Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 52

Mexico City Grand Prix
There seems to be some confusion as to whether the Mexico City Grand Prix should be covered in Mexican Grand Prix or Mexico City Grand Prix (Formula One race) (Mexico City Grand Prix is already taken as a badminton event). Back when it was announced said that it should be in the same article as it was effectivly the same as a sponser change (this edit) however earlier today  created the article Mexico City Grand Prix (Formula One race). Which approach do we want to take while we wait for some sort of official indication (if we get one at all)? SSSB (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; for all intents and purposes, it is the same race. The organisers have said that the name was changed to better-promote the city. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already had a discussion with Speedy Question Mark user about this change, the last one here.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's just be clear that the discussion ended in a 1v1 disagreement about this very issue. It doesn't answer the question. SSSB (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a different GP title so I thought it would be incorrect to link it to the Mexican Grand Prix article, if the Spanish GP in Barcelona changed it's name to the "Barcelona Grand Prix" then it wouldn't make sense to still link it to the Spanish GP article for example. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The only difference between "Mexican Grand Prix" and "Mexico City Grand Prix" is six letters. Are those six letters really enough to justify an entirely new article? When the Malaysian Grand Prix was rebranded as the "Malaysia Grand Prix"&mdash;again for sponsorship purposes&mdash;we didn't feel the need to make an entirely new article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a different race title representing the region of Mexico City not the whole of Mexico. I see you're back to your old ways Prisonermonkeys removing everything before the discussion comes to a conclusion. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I see you still haven't learned not to rush in and mske changes without thinking things through. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

McLarenfan17's argument is fair. A minor change for marketing didn't need a new article with the Malaysian Grand Prix, and the even bigger change of Grand Prix de l'ACF to the Grand Prix de France, which had a bigger reason behind it, is all covered on one page. Unless most sources start treating the "Mexico City Grand Prix" as a new race (which I can confidently say they won't), there's no reason to split the article. QueenCake (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I just feel that it's incorrect to link the "Mexico City Grand Prix" to the "Mexican Grand Prix" as the new title represents the region rather than the country like I mentioned before. I don't mind if the split gets reverted due to a consensus of multiple users but I believe that they should be separate articles. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Mexico City no longer represents Mexico? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you got that conclusion, anyway I'm not here to argue. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then what are you here for? Because it seems to me that all you're doing is creating more work for everyone else. Common sense should tell you that it's the same race under a slightly different name. As has been pointed out, there is no precedent for creating a new article for something like this and that its history as the "Mexico City Grand Prix" should be written as a sub-section of the Mexican Grand Prix. It's quite clear that nobody in this discussion agrees with you on this (at best, they have no strong feelings about it) and now we've got a poorly-written stub of an article based on a single source that won't be updated for at least a year (unless something dramatic happens), all of which could have been avoided if you had floated a proposal either here or on the article talk page. What's worse is that this isn't the first time you have done something like this and nor is it the first time someone has pointed it out to you. It's certainly not the first time I have lost patience with you because you don't think. Your heart might be in the right place, but that doesn't count for much when you won't learn from your mistakes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm here to discuss this subject but if the overall consensus is to revert the edits then it honestly doesn't bother me if they are because that's how things work on here. But in my opinion it should be split off into another article as it isn't the "Mexican GP" but the "Mexico City GP", I always edit in good faith but you're always being very argumentative and I'm pretty sick of it, you make it really difficult to want to contribute to F1 articles with your rather aggressive attitude like making sly remarks at my editing skills. I know that I'm not the best editor but I try so you don't need to bite my head off if there is ever a disagreement on a subject. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "I know that I'm not the best editor but I try"
 * Do you try? Because this isn't the first time we've had this conversation. Why didn't you go to Talk:Mexican Grand Prix and make the suggestion there? Or make it here?
 * There's nothing wrong with "not being the best editor". It only becomes a problem when you don't learn from it. How do you think any of us got to be established editors? It's because we practiced. We learned what worked and kept doing it. And when it didn't work, we figured out why and how to fix it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have Dyslexia and Autism so sometimes it can be difficult for me to understand certain things so I can only apologize, anyway aren't we kind of going off topic? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear from this discussion that there is no consensus for the article as yet. If, closer to the 2020 date, more information becomes available that demonstrates the race is significantly different to the existing race, we can always revisit the issue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

What to do when a race is abandoned
There is currently a discussion at Talk:2019 Spa-Francorchamps FIA Formula 2 round about what to do with results tables in the event a race is abandoned before a result is cancelled that might be of relevance to the WikiProject. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Constructors Championship table
The constructors championship table seems to be arbitrarily arranged into "two rows per team with the highest place car entered in each race the first row and the other chassis the second row". But you can only work that out by referring back to the drivers table.

If the current format based on cars is to be retained it should be one row per chassis, irrespective of where that chassis finishes relative to the other from the same team. If the team introduces a new chassis then the team should gain an extra row per chassis.

Currently the granularity of how each constructor arrived at their points tally is lost. Renders the table useless from a team analysis perspective. Examples below referencing the format comparisons at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DH85868993/comparison

- the current format for 2017 masks the effort the Toro Rosso team went to in choosing drivers to collect points. - in 2016 only one driver / car scored points for Haas which is lost in the current format table as you can't tell which car / driver scored them. - the current format for 2016 Red Bull Racing masks the introduction of Max Verstappen to the Red Bull team, scoring their first winning constructor's points and therefore the first constructor's trophy for that season.

Similarly, in the 2019 season, currently the Haas team are running different spec cars for their drivers. GRO in Australia spec, MAG in updated specification. Someone who was aware of that fact (i.e. from another source or especially if the season summary mentions it) should be able to review the comparison (if any) in the constructor's table.

The constructors table should help tell the story of the constructor's season which it does prior to 2014 but is lost by the lack of granularity shown (especially irritating when the information is available).

I therefore suggest the introduction of one row per chassis per team indicating each result per chassis or a reversion to the driver centric style of previous years. Ei2g (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , obviously consensus can change (although we have some very stubborn editors here) but the general consensus is that it doesn't matter which car/driver scored which points in the championship. This has been discussed many times over the years as can be seen in the archives of this page. Personally I don't have much of a preference (I use StatsF1 for this) but I do see that quite a lot of editors find it confusing. This is exagerrated by the fact that in results tables prior to 2014 as well as tables for constructor and car results. Personally I think that at the very least all the seaason reports should follow the same system regardless of if they were before or after 2014. SSSB (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the response. I've read a lot of the archive discussion and it seems to miss the point of the table as per my highlighted examples. Addiotnally, the current format gives the indication that all of a team's race wins come from one car. We all know that development upgrades are not always applied equally to both cars, for example, but this table format assumes that since one can't tell which result came from which car.  It further assumes that the driver is not part of the team, it implies that the two championships are drivers and "constructors - drivers" championships, which again this isn't true look at the 2016 Toro Rosso constructor's story you can't clearly see the change in constructors points acquisition in the "official" Wikipedia table caused by the driver change but you can see in the better layout at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DH85868993/comparison . If car contribution really is immaterial the table should just be one row per team with the total points for each event.  Ei2g (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion that achieved the consensus for the current format. I think you want too look into these tables way to much. A reminder that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and not a Formula 1 fansite. Detailed analysis of the championship progress from the standings table isn't really our main concern. These tables aren't subside for prose either. The report section is what should really deal with the details of the championship endeavours of the teams. The standings table should simply present the outcome and why they finish as such. The only thing needed for that are the total point scored and the positions at the races (which are used in case of a tie on points) which are all what the FIA uses to determine the outcome. On a side note, prior to 2014 our tables weren't driver centric either. For instance in, there's no way to tell from the Constructors' standings which results were collected by Räikkönen and which results by Kovalainen.Tvx1 10:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whilst I take your point regarding RAI / KOV for 2013, it would drop the score of the table to 8/10. Whereas the 2014 table is 4/10 as I have to either refer top the driver's table or to an external source. Thanks for the links and I've read a lot of the discussion around the change in format and I can't see any merits in the idea that "we decided to change it for 2014, people complain it's confusing so they should use other websites". Your assertion of the "only thing needed" is not of direct relevance because the FIA needs numbers to run a championship and give out prizes, Wikipedia's needs numbers to explain that championship and the current format obfuscates it.  If you want "just the fact ma'am" then the prose should be removed from the articles and the two tables (in post 2014 format) should be all that each year presents. Agreed, Wikipedia is not a fansite, but the information it chooses to present should be clear. As per the F1 wikiproject's  goals "To gather complete and accurate information in all F1-related articles". The 2014 table is inaccurate as without additional explanation,  and compared to its direct predecessors, it implies a single car won 16 races whilst its sister car failed to finish 5 times.  The reality is that one car won 11 times and failed to finish 3 times and its sister car won 5 times and failed to finish twice.  This failure of presentation is purely Wikipedia's and it is easily within Wikipedia's gift to resolve to provide complete and accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ei2g (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
The last sentence or 2 above is a fair point. In all honesty I think these fairly reguaurly comments of the table is wrong (or variants there of) partially stems from the fact we jumped from one row per car to showing the results from best to worst for each team for no obvious reason (I do know and understand the reason but to me it doesn't justify a new system for only post 2014 articles just because drivers choose a number for their whole career). If there is no change in how points are awarded then (in my opinion) it makes no sense to alter the way we present the constructores table. Therefore I have 2 proposals which I think we should apply from all articles from 1980 (as this is when the current method for calculating the constructors championship started (as defined here)). I'm going to ping some editors who recently comlained about our system. , . All articles from 1980 adopt the current format of best result before worst result. (shown here) All articles from 1980 adopt the system used pre 2013, one row per car. However its important to note that it is not necessary to specify which number(s) the results below to. (shown here but my proposal doesn't include the number column) SSSB (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1
 * Proposal 2
 * Discussion

