Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 50

Constructors' Standings
The many edits on the Template:F1 Constructors Standings page suggest that a lot of readers find the sorting by results, not by drivers, counter-intuitve. As do I. So I would like to raise this topic again. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the only logical way of sorting, in case when we have more than two drivers during the season. It is clearly seen on the 2017 example with Toro Rosso. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's merely a question of not being used to it or simple not being aware that this was discussed and changed. Just give it some time to catch on. Once a considerable number of races will have passed it will be clear. At the same time, not a single revert has happened on the previous seasons' articles. This system works without a problem in other similar situations in other motorsports articles. I will point out that we previously wouldn't sort by driver but by number as evidenced in last year's case with Hartley.Tvx1 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that's a bit misleading. Previous seasons' articles tend to be very stable once the new championship has begun&mdash;look at the 2017 article and the way the driver table has stabilised despite the lengthy debate over its structure. It doesn't surprise me that there haven't been any reverts to the results matrix and I don't think you can attribute that solely to the merits of the system used when it's debatable as to whether the change has even been noticed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And while (as far as I'm aware) none of the previous seasons have been reverted per se, the 2015, 2016 and 2017 Constructors' Championship tables have been "corrected" by various editors over the past couple of weeks:, suggesting that the revised format is causing confusion for some readers. DH85868993 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that the "revised format" is not even being applied in all season articles. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't discussed with regards to the pre-2014 articles. Moreover, there wasn't much of an issue there as those only have two rows per constructors anyway. As said, it just takes some getting used to. Just give it some time.Tvx1 23:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Why wasn't it discussed for pre-2014 articles? You wanted to introduce it in response to the change in car numbering, but evidently the issue exists quite separately to the car numbering. Only applying it to the 2014–2018 articles has appparently caused more problems than it has solved.

Then there's the question of how long it takes to get used to before we need to consider restoring the original format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Why we have drivers' numbers in the constructors' standings initially? It is just trivia, which increases width of the table and doesn't affect the team place in the standings, while best results actually affect the place in the standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Because it allows you to see how a team's campaign unfolded. Renault ran Jolyon Palmer for fifteen races last year, then switched to Sainz. They started scoring points almost straight away. You can't tell me that changes like that don't affect a WCC campaign. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Kovalainen substituted Raikkonen in 2013 and he had worse results, but they had the same numbers, so their using in the table doesn't help to see the change. 09:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are other solutions, like using the id markup, or a three-letter driver code. And we're under no obligation to have 100% consistency in the formatting between articles. We should use a style that meets the needs of the article in question first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You were literally the only person in the discussion late last year that considered that a must for the WCC table. The story of how their season unfolded should not be told via the WCC table. That should be told via the season report and the constructors' articles. The WCC table has no purpose but to display the outcome of the championship. The individual race results are there because they determine who ends higher in case of tie on points. Anything else is beyond the scope of that table.Tvx1 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He asked a question. I answered it. That's all there is to my response. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to reconsider this. Despite the addition of a wikinote at the top of Template:F1 Constructors Standings, the results are continually being "corrected" and it seems to be getting worse as the season progresses - since the end of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, results were "corrected" by 5 different editors before the template was semi-protected, since when there has been an edit request. While I understand the rationale behind the change, it seems to me that it's just causing confusion for readers and extra effort for us "regular" F1 editors. And it's not just 2018 - the 2017 table has also been "corrected" (twice, by the same editor) in the past couple of days. I really think we need to go back to one row per driver/car (either with or without numbers). Yes, Toro Rosso in 2017 is problematic, but surely we can come up with some solution for that article which doesn't inflict ongoing pain on other articles. DH85868993 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement. It is alien to how readers are expecting to view the table, and the constant corrections are not going to stop. I think we should consider this an experiment that did not work, and go back to one row per car. QueenCake (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted yet another "correction" to Template:F1 Constructors Standings. DH85868993 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it definitely hasn't worked. I understand the rationale of listing the best result for each race first rather than grouping them by driver but at least grouping them by driver means that the matrices resemble one another and there is no implication that the constructor standings are scored differently. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I propose that we revert the 2014-2018 Constructors' Championship tables to "one row per driver/car number". For maximum visibility, I've started a new discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , what's your evidence for you claim that "the constant corrections are not going to stop"? In fact they are not that constant at all. There has only been one such edit since shortly after the Azerbaijan Grand Prix. And if you look at the history more closely, you'll see that the level of these edits was already much lower after the 4th race than after the first. I'd rather guess that the these edits will reduce even more the more the season progresses and thus the more results are present in each row and thus the more the logic becomes visible. If you look at the other four articles, you'll see that save from the handful of aforementioned edits over all the articles together, there have not been any since. I think is overreacting massively. I'm really surprised that an user who is THAT experience would panic like that.Tvx1 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Revert 2014-2018 Constructors' Championship tables to one row per driver/car number
Following on from the most recent comments in the "Constructors' Standings" discussion above, I propose that the 2014-2018 Constructors' Championship tables be reverted to "one row per driver/car number", for consistency with the 1979-2013 Constructors' Championship tables, the " Grand Prix results" articles and the F1 car articles, and to reduce reader confusion. Note that I have started this new discussion for maximum visibility.

Straw poll

 * Support as proposer, and per my comments in the earlier discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per the clear consensus achieved here. Who scored which points isn't important for the WCC table. All points scored by every driver have equal validity. Result per driver belong in the WDC table.Tvx1 21:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, if you look to the series outside of Formula One sometimes constructor (manufacturer, team) standings may be decided by just some of the best results for each team from their drivers. So there is no need to highlight who actually scored in the constructor's standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support &mdash; as much as I understand the logic behind the current ordering of the matrices, it evidently has not worked. They are currently in a template to provide stability from "drive-by edits" but that has not protected them from a litany of good-faith edits that "correct" the order. Whatever the previous consensus might have been, the practical outcome has not benefited the article. It has been several weeks since the changes were made and the articles are still subject to these edits when other major changes have been accepted almost immediately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The template has been semi-protected which has effectively stopped the drive-by edits.Tvx1 12:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From IPs, sure. But not from auto-confirmed editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They HAVE all stopped. Just look at the template’s history since the application of the protection.Tvx1 17:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the history of 2018 Formula One World Championship in the same period&mdash;it has not had any activity, either. Your claim that the now-expired protection has solved the problem is hardly definitive. The lack of editing is just as easily explained by the way we are in the two-week gap between races. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And the rise in editing is just as easily explained by a race taking place instead of some dramatic unacceptable confusion. Look at the history of the previous season's articles in the same period. They have barely seen any editing of the WCC tables in the last few months.Tvx1 22:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support as it is more logical and clearer what the spanned rows are representing. Additionally, although it may not affect the outcome, it adds more interest and better satisfies the more inquisitive amongst us to know who contributed what to the team's totals. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a general purpose encyclopedia and not a fansite for inquisitive F1 lovers. If you want to see what the drivers did, look at the WDC table. That's what it's there for. I don't know why there such an obsession to include the individual driver results in the WCC table, especially since we never even considered doing so prior to the advent of the year 2014. We have always had just one row per car per year since the time both results have actually been counted towards the championship. And there has never been any complaint whatsoever about that. Look at the WCC table for instance. There is no way whatsoever one can find out from that table alone. How many points Schumacher, Järvilehto, Verstappen and Herbert each accumulated for the team. Is that a problem? No. Are there constant edits to change it? No. I really cannot understand how any one can claim how table like the one we use to have in 2017, with seven rows for one team, is easier to understand in any way. The WCC table is only considered with the outcome of the WCC and why everyone constructor where they did. Everything else is beyond the scope of that table. All of this is just a knee-jerk overreaction to a low amount of edits which we have perfectly been able to manage.Tvx1 12:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Look at the WCC table for instance [...] Are there constant edits to change it? No."
 * That's a mis-representation. 1994 pre-dates the creation of Wikipedia and most of the edits in question are affecting the most recent articles.
 * "All of this is just a knee-jerk overreaction to a low amount of edits which we have perfectly been able to manage."
 * They may be easy to manage, but they're happening over an extended period of time. That's why this is a problem&mdash;major changes are naturally accompanied by a period of reverts such as the ones we're seeing here, but that period naturally self-corrects as people get used to the changes. It hasn't self-corrected here. Despite being minor edits, they have gone on for longer than they should have, which suggests that the changes aren't working as intended. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think you are overestimating the amount of editing and are make such blunt conclusions way to quicky. We are barely four races into the season and haven’t seen any drivers being replaced. It’s only then that splitting per number becomes problematic.Tvx1 17:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * our purpose should be to disseminate the knowledge we have collected in the most usable way we can devise. If that means it becomes easier for for "inquisitive F1 lovers" to understand and absorb it, then that can only be a good thing. The "obsession to include the individual driver results" is to provide comprehensive and high quality information to make the table more useful to lay readers. That we have provided poorer quality information in the past is not a reasonable excuse for continuing to provide poorer quality information. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's only your opinion that the way we presented this information prior to 2014 is poor quality. I strongly disagree with it. In fact I cannot see how anyone can genuinely claim that a WCC table that even contains more than one row per driver is even remotely useful. If you want to know which results all the drivers achieved, look at the WDC table. The only knowledge the WCC table should disseminate are the constructors' standings and the WCC tables currently do so perfectly.Tvx1 11:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support (we really don't need the strong) on the basis that it doesn't work. Confusing readers for the sake of refusing to admit we were wrong is not a good position. QueenCake (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But we will confuse them again if we disrupt the current status quo. As said Tvx1, editors have already stopped to change the template. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Only because of three days of temporary protection which has already expired and was put in place in the two-week gap between races. I see no reason to believe that this has stopped the editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And still not a single edit despite the expiration of the protection. It's dead obvious that the template is edited when a race takes place and not merely because of "confusing order".Tvx1 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do so much people think "it doesn't work"? Look at the, and  articles. The former two have seen literally one person editing this information once since I changed them back in January. The latter hasn't even seen any such edits at all. That pretty clearly shows it works just fine. The template for the active season naturally attracts more edits because the season is actually going on. The level of edits is actually no the dramatically high. Two of the people involved have already queried '  and admitted they didn't realize the practice had changed (admittedly no one could have with the result of just one race in the table and after just two races it wasn't straightforward to see either) and have no edited it since Corvus tristis explained the situation to them. What makes it tricky right now is that there only four races worth of results. We should really wait until there are fifteen or so races in there before making such huge conclusions like "it doesn't work". What we're doing now is utter overreaction.Tvx1 21:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Or we can have the discussion now given that there are enough people concerned about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that we don't have enough clear fact to make such sweeping discussions. There are not much results in the table yet. I'd prefer to see what happens when we have a complete table before concluding anything. At present, there is no evidence that the handful of edits every other week are caused purely by the format or by simply a Grand Prix having taken place. The new format works just fine for the four articles on completed seasons which used it. Thus there is no need to assume that people will never get used to it in article on the other seasons.Tvx1 17:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet, we have four people supporting the proposal and only two opposed. You might not see the need for a discussion, but the community does. Why did you call that a "disgrace" in your edit summary? I don't see what's so disgraceful about it. It seems the only thing "disgraceful" about it is that the community disagrees with you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not result of a vote. The main argument of the four editors is confusion of readers, which we will have in an even greater degree, if we will proceed with the proposal right now. P.S. Tvx1's edit summary contain word "Disagree". You should read twice before jump to conclusions of such kind. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Consensus is not result of a vote."

True, but there is enough support for the proposal to justify taking the discussion further. This is not a case of one lone voice of dissent&mdash;twice as many people support the proposal than they do that oppose it.

Tvx1 recently moved about forty articles to a new name. He claimed that he had a "rough consensus" to do it, though I felt that he had not allowed enough time for the issue to be discussed. An admin agreed that he probably should have waited and gone through a move request first. And now here we are with twice as many people in favour of a proposal than opposed; I'd say that's a "rough consensus".
 * "The main argument of the four editors is confusion of readers, which we will have in an even greater degree, if we will proceed with the proposal right now."

Do you hae evidence of that?
 * "You should read twice before jump to conclusions"

Yeah, that's my mistake. It's what I get for editing at five in the morning. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The big difference with the discussion regarding the move of the articles is that I waited seven months before doing anything. Here you are already drawing big conclusions from the discussion barely three days after I started. It's clear that you do not understand the meaning of the word "patience". You're misreading of my previous edit summary surmises the whole flaw in the reasoning here. Those who are voting support just took a quick glance at the edit history of the template and are leaping to overly quick conclusions. Sure there are four support "votes", but I have already pointed out the huge holes in their arguments. The proposal would result in throwing out a system which is applied to five articles and works just fine in four of them. That is as poor as an editorial decision as you can make. There is no evidence that the high level of edits every fortnight is caused by the new system rather than simply races taking place. If you'd look at the extended history of the template you would see very clearly that the level of editing isn't exceptionally higher than twelve months ago. Some of the editors changing the order have already ceased after posting on 's talk page. As I said before, this whole discussion is a knee-jerk overreaction to some perfectly manageable editing which should not ever provoke such panic.Tvx1 14:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is it that when I am in the minority, I am told to let it go, but when you're in the minority, making the changes supported by the community would be an utter disaster? That sounds like a double standard to me.
 * As for those "huge holes" in the arguments, you have no way of proving them yo be true. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming the changes would be a distater. In fact it are the "supporters" who are unnecessarily claiming it currently is a disaster. In those cases were you were asked to let it go, you were still arguing your case months after the discussions started when you were no merely in the minority but most often the sole person supporting your stance. Here we are just five days after the discussion started. Learn to be patient and given people the chance to become aware of this discussion. There is a reason why Wikipedia sets a minimum length for an AFD of seven days and even of 30 days for a RFC. As for those "huge holes", I have proven them with evidence from the edit histories of the five articles involved. Your side however merely assumes that this situation is certain to evolve for the worse without anything to support that. Your majority is not as strong as you make it look it is. Consensus is gauged through arguments, not votes. And 4-2 isn't even such a huge majority. Especially if you consider how flawed the support arguments are and that there is a very strong consensus to overturn. By the way, you made a major stink in a recent discussion about me not notifying all the participants in a previous discussion on the matter. Well here, I haven't seen the side opening this discussion notifying all the participants of the discussion reaching the current consensus.Tvx1 12:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet despite all of that, you're still advocating that we simply ignore the emerging consensus. You haven't persuaded anyone to change their minds, and nor have you attracted any further opposition to the proposal. You're in a minority and behaving as if the rules of consensus don't apply to you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I support the change and have not leapt "to overly quick conclusions", I support the change because I believe it will improve the quality of the information we are providing. And no, you have not "pointed out the huge holes in their [my] arguments." -- DeFacto (talk). 21:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And even if he had pointed out those "holes", that does not give him the right to ignore a consensus. Evidence can be used to persuade people one way or the other, but it cannot override the consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim a consensus solely on the basis of "there is four of us and two of you". Consensus is based on arguments and I and have clearly demonstrated that the support arguments don't hold water. One cannot ignore a consensus which simply does not exist. And trying to force out a consensus barely 4 days after a discussion started is incredibly disrespectful practice. Take a dictionary and look up to the word "patience".Tvx1 11:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Consensus is based on arguments and I and corvus tristis have clearly demonstrated that the support arguments don't hold water."
 * In your opinion you have. Whether or not the community agrees with you remains to be seen. If you have successfully argued this as you claim, then I am sure that we will either see more people opposing the proposal, people changing their position from supporting to opposing, or both. But given that you are only providing an interpretation of a series of edits, you cannot present an argument that invalidates the opposing point of view the way you could if you were providing an external reliable source.
 * "And trying to force out a consensus barely 4 days after a discussion started is incredibly disrespectful practice."
 * This coming from the man who announced that he was going to override an existing consensus and move forty articles unless there were any objections (all of which you shot down on principle and then declared you had successfully refuted just as you are doing now). An admin did point out that you should have gone through the proper protocol instead of taking it upon yourself to move tgose articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And your move back request was closed with a clear consensus not to do so. I demonstrated very clearly that everyone but you is happy with the current titles. As I pointed before I waited seven months after having raised the points before moving the articles. It's about time you get over that. Learn how to lose. Nothing in your reply negates the big flaws in the arguments of your co-supporters. There was a claim the current system doesn't work, yet evidence from the histories of four of the five affected articles clear show that claim is wrong. Even in this year's template there has been only one edit on the matter in fortune days. Thus that argument simply does not have any merit. I'll make a sensible proposal here. Let this system be used for at least one full season, instead of trying to forcedly throw it out barely four races into the season, and make a proper evaluation after that sensible period of allowing people to get used to it.Tvx1 13:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What's quite interesting is that following the Spanish Grand Prix the template was correctly updated . This quite patently demonstrates that people ARE getting used to it.Tvx1 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Nothing in your reply negates the big flaws in the arguments of your co-supporters. There was a claim the current system doesn't work, yet evidence from the histories of four of the five affected articles clear show that claim is wrong."
 * And none of the arguments you have put forward gives you the right to ignore a consensus. However slender it may be, there is nevertheless a movement in favour of the proposal. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out before, the consensus you speak of simply doesn't exist. 'Four against two" is not by itself a consensus. Consensus is NOT a headcount. Consensus is based on the arguments and the arguments of at least two of the support !voters are being disproven by the ongoing events. The four previous seasons don't see any relevant edits anymore and the current season's template has so far seen only two relevant edits in the last two weeks, despite a race taking place yesterday, the latter of which was promptly reverted by the same editor who clearly realized their error. This demonstrates clearly that we simply went through a natural period of getting used to the change instead of a problematic inability to understand it. All of this renders the aforementioned arguments of "it doesn't work" all but invalid and leaves you with anything but a majority.Tvx1 12:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those arguments have not been disproven. You have offered a subjective interpretation of edit histories. They may persuade others to make up or change their minds, but they are not the irrefutable evidence you claim them to be. If we judge them by the same standards that we judge sources, then they fail WP:RS and WP:OR. The fact that no-one has changed their minds or joined the discussion suggests that you argument is barely persuasive, much less definitive.


