Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship

Grands Prix Results
I would like to change the formatting for the Grands Prix Results to the one show above. All these extra lines in the current version do not add anything, as the schedule already shows the rounds and their location. It also causes a bunch of self referential links (the report links link to the 2024 Formula One World Championship until the week of the race, typically). The vertical ellipses indicate the season is still in progress. seemed to object, so bringing it to the talk page. I will point out to them (again) that not having done something before is not a reason to revert an addition, else the entirety of Wikipedia could never improve. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I see this style being adopted for a Formula One Wikipedia article for the first time ever. We have as well flags (which indicate the Grand Prix round and empty spaces just below) into tables for standings (they too do not add anything IMOP). The point is: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting information, rather than an in-season page in progress as the Formula One calendar (the next stop is in China as per schedule). I oppose this version. Island92 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The standings table do not have any bearings on these changes to the Grand Prix Results being an improvement or not. I would understand if only the drivers' or the constructors' standings had been updated, but this table is independent of the others. Further, we could also update the other tables like I have mocked up at User:Cerebral726/sandbox/Rankings, though I feel less strongly about that for now. I am unsure though what point you are trying to make by saying this is "an encyclopedia reporting information". The season is in progress 80% of the year, so the current year's article will almost always be a "page in progress". Improvements to the readability and reduction in redundancy should be implemented.  Cerebral726 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This new table lets me think when it's Miami Grand Prix's race week, we can add the line for this specific round, just because the article 2024 Miami Grand Prix has no longer a redirect. To me, it doesn't work like that. By clicking on the single GP report in this table, or on a flag into tables standings, you have the same results for the time being (the redirect). Island92 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what argument you are trying to make. The redirect in the Standings is also useless, so therefore, this should also be worse than it needs to be? Why not fix both if you think they're both useless? Or why not improve one of them if the other needs to have a useless link for some reason? Why force all these extra lines of redundant information if they aren't serving a purpose?  Cerebral726 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But you think these lines are redundant information and not serving a purpose. What about then those white boxes waiting for drivers results for GP not yet held into Drivers' Championship standings and Constructors' Championship standings tables? Are the same white boxes for each line in the regarding table for races to be held yet. I do not improve them (may be because I'm used to their display) and let things how they stand. Island92 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned, this table is independent, though we can also revise the Drivers' and Constructors' tables if we feel it would be an improvement. Regarding the matter at hand, the GP Results table, the empty cells serve the purpose of allowing the currently active race report to be linked in the article once an article has been started. Without them, there would be no line to link the current race's article. So in that instance, the blank squares have a purpose as a place holder. In the current table, the lines below serve no purpose: the full scheduled order of races is already shown by the schedule table, and the reports lead nowhere useful. It is wild to say "I do not improve them". You think it's an improvement and yet you revert it because your not "used to" it...? You being "used to" something has no bearing on what is the best formatting for the article.  Cerebral726 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just reverted because this style had never been used/adopted before, plus it's a bold change. The best solution was to bring it into talk page, as it happened. Island92 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD doesn't say "revert things that haven't been done before". If you have no reasonable objections beyond not having done it that way before, then there is no reason to revert. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Island92, let me get this straight. Your primary objection is that we are not also hidding the empty cells/redirects in the results matrix? The solution to that is simple: hid them. Your other objection seems to be thatbthis makes it look like an article in progress? But it looks like an article in progress anyway, because we have row and row and column after column to show future race results. In fact, in my opinion, hidding these rows and columns makes the article look cleaner and more professional (and some secondary media: like the BBC, I'm sure there are others). And the truth is that this is an article in progress - nobody is under any illusions about the fact. In fact, Wikipedia is always in progress. SSSB (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We have to ping other users active in editing this page for their opinion. I'm not the only one against this style, that's for sure. Island92 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, a Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. We do not require consensus first on this page. If you are not against this style, revert yourself, as no one has disputed it's inclusion with any actual reasonable cause. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 19:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I gave my opinion about this new style, and I'm agaist it. This new style is a bold change/bold move for the article itself, and was brought into talk page for a reason. Now I think other users will give their take about it. Island92 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

pinging since you also edited the table after I made my change.--<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 18:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issue with how we presently do it. I don't agree that it's redundant and I also don't care even slightly about the self-referential redirects. I also don't see anything wrong with your proposal. There's no substantive change other than that the results/reports and revealed gradually. Functionally, they're doing the same thing. I should also point out that we have the full schedule in the WDC and WCC tables, and the same reasoning you've applied in this instance would apply to those. This is a solution in search of a problem, but it's a pretty harmless change (although we can surely find a better solution than the vertical ellipses). 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 03:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Cerebral726/sandbox/Rankings Here is a mockup of making similar changes to the WDC and WCC tables. Any thoughts on these?