San Marino Grand Prix
Although using unofficial flags, such as the EU for European Grands Prix would be wrong, if a race is name after a country, surely it must be the right thing to use the flag of that country in the season reports regardless of which side of the border the race was actually held in? After all, San Marino is a sovereign state in its own right, the automobile association of which it was affiliated to under the FIA the formal host of the Imola races, whereas Europe or the city-name Grands Prix in the United States are not. It is a very special case to be honest and as such, I definitely think it is the only flag able to depict what a San Marino Grand Prix is, regardless of whether it is held on Italian soil or not. I would not touch any of the European Grand Prix flags even if members of the EU at the time, but keeping San Marino, Switzerland 1982 and Luxembourg 1997-98 is important since those races were affiliated to a foreign country rather than the countries in which they were ran.

Glottran (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

2021 championship
The 2021 championship article is currently in draft form. Some time ago (though I am having some trouble tracking down the the discussion) we flagged the publication of the 2021 regulations as the time to publish it. However, the full regulations have repeatedly been delayed and the draft currently has over 40 references so I feel that it has more than enough content to justify publications. I have requested publication (rather than just do it myself) because creating future articles can be controversial. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed moves
It has been proposed that 2007 Formula One espionage controversy be moved to Spygate (Formula 1). Interested editors are welcome to participate in the move discussion.

It has been proposed that Renault Formula One crash controversy be moved to Crashgate. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the move discussion.

DH85868993 (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both discussions were closed as "no consensus" (and so the articles were not moved). DH85868993 (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Cooper Ferraris
At the 1960 USA GP Pete Lovely drove a Cooper-Ferrari. At the moment wiki list the car as a Cooper T45. The OldRacingCars website states this: Delivered to F Armbruster (USA) according to the Cooper Register. Since they state the Cooper was a T51 I certainly think the car was the T51 and not the T45.


 * Here's what various sources say:
 * {|class="wikitable"


 * T45 || StatsF1, grandprix.com
 * T51 || MotorSportMagazine, ChicaneF1, OldRacingCars, Motorsportstats.com
 * }
 * }

There is some mystery behind the Ferrari engine of the Cooper T73 Chris Lawrence drove at 2 GP's in 1966. OldRacingCars says the car was fitted with a 250 GTO V12 engine (Ferrari Tipo 168 3.0 V12). The F2Register also list the car with that engine at the 1966 International Gold Cup. Same goes for StatsF1

An article about J.A. Pearce Engineering in RTLGP Magazine (No. 4 2013) states the car was actually powered by a V12 engine from Rob Walker's Ferrari 250 GT SWB Berlinetta (Ferrari Tipo 125 3.0 V12). Something Lawrence only figured out in 2001. The Berlinetta that was bought from Rob Walker was fitted with a Drogo body from the 250 GT (long before it was sold to J.A. Pearce Engineering). The J.A. Pearce Engineering crew was not aware of this and thought the car was a 250 GTO as well as the engine.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move
An editor has proposed that Vietnamese Grand Prix be moved to Vietnam Grand Prix. Editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Vietnamese Grand Prix. Thank you. SSSB (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion has closed with a not moved result. SSSB (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Disqualification of the Renaults from the 2019 Japanese GP
Don't the FIA realise how much work it creates for us when they disqualify people? :-) I think all the relevant articles have now been updated. Well done team. DH85868993 (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * i'll second that. SSSB (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Driver of the Day
An editor has proposed that "Driver of the Day" be added to Infobox Grand Prix race report. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox for engine manufacturers
I propose that we create an infobox for engine manufacturers. It would make seeing how successful an engine manufacturer has been easier, and people could easily see and compare their statistics, instead of having to find them somewhere from the article, if they even are there. Teams, constructors and nationalities already have infoboxes, so I think engine manufacturers should too. Here is an example. Carfan568 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC) For manufacturers like Renault it could be used in addition to the team infobox, like the constructor infobox is used in Team Lotus for example. Carfan568 (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats fine by me. SSSB (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you provide an example of what would go in the "chassis" and "entrants" fields? DH85868993 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the "chassis" field would go which chassis they powered, like McLaren, Williams and Lotus for example. I think the "entrants" field should be removed actually. If you think that there is a better way let me know. Carfan568 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you have described sounds good to me. Something we would need to consider is whether to include stats for "badged" engines in the infobox, e.g. whether we would include stats for the TAG Heuer engines in the Renault engine infobox. My guess is that we wouldn't (since we treat them as distinct entities everywhere else), but it's something we'd need to consciously decide. We'd also have to consider how to handle "Ford" and "Cosworth", e.g. would we include the DFV's achievements in the Cosworth infobox? WikiProject_Formula_One/Conventions would suggest that we shouldn't (because the DFV is considered a "Ford" engine), but the DFV is described in the Cosworth article, so it might be a bit confusing to some readers if we don't. DH85868993 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the "badged" engines stats should not be included, but we could put a note saying something like "TAG Heuer badged Renault engines won 9 Grands Prix". As per WikiProject_Formula_One/Conventions, I don't think we should include the DFV's achievements in the Cosworth infobox, but we could put a note like I mentioned above. Should we also remove the "chassis" field or just put a number of how many different chassis the manufacturer powered, since Ford powered 70 different chassis and the list would be very long. Carfan568 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can keep the list of chassis makes, and just not populate the field for Ford (with an explanatory wikinote). Some of the lists would be fairly long (e.g. 10 for Renault, 14 for Ferrari, 9 for Honda), but we already have quite long lists in some of the existing infoboxes, e.g. the infoboxes for Team Lotus contain lists of 18 drivers and 9 engine suppliers. DH85868993 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll create the infobox since nobody seems to be against it. Carfan568 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Some questions which came to my mind:
 * Where would be the best place to put the infobox for Ford, Peugeot, Lamborghini, Subaru, etc?
 * Would it be better to put Manor or MRT, Midland or MF1 in the "chassis" field?
 * Should we add a "podiums" field to the constructor infobox, and "podiums" and "engines" fields to the current team infobox, so that they all have the comparable fields? Carfan568 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest locating the Ford, Peugeot, Lamborghini, Subaru etc infoboxes in the "Formula One" or "Motorsport" section of the relevant articles, if there is one, e.g. Ford, Peugeot, Lamborghini, Subaru, etc
 * I'd be tempted to use "MRT" and "MF1" in the "chassis" field, for consistency with the Constructor columns in the "Teams and Drivers" tables in the 2016 and 2006 season summmary articles. But I acknowledge that the car articles are called Manor MRT05 and Midland M16, so if others prefer "Manor" and "Midland" then I don't mind.
 * I support the idea of adding a "podiums" field to the constructor infobox. The team infobox already supports "podiums" and "engines" fields (although they're not listed in the template documentation); they just seem to be not populated for the current teams. I have no objection to these fields being populated.
 * DH85868993 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Alpha Tauri
Shouldn't Scuderia Alpha Tauri be given a separate article as it's confirmed to be a new Constructor? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have we ever had to deal with this before? Off the top of my head I can't recall a team being completely renamed without undergoing any ownership change. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That was maybe the dumbest thing I've ever written on this website. Sauber was renamed to Alfa Romeo just this year! How could I have forgotten? In that case we obviously created a new article, or rather moved the 2019 results to the extant Alfa Romeo in Formula One article. So that seems to suggest we should create a new page for Alpha Tauri. However, I think there's a bit of a wrinkle in this case in that Alfa Romeo is at least a distinct organization from Sauber, whereas Toro Rosso and Alpha Tauri are both just Red Bull. My suggestion would be to simply rename Toro Rosso to Alpha Tauri but I wouldn't be opposed to a new article. Honestly, I don't think either option is particularly ideal, I see potential confusion no matter how we do it. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Lazer-kitty, the precedent set with the Sauber -> Alfa clearly sets out that Alfa Tauri gets a new article, I was actually going to start a thread and raise this same argument myself a few days from now. SSSB (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that Alpha Tauri would get a new article (that's why I didn't add Alpha Tauri's 2020 drivers to Scuderia Toro Rosso's infobox). Although we may need to reconsider if it turns out that external sources (e.g. formula1.com) consider Scuderia Alpha Tauri to be a continuation of Scuderia Toro Rosso and credit them with Toro Rosso's achievements (races/win/points, etc). Also note that I'm not opposed to the idea of adding Alpha Tauri's 2020 drivers to Toro Rosso's infobox until the Scuderia Alpha Tauri article is created, if people think it makes sense. DH85868993 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Team Lotus (2010–11) & Caterham F1 is a more comparable precedent.Tvx1 21:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. That's basically the exact same situation and we created a new article there. Lazer-kitty (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of facts need to still be revealed though. For instance I'm very curious wether their new car will be the STR15 or the SAT01...Tvx1 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Typically the FIA will make it clear that a team is considered a new constructor. For instance, F1 doesn't credit Racing Point for any of Force India's podiums. So we can easily just wait and see how they handle it. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sports reviewing idea
I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Entry table proposal
There is currently a discussion on the 2019 talk page about changing the format of entry tables that has gained some traction recently. This seems like the more appropriate venue for the discussion. The proposal would see the current entry table: Modified to become a simplified version: The idea is that everything which has been omitted would be better-suited to prose. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with proposal of converting Friday drivers' stuff to text, but cutting the entrant names seems not a good idea. Especially with Renault/Lotus F1 and Racing Point F1 Team it will led to confusion. Moreover, I don't understand how do you want to deal with early years of F1. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel like those issues can be dealt with in the prose. There is a tendency to use tables instead of prose when tables are supposed to support the prose. Situations like Racing Point/Force India really need full explanations in the article, anyway.