 * Furthermore, you have justifies changes based on little more than a headcount before. Why are the rules different for you? This is precisely what I was afraid of: we start building up momentum on a discussion, but you're opposed to it so you stall for time and the discussion goes nowhere and you end up getting your way despite having a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keeping going on the personal route isn't going to get you anywhere. I never made any changes based solely on head-count. In fact I'm one of the few people in this project who would occasionally put up a formal request for closure for any discussion. I don't know how a near-complete absence of any disputed edits on all five involved articles since the start of this discussion is subjective any way. They are objective facts which do not support the claim that there is any "unacceptable problem" in any way. Learn to accept the reality.Tvx1 13:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

And, predictably, here we are&mdash;despite a clear agreement among some editors to move in one direction, you're going to get your way. It's a wonder any of us even bother editing Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
@ &mdash; would it be possible to provide an illustration of the two possible layouts? It might help demonstrate the difference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. You can see the current and proposed versions of the tables here. DH85868993 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have looked to the sources in your subpage and even FIA uses a current-format, arranging by best results. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We are under no obligation to present informafion in the same way as the FIA does. Between 2014 and 2016, Lewis Hamilton frequently appeared on entry lists before Nico Rosberg despite Hamilton being #44 and Rosberg #6&mdash;but we listed Rosberg first to give the table some organisation.


 * The point is that so long as we have all the information presented in the source (which, you will note, is not actually provided for the matrices in the article), we are free to present that information as we see fit. The question before us now is whether the current presentation benefits the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No but splitting up WCC tables per drivers when literally no reliable sources do and when literally none of articles prior to 2014 have ever done so is at best questionable.Tvx1 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There was never a need to prior to 2014 because numbers were assigned to the cars, not the drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And there is no need to do so now either. The WCC outcome is perfectly shown without splitting per driver.Tvx1 17:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

2021
Negotiations for 2021 are underway; details of the new engine formula are expected thus month. Further proposals for bodywork changes are openly being discussed and now Autosport are reporting that grid penalties are under scrutiny. However, it's too soon to create the 2021 article. This is a bit of a problem because it was a nightmare trying to prepare the article, understanding the concepts and finding relevant sources from the previous two years. So I have created a draft where we can work on the article as new information comes to light. You can find it at Draft:2021 Formula One World Championship if you'd like to contribute. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There's Formula One engines and Formula One car. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton passed GA nomination
Just a heads up that my recent nomination of Lewis Hamilton as a GA has been passed. Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Gianbattista Guidotti
Gianbattista Guidotti was an F1 driver? This is according to Alfa Romeo 158/159 Alfetta, then it is necessary to create your article. --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The table shown at the Alfetta page indicates that he did not start either race. The individual race articles have notes to the effect that he was an unused reserve driver and took no part. If however, he has competed in Formula One, even non-championship, then a page could be created. Small 1994 does not include him in its list of non-qualifiers. Google search shows articles on other language Wikipedias here. Eagleash (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Career results for test drivers
Currently we include in the career result for Formula one drivers we include races where they were only a test driver (see 2016 and 2017 for Charles Leclerc) as they didn't actually do any races and only participated in a handful of practice sessions I feel these extra rows are completely unnecessary if they only competed as a test driver in that season, so I think that we should get rid of those rows. SSSB (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm absolutely agree with you, and sometime ago I have removed the rows but they were returned. It seems that some users tries recreate DriverDB table which includes test duties. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Formula One polesitters
Are we okay with the "Driver with most pole positions in each season" table? I like the concept of the table and would like to see it in the other lists, but not sure if it complies with WP:NOTSTATS. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTSTATS talks about stats which lack context or reduce readability, neither of these apply here. SSSB (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  10:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:F1 under discussion
FYI, F1, which currently redirects to WikiProject Formula One is under discussion. Note that if the target of F1 is changed (or if it is changed to a disambiguation page), it will also affect shortcut WP:F1. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:F1, which currently redirects to this page is also under discussion. Any change to this redirect would also affect shortcut WT:F1. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Both discussions were closed as "keep". DH85868993 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that was completely unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Daniil Kvyat's importance?
We have rated Kvyat to be of high importance (seeTalk:Daniil Kvyat) is this because it has not been updated since he stopped as a regular F1 driver because if not I would have to argue against this as I would rate him to be low importance as defined by WikiProject_Formula_One/Assessment or mid importance due to him being Ferrari development driver. If it is genuine could someone please explain why.SSSB (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly low importance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed by User:Falcadore. SSSB (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Other drivers who scored podiums in F1 are mid-importance. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The table at WikiProject Formula One/Assessment:
 * {|class=wikitable

!Article type ! ! ! ! !Drivers
 * Multiple world championships
 * World champions or 10+ wins or Current driver
 * 2+ wins or 10+ podiums
 * Others
 * }
 * indicates his article should be rated low importance. DH85868993 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Tires brought for a Grand Prix.
Would it be beneficial to include the tires brought by Pirelli to each Grand Prix similar to this. Personally I think this would be an improvement so then the article can talk about seperate tyre compounds without having to constantly expalin the different drivers using different tires, however, I thought it would be constructive to discuss this first. SSSB (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I like this idea, I think with the terminology used in the weekend reports it would help those less knowledgeable/well-versed in Formula 1 understand the impact of the different tyre compounds. Do we know if there are icons for the new tyre compounds beyond the ones used in that article? Formulaonewiki (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It also appears in the corrosponding aticles in French, Spanish and Italian and it also appears in the other race reports in those languages (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Pr%C3%AAmio_de_M%C3%B4naco_de_2018). As i said earlier I think it would be beneficial. SSSB (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Or would it be more usefull to link each mention of tires to Formula One tyres. SSSB (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

e.g. For the 2018 Monaco Grand Prix it would look something like this

I think this would be better than linking to Formula One tyres as this gives a clear indicaation to the tires available for each race. SSSB (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Our race reports used to have a background section which mentioned which tyres Pirelli supplied during the weekend in question (e.g. here, here, here). I don't know why these aren't present anymore, but obviously they should be. I'm opposed to using a table with icons or colors as these don't really serve to improve the understanding of the article in question since the tyres are not visually present anywhere else in the articles. Moreover, there are readers who can only see some colors or even none at all.Tvx1 11:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying about the colors, that could be removed, however, I still think that the table is better as it shows it clearer than simlpy listing and as I said before it makes it clear that the implications of using different tires are. SSSB (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think that takes a lot of space for something than can be simply conveyed in two or three sentences.Tvx1 18:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with the examples you provided is that there is no indication of the implication of the tire. A reader with no prior knowledge of F1 is not going to know how the hypersoft, ultrasoft and supersoft difer without an explanation, if you coveyed it in a sentence(s) it is likly to sound something like this
 * "Pirelli brought the hypersoft, ultrasoft and supersoft to this grand prix for dry driving conditions, the supersoft has the least grip and the most durabillity and the hypersoft has the most grip but is the least durable with the ultrasoft having the midddle ground both in terms of durabillity and grip, pirelli also brought the intermediate tire for light standing water conditions and the full wet for heavy standing water conditions."
 * Personally, I think this information could be conveyed a lot clearer in a table as seen above. SSSB (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Prose is always preferable to tables. This table adds nothing that prose cannot. It's also a very large table that conveys very little information. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with. A table takes lots of space for little added information. We don't need to re-explain what a tyre compound is in every race report. We have wikilinks for that. We can provide wikilinks to the article on formula one tyres and to the relevant part of the glossary of motorsports terms. Many of our race report have received Good Article or even Featured Article status with the information on the provided tyres being simply presented in prose.Tvx1 12:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I at least think we should include the table in the season report and then we can link back to that in race reports, the problem with linking directly to Formula One tyres is that it only shows the tyre compounds for the current season meaning that if F1 returned to remove tyre compounds from its range Formula One tyres would not be as helpful as readers wouldn't know where the tyre fitted in the range. SSSB (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The championship article is not a suitable place for such a table, either. The whole idea of a table is unnecessary and the "grip" and "durability" entrirs should be expressed as a function&mdash;but even then, the grip and durability are often affected by the circuit surface, atmospheric conditions and car setup. It seems to be included for the sake of having it, which is the worst possible reason to have it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Tables should never be used as a substitution for straightforward well-written text. Tables should only be used where the topic is too complicated to be explained simply. --Falcadore (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Points distribution tables removes
During the last few hours has been unilaterally removing the points distribution tables from the F1 season articles. I raise this here because I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. I'm under the impression that it always has been our goal to create self-explanatory independent articles which do not force our readers to have to go to another article to understand a part of it. Any thought?Tvx1 22:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There are multiple points scoring systems that have been used throughout the sport's history. Putting the table in the championship article presents the most relevant system to the reader. Without the inclusion of the table in the article, the results matricies may be indecipherable to the casual reader because it is unclear how the points tally is calculated given that the matrix only shows the results for each race, not the points scored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that’s exactly what I was thinking as well.Tvx1 23:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I also think the changes should be reverted. It makes more sense to me to have the tables easily accessible in the season summary articles rather than directing the reader off to a separate article. DH85868993 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, they should be reverted to avoid confusion and stop people from having to go on to separate articles. SSSB (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted the removals.Tvx1 18:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Formula One circuits
An editor has questioned whether it would be worth splitting Category:Formula One circuits into sub-categories for current circuits and former circuits. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Article nominated for speedy deletion
FYI, Fantasy F1 has been nominated for speedy deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

New image
I think a new image of the Red Bull Ring is needed. The image of the 9-turn RBR is still used, even if the 10-turn "configuration" has been used for quite a long time now. Baby miss fortune 10:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Standardisation of season report importance
Currently on the Importance scale there is no giudelines of how to rate the importance this causes a problem where the seasons importnace is currently as follows:
 * Top - 1994, 2015
 * High - 1950-1952, 1983, 1989, 2006-2010
 * Mid - 1982, 1991, 2003-2005, 2011
 * Low - The rest.

Personally, I can't see a system in use here and I think it important that we find one.

If we put any possible suggestions below and then we can see which we prefer

SSSB's suggestion
This is my suggestion but feel free to add your own SSSB (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Corvus tristis's suggestion
Corvus tristis (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So your suggestion is that the importance of the sporting events during the season should have no influence on the importance of season articles? Seasons like 1970, 1993 and 1982 which featured the deaths of major title protagonists, or 1980 and again 82 which saw peak events in the conflict between FISA and FOCA, or 1991, 1976, 1995, 1958, 2008 or 2010 where we saw high profile conflicts between drivers for the title or 1955 where a major upheaval in the sport - the Le Mans disaster - saw the cancellation of several Grands Prix?
 * Wikipedia is driven by notability, and sporting conflicts have been given greater notability in the public sphere rather than changes to technical regulations. For further example, 1966 the return to power, saw the major teams perform in an underwhelming fashion and they were embarrassed by a smaller team who intelligently but unspectularly won the title through efficiency while incompetance and inability to build quality cars blighted others. 1966 is primarily remembered for trivia - the champion winning the title in his own car rather than someone elses. 1967 is better remembered for the first Cosworth - again trivia - 1968 the death of Clark it would not be until the 1970s that the return to power finally delivered on the major technical change it had promised in '66 with a competitive season between several teams and drivers. --Falcadore (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the point of the whole discussion is that we need a clear criteria for high-level importance articles, as now we have a disorder with the season report importance. Maybe your proposal is better (my proposal contains only one criterion, which is not enough, ideally it should be a few criteria and if the article meet at least two of them than it should have a high importance status), but it should be summarised to become a criteria. Because "high profile conflicts" is very subjective. Why you have omitted 2007 which had three drivers, competing for the title till the last race, change to the monotyre supplier which reshuffled the constructors' standings and the Spygate? P.S. 1994 season featured the death of major title protagonist, not 1993.Corvus tristis (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

and, you both have very good points which should be considered but the problem is that both of your suggestions are quite subjective (when does a minor technical regulation change become a major one), furthermore having read the discussion thus far I think that a combination of the discussed would be the best way to go about it, but untill you both remove the high levels of subjectiveness from your proposals I fear that we may be unable to reach a difinitive consensus and if you are unable to remove the subjectivness I fear that we may need to go through and discuss the importance of each season independently, (should be done here to avoid clogging this up).

Untill then are we in agreement that 1950 should be top importance and 2019 should be low? SSSB (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and as you said in the first place the current one also should be have the top importance. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Importance is a subjective word. Clear criteria will always be impossible. --Falcadore (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Drivers for example had quite clear criteria. The season reports also can have clear criteria. Of course, there is always some level of subjectivity, but the goal is to reduce it with the criteria, which is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative Suggestion
It would mean the criteria would be defined and not subjective. The red link was deleted a few years ago so I put my suggestion here. (Mobile mundo (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC))

Max Verstappen's nationality
Hi,

Britmax and an IP address 82.217.164.86 user have decided that Max Verstappen is only Dutch and not Belgian-Dutch without discussion of any kind while it's referenced that he has two nationality. I would like to know your opinion on this one and what we should do about it and if we should request for comment.RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear-cut in my view. He's Dutch-Belgian (or Belgian-Dutch, whatever your preference is). The article contains a reliable source that quotes Jos Verstappen saying that he is Dutch-Belgian/Belgian-Dutch. The reason he is solely listed as Dutch in the championship and race articles is because his racing licence was issued by the Dutch motorsport body. It's no different to Nico Rosberg being German-Finnish and racing under a German licence. If you want a more extreme version, look at 2018 FIA Formula 3 European Championship, where half a dozen drivers compete under licences issued by sporting bodies other than their native one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Formula 3 and Formula 1 are not comparable. Formula One is a World Championship and the FIA has a specific rule for their World Championships stating that drivers must use a nationality matching (one of) their passport nationalit(y)(ies). That's what happened with Verstappen and Rosberg. They are dual nationals and were so when they first entered F1 and as a result where requested to choose one nationality to represent. The exact same thing currently applies to Romain Grosjean who is Franco-Swiss.Tvx1 13:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear-cut for me too, and the reference to him being Belgian-Dutch should be left as it stands right now. RafaelS1979 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Formula 3 and Formula 1 are not comparable. Formula One is a World Championship and the FIA has a specific rule for their World Championships stating that drivers must use a nationality matching (one of) their passport nationalit(y)(ies)."
 * The point I'm trying to make is that it's not unheard-of for there to be a discrepancy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also see no problem with how it is handled right now, with his full nationality situation explained in the lead and it being elaborated upon in the early life section, but with his racing nationality in the infobox. Same applies to the case of Jochen Rindt. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe a note in the infobox could be helpful to better draw the attention to the fact that the infobox doesn't tell the full story, like it is handled in Rindt's article? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

2014 and 2015 teams and drivers tables
Why we have entirely different tables for just two seasons? The format of the tables haven't proved by the time as it was dropped after. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; those two tables contain the sortable function. When the new numbering system was introduced in 2014, there was extensive debate as to how best to organise the table. Ultimately we opted to arrange the table alphabetically by constructor and then numerically by driver (except in the case of a mid-season driver change). The sortable function was added to give readers flexibility, but because some cells (like drivers) are one cell high and others (like the entrant) are two cells high, the sortable function was not working. The format of those tables is a result of trying to find a solution to the problem.