In terms of the vertical ellipses, perhaps something like this would be better: --<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 12:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That WDC table looks really really silly and I wouldn't support implementing that. The benefit (if any) of abbreviating the reports table is reducing how far you need to scroll – obviously that doesn't apply to the WDC/WCC tables since the width is horizontal. Again I don't really see what the issue is with the status quo. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm fine with that, though I feel more strongly the GP results should be improved. The self-referential report links, the redundant listing from the schedule table, the wasted vertical space, and just generally making the table appear more professional are all worth it. Each of them are minor, but I don't see any downside to making these improvements, and some clear (even though slight) upsides. In terms of status quo, I think it's important that as many of the "in-progress" elements of the current seasons are as polished as possible, since they receive |2023_Formula_One_World_Championship|Formula_One|2022_Formula_One_World_Championship|2021_Formula_One_World_Championship|Max_Verstappen a huge portion of the views for this WikiProject. Since these can be improved so easily without any impact to past Championships, the barrier for implementing an improvement is also significantly lower. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your argument for changing the reports table is reasonable, so if other editors are ok with it I have no objection. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 13:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You, were bold and you were reverted so WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is out of the window. I do not see any benefit in what you're proposing. The rows of the full table are not redundant at all. They show the readers in a glance how far in the season we are. By removing the still empty rows, you leave the readers with little idea of how much of the season is still left to be completed. It could alsi imply that the season was ended prematurely. It does more bad than good. I really don't appreciate how for a couple of weeks now you've been repeatedly trying to implement significant changes to aspects of these articles that literally zero readers have a problem with and most importantly with how intolerant you are to opposition to your proposals. Please stop trying to fix things that aren't broken. And canvassing isn't appreciated either.Tvx1 17:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is not a good way of knowing if "zero readers have a problem with" the way the table looks. It may be stable because it's serviceable enough, but not ideal, and not worth it to most people to try to improve. Institutional inertia can stifle a project from improving. Ideas should be considered on their actual merits, not whether it's been done that way for a while. On the other hand, if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it. The project and the articles will never improve with the mindset "we've been doing it this way for a while, no need to re-evaluate ever". Wikipedia is a work in progress. In this instance, there are a bunch of self-referential links on an article 70-80% of the year in an otherwise redundant line taking up vertical space. I think that's a bit broken (WP:SELFRED). You have expressed concern for a very similar issue Talk:2024_Formula_One_World_Championship.
 * With regards to your concerns of the edits being an improvement, I'm not sure that table's primary purpose is to communicate how far into the season we are. However, if that is key, leaving the WDC and WCC tables as they are as 5225C mentioned above shows that progress already. I think this possible information being communicated (season progress) is outweighed by the negatives I have previous mentioned. I respect your opinion to the contrary though.