 * I also don't think that having different formats in different years in a problem. There is no Wikipedia policy that says related articles have to have identical formats. You cite the 1958 article, but look at the article titles: 1958 Formula One season compared to 2018 Formula One World Championship. If someone is editing the 2018 article and says "Table Format A works best for this article, but we have to use Table Format B because another article uses it", that's a problem. We should be making editing decisions based on what meets the needs of the article being edited. If we can achieve consistency with other articles, that's great, but consistency should not be our first, last and only priority. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * To expand on Mclarenfan17's point, I think this can only be realisticly applied to articles which have 1 entrant per constructor, we didn't have 1:1 ratio for constructors:entrants in 2018 and the time before that was when we had Footwork-Porsche and Footwork-Ford compete under the same entrant the last instances apart from 2018 when there were multiple entrants for 1 constructor appears to be over 35 years ago. In my opinion the entrant column is therefore completely redundent in most cases. SSSB (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I support the proposed change. SSSB (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Feel like I should explain what the proposal cuts and why: Probably should have put that at the start. Sorry about that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Entrant: teams are most-frequently known by their constructor names. The only place you see entrant names regularly used is in press releases and the like, and in articles are usually little more than a chance to mention the sponsors.
 * Engine designation: the specific designation is largely meaningless. I could not tell you how the Ferrari 061 differs from the Ferrari 062. It is only really notable when there is an article for the engine (such as the Cosworth DFV) or when a team is using an old engine, which would be explained in the prose. Engine designations are better-suited to car articles.
 * FP1 drivers: FP1 drivers only participate in selected sessions, and so are not as notable as the race drivers. We consider them to be participating in a Grand Prix, but are they competing in the championship? Not really. Again, this is better suited to another article (race reports) while being addressed in prose.


 * Is there anyone interested in following up on this? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I support this proposal with one modification (see below), for the following reasons: The one modification I would make concerns an additional simplification. I would merge the chassis and engine fields in some way (this is just an example): -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The "entrant" names are really only used for press releases, sponsorship opportunities and other non-racing related things. Major issues like sponsorship changes are better handled in the prose, and are actually more suited to the article for the constructor, rather than the article for a particular season.
 * 2) There's no need to give an engine designation, since in most cases they change every year (and even at least once within a year, as in the case of "B-spec" engines). These are better handled in the prose, since most notable changes occur in conjunction with FIA rule changes.
 * 3) Drivers used only in Free Practice sessions are not important to the season of racing. They are functionally equivalent to drivers who participate only in the simulator, which we don't mention either. If they participate in the race, they become active participants and get added accordingly.
 * 4) The existing format is complicated and requires a substantial legend to understand, but it works relatively well on a desktop or tablet; however, it works very poorly on mobile devices. The proposed simplification will make for a much better mobile experience, and it will also make the information it contains more accessible.
 * 5) The argument that it won't work for every F1 season is irrelevant. While consistency has a certain value, there's no rule that says it must be the same every year, and this proposed format isn't a radical departure from the existing format anyway. When we have a season with one or more special cases (such as driver changes, ownership changes, etc.) we can make a special case table. Such special cases are somewhat rare.
 * In fact, one could make a case for omitting the chassis as well, since it doesn't really form part of the "entry" at all:


 * --Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the chassis column needs to be included because each chassis gets its own article. I don't see the merit in merging the chassis and engine columns. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right. I just want to see ALL tables as simplified as possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why?? This isn't Simple Wikipedia. I believe our articles on normal wikipedia should be as comprehensive as possible. Some of article have become Featured articles with the content and tables as it currently is. That clearly shows that there is little currently wrong the quality.Tvx1 14:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that articles should be as comprehensive as possible; however, I do not agree that all information should be shoehorned into the tables, and I do not agree that the tables should include redundant information, or information that is better handled in prose. "We've always done it this way" is not a reason to leave things as they are. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I've said it before when this discussion came up earlier. I am not a fan of merging the entrant and constructor columns, since it does not reflect the reality of the sport, especially in seasons where customer cars were allowed. And I am all for consistency within all season articles. I know, many of you have a different opinion on that, but I wanted to state mine again. As for the simplicity argument: Let's not treat the readers like children, these tables can be a little extensive, the most important thing is that the information is portrayed correctly. I also feel strongly that the chassis needs to remain in the table because it gives a quick overview over which cars were used in which season, something I find myself looking up fairly often. If they are not in the season report anymore, where am I supposed to look? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you not read my "perhaps you are right" comment above, with respect to the chassis? My chief concern has always been that the table is complicated (all the tables are complicated), not particularly accessible, and contains redundant information. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did and my post was not meant as an attack. I simply wanted to voice my opinion on the matters discussed above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I just add an opinion here. Generally, I am of the opinion that tables should collate information that is also expressed in the text. I usually object to removing info from tables since they are often a far better medium for conveying info than text is. I don't really understand the idea behind "simplifying" tables, but usually I'm in the minority on this issue... Having said that, the "Entrant" column probably is redundant, and what extra info it does display is probably not important: it can stay, go or be merged. Chassis should remain in my opinion. To me, the chassis and engine constitute the essence of what an entrant to the formula is, and so to me it feels suitable to keep it here. By the same reasoning I'd prefer to keep the engine designation too, but I appreciate I'm probably in the minority on this. The "Free practice drivers" column probably ought to go; or at least should not be presented as it is since for most rows it is empty. Ideally, it would be nice if this could be merged into the drivers column. For example, the driver could have "FP" (or something similar) put under the "rounds" column to indicate their status. But again, I'm probably in the minority on that... Krea (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Free Practice drivers are not on the same footing as race drivers. They don't qualify, race or score points. It would be wrong to merge them in with the race drivers.