 * As for why it was discontinued, I think it's down to the markup. It's some of the most complex markup I have seen on Wikipedia (outside templates) and very easy to break. It's also a real deterrent to new editors taking part (it's one thing to use complex markup to dissuade vandalism, but those tables took it too far). With no apparent tangible benefit to it, it was easier to go back to the old style than to retain it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether you really know anything about the markup. It’s not complex at all. The only difference is that it contains class=“wikitable sortable” instead of class=“wikitable”. The rest of those tables use the same basic markup elements as the others, albeit much less of them. There is only one row per constructor and there are no “rowspan”’s in them.Tvx1 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on the Prisonermonkeys' side on this. The sortable format is messier (it has nothing common with the knowledge of the markup) and harder for editing unlike the format that we use in the most of the seasons. I guess that we can at least do a survey, about do we still need the sortable format for the tables or not. I agree that for the time when it was a transition for the new number system it was a good solution. But is the situation is the same for now? Corvus tristis (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The only difference is that it contains class=“wikitable sortable” instead of class=“wikitable”"
 * There's a multitude of additional markup, such as "data-sort-value". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@ &mdash; I'm not sure a vote is necessary. I think we can chalk it up to an edit-consensus and remove the sortable function from the 2014 and 2015 tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There was huge discussion leading to that table format and we should not act like it doesn’t exist. IMHO those tables are actually easier to read and edit. There are much less rows, so there is much less markup to sift through. The date-sort-value markup simply needs to be added once at the start of the season and that’s it. Regarding reading the lower number of lines makes it much easier on the eyes.Tvx1 12:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The rowspan and colspan markup is really basic markup. They're probably one of the first things a new editor learns. The 2014 and 2015 tables are full of markup&mdash;text alignments, non-breaking spaces, data-sort-values and the like. Granted, a lot of that is probably unnecessary; I'd say it's leftovers from the initial experiments with the sortable function. While the 2014 and 2015 tables might look better visually, the post-2015 tables are not unreadable (far from it) and much more accessible for editing. A sheaf of complex markup is a pretty steep price to pay for minor visual improvements. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tvx1, if this format had so much benefits, then why it wasn't implemented in 2016-2019 articles? Maybe it is not that simple? Where all the supporters from the huge discussion? The consensus may change. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The only reason I can think of is that we simply forget to apply it to the table at the start of the 2016 season. And that people simply forgot about it. That doesn’t mean the benefits of it don’t exist.Tvx1 17:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, how you can forget about something that "easier and consensus-backed" and was just a season ago?.. Probably it has some benefits, but they didn't overweight simplicity of the 2016-2019 tables format. So the state of the consensus is doubtful at least. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we collectively forgot. I think we came to the conclusion that it was too much work for too little benefit and not worth continuing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you could direct us to where “we” came to that conclusion. I certainly didn’t.Tvx1 12:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If we didn't come to that decision, why was the format abandoned? If everyone but you forgot, why didn't you do more to continue implementing it? (PM, posting from an IP.) 1.129.110.219 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is not getting us anywhere here. These tables have been working for years without any complaint. Then why should we create a problem where none exists? Just leave things that aren't broken as they are and move on to more pressing matters. Like for instance writing reports for ongoing seasons and races.Tvx1 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 2014-2015 tables aren't easy for transition to the 2016-2019 format, so it is the main reason why nobody tried before me. Problem exists, since there are only two tables, which completely different from the other (1950-2013 and 2016-2019). It is the exact case where we should keep consistency. Neither 2016-2019 format is broken, and nobody complained since 14 June, excepting you. 2016-2019 format is a reflection of an edit-consensus. If you need to write reports then do it, but stop referring to the outdated consensus and pretend that 2014-2015 format is easy for editing. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Consistency is not an argument. In fact this whole issue came up as a result of our decision against consistency by having a tyre column in some articles and no tyre column in others. No one has been complaining about the format in the four years these articles have used them. The format is very is easy to edit for the 2014-2015 articles because the table is complete and there simply isn't anything to edit at all right now. You cannot decide among the two of you to ignore a massive discussion like that one. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is no evidence whatsoever that currently anyone fails to understand the contents of the tables in question.Tvx1 17:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit-consensus in 2016-2019 articles is a way larger, it's not just an opinion of the two users in the discussion. Keeping the different format for just two seasons because of the one user who doesn't want change to the format which adopted by the current edit-consensus is a complete nonsense. P.S. It seems that you just can't accept that sometimes consensus may change. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any edit-consensus from the 2016 to 2019 articles does not automatically apply to the 2014-2015 articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Edit consensus cannot overrule community consensus from such a massive discussion anyway. No one has ever complained about those tables so there is just no need to change them. Don't fix things which aren't broken. Stop wasting your and our time on an issue which just doesn't exist. There are things which actually require our time. This weekend's upcoming race for instance.Tvx1 19:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you advised guidance essay, without actually reading it. "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged."  So, of course Edit consensus can overrule as the community consensus was reached in the other circumstances. But now 2016-2019 format get a support from the users and nobody tried at least to convert table in the 2016-2019 articles to the 2014-2015 format. Now you can't get even one supporter of your position in the same community. And please stop telling me what I should do. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I support keeping the sortable tables in the 2014/15 articles. There has been no consensus, "edit" or otherwise to replace them in this way.


 * That's not how "Edit consensus" works. It only applies to the article in which the edits were made. The articles in question here each have their own "edit consensus", which, up until the changes made over recent days, included the sortable tables. That was the stable condition, the condition that should be restored until a new consensus is established - per WP:BRD. What happens in other articles is irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you have any valid argument excepting WP:ILIKEIT and outdated consensus? It seems that you haven't bothered to read the quote above "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". What happens in 2016-2019 articles is relevant because they are the same Formula One season reports with permanent numbers for drivers. If we consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia, than we should convey the information the same way in the exact cases, not hiding behind irrelevant consensus which was made in the other circumstances. P.S. None of you still haven't provided any link to the discussion where consensus was achieved. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have any argument beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? No one whatsoever has ever complained about those tables since they were applied to those article. So I really can't see why you are so obsessed with changing them. As I said before, don't try to fix something that isn't broken.Tvx1 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My argument is consistency (actually broken and is what I trying to fix) which I outlined more than one time. In bold font this time if you don't see it again. I don't have any strong opinion on the look of the table. I will be fine with any format, but it should be one for both 2014-2015 and 2016-2019. The fact that nor you, nor anyone even haven't tried to keep the format in the 2016-2019 articles is a proof that the format isn't easy for work with the table. Outdated consensus and your preference aren't valid reasons to break consistency. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you keep playing the "consistency" card when this whole thing came up when you introduced "inconsistency" to these articles with regard to having a tyre column? It demonstrates more than clearly that "consistency" is not a necessity. Anyway, I'd be more than happy to apply the consensus format from 2014 to 2016 and onwards. It's not that difficult to handle at all and it only takes a couple of minutes per article to implement.Tvx1 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why it is take you so long, even after you remembered about abandoned format? Go further then, I wouldn't interfere. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * Requests for Comment is another alternative for consensus-building, particularly as this affects a series of articles. It would be good to link the "massive discussion" of community consensus and be clear which tables are referred to (the articles each have five big tables; I assume it's the first, under § Teams and drivers) and which years have different versions.
 * To make some general comments, the sortable feature is one of the reasons for moving lists into tables. However, this tends to be for long tables with a considerable amount of data.  In this case I can see a complete table on my monitor at once, so I can take it all in visually.  (I'm not sure how mobile users would deal with it, with or without a sort.)  Sortability could make it easier to spot some patterns in the data, but (if I'm looking at the table in question) I'm not sure of the benefit of sorting by constructor or chassis model number. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, your assumption is correct. The first, under § Teams and drivers. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism of 2018 Hungarian Grand Prix
An unregistered user edited the page at 10.30am UCT +1 with racist language with reference to Lewis Hamilton, have removed it, but would like it to be reported, but don't know how! Thank you. Hesky10 (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have warned the user concerned. If the disruption continues it can be reported at WP:AIV. Eagleash (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

New article
Editors may be interested in the recently-created article: Hunt–Lauda rivalry. DH85868993 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Prost-Senna rivalry should be created, currently redirected to Alain Prost. --Adriel 00 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to race report templates
For several years now, WP:F1 has followed a policy of assigning flagicons to venues rather than Grands Prix in championship articles. They look like this: Rather than this: The justification for this has always been that some races do not take place in "countries"&mdash;the European Grand Prix and Caesars Palace spring to mind. However, Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report continues this practice despite the policy being different elsewhere. For example:

So I think we should make some changes to this infobox, based on some of the parameters in Template:Infobox rally. The infobox would now look like this:

In terms of the detail, it's really just the blue-grey box at the top of the rally report infobox that I'm looking to insert into the Grand Prix race report; everything else would remain the same. I think it's a neater solution than the current layout and one that is consistent with other WP:F1 policies. I have asked @ and he seems to think that a few tweaks to the markup will make the changes without needing to manually overhaul the infoboxes in the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection about flagicon removal, but i'm not sure if there is a proper reason for the use of the the blue-grey box at the top. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It gives equal weight to the common name and the formal title (some of the primary references that we include, such as qualifying and race results, use the full title) and addresses formatting issues. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify: Are you proposing that the "Official name" field should be moved from the body of the infobox to the blue-grey box at the top? DH85868993 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing. That and removing the flagicons. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support removing the flagicons since they are often confusing (e.g. European Grand Prix using only one flagicon even though race has taken place in five different countries) and removing the caption above the infobox. I'm not in favor of squeezing the official name of the race in the infobox header. It looks very cluttered and is just not necessary. The infobox already has a suitable place for the official name. The header should be just that. A header explaining what the infobox deals with and not a place to squeeze the most commonly used names into.Tvx1 12:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Except they are the most commonly-used names. We already use them in the opening sentence of the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; I think there is enough support here to justify some of the changes. We can definitely remove the flagicons, and the blue-grey box would correct some of the display issues. I still think there is merit in the dual titles, although that may require further discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll aim to make the changes some time within the next couple of days. DH85868993 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. I've removed the flagicon and moved the race title inside the infobox. I also moved the "Race details" header from the top of the box to below the track map. I left the heading colour as the existing light grey rather than the steelblue of the rally infobox. But it can be changed to steelblue if there's support for that. The top of the infobox for the 2018 French Grand Prix now looks as shown at right (compare with the original above). DH85868993 (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; it's PM here, posting from an IP address. I like the changes; I think the grey instead of the steel blue works particularly well. I still think having the official title under the common name is worth including. It's the first thing we acknowledge in the prose and you can regularly find references to it throughout a Grand Prix weekend. And since we're not dealing with an article title, it's not a COMMONNAME issue. 1.129.110.219 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Although I disagree with the departure of the flags, I totally see the point of this to finally try and disambiguate the issue! Cheers guys! - J man708 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sortable functions
I see an editor has recently added the sortable function to all post-2013 articles. Where is the demand for this? When it was first applied in 2014, it was hailed as being necessary to make the articles accessible; when it was abandoned in 2016, not a word was spoken about it being inaccessible. We should at least have a discussion about it before unilaterally applying it. 1.129.105.116 (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all in the above discussion you took part in. I don't know how accessibility is an issue here. Both versions are accessible to all readers.Tvx1 13:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And in that discussion, no consensus was reached. Once again, you get your way despite the consensus, not because of it.


 * As for accessibility, look to the original discussion in 2014. It was argued that sortability was needed because it gave readers the freedom to arrange the table as they saw fit, thus improving access. 1.129.105.150 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ret/DNF
Hi, is there any discussion about to put DNF replacing Ret? I'm from the spanish WP:F1, and I want to see the arguments. Thanks, shaGuar  F1'  16:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC).
 * No it's not being discussed here. Ret is used because DNF is ambiguous. Cars can be classified without finishing.Tvx1 16:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, from my point of view, for example in the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, all cars are DNF, because the race was over under red flag, not chequered flag, thanks for reply. shaGuar  F1  16:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But, using the example of the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, the cars did finish. Even though it was a truncated race. So 'DNF' would not be appropriate there either. Orphan Wiki  16:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The cars finished the lap which was used to determine the result. So they did finish the race. The cars who did not finish that lap where listed with per what they actually performed (+1 lap/Classified non-finisher/Retired) By the way, the Spanish article on the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix has incorrect results. Here is the official result and here is a FIA lap chart showing the same results.Tvx1 19:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the results, fixed, ty. I don't pretend to replace Ret with DNF, I only was just asking, by the way in the spanish WP I showed my disagreement with that petition before posting this. shaGuar  F1  02:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still wrong. The number of laps completed and distance to the winner isn't correct for all the drivers.Tvx1 11:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ferrari 212 F1
After reading an article about the Ferrari 212 F1 in RTLGP Magazine No. 6 2009 I noticed there are a lot of mistakes regarding this car on most webisites not only wikipedia. This Dutch Magazine is a highly regarded racing magazine. And the info is backed up by Ferrari Historian Michael Müller who has studied this Ferrari era for more than 10 years.

Two 212 F1 chassis were built. One car with a Dion rear axle (chassis 102) and one one with a swing axle (chassis 110). Ferrari sold the 110 chassis to Rudi Fischer. His team Ecurie Espadon used the car in three World Championship races in 1951 all with the 212 2.5 V12 engine. In 1952 chassis 110 was used at the Swiss, French, British, German and Italian GP. As the World Championship was now used Formula two rules the car was fitted with an Ferrari 166 2.0 V12 engine. Ecurie Espadon only used the 110 chassis at one World Championship race in 1953. Max de Terra drove the car at the Swiss GP, again with the Ferrari 166 2.0 V12 engine.

For the other World Championship races Ecurie Espadon entered the Ferrari 500 that Rudi Fischer used in 1952. Peter Hirt drove that Ferrari 500 at the Swiss GP and Kurt Adolff used the 500 at the German GP.

I would be happy to correct al this info on Wikipedia. But I thought I'd bring it up here first as most sources on the internet state otherwise and I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Circuit Gilles Villeneuve
I saw this edit by an IP on my watchlist and almost reverted it, before stopping myself. I just wanted to check what the rest of you thought. Is it a street circuit? For sure, it's narrow and the walls are close by, but there is no mention of it being a street circuit within the body of it's article. This is unlike articles for other street circuits, where it is made very clear that they are street circuits specifically. Orphan Wiki 22:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A circuit being a street circuit has nothing to do with narrowness or position of walls. The Gilles Villeneuve circuit is a street circuit because it takes places on what are normal streets outside of the GP Weekend.Tvx1 23:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware it has nothing to do with narrowness or position of walls, . What I was asking is if anyone knew 100% whether it is a street circuit. This is because it has been removed from the list of street circuits in the article I mentioned, and there is nothing about it being a street circuit in it's article. Orphan Wiki  12:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

2020 article
I think we've got enough information to create 2020 Formula One World Championship. We usually create them about eighteen months out from the start of the championship. Unfortunately, I cannot create new articles from an IP (and I'm only planning to hang around until a particular article is finished; after that I might retire). 1.129.105.84 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree with that. We have little 2020 specific information right now. No new race contracts from 2020 yet, now new driver contracts from 2020 yet. In fact the drivers are storting out their 2019 drives at the moment. No new teams from 2020. No major rule changes for 2020 either.Tvx1 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that is quite early for an article. Maybe it will be possible to make draft like 2021? Corvus tristis (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; why did you create the 2020 article by copying and pasting the 2019 article and then changing almost nothing about it? As far as I can tell, the only difference is changing "2019" to "2020" in the opening sentence and adding one race to the list of Grands Prix without a contract? If you're going to create articles, you need to add something of substance; this simply isn't good enough. @, @ &mdash; this might need to go to AfD. 1.129.106.155 (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Afd'd it is.Tvx1 18:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with the "Constructor" column on the "Entries" section?
I have already started a discussion about this on the talk pages of the "2018 Formula One World Championship" and "Template:F1 Constructors Standings", as these issues need to be addressed (preferably promptly) for the current season due to the unusual Force India/Racing Point situation. However, I felt it was best to start a discussion here also, due to the consequences such a change could have on both past and future F1 articles.