 * You are correct about the implicit consensus. That was a mistimed comment, I was fighting back against the idea that Island92 seemed to think I should have tried to gain consensus before making the edit, and that that was reason enough to revert me. However, no, it was not canvassing. SSSB edited the table before Island92 reverted, showing an interest in the topic, so I pinged them. If anyone else had showed interest in the topic, I would have given them the same courtesy (as I have done consistently such as here and here). I apologize for speaking aggressively at times, such that it comes off as intolerant. I feel strongly that there are improvements to be made, and take real issue with what I perceive as a dug in mindset I often see in this WikiProject. However, I appreciate that raising the temperature of the conversation through overly aggressive responses does not get anyone anywhere, so I appreciate the feedback and will do my best to tone that down. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Bringing this back around. I still see this as an improvement. Wanted to get 5225C's thoughts, since they stated they supported the change if there were no further objections. Given Tvx1's objections, do you still support the change? --<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 14:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still unconvinced that this brings a real, tangible benefit to the reader, although I note the issues with self-referential links, redundancy, and needless scrolling. I am also unconvinced by Tvx1's objections: it's a bit silly to think a table with a whopping great "Season still in progress" label would give readers the impression the season was ended prematurely. That being said, on a mobile browser the sections are collapsed, and on the mobile app the tables are collapsed, so who are we reducing scrolling for? Certainly not for desktop readers who have larger screens and scroll wheels/mousepads. I won't be terribly upset if your proposal is implemented, but I don't think it has as many merits as you might first think. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 15:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the quick response. I think scrolling is the least of the benefits, in my opinion it's (in order of most to least beneficial) the clean up of self-referential links (WP:SELFRED), reduction of redundancy, and removal of empty, almost entirely information-free space that are the real benefit here. I see no upside to the status quo, so even if the benefit is slight, I see no reason not to make it if is an improvement at all. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I think that's quite a reasonable view. Given the lack of substantive opposition here, I think implementing this suggestion would be quite justified. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 15:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not support the change. Island92 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why? SSSB (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because so far things have worked beautifully for these tables hence I see no reason to implement a new practice. I know Wikipedia is an ongoing proposal-environment for things to improve (from time to time), so why is that such necessary to be changed. I do not like it, which does not mean why I gave that response. Island92 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also do not support the change, mainly because I personally used the previous table as an at-a-glance way to see how much of the season was left, and I don't see how this change improves the page in any way whatsoever. And I don't really care if F1.com has same information, the F1 website sucks, I use wiki because it's typically better organized than other sources. The stated justifications for this change are just nothing, it's clearly someone working backwards to justify an idea they had. Honestly I'm kind of tired of wiki editors putting so much effort into solving problems that don't exist. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not so clear to me, who had the idea because I saw a bunch of extra empty lines with recursive links, so perhaps try to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH that I'm not just trying to do something for the hell of it, but because I see a genuine issue. WP:SELFRED is a useful guideline showing there is a problem that exists with the current table. You still have a nice visual representation of the amount of season left simply by scrolling down to the WDC and WCC tables directly below. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 17:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Relax dude, I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm simply saying that you personally dislike the current table structure and are clearly searching for reasons to justify changing it. That's fine, your opinion is just as valid as mine, but unless there's some practical improvement to be gained by changing this table, there's no point in doing so. Wiki guidelines are, as always, GUIDELINES. They are not hard and fast rules, we are not held at gunpoint and forced to abide by them.
 * What real, tangible, practical problem are you solving here? My scroll wheel is not powered by coal, it costs me nothing to scroll past a few empty rows. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve explained the problems I am trying to fix plenty of times, and that the need for scrolling is the least of my concerns. Saying I’m searching for reasons out of arbitrary preferences is a bad faith assumption. Address the actual arguments, not why I’m making them. We are not forced to match guidelines, but there should be good reason to not follow them. As you say, your scroll wheel is free to use, why not use it to scroll down to the WDC and WCC if you need to visualize season progress? Why force a bunch of empty rows on the page with only links to this page and an already existing list of Grands Prix? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 19:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have a tangible, practical problem you are trying to solve, go ahead and explain it. You have not yet done so, despite your insistence to the contrary. Empty rows and self-referential links are not practical problems. Otherwise, I think you need to accept that there isn't consensus for this change and move on. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the existing table arrangement is the best compromise. It presents all the necessary information while somehow still being reasonably useable on desktop and mobile devices. I would prefer it to remain as it as, without the proposed changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Error in Constructor points for Aston Martin Aramco-Mercedes?