 * As for the engines, can you describe the difference between the Ferrari 062 and 062 EVO? The teams are tight-lipped about the engine (we only heard about Mercedes' turbulent jet injection once Honda started experimenting with it in 2016-17), so the specific engine designation means little. It is really only notable when a team uses year-old engines, and that has to be detailed in prose. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that being unable to detect the differences between the engines is a valid criterion for exclusion. I think that a better argument is that people don't have a great need to look that information up, and that it's listed on the car/chassis pages anyway. And that's fair enough, I guess.
 * The other issue with removing the free practise drivers is, are they recorded anywhere else, or on any other page? I'm not a great fan of removing information completely. Krea (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * in relation to your last point. The information is already included in the results table for the individual drivers and is stated in prose in the article about the race (see Nicholas Latifi and 2019 French Grand Prix) besides under the proposed changes we aren't going to get rid of the information but instead detail it in prose. SSSB (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Krea (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This hasn't been discussed in a while but as its so long I think it best if we summarise and I'm doing it now otherwise this discussion will be archived in the next couple of days.

As far as I can tell, there is a consensus to remove the FP drivers from the entry table (only to detailed in prose) and to remove the specific engine name (can be speified in car articles). However, as I see it there is either no consensus or a consensus against the other proposed changes and those areas should therefore be left as is. SSSB (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Sorry for missing this discussion, but I very very strongly believe engine designations should remain. There is no earthly reason to remove this information. It just makes Wikipedia less comprehensive and less useful. Moving things from tables to prose isn't acceptable, it just makes things harder to find and parse. You jumped the gun on declaring this a consensus. Pinging you here as I see your comment above pretty much makes the same case I do. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that if the chassis name is going to be in the table, then the engine name should be too. Not having the engine name would make it annoying to find information. Carfan568 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Really unimpressed by SSSB prematurely declaring consensus and then refusing to participate in this discussion any further. That's not how this website works. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing premature about it. The discussion had reached a natrual end (no new contributions for 1 month) so simply summarised as their several proposed changes. This is how I read the discussion, interestingly I closed it over 1 month ago and you are the only who has ever complained and I am more than happy to continue discussing but don't blame others if they seem frustated as this appears to constitues flogging a dead horse. SSSB (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give you one chance to edit your comment and remove the needless personal attack. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, you just doubled down on it... Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lets move this to my talk page for the purposes of keeping this centralised. SSSB (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion was unnecessary.
 * "There is no earthly reason to remove this information."

The specific engine designations mean nothing to the average reader, so unless it's a notable engine like the Cosworth DFV, you're suggesting adding things for the sake of it.
 * "Moving things from tables to prose isn't acceptable"

Actually, it's preferred. Tables are meant to support prose, not replace it.
 * "You jumped the gun on declaring this a consensus."

As pointed out, the discussion had naturally run its course. Forming a consensus was the next natural step. If you missed the original discussion, that's your problem and it doesn't invalidate the consensus. You don't own the article and we don't need your permission to form a consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not being revived, it is being continued because it ended without clear consensus. The page should be reverted to its previous state, with engine designations included, and then you two can continue to explain why you think information should be removed. I will give you one last chance to agree to move forward in good faith before resorting to dispute resolution or ANI.
 * Furthermore, I will not move this discussion to your talk page. It will stay here as it is obviously relevant to the Wikiproject as a whole. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then let me say here what I said there: No, there was NOT consensus. - let's agree to disagree. I read that thread, considered the opinions raised (Consensus is not a vote) and that was the conclusion I reached. I may have misinterpreted the discussion, however, if you believe this to be the case you go to a higher person, perhaps dispute resolution. It is not your place to unilaterlly decide that my conclusion was wrong, espically one month after a close on a highly viewed page and it most certainly is not your place to make bad faith accusations that I am ignoring other editors (accusation on my talk page), its time you assumed good faith something you have failed to do here and on my talk page. If I was ignoring other editors (something you accused me of on my talk page) don't you think I would have declared a consensus for the entrant column to be removed as well, given that's what I argued for? What stands out to me most is that you are the only editor in the month that has passed who seems to think that I amade the wrong conclusion, among many highly respected editors who are not afraid to get their elbows out (and before you start, thats a compliment). Now to get to what you said more recently This discussion is not being revived, it is being continued because it ended without clear consensus. - discussions don't need to end on a clear consensus. WP:CLOSING states you can close a discussion When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing., this discussion was stable when I made my closing statement, with no one contributing to it for over a month. Nowwhere does it state there has to be a consensus for the discussion to close. The discussion was therefore closed and you are therefore reviving (i.e. unclosing) it. I will give you one last chance to agree to move forward - we have agreed to move forward, McLarenfan17 has stated why he believes the information should stay of of the table, it is now up to you to respond. Failure to do so may (and by me will) be interpreted as you not having a rational for your opinion in which case the consensus (above) won't be overturned. p.s. you may want to read Talk page guidelines and the relevant pages that link from it. SSSB (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the rational for keeping the chassis name in but leaving the engine spec out is that the chassis are generally notable enough to have their own article whereas engine specifications don't. I believe the rest of your argument is rebutted above and I don't want to unnecessarily repeat myself but if you find it insufficent I would be happy to deail that further. SSSB (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. I do assume good faith. I don't continue to assume good faith when an editor has given me such strong reason to change that assumption. I acknowledge that you had every right to be bold and make your desired changes after the previous conversation died out. However, that conversation was very minimal and ended without a clear consensus, something you now acknowledge when you say "Nowhere does it state there has to be a consensus for the discussion to close." When I reverted your changes you should have understood that as proof that there is not a clear consensus to make your changes, and returned here to continue discussing it, not to repeatedly revert me and insist you had consensus. This is why I now believe you are operating in bad faith. If you prove me otherwise by reverting the page to include engine designations and continue the discussion here in good faith, I will gladly and sincerely apologize to you.
 * 2. The likely reason no other editors have acknowledged your change is because engine designations are not typically announced until early next year, when the cars are launched. They haven't noticed they are gone yet because they don't expect them to be there yet. Renault releasing their engine name so soon is relatively unusual.
 * 3. I am not going to discuss my reasoning for keeping engine designations until the page is returned to its correct state. I will not engage in a bad faith debate with two editors who insist on hammering through a significant change to a long-standing practice without achieving consensus to do so. I will gladly discuss and debate this with you just as soon as the page is reverted to an edit with engine designations included. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Be aware that "Nowhere does it state there has to be a consensus for the discussion to close." is not my stating that there was no consensus. It is me stating that HAD there been no consensus this is still you reviving a discussion, not continuing it. I admit the consensus isn't clear but i still beleive that consensus is there and the other editors who frequent this page will have seen my closing statement and this discussion even if they don't watch every edit at . Please read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (and you may want to read the rest of the page as well) and follow the instructions there then you will find out why we are not going to revert the above consensus (which you disagree with), I said it before and I will say it again, it is not up to you, an inexpirenced editor, to unilatelly decide that my closing statement was innaccurate. Further you have shown no evidence of ever showing good faith here, on my talk page nor on Mclarenfan17's talk page. I have intrepeted your insistance of reverting back rather than arguing for its inclusion as a sign that you have no rational, is this true? SSSB (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of things to say on the topic. I will gladly share them with you when you do the right thing and revert the page to its correct state. If you truly believe you are correct and that there is a consensus for this change, surely we can reach that consensus the proper way. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe you are correct [...] we can reach that consensus the proper way. - I might say the same thing to you. Follow the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you want and in the meantime argue your point, otherwise there is no point of reviving the discussion at all. SSSB (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no close to challenge. I will open a dispute resolution case and a separate ANI regarding your behavior. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I find a bit strange to request a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, while there really doesn't appear to have been a closing action of this discussion. Maybe we should request a formal closure by an uninvolved person. In any case that will be less contentious than a simple "reading" done by an involved editor who supported a certain outcome.Tvx1 15:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , there was a closing action - whilst not officially formatted as such when I said
 * This hasn't been discussed in a while but as its so long I think it best if we summarise and I'm doing it now otherwise this discussion will be archived in the next couple of days. As far as I can tell, there is a consensus to remove the FP drivers from the entry table (only to detailed in prose) and to remove the specific engine name (can be speified in car articles). However, as I see it there is either no consensus or a consensus against the other proposed changes and those areas should therefore be left as is. in late October. Lazer-kitty has simply decided that it not good enough for her SSSB (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what a closure is. Specifically note the section regarding "requesting a close." Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was an informal close. Not every close needs to be formal. Nor is it a necessity to request a close and I did not think that discussion waranted a request for closure per the criteria which I had not seen at the time of said closure. SSSB (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I asked you read the section regarding requesting a close. "If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure." We pretty clearly fall under the bolded section and yet you plowed on ahead. I don't know why you can't just acknowledge there wasn't clear consensus and allow this discussion to continue in good faith. It would be so easy and it would have avoided all of this arguing. Just do the right thing, please. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , quite, had you linked to that yesterday this thread have been over a long time ago, you are welcome to readd engine specs. You can't expect to win arguements if you don't back up your arguements and you can't expect me to back down on the basis of things I haven't read. I still think there was a consensus to remove engine specs but I see that based on WP:Wikipedia:Closing_discussions I should have requested a close. With your permission I would like to place this misunderstanding under hat so that other editors don't need to trawl through said this misunderstanding which has no consequence on the discussions outsome. I propose from Really unimpressed by SSSB prematurely declaring consensus and... to the notice of the now void dispute resolution, remebering to keep my response to carfan which is hidden somewhere in the middle. Also note that I continue to reject that the closure was premature or that I was purposefully biased when doing so, though I admit I should have requested closure. SSSB (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I very much appreciate this. It speaks volumes about your character as a person. At the moment I cannot re-add the Renault engine designation as I believe it would count as a third revert in 24 hours. You or another editor are free to do so if you wish, otherwise I will re-add it tomorrow. Please also feel free to collapse/hide this side discussion or do whatever is necessary to prevent it from cluttering up the overall discussion. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Given McLarenfan17 also argued against it, it would be recommended to wait and see how he respondes, also At the moment I cannot re-add the Renault engine designation as I believe it would count as a third revert in 24 hours, state that it comes after a discussion and it would be overlooked, the WP:3RR is designed to avoid edit warring, given I have conseded that my informal close was inssufient after a discussion it would be all right as editwarring would have been avoided, but like I said I would recommend waiting to see Mclarenfan17's response to avoid the conflict between the 2 of you escalating. SSSB (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would strongly encourage him to continue participating in the overall discussion here regarding entry tables and to make his case further, but the decision to acknowledge the inappropriate closure does not require his assent, and he would have no grounds whatsoever to continue reverting the page.
 * Regarding 3RR - you're probably right, but I'd rather not risk it. There's no rush anyway, it's not going to kill anyone for the page to be missing "R.E. 20" for another day. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , per WP:3RR one is not allowed to make more than three reverts (i.e. at least four) to the same article within 24 hours. You wouldn't break that policy by reinstating the power unit designation(s). And based on the latest comments here I do not expect anyone here to report you for a 3RR violation or simply edit-warring anyway.Tvx1 21:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a bit unprofessional to have the chassis model, but not the engine model. If the engine names are removed, then some people could think that the engines don't change between years, and I think that would be inappropriate considering that the engine is a major factor. Also if they freeze the engines, someone uses old engines or someone's engine is just a slight evolution then having the model names could be informative. Maybe in the future we could create articles about the engines if someone reveals information about them. I don't think that there are any major advantages in removing the engine names anyway. Carfan568 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