The latest update to the FIA official constructors' classification has shown that Force India and Racing Point are actually seperate constructors, namely "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". Therefore, the current constructors column on the entries table is actually showing the incorrect information, as "Force India-Mercedes" is simply a merge of the name of the chassis and the name of the engine, and is not actually the name of the constructor. My proposal is the following;


 * 1) The "Entrant" column should be retitled as "Entrant/Constructor".


 * 2) The "Constructor" column should be removed.


 * 3) The name of the chassis (for example "Force India") should be merged into the "Chassis" column, for example something along the lines of "Force India (VJM11)".


 * 4) The name of the power unit (for example "Mercedes") should be merged into the "Power Unit" column, for example "Mercedes (Mercedes M09 EQ Power+)".

Also, on this topic, I feel a similar thing needs to be done with the WCC standings - replacing "Force India-Mercedes" with "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Please could you all let me know what you think and provide your own proposals.

For the purposes of clarification, here is an example of my proposal;

Also, here is an example of what I'm saying with the "World Constructors' Championship standings" table; Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I oppose this in the strongest possible terms. For one, it's a knee-jerk reaction to Force India's current situation, and we don't even have any results to see how that is going to be applied practically.


 * Secondly, and more importantly, there is more to a "constructor" than who the results are credited to. The FIA's definition of a constructor is whoever built the car. Mercedes' car is called the "Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+"&mdash;not the "Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport F1 W09 EQ Power+"&mdash;because the FIA recognises Mercedes as the group that built the car. The entrant column refers to whoever operates the car on a race weekend and this can be a temporary identity depending on sponsors. Look at Alfa Romeo: they had nothing to do with building the Sauber, but but recognising them as part of the constructor implies that they did. 1.129.104.172 (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that customer chassis are not allowed is only a recent regulation. Customer chassis scoring points in the constructor's championship despite not being the actual constructor's team have existed for many decades of F1.  The entrant and constructor being separate far outweighs the amount of time that entrant and constructor have been considered synonymous.  The359  ( Talk ) 00:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also reiterate that "Lotus", "Lotus", and "Lotus" are three individually recognized constructors that do not share the same history. Two different "Force India" constructors are not out of the question, and again goes back to the fact that customer chassis cannot exist, thus Racing Force cannot use Force India chassis unless they name themselves Force India.  The359  ( Talk ) 00:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don’t understand how anyone can genuinly argue that Force India-Mercedes is not the name of the constructor when that constructor name is literally present on every single entry list for every single race they ever entered and is used in every single broadcast. This is just a case of overemphasizing one source. I agree with my colleagues that there is more to the constructor than only results. In recent times we’ve had car manufacturers in entrant names who didn’t do anything coming close to constructing a F1 car (Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin, Infiniti,...). The current situation is exceptional. We need to find a way to make that exception fit in the existing structure, no to make the structure fit the exception.Tvx1 03:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, it seems that there is some confusion to what a constructor is. As per the F1 sporting regulations, a constructor is deemed to be a competitor. The name of each competitor is the same as an entrant - please see https://www.fia.com/file/71331/download?token=35Hb3JKe, where the competitor is called "Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport". This is further backed up by the fact that the FIA World Constructors' Championship standings don't list "Force India-Mercedes", but instead list "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Clearly, in the eyes of the FIA, a constructor is any entity that brings together all of the parts necessary to form an F1 car (chassis, engine, gearbox etc.). Of course, each of these can be produced by different entities, but it is only the competitor who can claim points in the world constructors' championship.


 * Also, @, I was not saying place the entrant name in front of the engine, I was saying place the "The make of the competing car" (as per part b of section 8.2 in the sporting regs). This would therefore form "Mercedes (F1 W09 EQ Power+)". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are cherry picking the sporting regulations and completely ignoring the parts that don't back this claim. 8.3 directly points out that a team can change an engine supplier mid-season, but will no longer be scored in the Constructors Championship because it is no longer the same constructor.  6.2 states "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor" followed by "If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car" meaning the title is awarded to Mercedes, not Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport.  Finally, the constructors trophy is covered in the emblems of manufacturers, not team names.


 * Competitor is a loose term, not a technical term in this aspect. A driver is a competitor, a team is a competitor, a constructor is a competitor.  Driver, entrant, constructor, team, these are all specific things that are not interchangable.  The359  ( Talk ) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, I would agree that the term "competitor" seems loose, but when there is an entire section of the sporting regs outlining exactly what a "competitor" is (section 8), I would argue that this room for interpretation no longer exists. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, "The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." Once again, this proves that the constructor is different to the name of the chassis. The constructor chooses the name of the chassis, they are not the name of the chassis. This is a key point, because it proves that the name of the chassis (Force India) is not the same as the name of the constructor. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, this means that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes" and not "Force India", which is the maker. Which is exactly how we list them in the Constructors table. The359  ( Talk ) 12:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is not incorrect. The regulations state that the constructor chooses the make of the chassis and engine ("The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor."). At no point does it say that the make of the chassis and engine is the name of the constructor. Also, the FIA constructors' standings doesn't list "Force India Mercedes", they list "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". Bearing in mind these two teams have unique entries in the constructors' standings, it is clear that they are different constructors. Therefore, if the constructor was unchanged ("Force India Mercedes"), how would this be the case? - the constructor is "Racing Point Force India F1 Team", and the make of chassis is "Force India", and it is important that we illustrate the subtle, yet important difference between the two. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The constructor name is not "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". I know you have a source that says that, but you should weigh that one source against the wealth of sources that supersede it. 1.129.104.205 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source, I have multiple sources, each that back up the point that the constructor is "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". These sources include the FIA constructors' classification, and the F1 sporting regulations. The idea that you can disprove these sources as being "unreliable" is crazy, given they are two of the biggest publications produced by the FIA each year.


 * Anyway, this has already been discussed and it was agreed that the two teams were seperate constructors, hence why we have seperated them in the table. If you are correct and the constructor is "Force India Mercedes", then given this hasn't changed, please explain why the FIA views them as different constructors? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Because they had to void the Sahara team's results to allow the Racing Point team to start with a clean slate. Your argument, however, suggests that a) the team was never known by the constructor name "Force India-Mercedes" and was instead "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and b) this is true for all teams, which you certainly have not demonstrated.

I'm also going to point out that this entire discussion is less than 48 hours old and we're already going in circles. You haven't introduced anything new to the argument and you certainly haven't convinced me of anything. Without any new information, I doubt you will be able to convince @ or @ either. My suggestion is to either find new information to convince us or let the discussion sit for a while. I can guarantee you that if this starts going in circles, nothing will change&mdash;you won't be able to persuade those already in the conversation, and lengthy arguments repeating themselves ad infinitum will be a real barrier to people joining the discussion. 1.129.104.205 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have multiple sources. You have literally one source and your interpretation of the regulations. The former is not "one of the biggest publications" produced each year by the FIA. It's just a table on website maintained by a web designer. The many entry lists and other documents published at every race are far bigger since they all are officially signed off by the stewards. And clearly the other users disagree with your interpretation of the rules.Tvx1 14:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, seeing as though you aren't willing to accept the facts presented by the FIA, and the fact that I haven't "added anything", I will give you one more piece of evidence that an "Entrants" and "Constructors" are the same name. I will draw your attention back to the Sporting Regulations, specifically appendix 2, named "ENTRY FORM". A specific part of this section is titled "CONSTRUCTOR'S DETAILS OF ENTRY". This requires the constructor to submit a "Team Name". There is a subsection that requires them to agree to compete in every event using the "Name of chassis" and "Make of the Engine". As you can see, it is down to the constructor to decide which chassis and engine to use for the season, which would not be the case if the constructor was in fact the "Name of the chassis". This is consistent with how the FIA list the constructors in the official constructors' standings. Like I say, the difference is subtle, but it is important that we show this accurately in the tables, which we currently aren't doing. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, the constructors' standings are also published each weekend after the race, and once again are signed off by the stewards. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the table published on the website. The championship standings published with the GP information actually label the names as "Entrants" demonstrating very clearly that these are not constructor names. Other users have already explained to you that they use the entrant names for convenience. And your subsection that requires them to agree to compete in every event using the "Name of chassis" and "Make of the Engine" shows very clearly that standings table you base your claims on is in fact NOT consistent at all. Because under your subsection's stipulation the constructor names they should compete under are the likes of "Force India-Mercedes", "Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer", "McLaren Renault", etc. and thus clearly not the names you claim to be the constructor names. If you had bother to watch this after noons session you would have seen that they once again used the same constructor names we use in our tables.Tvx1 16:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please could you actually look at this section of the sporting regulations before you make baseless claims. Yes, they have to submit a name of chassis and a make of engine, but at no point in this section does it stipulate that this is the name of the constructor.


 * Let's look at another example that further proves my point (here: https://www.fia.com/file/72067/download?token=kElNyAFB). One section says, "Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team was excluded from the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship with immediate effect". There are only two 2018 FIA Formula One World Championships - the world drivers' championship and the world constructors' championship. There is no driver called "Sahara Force India F1 Team", so I think we can agree that this is applying to the world constructors' championship? Therefore, we know that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" has been excluded from the constructors'  championship. Bearing in mind this championship can only be participated in by constructors, we also know that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor. Had they said "Force India Mercedes was excluded", I would agree with you, but they don't and this is yet another official FIA source that defines the constructor's name as the same as the entrant's name. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have listed all of the information I have so far in the table below, and I feel that it is necessary to put all of the information in one place, so we can prove/disprove either way. Please feel free to add to the table with any more information, so we can build up a clearer picture of the situation. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I was never a fan of changing "Red Bull" to the full "Red Bull Racing" or "Toro Rosso" to the full "Scuderia Toro Rosso" so in my opinion it should just stay as "Force India" instead of the full team name but obliviously my opinion doesn't matter in this subject, we have always used "Force India" as that is what was used by the FIA since 2008 so I don't understand why all of a sudden people want to make a mess of it and change it over sources that don't mean much in the way of the teams actual constructor name which was shown to be "Force India" on Thursdays entrant sheet. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, the reason why I feel this needs to be changed, is because the FIA appears to define the constructor as "Sahara Force India F1 Team" on a regular basis. Of course, in the past it was assumed that "Force India Mercedes" was synonymous with this, but now we have a situation where the tables on the F1 2018 article have two constructors named "Force India Mercedes", which leads to confusion (particularly the WCC table). I feel we should ensure we are providing accurate information, and just because this is how we have previously displayed the information, it doesn't necessarily mean it is right - it just means we have never been presented with a situation like this before which shows up any misunderstandings. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was never a fan of changing "Red Bull" to the full "Red Bull Racing" or "Toro Rosso" to the full "Scuderia Toro Rosso"
 * Those were the names that the team nominated and which appeared on the season entry list, so I have no idea why you are bringing it up.
 * I feel we should ensure we are providing accurate information
 * What is inaccurate about calling the team "Force India-Mercedes"? By your own logic, Appendix 2 demonstrates this to be an accurste name. Moreover, the majority of third-party sources use the "Force India-Mercedes" name. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you (and which you have ignored), all you have is the interpretation of a handful of sources. 1.129.104.138 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

60 years of official Formula One history says its Team-Engine and you want to discard that Wikipediaeditperson? One of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is we are telling the story of all of Formula One not just the last year or so. WP:RECENTISM. --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, Appendix 2 refers to the "make", which is not the same as "constructor". The constructor is the overall entry (hence the title "CONSTRUCTORS ENTRY"), and the "make" is the car that they use. At the very least, we must change the WCC table, because only one source really applies to this (the official FIA WCC standings), and this displays it as "Sahara Force India F1 Team".


 * @, the trouble with F1, is rules change. In 2007 for example, the Sporting Regulations stated the constructor was the "make", hence "Force India Mercedes" is correct. However, that's not the case now. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A) Changing rules isn't trouble.
 * B) This is not, at least not completely, about rules. There is sixty years of history that can not be discarded by your interpretation of some regulations which deal in purely cosmetic aspects of the World Championship. --Falcadore (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @. The point I was trying to make when I said "trouble", is that the rules/regulations change, and one of these regulations is what defines a constructor and we must make sure that this article is accurate to the rules of this championship. Also, this is not my personal interpretation, this is the FIA's interpretation too, given they list "Sahara Force India F1 Team" on the Constructors'  table, which as the title suggests, is only a championship competed in by constructors.


 * Also, there is a clear change between the 2009 and 2010 sporting regulations. In 2009, the constructor is deemed to be a "make", in 2010, it is deemed to be a "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts". I am assuming this change was brought about by the new Concorde agreement, and therefore clearly a new agreement was reached on what defined a constructor from 2010 onwards. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it appears I was wrong. I assumed that this change occurred in 2010, in conjunction with the new concorde agreement. However, it appears that the FIA has deemed the "Entrant" to be the "Constructor" for some time before this, as can be seen by;


 * The 2009 F1 Constructors' standings - https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fia.com%2FEN-GB%2FSPORT%2FCHAMPIONSHIPS%2FF1%2FPages%2FChampionshipClassification.aspx&date=2009-12-05
 * The 2007 F1 Constructors' standings - https://web.archive.org/web/20100109215547/http://www.fia.com/sport/Championships/F1/F1_Classifications/2007/Championship/2007.html


 * Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @, I noted afterwards that those were my opinions and that they don't mean anything here and I was relating to changing the constructor name that we have used for years without any problems to the full team name which in this case isn't right as just "Force India" is the constructor name as backed up by many sources that we've used over the years. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As per what I said above, I have found the exact point of this change - it occurred in 2002. As can be seen at: https://web.archive.org/web/20011121023848/http://www.fia.com/Classements/Classements-2001/F1_C_Tot.htm, the 2001 Constructors' classification is made up of the chassis and engine. Then, as you can see at: https://web.archive.org/web/20021221123803/http://www.fia.com/freepress/F1_guide_2002/Championship.html, in 2002 the constructors are listed as being the "entrant" name. I can't explain why this is the case, but there is clearly a change in what defines a constructor between 2001 and 2002, and I'm sure with some further research we can discover what exactly this reason is. I feel that our articles need to represent this. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can try further research but it isn't the first time and the answer will just end up in frustration and a realisation that reall all they are doing is incresing the emphasis on commercial sponsorships because well... money.
 * For the most part TV broadcast and print media ignored the ongoing commercialisation of the sport and continued with the accuracy over the selling of every available square centimetre available. But by all means go right ahead. You're not the first and won't be the last. --Falcadore (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, to be honest, the reasoning behind it is pretty irrelevant. Like you say, I could waste my time finding out exactly why this is, but the fact is, the definition of a "constructor" has clearly changed. On the entries table, this can easily be remedied by renaming the column something like "Chassis-Engine". However, with the WCC table, we should be listing it as the FIA list it, because this table is meant to represent the official FIA Formula One World Championship classification. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added an extra point to the table above. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FIA publications are not the only source available. When you watch a race, the final results show the name "Force India-Mercedes". The World Championship is not an abstract concept, but a concrete event and those races are perfectly valid sources. Likewise, formula1.com uses the name "Force India-Mercedes". The average reader is far more likely to get that information from the races or the website than they are from interpreting technical documents on the FIA website. If, as you maintain, the definition of "constructor" has changed, how do you explain the way that change has not been applied anywhere? The overwhelming majority of sources still use the "Force India-Mercedes" name. 1.129.109.242 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @, the sources you mention are secondary sources, which use the FIA as their original source. While I agree that these sources are usually fairly accurate, there is no doubt that the FIA is a far more reliable source.


 * Also, the source you mention (FOM), also manage the formula1.com website. Currently the constructors standings on this website (https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2018/team.html), only lists "Force India Mercedes" once (11th), and fails to list any constructor in 9th place (the one taken by the new "Force India Mercedes"/"Racing Point Force India F1 Team"). This clearly shows that firstly this source isn't accurate, and secondly they are likely also facing some confusion as to how they should list the new constructor, as it doesn't make sense to list "Force India Mercedes" twice.


 * Finally, on the subject of FOM, they also list the teams (https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/teams.html) as "Mercedes", "Ferrari" etc. We may be debating the constructors' names, but I'm sure we are all in agreement that the team names are "Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport" and so on..., so FOM have already shown that they sometimes choose to shorten names, rather than displaying more accurate information. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"Convenience"? It sounds an awful lot like you're interpreting a source to me and doing it in such a way as to disregard it since it doesn't align with your view&mdash;which is cherry-picking your sources. I also fail to see how the broadcast of the race makes it a secondary source given that it is the most direct and accurate account of the races.