If Alonso has 33 points and Stroll has 11, how can the team have only 42 points?
 * Aston Martin's Constructor points total has been updated to 44. DH85868993 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Mid-season rounds"
with this edit: Special:Diff/1225626757: Firstly, no this is not 2020, that's exactly my point. We are in a position where we can split the season summary logically into sections based on location rather than perfect thirds (in line with how sources split the season (flyaway races and European races, primarily due to logisitcal reasons giving this portion of the season a different dynamic) sources do not discuss the season in perfect thirds (or halves. With the summer break often described as the mid-season break, despite being slightly after mid-season). So I dont understand why you insist that we do:, ) You might also want to look at the season reports from 2018 and before. Secondly, remind me when "we" decided anything - I don't recall a single discussion about this... SSSB (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would like to second SSSB's claim here. This has been used on several Wikipedia pages about different F1 seasons in the past before 2020. And it also wouldn't make sense to just split each of the 24 races into even categories because they might not make sense being put there, like rounds 7-8 still being classified as early season. We have more non-European races now and the European rounds are all grouped together bar Canada, so there is no reason not to do it and more reasons why we should do it. DualSkream (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I you have opening rounds and closing rounds, is not more logical to have the middle part called mid-season rounds? That said, the paragraph should be there from round 9 (reasons explained in my talk page) and there is who backs up my point as user . Island92 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is WP:CANVASSING. Secondly, if the section isn't called mid-season rounds, there is no reason that it should apply stricly to the middle third. And even if it were called "mid-season" rounds, we can be a litte flexible. The main reason we call it opening rounds is because the opening rounds are not limited to.one continent (Asia and Ocenia) and we visit Asia again, so calling it Asian rounds is mis-leading. I do seem to recall that we used to have the heading "American rounds" (I might be misremembering) when Texas, Mexico and Brazil were consecutive and we didnt have Miami. I think that using more specific language than arbitary opening, mid and closing is more useful for readers who may only want to read up on part of the season summary - rather than try to work out if Singapore and Baku fit into mid or closing (I dont know the round numbers) SSSB (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Actual Error in Riccardo Points
Riccardo received 5 points from the Miami Sprint Race, not 4 as listed on the subscript in the Championship standings. His total points are correct, but the subscript is incorrect. https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2024_08_mon_f1_r0_timing_driverschampionship_v01.pdf Cheesyc (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The subscript is correct. The subscript in the championship standings table show his position in the sprint race (4th), not the number of points he scored (5). SSSB (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bearman
Why is Bearman on the World Drivers' Championship standings list, but not Lawson? 203.211.73.151 (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which race did Lawson compete in? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for the article
Can we have the qualifying dates added in the calendar? I believe we can make it more informative that way. Ty Aposof (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why? It's fairly common knowledge that qualifying takes place the day before the race (this being consistent across most race series) and if someone is unsure, the appropriate place to check would be the wiki page on the actual race, not the season. SSSB (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it harm if I added them? I am still learning to code on wikipedia articles and I'd like to see how it turns out. Aposof (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Try it in your sandbox (copy and paste the table over). My issue is that it unnecessarily adds width to the table. If people not knowing when qualifying happens is an issue, it makes more sense to add a note above the table: "Qualiifying takes places the day before the Grand Prix"; problem solved. SSSB (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think adding the text note above is a good solution. Thanks Aposof (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't see the point of it, and technically it is original research. Reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not particulary fussing whether we include it or not. I don't think it is necessary, but what's the harm in including it. The sporting regulations do lay out the timings of when each event takes place. It used to say things like "on the second day of track running, qualifying will take place." "The Grand Prix must start no earlier than 21 hours after the scheduled end of qualifying, and no later than 26 hours after the scheduled end of qualifying". I'm sure they still do, but am not sure if the wording is secure enough for us to reference it without it being WP:OR (using the second quote would be WP:OR, becuase the scheduled end of quali could be 1am, and the race start at 11pm, same day.) In any case, I'm sure a formula one for dummies style guide exists somewhere specifying this. SSSB (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no need to start including the dates for other sessions. If any change is made, it should be to change the date in the calendar from that of the race to a range of the entire Grand Prix weekend. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Round vs Rounds