you claim that the consensus was not formed properly, so I'm curious ... what do you think the proper procedure for forming a consensus is? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't claim anything. Consensus was not established given the guidelines of establishing consensus on Wikipedia. All of the information you need is available at WP:CLOSE, specifically how to determine the outcome and requesting a close, the latter of which is what made SSSB understand he was in the wrong.
 * Also, it is a pretty well-known and common best practice to ensure as many interested editors as possible are involved when making a significant change. The information presented in the F1 entry table has been relatively static for a very long time. Removing any of it is not something that should be taken lightly. It's not a "I think it's cluttered and the discussion died out so I'm gonna do it" kind of change. It's one that should require proactively reaching out to other editors and patiently giving them time to become involved. Believe it or not, this website is not my life. I don't notice every single change, I don't stumble onto every single discussion. None of this is absolutely required of you, but these are things that you should do, simply because they are the right thing to do.
 * Finally, I will say this: there is a huge difference between positive and negative decisions regarding including pieces of information. If these articles include pieces of information you don't find useful, then in your eyes they are simply cluttered. This is a minor annoyance at worst. But by removing that information you have robbed everyone of it. Do you understand? It means that you have decided that because you don't like something, no one gets to enjoy it. It means you think you can dictate what thousands and millions of our readers might find useful. That's unacceptable to me. If we're unsure whether or not to include a piece of information, and there's nothing specifically preventing us from including it, we should err on the side of inclusion. That doesn't mean including everything, that doesn't mean being exhaustive, it just means including as much as we reasonably can. In my opinion, to look at this table and think "it's cluttered so I'm stripping out half of the fields" is an irresponsibly low bar. As is the suggestion that discrete pieces of data can be as easily expressed and parsed in prose as they can in a table. If someone asks me, "Did every Ferrari team in 2017 use the same engine?" I can quite easily look at 2017 Formula One World Championship and in a matter of seconds determine that, no, Sauber used an older model. I am a pretty diehard Formula 1 fan, I read about F1 everywhere, and I know of no other resource that can provide that same information to me so easily and so quickly. By removing this information you would have forever robbed me of that resource. All because you thought it was cluttered. Lazer-kitty (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody had any problem with the decision until you spoke up. And I cannot see any significant desire to change the article back now that you have.
 * "it is a pretty well-known and common best practice to ensure as many interested editors as possible are involved when making a significant change"
 * A quick check of your contributions shows that in the time between your joining Wikipedia and making those changes on 2 October, you had only made two edits to a Formula 1 article, and both were weeks before SSSB made those changes. How, exactly, was anyone supposed to anticipate your interest in the discussion when most of us were unaware of your presence on Wikipedia?
 * "By removing this information you would have forever robbed me of that resource."
 * Or you could go to a specific car article, which not only named the engine designation, but gives specific details of its performance.


 * But this comment goes to the heart of the matter&mdash;that it's all about you. You complain that you weren't consulted, have been hostile towards anyone who disagrees with you, and now you have gone to DRN in an obvious attempt to circumvent the consensus-building process.