I don't think you're any closer to establishing a consensus than you were 48 hours ago. 1.129.109.177 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "convenience" part was a total interpretation and assumption. However, that doesn't disregard the fact that FOM shorten names from their official names, so this proves that the names presented by FOM may be shortened and therefore not accurate. Picking out 1 word from what I wrote and trying to misquote me using it doesn't do anything to disprove the point that FOM sometimes shorten names. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have started an RfC below, as we are simply going around in circles. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I did warn you that we would go around in circles. And given that almost everybody else in this discussion has disagreed with you, starting an RfC now looks like you're shopping around for support&mdash;you couldn't get an agreement here, so you're trying to get more support to swing the discussion in your favour. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how do you see this playing out? You've encountered resistance at every turn and from people who are both knowledgable on the subject and whose opinions are widely respected because of that knowledge. Do you imagine that some uninvolved editors are going to come charging over the hill like the cavalry, sweep aside the opposing arguments and install your preferred edits as a consensus? It doesn't work like that, least of all because you have misrepresented the situation by claiming that no progress has been made when in reality progress has been made but it's not the progress that you want. The RfC process is not to be used as a way of undercutting a consensus because you're unhappy the discussion did not agree with you. It's time to admit that you're beat. 1.129.111.205 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on how best to represent the Formula One Constructors

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the constructors be represented by their full entrant name (for example "Sahara Force India F1 Team"), or as a combination of the chassis name and engine make ("Force India Mercedes")? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason why I started this RfC, is because we have seemed to go round and round in circles in the discussion above. In the discussion above, I added a table, and asked for others to add to it (which no-one has), and this table summed up the points on either side of the debate. I have copied this table below. As you can see, their is a lot more evidence for the constructors' names to be the full entrant name, but this has been disputed by some editors, and this has stood in the way of us reaching a consensus. I feel that some outside opinions would help to resolve this and stop us from continuing going round and round in circles.


 * {| class="wikitable"

! scope="col" style="width: 500px; vertical-align: top;" | Points that back up that the constructor is "Sahara Force India F1 Team" ! scope="col" style="width: 500px; vertical-align: top;" | Points that back up that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes"
 * The name "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is listed on the official FIA Constructors' standings. This is both on the web page for the constructors classifications and the post-race bulletins that publish the constructors' standings. Given this championship is only competed in by constructors, it backs up the point that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor.
 * The name "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is listed on the official FIA Constructors' standings. This is both on the web page for the constructors classifications and the post-race bulletins that publish the constructors' standings. Given this championship is only competed in by constructors, it backs up the point that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor.

Source 1 - https://www.fia.com/file/71337/download?token=TSrMIIKr

Source 2 - https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2018/2018-classifications

EDIT - Just to point out, this point is backed up by the fia.com in recent history, as can be seen by the 2006 F1 Standings here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100418174721/http://www.fia.com:80/sport/Championships/F1/F1_Season_Guide/2006.html
 * The entry list for each race has a column named "Constructor". Under this column, the name is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/72023/download?token=1go8ssr2


 * The stewards at the 2018 Belgian GP stated: "On August 23, 2018, Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team was excluded from the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship with immediate effect". This shows that "Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team" were excluded from the World Constructors' championship. As with the point above, given this championship is only competed in by constructors, it backs up the point that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor.
 * The stewards at the 2018 Belgian GP stated: "On August 23, 2018, Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team was excluded from the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship with immediate effect". This shows that "Sahara Force India Formula 1 Team" were excluded from the World Constructors' championship. As with the point above, given this championship is only competed in by constructors, it backs up the point that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor.

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/72067/download?token=kElNyAFB
 * EDIT - @, mentioned that the announcer on the post-race podium ceremony at Belgium announced the winning constructor as "Ferrari".

Source - So far, I can't find any documented sources that state this. Therefore, the source is the podium announcer (I'm not sure what his name is).
 * Section 6.2 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points". This shows that a constructor is in fact a competitor. Competitors are defined in section 8 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations (named "COMPETITORS APPLICATIONS"), and specifically section 8.2 states that a competitor's application must include "The name of the team". It is generally accepted, as per other F1 articles, that the "Team Name" is interchangeable with the "Entrant", and hence is the best way of representing the "competitor". Taking this into consideration, we can say that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the name of the competitor, and given the constructor is the competitor, we can say that the name of the constructor is "Sahara Force India F1 Team"
 * Section 6.2 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points". This shows that a constructor is in fact a competitor. Competitors are defined in section 8 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations (named "COMPETITORS APPLICATIONS"), and specifically section 8.2 states that a competitor's application must include "The name of the team". It is generally accepted, as per other F1 articles, that the "Team Name" is interchangeable with the "Entrant", and hence is the best way of representing the "competitor". Taking this into consideration, we can say that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the name of the competitor, and given the constructor is the competitor, we can say that the name of the constructor is "Sahara Force India F1 Team"

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY
 * Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body)". I am not aware of any corporate or unincorporated body named "Force India Mercedes". However, I am aware of one named "Sahara Force India F1 Team". This may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".
 * Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body)". I am not aware of any corporate or unincorporated body named "Force India Mercedes". However, I am aware of one named "Sahara Force India F1 Team". This may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".
 * Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body)". I am not aware of any corporate or unincorporated body named "Force India Mercedes". However, I am aware of one named "Sahara Force India F1 Team". This may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY
 * Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6". These "Listed Parts" in Appendix 6 are the: "Survival cell", "Front impact structure", "Roll structures" and "Bodywork". The engine and gearbox are not on this list, so there should be no reason why "Mercedes" would be a part of the constructor's name. Once again, this may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does go some way to disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".
 * Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6". These "Listed Parts" in Appendix 6 are the: "Survival cell", "Front impact structure", "Roll structures" and "Bodywork". The engine and gearbox are not on this list, so there should be no reason why "Mercedes" would be a part of the constructor's name. Once again, this may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does go some way to disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".
 * Section 6.3 of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations states: "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6". These "Listed Parts" in Appendix 6 are the: "Survival cell", "Front impact structure", "Roll structures" and "Bodywork". The engine and gearbox are not on this list, so there should be no reason why "Mercedes" would be a part of the constructor's name. Once again, this may not prove that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is the constructor, but it does go some way to disprove that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY We hereby apply to enter the [ ] FIA Formula One World Championship and we undertake to participate in each and every Event :
 * The "CONSTRUCTOR'S DETAILS OF ENTRY" section of Appendix 2 (named "ENTRY FORM") of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations has a section which states;
 * The "CONSTRUCTOR'S DETAILS OF ENTRY" section of Appendix 2 (named "ENTRY FORM") of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations has a section which states;
 * The "CONSTRUCTOR'S DETAILS OF ENTRY" section of Appendix 2 (named "ENTRY FORM") of the 2018 F1 Sporting regulations has a section which states;

i) With the make of the car referred to below which we nominate for the purpose of Article 6.2 of the Sporting Regulations

Name of the Chassis

Make of the Engine

As you can see, the "name of the chassis" (Force India) and "make of the engine" (Mercedes) are merely a part of the constructor's agreement of participation, and it is not deemed to be related to the name of the constructor. Once again, this goes some way to disproving that the constructor is "Force India Mercedes".

Also, in this section, the constructor is required to submit a "Team Name". As mentioned above, this is interchangeable with the "Entrant", and therefore would be suitable representation of the constructor. In this case, that would mean representing this constructor as "Sahara Force India F1 Team".

Source - https://www.fia.com/file/70710/download/23276?token=szOjLZMY
 * At the FIA Prize Giving 2017, the "FIA Formula 1 World Championship for Manufacturer 2017" was awarded to "Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula 1 Team". As you can see, the manufacturers'/constructors' championship was awarded to the full entrant name, not simply "Mercedes".
 * At the FIA Prize Giving 2017, the "FIA Formula 1 World Championship for Manufacturer 2017" was awarded to "Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula 1 Team". As you can see, the manufacturers'/constructors' championship was awarded to the full entrant name, not simply "Mercedes".
 * At the FIA Prize Giving 2017, the "FIA Formula 1 World Championship for Manufacturer 2017" was awarded to "Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula 1 Team". As you can see, the manufacturers'/constructors' championship was awarded to the full entrant name, not simply "Mercedes".

Source - https://fiaagapg.fiaevents.com/ehome/200174320/prize/
 * }Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * }Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: we have not "gone around in circles". Wikipediaeditperson proposed the change, but three of the most knowledgable people on the subject&mdash;@, @ and @&mdash;have opposed it (I have opposed it, too, but I have forgotten my password, so I cannot really put my name to it). When Wikipediaeditperson says "we are going around in circles", he means "the discussion isn't going the way I want it to". 1.129.108.255 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: In reply to the comment above, this is the exact reason why I feel that this RfC is needed. Saying "three of the most knowledgable people on the subject" sums up exactly what I feared - those who are opposing the change are doing so as a matter of their personal opinion, rather than based on the facts presented. I would like to point out that I am also very knowledgable of Formula 1, but I do not see my personal knowledge as being more accurate than a number of reliable sources, hence why I have provided these to back up my viewpoint. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: you are not presenting facts. You are presenting an interpretation of sources, ignoring the points raised by other editors and now you're trying to use the RfC system to undercut them because you're not getting your way. This whole debate is on the verge of becoming a dead horse. You proposed a change and did not form a consensus. The RfC process is not here to give you the chance to get your way after all. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: My problem with your arguments is this: You say you are quoting facts. That might very well be true, but they are not as relevant to the question at hand as you are suggesting. When we ask ourselves the question, how do we want to portrait something in our articles, we have different rules that we have to follow. We need to be a) accurate, b) keep in mind that we present the information in an easy and understandable way and c) have to adhere to regulations such as WP:COMMONNAME. In my opinion, writing out the constructors names in all tables (and we would then have to do it in all captions and so forth as well!) would be like being more Christian than the pope. As can be clearly seen on the official F1 website (here), F1 Management does not take the regulations you've stated by their full value either. So why should we? In doing so, we would sacrifice easy readability as well as confusing readers, because the way we have it now is the way that viewers of F1 see the constructor names on their TV screen every race weekend! So, let us stick with going by WP:COMMONNAME here, please. It's just easier for everybody. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: building on Zwerg Nase's comments, this is a prime example of what I mean by interpretation of sources. You say FOM only use the short form as a matter of convenience as if that invalidates their use of it&mdash;but as Zwerg Nase points out, they don't put stock in the full name. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding formula1.com, this source doesn't even list any constructor in 9th place on their Constructors' Standings page, so this situation is likely causing some confusion to them as well, or if this is not the case, they are simply listing inaccurate information. Also, saying I am simply interpreting sources isn't correct - How is it possible to misinterpret the official World Constructors' Standings? How is it possible to misinterpret the fact that "Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula 1 Team" were crowned the Formula 1 World Constructors' champion at the 2017 FIA Prize giving? How is it possible to misinterpret that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" were excluded from the 2017 FIA Formula One World Constructors' championship?


 * I fear that this discussion is not going any way towards resolving itself and becoming just like the discussion above. Therefore, I am going to refrain from making any further comments on this matter until this has received some outside opinions. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And how is possible to misinterpret that “Ferrari” was celebrated as the winning constructor yesterday? That “Mercedes” were presented as the winning constructor in Hungary? That “Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer” was named the winning constructor at their own circuit? It’s about time you admit to yourself that the WCC does not solely evolve around the standings table on FIA’s website.Tvx1 13:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I say, I am not wishing to comment any further on this until we have an external viewpoint, but @, please could you provide a source of "Ferrari" being the winning constructor. I couldn't find this on the FIA's final classification. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Watch the podium ceremony.Tvx1 14:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, so this isn't available in a documented source? I will add it to the table above though, as this is obviously something to be taken into consideration, even if the accuracy of it could be questionable. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems you really struggle to understand other people. I was referring to the on-screen graphics displayed pots-race and during the podium ceremony.Tvx1 03:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: "I fear that this discussion is not going any way towards resolving itself" &mdash; but it is working towards a resolution: keeping things the way they are. Just because it's not the resolution you want, that doesn't mean that there is no resolution. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just one more Comment: I do not consider FOM the inferior or less official source for F1, quite the contrary. Ever since the FISA–FOCA war, FOM has been king of the show, Ecclestone firmly saw to that. The FIA operates the sporting regulations side of things, but nothing more. FOM controls everything else, including (and this is the most crucial point!) what the viewers see on TV. Oh, and one more thing. Yes, nowadays entrants and constructors are the same thing. But I would like to point out that this hasn't always been the case. In years such as, Ferrari entered the North American rounds under a different entrant name, but they remained the same constructor. In other years, such as , one contructor built chassis for several entrants (March for Tyrrell for instance). Also, in for instance, there is a clear distinction in the constructors' standings between the results by Brabham with BMW and Cosworth engines. So, if we were to follow your suggestion and just list the entrant name in the result tables, all of these nuances would be lost and create confusion for the readers. How it is now, it works like a charm. So please, close this RfC with the result to keep the current format. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep the existing format. I have already presented more than enough arguments in the above discussion.Tvx1 13:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the three discussions (two here, one on the talk page). 1.129.111.205 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imagen of the 2003 British Grand Prix
This gallery of Flickr has many images of the 2003 British Grand Prix under the 2.0 license. Whoever is interested, can upload them to Commons. Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Formula One racing
Shouldn't this article be moved to "Formula One Grand Prix"? "Formula One race" is part of "Formula One Grand Prix" (free practice sessions, qualifying sessions and race). Eurohunter (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Tom Pryce
A disagreement at Tom Pryce seems to have developed, concerning adding or not adding the Welsh flag to the infobox. Some extra input, may be required there. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Highest Average Points per Race Started
This list should also be presented with an adjustment compensating for the differences in points awarded for positions and fastest laps, so that people like Juan Fangio, who raced for 6-point wins vs the 25 currently awarded, would compare accurately with current drivers. Better yet, there should be a category for highest average finishing position per race started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:57F0:7120:256E:BD91:BFDE:42E8 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless such tables are already published by reliable sources, it would count as original research, which is not permitted. Added to which, you have the complication of shared drives, such as Fangio's shared win with Fagioli in the 1951 French Grand Prix. Under today's rules/scoring system, shared drives are not allowed, so in the "adjusted" table, how many points would Fangio be awarded for that race - 12.5 or 0? DH85868993 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fangio would be awarded whatever points he received for that race. Any statistic the changes the details of what occurred at the time becomes a fictional statistic the steps firmly into original research. Delete. --Falcadore (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to be deleted. It's a proposal to add something.Tvx1 10:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * DH85868993 was talking about representing 1950s races under todays rules. That needs to be nixed now before it can draw breath. --Falcadore (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to point out that such a table would be problematic even if it wasn't original research. But I accept that my comment possibly invited continued discussion on the subject. DH85868993 (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Larrousse Lola 1990
Just on a whim I was reading through List of Formula One constructors, and it makes note of the fact that the FIA took away Larrousse's points for the 1990 season because they incorrectly registered their cars as Larrousse rather than Lola. Larrousse also mentions this same fact.