You are incorrect about the grammar of round vs rounds in this edit. The phrase "round 3 and 10" is grammatically incorrect, it should be "rounds 3 and 10". See this example and this example. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sauber is expected to enter other rounds as Kick Sauber F1 Team, as was the case in 2023. Hence why not putting rounds 3, 10? Island92 (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The future is entirely irrelevant to you breaking the grammar. We're currently at 2. Later it can read "rounds 3, 10, and 15" or whatever, but the sentence will still need "rounds". Also Kick Sauber didn't exist in 2023, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 15:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, are you referring to this? Where it also says "rounds"? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 15:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the point is that Stake is not allowed in some countries, that's why it's omitted. Where it's omitted, Sauber enter as Kick Sauber F1 Team in 2024. Island92 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, yes, but the problem we are discussing is with the word "rounds"? Why do you insist on making it incorrectly "round" for this page? It is nonsensical. it is not even what is in the previous year, which is what you seem to be hung up on. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 16:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Island92 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Using icons for teams in race reports
Not entirely relevant to this page in specific, but there wasn't any other place I'd put it.

Saying, for example, "Lewis Hamilton of Mercedes" makes it so a lot of space is needed just because the name of the teams needs mentioning, while an easier approach would be to use an icon, made into a template so it's easier to use: " Lewis Hamilton" or " Alexander Albon"

Now there are some problems with this such as it being expensive to load. I'd leave it up to you to check the trade-offs. Mohammad.darg (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This only works if everyone knows what these symbols mean. Which they don't. Only F1 fans will reconginse Williams logo. Does anyone know what Toleman's logo was? I don't think so. The only positive is that it saves a small bit of space. The negatives are endless. SSSB (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Any question of whether or not this is good for users is irrelevant, there's simply no way this would be compliant with licensing requirements. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is compliant. We already have the logos in the articles for the Constructors. SSSB (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Please re-read WP:Non-free content and WP:Logos as this is unequivocally prohibited. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 10:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not "unequivocal". This is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be, after all, all the logos appear on the Wikipedia pages of the respective constructors (Scuderia Ferrari contains the Ferrari logo). From WP:LOGOS: "long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes". Several of the logos contain the statement "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." (File:Logo Williams F1.png as an example) and all the others could arguable be allowed under the Non-free content criteria. The only reasons to argue that it wouldn't be allowed under would be because it doesn't fufill criteria #3 and #8 under Non-free content criteria. But again, this is something that could be debated. It is not unequivocal. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a shocking misrepresentation of policy and not something I would normally expect from you. Such use of logos is clearly not minimal as required for the use of non-free content, and is clearly very replaceable (by prose). Again, such use of logos is very explicitly disallowed. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you appear to be the one not understanding the situation. The vast majority of these logos is not subject to copyright simply because they don‘t pass the trehold of originality. Those files are in the public domain and the non-free content simply doesn‘t apply to them. They aren‘t non-free. For the few that are, stricter limitations do apply. There are other more important reasons why this proposals are unworkable though. Tvx1 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a moot point, since the Red Bull, RB, Ferrari, and Aston Martin logos unambiguously do pass the threshold of originality, and depending on which version you want to use the Kick Sauber and Mercedes may do as well. They are non-free. So unless you're seriously proposing only doing this only for 50% of the teams (which would be comically stupid) then it does not even slightly matter if a few of them aren't subject to policies on non-free use, no matter how poorly you interpret copyright policies. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 07:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we should we using names not logos, as just logos violates the MOS, and names are easier for casual readers to understand. Also, some of the logos are likely copyrighted, and so this also violates WP:Image policy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Fails MOS:NOICONS and is a total non-starter for that reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, clear MOS violation. --<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)