 * If you want to change it back, get a new consensus. But you need to accept that the consensus might not go your way. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , ensure as many interested editors as possible are involved when making a significant change. - which is why the discussion took place here and was moved from Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship. It's one that should require proactively reaching out to other editors - no discussion requires that, it is your responsibility to keep an eye on pages of interest and it is not our responsibility to contact specific editors who may be interested. but these are things that you should do, simply because they are the right thing to do. - I disagree, if you have an interest in F1 put this page on your watchlist and check up on it every few days, that way you won't miss anything as discussions don't get archived for a month. As i hinted at above it is your responsibillity and yours alone to find discussions you want to contribute to. Saying I wasn't there so the discussion was invalid is not suffiecent.
 * But by removing that information you have robbed everyone of it. - no we haven't, its still in the articles for the cars. I know of no other resource that can provide that same information to me so easily and so quickly. - I do, (https://www.statsf1.com/en/2017/modeles.aspx) but we are not a stats site. Lazer-kitty, your arguement falls into the category of WP:ILIKEIT which is not a valid argument for inclusion.
 * the thing is I don't think there are any advantages of having it in the article. If someone uses a year old engine that would best be clarified in a footnote. The rest of it is best covered in prose, for engine freezes this would be in the season report, for everything else the cars article.Currently the only way you can tell the evolution of the engines by direct comparision of one year from the next but does anyone know the physical differences between the Ferrari 062 and 063? Or even compared to the Honda engine? (not that i'm arging we remove the engine column altogether, no one is) For all we know they could have renamed the engine from 062 to 063 and made no changes. In the same way that we don't specify that engine spec A was used from AUS to CAN, spec B from FRA to BEL and spec C from ITA to UAE I don't see why we should specify that they use the 062 in whatever year and then the 063 the next in the season report. SSSB (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that we have already established and agreed that there was not consensus to change the article in the first place, therefore the engine designations are being re-added. The onus is now on you to make your case for why they should be removed.
 * Both you and You keep spamming me with WP:ILIKEIT, I would strongly encourage you to click that link and take a brief scroll down to WP:IDL.
 * This is not about me and what I want, this is about me understanding that we maintain these articles not for ourselves, but for millions of people who read Wikipedia, and we should provide those people with as much information as we can in the best format that we can. I use myself only as an example of a person who finds this information expressly useful. I find it hard to believe I am unique in this.
 * But this comment goes to the heart of the matter&mdash;that it's all about you. You complain that you weren't consulted, have been hostile towards anyone who disagrees with you, and now you have gone to DRN in an obvious attempt to circumvent the consensus-building process.
 * The above comment is a blatant lie and an unnecessary personal attack and I would strongly encourage you to step away from this type of behavior. Going forward. This conversation should not be as difficult as you are making it. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing for its removal based on not liking it but rather because I feel it is an unnecessary high level of detail for a season report article. I believe that this is a level of detail that should be reserved for the articles about the cars which use those engines and (if applicable) the prose. You're eintire argument is based off of "I think this is useful" - perhaps I should have linked to WP:INTERESTING instead which is an equally invalid argument. we should provide those people with as much information as we can - but that is not what wikipedia is about. I just don't feel that including the engine specification is useful for a season report, which should be trated as a stand alone from reports about previous and future season
 * Also while I'm here, commenting on other peoples alleged personal attacks here is just as disruptive as the "personal attacks" themselves, save it for user talk pages or better still ignore it, let other editors determine whether he is right and move on. SSSB (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish you could discuss this without lying and misrepresenting my arguments. You link WP:INDISCRIMINATE and yet I have been explicitly clear that I am not suggesting this page should be an indiscriminate collection of all possible information. I have given clear examples of why engine designations are useful to have collated in a single location for easy access and comparison, and your attempted counterarguments (e.g. "they are still on individual car pages) don't change that. In fact, I have not seen one single argument from any of you that actually attempts to explain how these articles become better by removing information from them and making it more difficult to find. I would say again: if you don't like seeing this information here, you are free to ignore it and move on with your life. You should not dictate what other people see just because you think it's cluttered. That's a toxic way to edit. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , we have already established and agreed that there was not consensus to change the article in the first place - untrue, we agreed that I should not and was not in a position to have determined the consensus, I still believe that the consensus was there. You link WP:INDISCRIMINATE and yet I have been explicitly clear that I am not suggesting this page should be an indiscriminate collection of all possible information. I am merely pointing out that in my opinion adding engine specs would constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I am not suggesting that you support indiscriminatly adding information, unfortantly the point at which encylopedic becomes indisrciminate is down to discretion. I have given clear examples of why engine designations are useful to have collated in a single location for easy access and comparison - I have rebutted them, I will also throw additional rebuttals in there.
 * Each season article is indepedent, season articles are not written for readers to anayse say with, if you wish to see the naming evolution (the only evolution which engine names offer) of say the Ferrari or Mercedes engine then you go to Ferrari Grand Prix results or a fan site, in the rare event that a team uses a year old engine a footnote can be added. But your basis for keeping engine specs is for year by year anaylsis of engine names, this should be left for a fan site or a stat site, not a general purpose encylopedia.
 * I have not seen one single argument from any of you that actually attempts to explain how these articles become better by removing information from them - that's because it on you to justify them staying. I'm not arguing that removing the information improves the article, but rather that including the information doesn't imporve the article and therefore the information should not be included at all. You should not dictate what other people see - And you should dictate? This discussion is to determine if engine specifications are useful for readers to see should they want to read about the season, they can still see the engine specification in results matrixes for engine manufactors/teams or on stats sites or fan sites but it is not a useful thing to specify in a season report where engine names don't change. I'm not trying to dictate anything, but you were on my talk page, here and on Mclarefan17's talk page when you insited engine specs were readded before starting to discuss. I wish you could discuss this without lying and misrepresenting my arguments. - thats ironic considering you just did exaclty that. SSSB (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "that's because it on you to justify them staying."
 * No, it's not. And if you actually believe that then we can go straight back to DRN. You are suggesting that we remove information from articles that has been there for a very long time. The onus is on you to explain why we should do that. You have not done so. You should take some time to read the full guidelines you keep linking to me. They all set a high bar for the removal of information and they describe very clear examples of when information should be removed. You have not met that bar, not even close.
 * "And you should dictate?"
 * I am not dictating anything. I am leaving the information there so that people who find it valuable can still see it; those who don't can simply ignore it. By removing it you do not give our readers that choice. Do you truly not understand this distinction? By not liking something you think you have the right to take it away from everyone. I am only arguing that we should leave it available. I am not holding you by the neck and forcing you to read it.
 * P.S.: Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia, by it's very nature, is nothing more than an aggregation of information from other sources. If your argument is that we should not include engine designations in the season articles because they can be found in individual car articles, then you are arguing against the very existence of this website. Why have Wikipedia when readers are capable of reading each individual source? Not to mention the obvious absurdity of thinking having all the engines listed in one table on one page is exactly the same and exactly as useful as putting them on 10 different car pages.
 * So I would ask you again - how does removing engine designations make these articles better? Please don't quote any of my comment. Please don't write another essay. Please don't try to misconstrue and restate my arguments for the purpose of aiding your counterarguments. Simply answer this one, basic question. I don't think you can, because none of you have! Your arguments are purely, "I THINK this table is cluttered, and I THINK this piece of information isn't useful TO ME, so we should remove it from everyone." Not acceptable. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. And if you actually believe that then we can go straight back to DRN. You are suggesting that we remove information from articles that has been there for a very long time. The onus is on you to explain why we should do that. You have not done so. You should take some time to read the full guidelines you keep linking to me. They all set a high bar for the removal of information and they describe very clear examples of when information should be removed. You have not met that bar, not even close.
 * "And you should dictate?"
 * I am not dictating anything. I am leaving the information there so that people who find it valuable can still see it; those who don't can simply ignore it. By removing it you do not give our readers that choice. Do you truly not understand this distinction? By not liking something you think you have the right to take it away from everyone. I am only arguing that we should leave it available. I am not holding you by the neck and forcing you to read it.
 * P.S.: Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia, by it's very nature, is nothing more than an aggregation of information from other sources. If your argument is that we should not include engine designations in the season articles because they can be found in individual car articles, then you are arguing against the very existence of this website. Why have Wikipedia when readers are capable of reading each individual source? Not to mention the obvious absurdity of thinking having all the engines listed in one table on one page is exactly the same and exactly as useful as putting them on 10 different car pages.
 * So I would ask you again - how does removing engine designations make these articles better? Please don't quote any of my comment. Please don't write another essay. Please don't try to misconstrue and restate my arguments for the purpose of aiding your counterarguments. Simply answer this one, basic question. I don't think you can, because none of you have! Your arguments are purely, "I THINK this table is cluttered, and I THINK this piece of information isn't useful TO ME, so we should remove it from everyone." Not acceptable. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "The onus is on you to explain why we should do that."