However 1990 Formula One season lists Lola-Lamborghini as finishing 6th in the constructors' championship with 11 points. The results table on Larrousse, Lola LC90, and Lola Cars also lists this same information, 6th place with 11 points. Was Larrousse excluded from the championship, similar to McLaren in recent years? Were their points simply taken away from their total as a team? Which is the correct way to present this information? The359 ( Talk ) 18:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Constructors' Standings revisited
Hey folks! I hate to bring this debate up again but the complaints are piling up. Readers clearly do not understand the way the Constructors' Table is formatted at the moment. I suggest reverting back to the pre-2014 way, having one row for each driver. Please discuss. And see the 2018 season talk page for a number of complaints about it just in the last couple of days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not tell blatant untruths. There have been barely three requests in three months time on the 2018 talk page. That’s nowhere near piling up. Likewise there have barely been any relevant edits to the tables. Your general claim that “readers don’t understand the table” is just plain wrong. For every user that puts a talk page request, there hundreds who visit the article and understand everything just fine. Stop making a drama where there is none. It was properly evaluated in late July and no consensus was achieved to change it. Rehashing this every other week is nothing near constructive.Tvx1 16:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to throw some minor tidbit into the ring regarding constructor standings, the system used now is also the system that has been used for manufacturer standings in the FIA World Endurance Championship season articles, with the highest score listed first, and I can recall only one or two instances of the order of the manufacturer standings being questioned in the past five years. Granted, those articles have much less eyes on them than the F1 articles do, but I believe the instances of people attempting to "correct" or saying the standings are wrong are extremely minor compared to the amount of eyes who have read the tables.  The359  ( Talk ) 15:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose that if the entries per constructor are also clearly per driver, then there would be no confusion at all. That's got to be better than even a little confusion. What's the perceived benefit to the article of having the current, apparently (to some) illogical, arrangement? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaand there's another one. But I am obviously out of line pointing that out... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

World Constructors' Championship standings
So, as far as I can tell, for the all seasons prior to 2014 the results delineate which car scored each result. Here is an example from the 2013 season, As you can see, for example, the #9 Mercedes won in Monaco while the #10 finished Fourth. However, beginning with the pages for the 2014 seasons and beyond, the results are no longer sorted by car number but that the first finisher goes in the top row while the second finished goes in the second row for the team. Here is an example of the 2016 season, for example. I am just wondering if there was a change in the formatting policy or if the most recent seasons need to be brought in line with the prior way of doing things. 100.0.38.202 (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The seasons prior to 2014 should be arranged in the same way as those post 2014 as this is the agreed format throughout WP:F1 the pre 2014 season simply haven't been updated to reflect this. SSSB (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That statement is not correct. The format currently in use in the post-2013 articles was only discussed in the context of the post-2013 articles (i.e. since permanent driver numbers were allocated). There has never been agreement to use it for the pre-2014 articles. Not to mention that it doesn't even reflect the consensus from the October 2017 discussion (which was the original proposal from that discussion, with car numbers, as confirmed by the editor who closed the discussion). DH85868993 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter anyway? It makes no difference to the pointscore which car scored the points. --Falcadore (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't matter which car scored the points. But it does make a difference whether we have a table format which is intuitive for readers to understand, or one which some readers find confusing. DH85868993 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually believe that the consensus over the current post-2013 format should be re-evaluated, given that quite a lot of readers are confused by the tables as they are now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop making mountain out of a molehill. Three requests in three months is NOT a lot at all.Tvx1 16:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not just create an extra column at the start containing the car's numbers, listed numerically by constructor. That way, you get it matching the older articles and also it can be disambiguated easily. - J man708 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean as per the consensus of the October 2017 discussion? Sounds like a good idea to me... DH85868993 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it clears up disambiguation issues, rather than potentially creating more. - J man708 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Problem is, since 2014 there aren't any car numbers anymore in F1. They have driver numbers now. And occasionally it even happens that one driver use multiple numbers in the same season.Tvx1 14:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Williams-Wolf drivers
The Williams-Wolf drivers of 1976 enter the drivers category of Williams drivers or Wolf drivers?. I've been looking at that list of pilots and it's not clear to me. --Adriel 00 (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jacky Ickx' F1 results table suggests that the cars were entered by "Frank Williams Racing Cars" for the first three races, then by "Walter Wolf Racing" for the remainder of the season. So, it looks as though the drivers who drove in the first three races have been included in Category:Williams Formula One drivers and drivers who drove from race 4 onwards have been included in Category:Wolf Formula One drivers (except that Chris Amon is not in Category:Wolf Formula One drivers). But I'm not sure if that's correct - do we have a good source to confirm that the cars were entered by "Walter Wolf Racing" from race 4 onwards? Frank_Williams_Racing_Cars suggests that the team became "Wolf-Williams Racing" in 1976 and didn't become "Walter Wolf Racing" until 1977. DH85868993 (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for feedback
Please could people give feedback on a proposed change to the 2019 championship page regarding driver changes, here. MetalDylan (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Formula One podium finishers nominated for deletion
List of Formula One podium finishers has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of racing cars in Template:Lotus
I've started a discussion regarding the continued inclusion of racing cars in Template:Lotus. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (I've advertised the discussion here because I wasn't sure how may people are watching the template). DH85868993 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

References proposal
Take a look at Draft:2020 Formula One World Championship and you'll see an alternate way of coding the references (called list-defined references - see WP:LDR). The end result looks the same to the reader, but the coding is less of a mess. Each reference has to be given a name (they often are anyway if they're used more than once) and they are all listed together at the bottom of the code. To use them you just refer to them by their name (as in the 2nd use of one ordinarily). It makes managing and curating the references a whole lot simpler and makes the code a whole lot tidier. I think we should consider adopting this method as we develop new articles. Please take a look, especially inside the code, and see what you think. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Forget it, it was all lost when the draft was partially merged into the new 2020 Formula One World Championship article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

2020 season
With a new race in Vietnam confirmed, and some drivers having contracts for the 2020 season, is it now the right time to start the article? Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say so. 1.129.108.91 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd start with a draft. We can then submit it once the current season is finished. It's only two more and that article doesn't require as much effort anymore.Tvx1 13:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just create one and, so long as it can be defended against any WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON allegations (with adequate RSes, etc.), it should be fine. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You could create a stub without any real fear of deletion, as there are enough sources. There is a case for holding off for a bit longer, until we have something more than just an announcement. These races do not always happen. QueenCake (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a draft would be more efficient. That way we can make into a decent article before publishing.Tvx1 18:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A draft has been created &mdash; Draft:2020 Formula One World Championship. It was mostly just the 2019 article carried over, so I've gutted it of the irrelevant stuff. 1.144.104.197 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated it with every driver and circuit under contract that I can find. 1.144.104.224 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The 2020 article has now been created. 1.129.109.14 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The F1 2020 redirect needs to be created. 1.144.104.59 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. DH85868993 (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

DNS or Ret
In Simtek Verstappen was Ret and in Simtek S951 was DNS was 1995 Monaco Grand Prix. --Adriel 00 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Project consensus is that this result should be recorded as "DNS". I've updated the Simtek article accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the error. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am positively surprised by the quality of the 1995 Monaco Grand Prix article though. I wonder why nobody ever tried to bring that to GA status. Might look into that in the future... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

British racers
Due to an ongoing discussion at Tom Pryce, I'm seeking a consensus (or lack there of) for making an exemption for British racers' infoboxes.

Should we have it in the infoboxes of British racers - nationalities & flags of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales? See Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, i.e. Oppose. They never raced in F1 under those flags. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This would just create unnecessary confusion. There is no guideline, let alone policy, explicitly requesting this. The FIA follows legal nationalities of sovereign states and we should reflect that. For UK drivers with substantial pride over their ethnic "nationality", it can detailed in the prose and even in the lead. However, there are also many drivers like Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Damon Hill, etc who never mentioned anything about their British sub-nationalities. Adding a second nationality field in their infoboxes would be plainly ridiculous. It would also be confusing with drivers, like Bertrand Gachot, who actually have represented different nationalities at different points in their careers. On a side note, I don't believe this is an issue exclusive to F1. The FIA uses nationalities of sovereign states in all motor racing classes it governs. So do the FIM. Therefore, I believe it would have been better if this were raised at WT:MOTOR, not here.Tvx1 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't object to creating a mirror of this RFC at WT:MOTOR. If you know how to do that? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could transclude this section there.Tvx1 21:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do that. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s why I included a link in my previous post.Tvx1 22:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a techno type. It's best that you do the deed. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Really not difficult. But you're not going to learn it like this.Tvx1 16:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons cited here, essentially just create a separate entry -- so is that "done" and this discussion closed and resolved? Please clarify, because there is a lot of discussion that still followed here.  Gratefully Aboudaqn (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just use prose to properly explain the issue and avoid corrupting the purpose of a Formula One specific infobox/template. It is not difficult. --Falcadore (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also quite concerned about the precedent that this could then be used by poponents of American states, Canadian provinces, English counties, French departments and so on. --Falcadore (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Belgian regions springs to mind as well. Stoffel Vandoorne could become a Flemish driver and Jacky Ickx a Brussels driver.Tvx1 22:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumably, because you raise it in this project, you mean in the " Infobox F1 driver " infobox, and I would say no to that as that is for the nationality used to get the racing licence, which for the nations of the UK you mention, would generally be British. However, as with the case in the "Tom Pryce" article, that must never get in the way of using the person's own identified nationality (if reliably sourced and given due weight) in the associated " Infobox person " template, where by-the-way and per WP:FLAGCRUFT, would not be accompanied with a flag. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've presumed wrong. This RFC is for the entire infobox of British F1 racers. Thus my reason for making this a bio matter as well as car racing. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As has been explained very clearly to you, the fact that the infobox is coded as two nested infoboxes is NOT clear to the readers in any way. That is editor knowledge only. There is nothing in the infobox as seen in the article has no visible distinction between a "person infobox" and a "F1 driver infobox". Therefore adding a second nationality field nearby would be utterly confusing. In fact, I don't even know why the "Infobox person" part is there in the coding. It can be produced identically using just the "Infobox F1 Driver" template. Moreover, the more I look at other articles, the more it looks like Tom Pryce's article was an exception in using the Infobox Person coding. Others like Lewis Hamilton, John Watson, Jim Clark and many others don't have that coding at all.Tvx1 12:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I remember a discussion like this previously about another British driver's nationality (can't remember who though). Had a look at some Scottish drivers and it's been brought up on the talk pages of David Coulthard, Dario Franchitti, Colin McRae and Jackie Stewart - but all the Scottish F1 drivers have British as their nationality in the infobox, beside the link to the Super Licence page. It should stay that way with all of the British drivers. Boothy m (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as with most sports, the sporting nationality of an F1 driver is the only one that matters. Which is why Max Verstappen is listed as Dutch, despite being born in Belgium, and Nico Rosberg being listed as German, despite being half-Finnish. All F1 drivers competed under British flag, not the English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish flags, and so that flag is of little importance. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note that, and to avoid confusion, has, despite my personal request to them, removed the "infobox person" template from the Tom Price article even though this discussion is still ongoing. That template had been in the article for 11 months, and its presence is mentioned in this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This entire section is a crass exercise in discussion forking. This issue does raise good questions, but the discussion already well underway at the Tom Pryce page is a perfectly fine venue for working these out. The Pryce situation is a very nicely encapsulated exemplar of the issues raised and can easily be used as a template once things have been thoroughly thrashed out there. Please don't waste people's time by requiring that they say everything twice. Pyrop e  12:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with having Nationality = Welsh in the Biog Infobox, and 'Sporting Code' + Union Jack F1 Infobox, as he certainly did drive for Britain / uk. This is the 'compromise' refered to on the Pryce Talk page.
 * Agree with Pyrope that this is a fork. Sian EJ (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As has been explained both here and at Tom Pryce's talk page, the readers only see one infobox, not two, even if it's code as two nested ones. That difference is not clear and thus it creates confusion. It's obvious that those supporting the inclusion of Welsh in the infobox are clinging desperately to that "infobox person" code because it's the only argument they have in favor of their stance. And including code solely for this purpose solely in that article is just poor editorial practice.Tvx1 19:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. 'Poor editorial practice' (User:Tvx) is the sensoring of information about the person. You suggest that a clear difference is made between the person and the driver in the infobox. suggested something similar on Pryce's Talk page. It can be done simply by stating:
 * Nationality = Welsh
 * Licence / Passport / Citizenship = British.
 * but to sensor one or the other in the infobox equates to bias and providing the reader with mis-information. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are utterly hilarious. Firstly because his Welshness is celebrated throughout the article. Secondly, because you are apparently unable to even spell censorship. Nothing is being censored here. Stop seeing this a personal thing.Tvx1 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I cannot see how it is censoring to leave out irrelevant information. Wales is not a nation state, so it is ridiculous to enter "Welsh" under nationality. There is no bias there, it is simply the fact of the matter. There might be Welsh people who do not like that fact (and plenty of Scottish or Catalan ones at that), but Wikipedia is not the place to fight out those arguments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Just noticed this. There is no reason to have an Infobox person because there's effectively nothing in it. It would only exist to make a point. The F1 infobox suffices in all cases. Where two nationalities exist (Romain Grosjean, Nico Rosberg) then the sporting nationality (or whatever term you choose to use) goes in the infobox, and any other nationalities are explained in the prose, usually the lead. Once we start having dual or supposed "preferred" nationalities in the infobox, we risk confusing the reader and creating a precedent for relative chaos across F1 driver articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - I've no objections to making an exemption for Tom Pryce if such an exemption includes all British racers. I do oppose the 'self-identification' argument for these articles. The F1 should be the decider of racers nationality. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The flag is likely to be taken as nation of birth, which it isn't (necessarily), & that's likely to create confusion. There's enough ignorance out there now; let's not add to it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  16:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"Formula One" or "Formula 1"

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, per the discussion below–it is clear that the discussion will not result in consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time. Dekimasu よ! 18:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

PM here,
 * Formula One → Formula 1
 * 2018 Formula One World Championship → 2018 Formula 1 World Championship
 * 2019 Formula One World Championship → 2019 Formula 1 World Championship

I've been looking over the various sources that we use in articles and once again I find myself wondering whether "Formula One" or "Formula 1" is the best title to use. The only source I can find that consistently uses "Formula One" is the FIA website, for things such as entry lists and official documentation. While FIA sources are important because they're generally definitive, WP:COMMONNAME argues that article titles should use the name most commonly presented in third-party sources. Autosport uses "Formula 1", as does Speedcafe and formula1.com, three of the major sources that we use. Looking at the reference list for the championship article (currently semi-protected, so I cannot get the URLs), motorsport.com, Sky Sports, the BBC, ESPN and Autoweek all use "Formula 1". It's common to every major source that we use. In addition&mdash;and this is more of a supplementary point&mdash;the support "formula" categories all use numbers rather than words: Formula 2, Formula 3 and Formula 4. So I think "Formula 1" is much more representative for the championship than "Formula 1.129.105.195 (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Hhkohh (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi PM. 1) if you still can't remember your password, why don't you create a new named account rather than the continuously changing IP addresses that your ISP gives you? That way your contribution history will become accessible again (and we'll be able to ping you, etc. again ;-) ). 2) I agree that we should use the terminology most prevalent in the reliable sources, and not necessarily that of the sport's governing body. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I support PM's position. "Formula One" is not a common name and it breaks similarity with other Formula categories. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't have a strong opinion on this. Wouldn't even say the FIA is "definitive". They do the rules, but everything to do with marketing (and therefore naming) is done through Formula One Management, who, as PM pointed out, use "Formula 1" (except in their own name ironically). Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, they're not traditional sources, but advertisers&mdash;such as broadcasters&mdash;use "Formula 1". And when you turn the television on to watch a Grand Prix session, "Formula 1" is the name used. 1.129.108.4 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @, @, @ &mdash; I think it's worth moving championship articles and Formula One to new titles that use the 1. Identifying uses of the "One" in prose will probably be harder. The first thing we would have to do is to figure out if there was ever a time when "One" was used, and if so, when it changed to "1". 1.129.108.220 (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest waiting at least a week before moving any pages, to make sure there is consensus for the change. Assuming that by "championship articles", you mean the season summary articles, I would also point out that the last time season article titles were discussed (in August/September 2017), the consensus was for them to be called "YYYY Formula One World Championship", not "YYYY Formula 1 World Championship". You will need to demonstrate that there is consensus for this to be changed. DH85868993 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with DH85868993. Wait until this discussion goes quiet, and then get a formal close. That way any declared consensus will be better documented and more likely to be respected. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

True, but there were multiple issues discussed at the time. The reason I'm proposing "1" instead of "One" now is because I felt it wasn't really discussed at length the way the other issues were. I'm simply outlining the extent of the usage of "One" so that uninvolved editors can get involved. 1.129.108.220 (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was discussed at length much more recently (in march 2018) resulting in a clear consensus in favor of the usage of "one". Tvx1 14:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tvx1. I thought the topic had been discussed more recently than September 2017, but my quick search through the WT:F1 archive didn't pick up the March 2018 discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought this topic sounded familiar. I don't see a compelling new argument to change the consensus from last time. QueenCake (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As we know, consensus can change though. The policy at WP:TITLE tells us "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles." If we cannot agree which is most prevalent in the reliable sources, then we should use those listed principles to choose between "1" or "One". As "1" or "One" does not affect how precisely it identifies the subject, how natural it is or how distinguishable or recognisable it is, then it's down to shortness and resemblance to similar article titles. "1" is certainly the shorter, and looking at other Formula articles it seems numbers are more prevalent than words. So I would still say it should be "1". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * However, you yourself have provided clear evidence in the linked discussion that “one” is clearly most prevalent.Tvx1 19:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But was it accepted as compelling then and would it be accepted as compelling here, now? Here I highlighted an alternative and objective process that could be used if we can't agree on what the most prevalent name in the reliable sources is. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It probably comes down to personal choice, given they are used interchangeably. With the status quo having prevailed since at least July 2002 when the Formula 1 redirect was established, am leaning to leaving as it as "One". Fecotank (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That redirect was made in the early days of Wikipedia. The F1 project grew very quickly, and a lot of decisions were made very quickly that were not necessarily accurate. I would not read too much into it. 1.129.108.158 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, why is @ expected to maintain a consistent position? If we're all locked into a position, we'll never get anything done because nobody would be able to persuade anyone of anything.
 * Secondly, the evidence you cite was an analysis of Google search results for variations of a specific phrase: "2018 Formula One World Championship". I'm talking about the concept of Formula 1 as a whole. 1.129.108.158 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But I am being consistent. Now, as before, and as I said above, I agree that we should use the terminology most prevalent in the reliable sources. Whether that be "1" or "One". The problem is identify which is the most prevalent. If we can't agree on that, the fallback is to use the principles from WP:TITLE that I listed above. This shouldn't be about personal preference, it should be based on Wiki policies and guidelines and as objective as possible. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; I know you're being consistent. It just felt like your previous comments on the subject were being presented as "well, you said this last time, but now you're saying that" as if it invalidated your position.
 * @ &mdash; I know you're being consistent. It just felt like your previous comments on the subject were being presented as "well, you said this last time, but now you're saying that" as if it invalidated your position.


