information in the section isn't and shouldn't be. We should be providing commentary on the schedule (or race calendar) Normally, this comes in the form of changes to the schedule, but it is also relevant what format events take (of the differ). In the same that 2022_IndyCar_Series distinguishes between oval and street races. The calendar section sums up each event this sentence directly contradicts your position. The most notable part of a sprint weekend is that it is a sprint weekend. This is excactly the kind of information that we should be "sum[ming] up [about] each event". I'm sorry, but we are an encylopedia, and I think that it is of encylopdic value to summarise which events are sprint events when we summarise all the events that take place. It is the only logical place to do so. And to not point out where sprints are at all (apart from in notes and season reports to explain inconsistencies in the results tables) is (in my opinion) an oversight. SSSB (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is not bolded where sprints take place. The sprints matches with standings result, as well as being a minor race which does not "disturb" the main Grand Prix which takes place on that specific race date as showed by the calendar. The calendar summarises all the events without conciding where this format acts. I find it correct to report a Note just in table results to make it aware that the format took place on those occasions, but not in calendar which is generic, despite this format being part of the season schedule. Island92 (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is not bolded where sprints take place. - not relevant. Firstly, we are not formula1.com. Secondly, the purpose of this page and that page are completely different. And thirdly, I am not exagerating this in the table (which would be the equilivant to sprints being highlighted at Formula1.com) I am just arguing for the appearence of a sentence. a minor race which does not "disturb" the main Grand Prix firstly, it does "distrub" the main Grand Prix because it sets the grid for the main Grand Prix. But what is also significant is that these events are subject to a differing points structure. In theory, these events can be worth up to a 48 point swing. calendar which is generic - this section is not generic. It should not be generic. The only generic thing about it should be the basic structure of the table. Then we should build on this table by supplementing this information (this is what makes it encylopedia rather than a database). This includes specifing changes to the calendar, for example. And, in my opinion, format of the events (where they differ) - also see that this is what they have done at 2022 IndyCar Series. With respect, the approach you are advocting means that we are talking about print events happenening, we talk about changes to the format, and clarify that this format only applies to certain events, but you don't actually want to specify where these events take place? (footnotes in the results table don't count as specifing this, those notes are just explaining anomolies) To me this looks like double standards. SSSB (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I no longer insist.--Island92 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Article Grade
I believe that the article should be graded higher than Start, as it as many reliable references and in depth information into technical changes, driver changes and the like. WP:ASSESS says that an article with "some references to reliable sources" should be a C grade. Milkk7 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. for next time, I recommend you just be bold and do it yourself. I'm also going to update the importance to reflect an ongoing season. SSSB (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Honda RBPT engine model name
The official websites of AlphaTauri and Honda as well as this article from Autosport and this from RaceFans state that the engine name is "Honda RBPTH001", but changed the name to "Honda Red Bull RBPTH001" on the basis that StatsF1 does so. I think the first four sources are more reliable in this case than StatsF1, and the name should be "Honda RBPTH001". What does everyone else think? Carfan568 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would go with the official entry list at https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2023/2023-fia-formula-one-world-championship-entry which has "Honda RBPT" Jsydave (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That page lists the engine manufacturers, rather than the engine model names, which I was referring to here. I have edited the section title to clarify this. Carfan568 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless Red Bull's website says something else, we should follow the websites of Honda and ALphaTauri (primary sources, more likely to be correct) SSSB (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2023
In the section season summary, opening rounds: change Lance Stroll finishing in seventh to sixth. 143.176.15.187 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Marbe166 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Financial Regulations
Hi, can someone pls clean up the following sentence? """Teams have also agreed ***to*** give the FIA easier access to factories when cost cap audits are being carried out in order to more easily ensure that teams adhere to the cost cap.""" Just need to add the word 'to' in. Thanks 120.16.176.137 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 13:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Cost cap breaches - where do they belong?
I'd included some content on the cost cap breaches committed by Red Bull and Aston Martin under "Financial Regulations", since they were discovered mid-2022 and affect 2023 cars. I'll concede that since the fines are paid outside of the cost cap they aren't relevant, but the 10% wind tunnel reduction is relevant for the 2023 season since nearly 3/4 of the affected period (Oct 2022 - Oct 2023) falls within the 2023 season and we all know that so late in 2022 every team is effectively preparing their 2023 car.