It has been explained. Look at my post from 15 September and Scjessey's post on 23 September. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your proposals are nothing more than verbose forms of WP:IDL. You fail to explain how this article actually gets better if you remove information from it. You fail to explain what policy basis there is for removing it. You fail to explain why you think simplicity is a goal we must strive for. You simply assert that you personally don't think the information is useful, therefore it should be removed. I must again clarify that choosing to continue including information and making it easily available for our readers is NOT the same as insisting that your personal opinion must be so sound that you can dictate what literally millions of Wikipedia readers are allowed to see.
 * I will say this once, twice, a thousand times if I have to: if you don't care about engine designations, you are capable of ignoring them. If myself and others do care about them, and you remove them from the page, I don't have the power to magically will them back into existence. I am simply robbed of that resource. These are not two equal stances. These are not two sides of the same coin. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , in all earnest your argument could equally be judged to be WP:NOTINTERESTING or WP:USELESS.Tvx1 16:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then let me make my position explicitly clear. In my view specifing the engine's name constitutes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The only think you can learn through specifing the name of the engine is exaclty that, its name. It's of as much consequence as what Vettel names his car, no consequence, with the latter actually being more notable based on sources. If Ferrari name their engine 063 or 064 makes no difference, we don't know the difference between the 063 and the 064 and we most likly never will. You keep saying that seeing the engine specifcation is useful but fail to explain how, i.e. you fail to explain the importance of what Ferrari or anyone else name their engines and therefore you fail to expalin why engine names should be specified in the article. If these engines were notable for indivdual articles then specifing their name would be necessary. But it's not, the engines don't have individual articles. You have only given one instance as to when the engines name could be in any encylopedic value at all and thats to verify that all teams use the same spec engine. But we have been very clear that 1. it doesn't do that anyway because engines get upgraded throughout the season and these upgrades don't get provided to everyone simulateously. 2. In the event that a team uses a year old engine (as in 2017) it is best to use a note explaining that. And any season by season analysis of the engines (which the articles aren't and shouldn't be designed to do) yields no information as no one can tell us how any 2 engines differ (if they differ at all) and the season report doesn't and shouldn't provide any in depth analysis of how the engine has improved as this is and should be exclusivly covered in articles about the individual cars or in prose with the engine name being of no actually consequence to this anaysis. Basically I fail to see any encylopedic value in specifing what the engine is called and therefore, in my view, specifing the engine name consitutes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SSSB (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In short its not that I don't think its necessary but that you have failed to persuade me that anyone could find it necessary, you have failed to persuade me that the name of the engine is anything but trivial and you have therefore failed to persuade me that including the engine name is anything other that WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SSSB (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are asserting that 100% of our readers must feel the same way you do then you need to take a step back from this discussion. That's not an acceptable stance and that's not why we do what we do. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? Every reason you have given for including the engine names I have rebutted and you have so far failed to counter rebut my rebuttals. Your entire arguments revolves around "It should be kept because I find it interesting and therefore others may also find it interesting. You are yet to give a reason for the inclusion of engine names which I not have rebutted. And you have failed to rebut any of my arguments. The only logical explanation is that you have no rebuttals and want to keep engine names for your benefit and because you think it could be interesting to others despite engine names being purely trivial trivial. SSSB (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Every accusation you incorrectly level at me is far more accurately applied to your own arguments. You don't like something so you DEMAND that it be taken away from everyone. No, that's not how this website works, has ever worked, has ever will worked, and I will fight with my dying breath to ensure that attitude does not succeed.
 * You have made no arguments that require rebuttals beyond the basic fact that "I don't like it" is well-established as not a reason to remove something. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's not true is it? I have clearly explained why including engine names is WP:INDISCRIMINATE a statement which you have failed to argue against. It is also completly false to suggest I am taking anything away from anybody as this information is still available in a host of other locations (not an arguement for removal but an argument against your argument for it staying). SSSB (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's not true is it? I have clearly explained why including engine names is WP:INDISCRIMINATE a statement which you have failed to argue against. It is also completly false to suggest I am taking anything away from anybody as this information is still available in a host of other locations (not an arguement for removal but an argument against your argument for it staying). SSSB (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think this has gone far enough. , whatever your concerns about the original discussion, it's quite clear that you're alone on this for now and the comments are starting to get personal. If you want to change it back, your best course of action would be to leave this discussion alone, re-open the subject further down the page, and try to form a new consensus&mdash;but you need to remember that people might disagree with you and a new discussion might not yield the result that you want. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe this discussion is still going on months after it began. There's a very clear consensus for not including the engine names, and continuing to argue this point ad infinitum is basically disruptive. I move that this discussion be closed, and given the level of support I don't think an uninvolved editor is necessary to close it. -- Scjessey (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lazer-kitty. The engine and chassis are the essence of an entrant. Including the engine models in the season article would be relevant to know which engines competed in that season. "Ferrari" is not an engine, "Ferrari 064" is. Regarding not knowing the differences between engines, same could be said for the chassis. There are clearly performance differences between engines, such as between the Honda RA615H and the Mercedes PU106B. Engines in the past have had articles so it could happen again, and I think we could create articles talking about their performances, results, development history, etc. Carfan568 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have explained on numerous occasions why engine names are encyclopedic and useful information, therefore WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. That you have attempted to handwave these explanations away does not mean they don't exist and aren't applicable. Literally your entire argument is WP:IDL - "I don't like engine names and I don't like your arguments for keeping them." Not good enough.
 * There is quite clearly NOT consensus to remove engine names, and given that literally none of you have crafted a policy-based argument for why they should be removed, I move that this discussion be closed and the engine names remain. If any of you have a problem with that, you are free to seek an outside editor or dispute resolution. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a clear consensus until Carfan568 joined the conversation. Nevertheless, commonsense is still overwhelmingly with the view that removing the engine names is the way to go, and simply claiming there's no policy-based arguments, when several have been described above, isn't a sound way to present your argument. This discussion have become circular, and it is serving no useful purpose. At this point, it would seem an RfC is the way to go, because we need to bring in outside views. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Nevertheless, commonsense is still overwhelmingly with the view that removing the engine names is the way to go"
 * This is a blatant and unacceptable lie. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's an opinion, stop accusing people of things which they haven't done and have no intention of doing. SSSB (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's a baseless assertion that's not at all represented by the factual reality of the discussion we're having. There are a few users suggesting that we remove engine names and a few suggesting that we keep them. None of the former have crafted a sound policy-based argument supporting their change beyond WP:IDL. Your suggestion of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is clearly not correct given the text of that policy. You can't simply link a policy and make it so, you have to actually justify why that policy applies, and you haven't done so beyond saying "I don't like it therefore it's not useful or encyclopedic" - which brings us back to WP:IDL. To suggest that there is overwhelming consensus to make a change is a objectively false. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This conversation is obviously not going anywhere. Any of you who still think engine names need to be removed need to seek RFC or DRN. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated at WP:INDISCRIMINATE - As explained [...], merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ... I have justified why that applies. You have not, in my view, adaquatly expalined why it doesn't, had you adaquatly explained then I might have changed my stance on the matter. But as points out this discussion is circular and getting nowwhere. We either need an RfC or some kind of admin close of which I prefer the latter. SSSB (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Or an admin close to determine if there is a consensus in our favour. And I'm not sure what you exoect DRN to do. SSSB (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have justified why that applies. No, you haven't. You have asserted that WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply because you think the information is not useful. This is WP:IDL. You have not, in my view, adequately explained why it doesn't. Yes, I have, on multiple occasions. You have ignored them or handwaved them away. And I'm not sure what you expect DRN to do. Resolve this dispute, maybe? Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is all null as we have all admitted that this is circular. DRN won't be able to do anything because they deal with small disputes, this is anything but. What we need is an admin close or a rfc. SSSB (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious that you were trying to use DRN to overturn a consensus that you didn't like, which is not what DRN is for. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think has raised some for points that make the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument questionable. The disputed content is not included in an indiscriminate manner, context is present, and it does not fall into any of the for categories described in the policy. Moreover, I do not believe that this information is included just because it exists. The information was included when this table was originally designed because back then many teams would use different specifications/types of a engines supplied by the same supplier and this column provided an easy way to present our users that information. Sure that happens less frequently these days under the current rules (still it tends to happen every other year), but we all know that rules tend to change rather frequently in this sport. So, I really cannot see the benefit of suddenly removing this information now just because they all use the same spec of their suppliers' power units for one or two seasons in a row now, only to reinstate it in a future season's table when different teams using different specs happens again. And even when they don't I still find that the column serves it's purpose. It shows in an eyesight that all the teams use the same spec of PU from their respective suppliers. Moreover, it has become clear now that our readers do like a consistent table formats as they do tend to compare different seasons' event through these articles and these tables. And in all honesty I was concerned during the initial phase of this discussion that we were thinking too much about our own needs and not thinking about what the readers' needs actually are.Tvx1 14:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It has already been established in multiple discussions that these tables carry too much information, much of which is redundant, and are at best overly complicated. It doesn't matter if the table format is consistent if it is also consistently too information dense. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This has not been "established," it has been asserted by yourself and a couple others but never supported via policy. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what? If I understand you correctly, you want to cite a specific Wikipedia policy that says the tables used by a particular WikiProject contain too much information? Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Policies apply to all WikiProjects in equal measure. The site does not single out any one partucular WikiProject in its policies. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See the prose section of WP:MOSTABLE, which says the following:
 * Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not.
 * The individual engine designations mean little to the average reader, and as engine manufacturers are notoriously tight-lipped about the specifics of their engine designs, it is difficult for editors to go into detail about how the engines differ year on year. Thus, an engine adds little to the article and so borders on trivia.


 * The most notable circumstances surroundings engines are either a) when a team changes engine supplier or b) when a team uses year-old engines (a practice which&mdash;correct me if I am wrong&mdash;has been banned in recent years). Both of these need to be detailed in the prose because, as per MOSTABLE:
 * prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context
 * Without this context, an editor may see that, for example, all Ferrari-powered teams are using the "Ferrari 062" engine bar one, which uses the "Ferrari 061". They may then conclude that this is an error and attempt to correct it in the article.