 * I also think it's worth considering that the sport consistently chooses to represent itself as "Formula 1". If we cannot distinguish between "1" and "One" based on sources (although I think we can, since "1" is more frequently used as far as I can tell), we should consider what the sport says its name is. "Formula 1" is recognisable because the subject of the article is concrete rather than abstract. The reader can turn the television on and see "Formula 1" writ large on the screen. 1.129.108.72 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

PM, can you please clarify the full extent of proposed changes? From reading the above, my impression is that the proposal involves (in the fullness of time) replacing "Formula One" with "Formula 1" pretty much throughout English Wikipedia (except obviously, in direct quotes, or where the words "Formula One" are part of an official name, e.g. we wouldn't change Formula One Group to Formula 1 Group, etc). For example, does it include: Since the proposal potentially affects thousands of articles, I think it's important that everyone understands exactly what is being discussed. DH85868993 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all article titles (except for official names, as described above)?
 * changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all category names?
 * changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all template names?
 * changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all template text?
 * changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all prose (except for direct quotes, official names, etc)?
 * moving WikiProject Formula One to WikiProject Formula 1?
 * @ &mdash; I would start with article titles. I think that is the most visible way of representing the sport. Categories and templates would be on a case-by-case basis; of the two, templates would probably be more important. It might be worth investigating the possibility of setting up a bot to move them, but I think it will involve much less work than I am anticipating. Prose would be nice, but next to impossible and I think there are bigger concerns (for example, George Russell's article reads like a thriller novel in places). The style is also inconsistent across articles. I don't really see the need to move the WikiProject because it's more of a behind-the-scenes part of Wikipedia. 1.129.111.247 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the clarification. DH85868993 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bonus question for extra marks: If Formula One was moved to Formula 1, would you also update all occurrences of "Formula One" in that article to "Formula 1", for consistency with the article title? (And likewise for other moved articles, e.g. if 2018 Formula One World Championship was moved to 2018 Formula 1 World Championship, would you update the text to say "The 2018 Formula 1 Championship was ... the 69th running of the Formula 1 World Championship"?) DH85868993 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; ideally, yes, and there are some articles like Formula One where it has to happen. But I feel there is more scope to use the "1" and the "One" interchangably in prose than there is to use them interchangably in article titles. 1.129.111.101 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added tags to Formula One, 2018 Formula One World Championship and 2019 Formula One World Championship to advise readers of the proposed move. (I remember that last time the season summary articles were moved, at least one editor complained that they had been totally unaware of the proposed move until after it occurred). I selected these three articles as the "highest profile" affected articles, but I have no objection if others want add tags to other articles. DH85868993 (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose move - There's no compelling reason for such a massive upheaval that flies in the face of years of stability, especially since redirects can handle any confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think this would just provoke a colossal amount of work for no benefit. It doesn't improve the readability at the articles in any way. I haven't seen any reader complain about the use of "one" on any "formula one" talk page. Moreover, the evidence from the previous discussion demonstrates a massively higher usage of "one" than "1". I just don't see the compelling reason to change something that ultimately makes little, if any, difference.Tvx1 16:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, the whole tagging of the articles was mess. The tags were added by a bot, not you as you claim, and refer to the talk page of Formula One instead of here. On that talk page there are then two sections on the matter. I have tried to clean it up somewhat.Tvx1 16:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't personally add the tags, but I added the requested move template, which resulted in the tags being added. Regarding the tags referring to Talk:Formula One, I was just following the instructions at Requested moves which state that the template should be placed on the talk page on one of the affected articles. Thank you and Hhkohh for tidying up. DH85868993 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose Not a strong view against, but a practical reason: possible confusion between 1 and I. Why ask for trouble? One isn't so wrong.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  19:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No compelling reason to change from one to the other and undertake a vast amount of work to accomplish nothing. Keep the status quo. Incidentally, had Formula 1 been the original format, I would have supported keeping that status quo, but it isn't, so I don't... QueenCake (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for most of the reasons already given, change for the sake of change with no material benefit. Fecotank (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Despite what the nominator says, some sources use the current tile. Like The Guardian, which is used as a reference in the article.  Calidum   07:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So do ESPN and the BBC.  Calidum   07:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the point though is, per WP:COMMONNAME, which way is more prevalent across all the reliable sources available. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That information can already be found in the previous discussion from March in linked to. The usage of "one" is vastly superior to the usage of "1". The former is used roughly twice as much.Tvx1 15:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't looking at whether "Formula One" or "Formula 1" was more common, it was looking at whether "2018 Formula One World Championship", "2018 Formula 1 World Championship", "2018 FIA Formula One World Championship" or "2018 FIA Formula 1 World Championship" was more common for the name of the season article. And its validity wasn't generally agreed anyway. There have been a whole lot more sources created since then too, and there seems to be a feeling that the trend is moving in favour of "Formula 1". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And the move of season articles is exactly what is being discussed here. So that general general unbiased search which resulted in over 50 000 results for the title combinations with "one" against only half of that for "1" is very relevant and due to the massive difference very meaningful. Only one user, who quite strongly objected to the removal of "FIA", called in question and the flaw in their doubt was already pointed out back then.Tvx1 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Modifying that search to match this discussion we get:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Search string !! Count for "All" !! Count for "News"
 * - style="text-align: right;"
 * "Formula One" || 62,000,000 || 8,750,000
 * - style="text-align: right;"
 * "Formula 1" || 172,000,000 || 67,200,000
 * }
 * -- DeFacto (talk). 16:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how anyone can argue with those numbers. Especially since the results of a similar carried weight last time. 1.129.105.214 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , I'm not sure we have agreed yet which ("One" or "1") is used most often in the reliable sources. Without knowing that it's hard to justify a policy-based reason for a name change. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * that's why we should use WP:TITLE as a guide. 1.129.107.215 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "1" is probably more prevalent than "One," but not definitively so, and I don't see that we gain anything by putting forth a significant amount of effort to change it. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: @ &mdash; that's where WP:TITLE comes in; as @ pointed out, the policy states "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles." The use of "1" arguably fits this better. 1.129.107.215 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply That's just your personal opinion, and no one seems to agree with it. In reality, "one" and "1" are just as recognizable.Tvx1 14:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well let's look at them one at a time: "it is short" - there's not much between them there but "1" is undeniably shorter, "natural" - again a close call, "distinguishable" - nothing in it, "recognizable" - both very similar, "resembles titles for similar articles" - ah we break the deadlock with this one, similar articles for other formulas use numbers. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think it's more recogniseable, especially if we look beyond the traditional sources. The sport itself uses the "1" as do advertising and television guides. "Formula 1" is itself a trademark; I believe Hotel Formule 1 had to change their name to avoid infringing on it. 1.129.105.214 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: "it's too much work" is a pretty lousy excuse, especially given that "1" fits better under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE. You cannot just ignore policy because it's inconvenient. 1.129.107.215 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply The argument is not "it's too much work", the argument is "it's a lot of work for all but no gain". "One" or "1" does not make any difference to the lay reader. It's just a difference of style.Tvx1 14:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: We can and should ignore policy when it requires a large amount of effort in exchange for literally zero gain. I would strongly suggest that you attempt to justify this change without using wiki policy as a crutch. It's not possible. And disregarding that point - if anything, we've only seen people show that "One" is the more prevalent spelling. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * which they have only achieved by selectively presenting articles and complaining that the change sounds too much like hard work. The only sources cited were Tvx1 citing a previous discussion where a different term was used and Calidum presenting sources that used the digit and word interchangably. As for the "literally zero gain" the proposed changes would bring articles in line with how the sport represents itself and would be a better fit to the wider context of open-wheel racing on Wikipedia. 1.129.107.140 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite on the contrary, you're the one selectively presenting sources using "1". The previous discussion contained a general unbiased search which resulted in over 50 000 results for the title combinations with "one" against only half of that for "1". That difference is more than massive enough to be meaningful. I don't know how a commonname can be much clearer than that.Tvx1 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out, WP:TITLE says the following:
 * "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles."

Given that we have multiple sources that vary between the digit and the word, there are clearly multiple possibilities. We must thus use the name that is short, natural, distinguishable and recogniseable.

These are the images that the sport has used for over thirty years. The 1 is clearly the shortest, most natural, most distinguishable and most recogniseable name. Furthermore, numbers are used in FIA Formula 2 Championship, FIA Formula 3 Championship and every single Formula 4 championship, which means that the use of the 1 "resembles titles for similar articles". Can anyone refute this? Or are you just going to ignore one of Wikipedia's most important policies because it's too hard? 1.129.107.81 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From those, it looks like we should be considering "F1" as an alternative too. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; but in that case it's not clear what the "F" means. 1.129.107.81 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy says "short" not "shortest". Even with "one" it is short since the official name would include "FIA" as well. Secondly even with "one" it is easily distinguishable and recognizable. There is absolutely no major problem with the current titles.Tvx1 14:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is only one Formula One championship, as opposed to F2 and F3 where there are European championships and such. Should a new Formula One championship come about, I would support. Admanny (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not correct. It might have been thirty years ago, but there is no longer a European Formula 3 or Formula 3 Euroseries either; just one Formula 3 championship. 1.129.107.81 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At least an alternate championship existed. Has there been an alternate F1 championship? If the answer is no, I am opposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admanny (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, British Formula One Championship. Even if it used a different set of rules, it still called itself a Formula 1 championship. 1.129.105.74 (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, there used to be a British Formula One Championship and a South African Formula One Championship.Tvx1 00:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
Perhaps the "all or nothing" approach is the wrong way to go about this. As @ pointed out, the change potentially affects article titles, templates, categories and prose. Maybe we should be evaluating the individual changes. 1.129.107.215 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, whatever consensus is reached should apply across the board. Selectively applying it is not the answer. This appears to be a last throw of the dice, given that it is fairly clear there is little support for the proposed change. Fecotank (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "This appears to be a last throw of the dice"
 * And your comments appear to be little more than an attempt to shut down a proposal that you don't like. If people agree to change the name in some situations, why shouldn't that consensus be observed? 1.129.107.81 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * this is now a formal move discussion, and only applies to the titles (though not necessarily any of the content) of the three articles mentioned in the listing: Formula One, 2018 Formula One season and 2019 Formula One season. If the consensus is to rename, then, of course, changes might percolate through into the prose, etc. and trigger move discussions for other articles, templates, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @, @ &mdash; I'm open to the idea that context might give us some leeway in how we approach things. Given the conventions of WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, I think we have to rename articles. But does that mean we have to do it for, say, categories? Their function is really to sort articles, so arguably they're less important than article titles. If we really wanted to change them in every article, we could set up a bot. Likewise, there is no uniform style for prose in articles&mdash;sometimes "1" is used and other times "One" is used. In some articles it's inconsistent within the prose; Sergey Sirotkin uses "tenth" and "13th". Do we want a uniform style or is there scope for variation? If we just consider the "all or nothing" approach, we have no opportunity to even consider these. 1.129.107.81 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We have a style guide on the use of numbers. This isn't applicable to the main thrust of the topic because Formula One is a name. But for the second point, both tenth or 10th are acceptable per the MOS, but the choice should be consistent within one article. QueenCake (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There already is a formal move discussion underway regarding article titles, so I really don't understand the purpose of this side-track.Tvx1 14:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the proposed changes do not just affect article titles. They could affect prose, categories and templates, to name a few. Up until now, people have taken an "all or nothing" approach&mdash;that if we change article titles, then we have to change the prose, categories and templates, too. That may be a deterrant to some people who would otherwise agree with some changes. So I am wondering if there is an appetite to change just the titles, or change the titles and templates while leaving the categories and prose alone, or any one of half a dozen combinations. 1.129.105.74 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It seems a bit premature to close this discussion given that some people never got the chance to respond to developing arguments, such as the count of the Google search results. 1.129.104.7 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As above, it is clear that the current discussion will not result in consensus to move the pages. Those who already expressed views are not required to return to agree to or rebut each subsequent point, and the discussion was open for more than ten days. If you believe the close to be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI, please feel free to raise the issue at Move review. However, it seems evident that we would make more progress on improving the encyclopedia by focusing on other areas for a while. Dekimasu よ! 21:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They may not be required to return, but when you close a discussion after just three days, it hardly gives people the chance to respond, especially as new lines of argument open up. 1.129.104.218 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Grand Prix results
Is "Complete International Formula 3000 results" section correct in Jordan Grand Prix results? Would not it be better to put it in the main article, by the name "Grand Prix"? Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry
I have some pretty serious issues with the Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry article as I think the entire article flirts dangerously close to breaking WP:NPOV. I would have serious reservations about using any source from the British media regarding Hamilton because they are, in my view, completely biased. Seriously, compare the coverage Hamilton&mdash;or any British driver for that matter&mdash;gets in the British press to the coverage he gets from the international press and there is a noticeable difference, such as Andrew Benson suggesting Hamilton would be justified in crashing into Rosberg to win a title and then crucifying Vettel for actually deliberately hitting Hamilton.

Any British-based coverage of a British driver should be critically reviewed. 1.129.109.139 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It depends on whether we are talking about facts or opinions in the article. Facts should be okay from British (assuming they pass the WP:RS test) sources. Opinion, on the other hand, needs to be carefully attributed as whose opinion it is, and controversial opinions might need to be balanced with opinions from other sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; in theory, yes, but not always in practice. For example, Hamilton triggered controversy this week when he called his hometown a slum. The only coverage on Autosport was an opinion piece defending him; if Autosport was your only source and you don't pay for premium coverage, you would not even know it happened. By not reporting it, they are shaping perception of him.


 * Or look at George Russell. He took a lot of criticism for his complaint about Artem Markelov's move at Monza (Markelov saw him coming and backed off to let him pass into Parabolica, then used DRS down the main straight), but it went unreported in the British press. Or Dan Ticktum. He is celebrated as the Next British Hope by commentators who condemned Vettel for driving into Hamilton in Azerbaijan&mdash;commentators who make no mention of Ticktum ignoring a safety car to deliberately crash into Ricky Collard.


 * The point is that what isn't mentioned by sources is just as important as what is. And given the markedly different coverage of British drivers in general (and Hamilton in particular) between the British press and the international press, I think serious questions have to be asked because the Btitish press quite clearly favour Hamilton and do articles like his so-called "rivalry" with Rosberg are questionable because the sources don't even try to be neutral. 1.144.108.226 (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure bias, and even prejudices exist in the press, but it works both ways. You could equally have argued that we should avoid the non-British press as they are biased against Hamilton (perhaps your preference to argue the other way reflects your own bias?). The trick is to find the balance and to correctly attribute opinion as opinion (such as the one you mentioned about Hamilton's remark) to allow readers to judge for themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sure each country's media endlessly supports their own drivers. I've just never seen it to the extent that the British media do it. When Autosport's only coverage of Hamilton's "slum" comments is an impassioned op-ed whereas the Australian media report it as news, something is afoot. If you think I'm being specious, look at the British coverage of Hamilton's "slum" comment compared to the coverage of Jeremy Corbyn calling Theresa May a "stupid woman".