It's material to the sport and this year's championship, and ought to be mentioned somewhere. If not in the 2023 season page, should it be in the main Formula 1 page? Crazindndude (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your claim that it is material to this year's championship is WP:OR - you haven't sourced this opinion making it yours. And you didn't put it under financial regulations, you put it under financial regulations changes. This article doesn't talk about car development in general, so it needs to be shown that a reliable source believes that this penalty has directly impacted this season - rather than indirectly. In other words, we need someone to argue that a result would have been different if Red Bull had not been penalised. In that case, it would go in the season report, either with the relevant event, or a dedicated sub-section within the season report. You could add a sentence to Red Bull RB19 saying the penalty impacted development though, as it is more relevant there (but you will need a source that directly makes this argument. SSSB (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are not going to be any legitimate sources that say results would be different one way or another, because it would be pure speculation. Most commentators have argued the wind tunnel penalty will make little difference. I think it is enough to say that teams received penalties, but any speculation beyond that is unworthy of this project. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends how you define legitimate. If Red Bull finish runner-up and Horner (for example) speculates that Red Bull would have won if it weren't for the wind tunnel penalty, I don't see why we shouldn't report that - so long as it is clear that it is opinion and not fact. If we don't have any source that does this, any claim these penalties are relevant is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Impactful and material are not the same. By "material", I just mean relevant either to the sport or this year's running of it. A 10% reduction in wind tunnel time is a real thing, and I'd argue it is self evident that any reduction of a team's ability to improve is material to coverage of the sport.
 * Just as an example, if MLB discovered that a team was corking their bats and penalized them with 10% less batting cage time I'm certain it would be reported on in some capacity. Even if that had zero impact on the final championship order, it is still a thing that occurred and was newsworthy. Crazindndude (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because something is newsworthy doesn't make it encylopedic, as explained in WP:NEWS. In my mind, it should only be mentioned here if a) it relates directly to this season (the only season it relates to directly is 2021) or b) a notable entity speculates that it was impactful on a result. SSSB (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023
There is an error in the "World Drivers' Championship standings" as Fernando Alonso finished 3rd in both races and George Russel finished 4th (not 3rd) in the second race (SAU Saudi Arabia). Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2023/races/1142/saudi-arabia/race-result.html Sasa4454 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As your source states, these are the provisional rankings. It looks like a 10-second time penalty will be applied to Alonso, which would put him in 4th place. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Duplicated Notes
Notes d and f contain the same information. Note f should be deleted and d used in it's place where required. Quoting (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 03:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The scoring system has to distinguish were sprints take place.--Island92 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. But we can use the same note for both. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the same should be done for 2021 and 2022.--Island92 (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.--Island92 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Swap F1R2023 template usage from Constructors' to Drivers' standings table
At the moment, is the database template for nearly all F1 race results on wikipedia, e.g. Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin AMR23, Aston Martin in Formula One, Mercedes engine customers' Grand Prix results all transclude from F1R2023|ALO|SAU, so race results can be updated in a centralised location.

However, two standings tables all full of F1R2023 transclusions (each of which also transclude and occasionally ) represents approximately one thousand template calls, which breaks this article's transclusion limit - we can only afford enough calls to have one table supplied by F1R2023, and the other has to be formatted manually with inline CSS style.

F1R2023 stores information by driver. At the moment,, which depends on the drivers, is formatted manually. Editors will have to do the manual formatting when updating at the end of a GP, and then move around the rows to reflect the new standings. is sorted by team, and in each team double-row, each GP is sorted by team's best result on top, i.e. nothing to do with the driver. Editors have to go into each double-row and tell F1R2023 which teammate placed higher in each team-race combo, and then move around the rows to reflect the new standings.

If we swap F1R2023 usage around, the only thing editors will have to do to the Drivers' table is sort the drivers. (The Constructors' table will require the same amount of work as the Drivers' does now.) AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't a WP:RfC, so I don't know why it is in the section title. To awnser the questions, this would in theory mean less edits to update the tables. As we would only have to update the drivers standings when the positions change (which doesn't happen every race, only most) SSSB (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This swap does not reduce the overall post-race workload. Inavolbe (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It does, as I pointed out earlier, if there is no change in the drivers' standings we don't need to touch at all. But we will always have to swap results around in the constructors table. SSSB (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The probability of no change in the drivers standings is extremely small. Even in this rare case, the reduction of post-race workload is almost negligible as the much-discussed exchange of drivers results in F1 Constructors Standings is technically very simple and fast. The proposed implementation suffers in one more point since it turns the automatic mathematical calculation of sums of drivers standings into a manual process. Inavolbe (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposed implementation suffers in one more point since it turns the automatic mathematical calculation of sums of drivers standings into a manual process. - you could just look up the points totals at the same time as looking up the results and (since you aren't looking up the points totals) this problem would exist with both tables. At worst it is the same amount of work regardless of which tables uses the template. SSSB (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023
The positions in the standings for Redbull in the Constructors championship are reversed. It shows as if Verstappen had won all races and is 2 for him and one for Pérez. 2806:2F0:90C0:D794:644:1EC6:2B03:D652 (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Read the notes below the table before asking for the table to be changed. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 08:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)