 * The point I am trying to make is that articles rely on balanced sources to maintain neutrality&mdash;but sources are becoming less balanced. I sometimes wonder what would happen if Hamilton was caught smothering puppies; a part of me suspects that the British media (and not just The Daily Mail) would run the headline THE PUPPIES HAD IT COMING. How many times have we had to undo edits based on Autosport headlines that apparently confirm something like a driver move, but the body of the article makes it clear they've got nothing? 1.144.108.46 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * All opinion pieces are exactly that - opinion, and that some do not agree with your bias does not mean that they are wrong. Also, editorial integrity about what is factual news and what is using out-of-context quotes for sensationalising or scandalising effect is one of the things that differentiates between reliable and non-reliable sources.


 * And no, articles do not (and indeed cannot) rely on balanced sources for opinions, they must rely on editors striking an NPOV balance (taking account of due weight) between the views and opinions made across the breadth of reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with @, while some British sources may provide more bias towards Hamilton in some scenarios, some non-British sources may also add some negative bias in the way they report on the driver, and so the role falls upon editors to strike a NPOV balance from using a range of these sources. -- Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * When reporting on the contest between a British driver and a German (eg Hamilton and Vettel), I would be more inclined to pick an international source that is neither British or German. Look at the way the start line accident in Singapore last year was reported: Sky immediately blamed Vettel for the accident, even though Vettel would somehow have to be able to have a pair of eyes in the back of his head that could see Verstappen coming through Räikkönen's car. This isn't a recent phenomenon, and I have to admit that I get quite frustrated watching the races when I see one thing happening, but am told something else by journalists with an agenda. It's starting to infect the junior categories and it's getting to the point where I don't trust the British media when the subject is a British driver. Look at Autosport's Top 50 Drivers of 2018&mdash;I guarantee you that Hamilton is #1 even though the likes of Sébastien Ogier and Scott McLaughlin had to fight much harder for their titles. 1.144.111.7 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You do know Formula One cars have mirrors right? As I've already said, I agree that there is bias, however, we should include a range of sources to achieve NPOV, not just dismiss all British sources for an 'international source' as you described, and there are definitely better examples of bias than Singapore. NPOV is still achievable without boycotting all British media because you personally "don't trust" them. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with, and like I have said, opinion needs to be fully attributed and balanced with the views of other reliable sources - and not suppressed because of the country of origin of the media that carried it. All opinion is biased, we cannot just pick or eliminate sources because of their particular bias as that completely conflicts with [[WP:NPOV:Wiki policy]]. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * IP 1.144.111.7, you are free to choose to watch, listen to or read just the media that more closely matches your particular bias if you like, but Wikipedia is committed to providing a duly-weighted balance, so editors are obliged to take all opinions into account. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; we already rely heavily on Autosport as a source ("Autosport or it didn't happen" is an attitude easily found amidst other online communities). Maybe too heavily. How many times have we seen them run a story like this where the title suggests a significant piece of news, but the body of the article reveals that nothing has been announced? They have a bad habit of using phrasing like "Autosport understands ..." to justify publishing a story in advance of an announcement. Between that and their failure to report on criticisms and controversies related to British drivers, we might need to reconsider just how extensively we use Autosport as a source. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * IP 1.144.111.130, why? Are you continually finding factual inaccuracies in their output? I think what you are saying is, not that the source is unreliable, but that that some Wiki editors are misusing it and stating opinion or speculation as if it were fact. It's fine to say (depending on the context in an article) that "Autosport are reporting that an announcement that X will drive for Y is expected next week" Autosport, but certainly not to say that "X will drive for Y" (Autosport) . -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I do agree with your sentiment about the concern about bias from some sources creeping into the article and for these reasons, I'd appreciate some help in rewriting parts of the article with the use of a wider range of sources to achieve more balance and less POV. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I placed a courtesy notice regarding this discussion on Talk:Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that this article was deleted by unanimous agreement at AFD before, I have nominated it again.Tvx1 14:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the NPOV issue I'm talking about:
 * "Some journalists  [ weasel words ]  have contrasted the drivers' upbringings. [why is this important?] Rosberg, an only child, was born in Germany but brought up in Monaco and was the son of the wealthy former Formula One world champion, Keke Rosberg, [how did this make Rosberg a better driver?] whereas Hamilton was born on a council estate in Stevenage, and his father had to work multiple jobs to fund his son's junior racing. [so what?] Formula One pundit and commentator Will Buxton [the start of the paragraph mentions "some journalists", implying many, but this only offers one journalist's view] compared the character and driving styles of the pair, [how is he objectively measuring this?] labelling Hamilton as the faster driver with more natural ability [can this be quantified and how does it manifest on-track?] while labelling Rosberg, while not as quick, as the more intelligent driver. [can this be quantified and how does it manifest on-track?]"

The entire purpose of this paragraph appears to be to set up a narrative of Rosberg being the privileged son of a former champion and Hamilton the plucky Brit who fought tooth and nail to rise above his station in life. Sound familiar? It's the basic plot of Rush.

How Hamilton and Rosberg's respective upbringings shaped their driving styles and rivalry is not discussed. While it is sourced, the source is a single opinion piece that offers no verifiable way of evaluating the two. Given that the importance of their upbringings is never established, the paragraph appears to serve no purpose other than to get the reader to support Hamilton because his personal history is far more sympathetic than Rosberg's. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So IP 1.144.111.130, show us, from reliable sources, an equal weight of equally notable commentators that agree with your take on this, and you have a point. Otherwise, per WP:NPOV, the article does reflect the balance of reliable and notable opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any reliable sources that measure the impact of Hamilton and Rosberg's upbringings on their performances on the track. Nor can I find any sources that show their upbringings were a source of tension between them, thus fuelling their rivalry. Thus, I cannot establish the relevance of the paragraph to the article and so could reasonably cut it from the article without negatively affecting it. It does not matter if it is well-sourced and reflects the balance of reliable and notable opinion if it fails in its premise that their upbringings directly shaped their performance. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It adds context, and is reliably sourced, though, perhaps, not adequately attributed, and should probably be in the body, rather than in the lead which should summarise the article rather than have content not explored in the rest of the article.
 * But we are moving off-topic here, which was exploring whether British sources were all unreliable wrt this topic, which I think we've shown not to be the case. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But we are moving off-topic here, which was exploring whether British sources were all unreliable wrt this topic, which I think we've shown not to be the case. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "It adds context, and is reliably sourced, though, perhaps, not adequately attributed"
 * It might add context, but it would need to be rewritten to have any value. Look at the paragraph on their early careers where they used to race each other at everything, even eating pizza. That establishes a competitive streak between them, but the paragraph in the lead does not. Even if it is used for context, it needs to have some direct relevance to the topic. Otherwise, it's less than neutral. The paragraph portrays Rosberg as the privileged son of a former driver&mdash;and look at the reputations of other sons of former drivers or those from a privileged background: you've got Nelson Piquet Jnr., Lance Stroll, Kazuki Nakajima, Sergey Sirotkin, Marcus Ericsson and countless other pay drivers. All of them have been criticised as people with more money than talent who bought their way onto the grid at the expense of someone more deserving and weren't missed when they left. Meanwhile, Hamilton had to fight tooth and nail to make it into the sport; he's the naturally-talented driver, the apogee who would normally be overlooked in favour of someone with the healthiest bank balance and his story solidifies him as the peoples' champion and a legend of the sport before he has even turned a wheel. The entire paragraph is written in such a way that it gets the audience to side with Hamilton.


 * "But we are moving off-topic here, which was exploring whether British sources were all unreliable wrt this topic, which I think we've shown not to be the case."
 * So you're okay relying heavily on a publication in the habit of not reporting controversy or criticism regarding British drivers and prematurely reporting events? For a less-established source, this would be setting off alarm bells as to its reliability.


 * Look at George Russell in Monza. He was catching Artem Markelov, who slowed down just enough to let him pass into the Parabolica, but not so much that he lost the use of DRS down the main straight, and he re-passed Russell going into the chicane. It was a clever bit of driving, a perfectly legal move and executed safely, but Russell complained about it afterwards. One of the team principals&mdash;not Strelnikova if I remember rightly&mdash;was critical of Russell for not anticipating Markelov fighting back and for not thinking ahead the way Markelov did. It was a valid criticism, because it suggested that Russell had yet to fully mature as a driver and his racecraft was under-developed. Where did you see that story on Autosport? You didn't, because Autosport chose not to report on it. It becomes a problem when we rely on Autosport as extensively as we do because it introduces NPOV issues. It doesn't help that motorsport.com is a sister publication and everything is reposted there. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually Hamilton did not have to "fight tooth and nail to make it into the sport". He came from a simple upbringing and his father had to make quite an effort to make it work, but he was actually put in the McLaren Young drivers programme at an early age and once there was quite privileged. It culminated in him being allowed to make his debut straight away with McLaren capable of fighting for the title. There are many drivers who had a much more difficult path in the sport than him. Many have to work all the way after starting with a back marker.Tvx1 12:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@ &mdash; I know that, but the article suggests differently:
 * "Hamilton was born on a council estate in Stevenage, and his father had to work multiple jobs to fund his son's junior racing."
 * "Hamilton was signed to McLaren's young driver support programmein 1998, after he famously approached McLaren team principal Ron Dennis at an awards ceremony three years earlier."

These are the only two mentions of Hamilton's up bringing in the article. It implies that his path to Formula 1 was much more difficult than it actually was, especially compared to Rosberg:
 * "Rosberg, an only child, was born in Germany but brought up in Monaco and was the son of the wealthy former Formula One world champion, Keke Rosberg."

It implies that Rosberg used his father's name, wealth and connections to break into the sport whereas Hamilton had to endure hardship to realise his dream. The entire paragraph casts Hamilton as the more sympathetic of the two, which bresks NPOV. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * IP 1.144.108.197, it only breaks POV if it is saying something that the balance of reliable sources disagrees with. Can you show that to be the case? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * IP 1.144.108.197 You are inferring and extracting far more from the text than is actually there. As has already pointed out, Hamilton didn't have to fight "tooth and nail" for his seat in Formula One, and the paragraph does not imply that. If you believe it should be rewritten then make alterations, but you appear to be reading far more than is actually there and wasting time sharing your imagination here. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hunt-Lauda rivalry
Hunt-Lauda rivalry has been nominated for deletion. Any comments are welcome on the discussion page.Tvx1 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a little surprised this ended in keep. Clearly, if you look at WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is plenty there to argue it should be dealt with in the respective articles. But well, I am too late to the party... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Formula One driver numbers
Whilst looking at List of Formula One driver numbers I noticed that someone has placed in the 2019 numbers for the new drivers (88 for Kubica etc.) Do we think this is a good idea considering they are yet to race with these numbers, 88 hasn't been used by Kubica yet and 63 hasn't been used full stop. Personally I don't think the numbers should be included until after they have actually raced under the number and therefore the 2019 numbers should be removed (including the fact that it says the number 44 (for example) was last used in 2019, despite 2019 not even having started yet.) But what do you guys think. SSSB (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems right to remove them. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those new number have officially been assigned to them by the FIA and appear on the latest entry list. I can can‘t see the problem with listing them. However, listing them as "used in 2019" is not correct at this time.Tvx1 21:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As everyone in this discussion thinks the race numbers should not be featured until they have actually been used I have removed them and added a comment explaining that the numbers should not be included until they have been used in a race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I made a mistake there. I don’t think they should be removed as long as the information is factually correct.Tvx1 18:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think including the race numbers for 2019 now could be misleading as they haven't been used in 2019 and some haven't been used at all, perhaps a separate list of numbers that have been confirmed but havn't been used by the driver yet? but I suppose that can easily be found in the article. SSSB (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Formula One drivers from Thailand
In anticipation of Alexander Albon becoming the second driver from Thailand I have created Draft:Formula One drivers from Thailand. Any interested editors are welcome to contribute, please note that as the article won't be moved to the main space until after the 2019 Australian Grand Prix takes place the draft is written to reflect that which is why it says Albon is a current driver. SSSB (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that we should have the article. What evidence is there that this subject is independently notable? There only have been two Thai drivers. Surely all important information can be dealt with in their articles.Tvx1 00:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at List of Formula One drivers, every nation with at least two drivers has a separate article. That's probably the justification here. 1.144.107.242 (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the bar is probably set far too low. Neither WP:OTHERSTUFF nor WP:ALLORNOTHING are justification for creating an article. If the only motivation for creating an article is to turn all text in a table in a related article blue then we're going down the wrong road. We have policy a subject most fulfill to merit an article and I think this doesn't.Tvx1 16:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

When to update the importance of articles
On the Wikiproject's Importance Scale it says the importance of certain articles depends on if the subject of the article is currently active in F1, whilst I am not opposed to this I saw that on WikiProject Formula One/Updates it does not say when to update the importance for the new season (ie when does Vandoorne's importance go from high to low?) Personally, I think it should be after 00:00 UTC on 1 January. Any thoughts? SSSB (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. DH85868993 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added it to WikiProject Formula One/Updates to be updated in the new year and have updated the importance for the upcoming season. SSSB (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Formula One wet weather races nominated for deletion
List of Formula One wet weather races has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Improve Constructor/Team Navbox
I think it would help and benefit the articles if the team/constructor Navbox layout got improved into something a lot more tidy and easier to read, I'd be willing to change all the Navbox's once we come up with a new layout. We've used the current layout for years and going into the new year I thought it would be the perfect time to improve them. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay ... do you have any ideas as to what needs changing? 1.129.106.255 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that there are actually two formats currently in use. Some (like Haas F1 Team) use the (older) "centred" format:


 * while others (like Scuderia Ferrari) use the "group" format:


 * DH85868993 (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I was actually going to suggest a layout similar to the one used by the Scuderia Ferrari template. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't support that. I think the center-aligned layout is much easier to read and I think the left-aligned version used too much color for purely decorative reasons.Tvx1 20:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the amount of colour used in that template, plus the Scuderia Ferrari layout looks a lot more professional in my opinion. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's at odds with Wikipedia's guidelines. MOS:ACCESS in particular. Colors should never be used for purely decorative reasons. In some of these cases the text becomes barely readable. And the effect is different for people with different kinds of colorblindness. Aesthetics is never a priority, accessibility is. The center-aligned scheme is just much much more readable.Tvx1 00:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The centre layout can be difficult to read especially when it comes to the much older teams which have more article links. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why they cannot be left-aligned without using the colours. Left alignment is probably better since we're trained to read left to right, top to bottom. The middle alignment interferes with that process. 1.129.109.49 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically that's possible of course. However, if you look at the above example, the Haas version is much more readable than the Ferrari version.Tvx1 15:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so quick to attribute that solely to the alignment of the text. The Ferrari version is significantly bigger than the Haas version and uses colours where the Haas version does not. 1.144.111.140 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Then let's compare it for the Ferrari template specifically. Here's how it looked like for years before some IP unilaterally changed it without discussion:

And this is how it looks now:

I still think the center-aligned version is easier to read.Tvx1 19:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, the first thing that stands out is the sheer volume of content in those infoboxes. It's desperately in need of trimming down. The first thing I would do is get rid of the lengthly lists of cars and personnel and instead include a link to a category page. 1.144.109.92 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Racing Point Force India
reverting name "Racing Point Force India Formula One Team" which diesn't exists and making a mess because he is not changing name in the lead too. Official full name and the only name of the team is "Racing Point Force India F1 Team" which should be constantly used the same in both cases, the lead and the infobox. He refers to logo of the team which use "Formula One" but Racing Point has no logo yet (uses logo of Force India). Eurohunter (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The full name of the team is currently "Racing Point Force India Formula One Team", It will most likely be changed once the new car and team identity is revealed in February. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How? "Racing Point Force India F1 Team" is the only official name and include short for "Formula One". Eurohunter (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Racing Point Force India Formula One Team" is the teams full name. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Check source first. There is short in the full name and why you changed name only in the infobox but not in the lead too? In this case it should be reverted anyway. According to the their Facebook page both names are in use but I remember name with short was in the entry list. Eurohunter (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Both versions are being used by the team but "Racing Point Force India Formula One Team" is the full/long version which is why it's under the "Full name" section. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

British Grand Prix Official name
Hello, I recently added a section to Talk:British Grand Prix regarding the "official name" of the British GPs run in the 1970s, and would appreciate some input (and while you're there I also just added a section to the same talk page regarding the Brooklands track map used in the article, so why not have a look at that too), thanks. A7V2 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)