 * Therefore, there is nothing that an engine column adds which cannot be achieved more effectively through prose. The only exception is perhsps when an engine is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, such as the Cosworth DFV. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This conversation has yet again run its course without any clear consensus to make a change. If you would still like to pursue these changes you are more than welcome to seek a third opinion/RFC/admin close/etc. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you don't get to declare a conversation has run its course and is over like that. Especially since you were so critical of someone else for having done just that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter Gethin/1972 Monaco Grand Prix
There's a discussion in progress at Talk:1972 Monaco Grand Prix regarding whether Peter Gethin's result should be listed as "Ret" or "DSQ". Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Venturi 1992
Larrousse was in 1992 "Venturi" (as mentioned on the official website). I think you should change "Larrousse" to "Venturi" in the Grand Prix in that season. What do you think? Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It uses Venturi in the season report as well with Larrousse only mentioned in the entrant column. Therefore we are inconsistant which is a problem in and of itsself with the Larrouse page also acknowledging that the chassis was built by Venturi. Based on Adriel 00's comment and based on what I've written I can only agree. SSSB (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree that "Larrousse" should be changed to "Venturi" in the race reports - formula1.com says "Venturi" as does FORIX and ChicaneF1. DH85868993 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are no other opinions, I will do so in the next few days. --Adriel 00 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Adriel 00 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Fastest Lap Indicator (and Table Key)
As I've mentioned here: Template_talk:F1_Drivers_Standings, is there any interest in changing the fastest lap indicator to something other than italics? Italicized numbers are not very easy to discern. Here are some alternative ideas:

Races R1 to R12 are just a comparison of the alternatives with how they would look with the various background colours and other markers present. Following that, races I1 to B3 have one of the 6 drivers in every race randomly given the fastest lap; I1 to I3 using italics, U1 to U3 by underlining, S1 to S3 with an asterisk, A1 to A3 using the addition symbol, and B1 to B3 using a bullet.

My opinion is that italics and even underlining is not very clear (cf. races I1 to U3). Using an addition symbol (my preference), asterisk or bullet will potentially look uglier when the dagger is present, but I think it would not be the end of the world (especially seeing as they are unlikely to both be present together). Any suggestions?

Related to this is the present key: the markers should be incorporated into the table (especially the dagger marker -- there's no need for it to be separated from the other entries). How about this:

(Somebody could maybe optimize the way I've formatted the tables; I've rather hacked it together...)

Comments? Krea (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that we can continue to live with italics, despite some visibility issues. You will need to put so much effort to change in every Motorsport article. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you're being too generous. Those are some really otherwise beautiful tables: really concise and clear. It's a shame that the choice of using italics is so poor in comparison. Certainly, changing all the tables would be an issue; but there's really no reason to do that. Homogeneity would be nice, but it's no reason to prevent the tables being made better now (and moving forward). If needs be, the changes can trickle their way to the other articles over time. Krea (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned this in an earlier discussion on the subject, but I really think it's worth adopting the way our our Dutch colleagues deal with this. I think their style is much clearer.Tvx1 19:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tvx1's proposal. That is the best system I can see including the use of italics and bold. SSSB (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. I quite like the way they've done it. Here's a comparison I've quickly made:


 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align:middle; text-align:center;"

!style="vertical-align:middle"|Pos. !style="vertical-align:middle;background"|Driver !Race1 !Race2 !Race3 !Race4 !Race5 !Race6 !Race7 !Race8 !Race9 !Race10 !Race11 !Race12 !style="vertical-align:middle"|Points !1 !2 !3
 * style="text-align:left"|italics
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1†
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2†
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3†
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4†
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0;text-align:center"|1
 * style="text-align:left"|dutch
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 P
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 F
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 F
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P F
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 P F
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P F
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 P F
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1† P F
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2† P F
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3† P F
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4† P F
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0;text-align:center"|2
 * style="text-align:left"|dutch-mod
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 F


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P F


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4† P F


 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P F


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2† P F


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P F †


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 C


 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 C P F


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 P F C


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3† P F


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 P F C


 * style="background-color:#EAECF0;text-align:center"|3
 * }
 * }


 * Row 2 (driver "dutch") is what they have basically done. The line below that (driver "dutch-mod") are some ideas for modifications that I've thrown together.
 * The only thing I have against the dutch system is that it's a little visually busy when the markers are stacked above and below. In Race3 and Race4 I've just placed them all on top when they are both there, which I personally think looks nicer. Race5 to Race7 is with no spacing between the markers and the dagger placed afterwards; this doesn't look any nicer, if not worse. Then the only issue is the dagger: Race8 to Race10 replaces the dagger with a similar letter marker ( C ). I think it's unlikely there will ever be a clash (and I don't think the dagger looks too bad) so this is a take-it-or-leave-it position for me. Lastly, Race11 and Race12 is with the markers placed below rather than above. Again, I personally have no preference here, if not slightly preferring the markers placed above.
 * So, these are the alternatives as I see them:
 * bold-italic — the current system,
 * bold-(underline/asterisk/addition/bullet/...) — one of the choices in the first table, above; or anything other symbol not considered,
 * dutch (1† P F ),
 * dutch-above (1† P F ),
 * dutch-below (1† P F ),
 * all-above (1 P F C ),
 * all-below (1 P F C ),
 * other — something else.
 * My personal preference would be 4 (dutch-above), followed not far behind by any of 5-6, then lastly 3 (dutch). I can live with something from 2; I'd hate for 1. Well, that's my position, for what it's worth. Krea (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If here will be consensus for change, I will agree with options 3-4, but not sure if color is really necessary, it is look okay without it.
 * dutch (1† P F ),
 * dutch-above (1† P F )


 * But, in my humble opinion, status quo will be the best option. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer Dutch option 4. Natrually the color isn't necessary but it is helpful if your just having a quick glance it is to easier identify the poles and fastest laps, its the same reason we have background colors for the results tables. I also think getting rid of the dagger is completely unnecessary. SSSB (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think so far there is most support for option 4, but I will leave this open for a bit longer in case anybody else wants to add their vote, or any suggestions or objections. Maybe a few weeks longer just to be prudent. Krea (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A question: is it proposed to make these changes only in the season/championship summary articles, or also in the relevant driver, team and car articles? If the answer is "only in the season/championship summary articles", then my follow-up question is "if it's necessary in the season/championship summary articles, then why isn't it necessary in the driver/team/car articles, or if it's not necessary in the driver/team/car articles, then why is it necessary in the season/championship summary articles?". I support leaving the tables in their current form; I don't think any perceived benefit is worth the effort to change the articles or the inconsistencies it would introduce. Also, for what it's worth, on my laptop screen (40cm screen, 1920x1080 resolution), those "P"s, "F"s and "C"s are really small. In addition, using colour may introduce accessibility issues - for example I find the red "P"s very difficult to read on almost all the background colours, although I acknowledge there has been discussion of not using colour. (DH85868993 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

My idea was to change the current championship table, and then work backwards. If it is necessary in one place, it certainly is necessary everywhere else too. I suppose the point you're making is that the effort should be made to implement the changes everywhere, and not just here, which I appreciate is correct to point out.

The racer pages have a slightly different format for the tables. Either we carry through the changes there as well, or choose a different option (or leave everything as they are). I can see the argument that using the dutch system for the driver-page tables would make them look ugly, especially with the colours clashing. The only clean-looking alternative to the dutch system that I can think of, besides using italics, is to underline the numbers. This didn't stand out too well in the above tables ( 1, 2 , ...), but using a border is a lot better ( 1 , 2 , ...). Finally, the racer-page tables use italics on the race name abbreviations and not on the race finish numbers; and italics works much better on strings of letters than on a single number. Since those tables don't actually change the format of the numbers at all, but instead only change the formatting of the race names, the other option for those tables is to not touch them at all since the information they are trying to express is already clearly discernible. This would, however, introduce a formatting inconsistency between those tables and the tables on the other pages.

Here is a quick comparison between the suggestions I just made (on a row from the table on Lewis Hamilton's page). First row is the table as it is: formatted race names, unformatted numbers (and small font size for some reason). Second row is the current (modified) dutch proposal. Third row is the dutch proposal without colours. Last row uses an underlining scheme instead.

On the championship table, the comparison is:

Accessibility is an important consideration. I've increased the size of the letters in the dutch system by 110%, but I've also changed the fastest lap indicator from "F" to "L". For small letters, "P" and "F" can be difficult to distinguish, whereas for "P" and "L" the shapes are clearly different, and so easier to distinguish. I've also shown what it would look like without colours. Do any of these new suggestions fare any better for you?

As always, the alternative is to leave the tables as they are. You implied that you could not see the letters "P", "F" or "C" very clearly; can you see the italicized numbers any better? If an argument against adopting the dutch system is that it is not very clear, then is it not unreasonable to suggest that a visitor would find the current system unsuitable by the same argument? I think it's important to not forget the frustration a visitor might have in trying to read information from a table that is distinctly difficult to read information from.

The argument made so far for keeping with the current italics convention is that it would be too much effort to change all the tables, or otherwise there would be inconsistencies between them. I appreciate that this is a consideration, but it's not an important one, and certainly I don't think it is more important than using a formatting convention that a user can actually see, even if it means not every table is yet using that convention. The priority ought to be to adopt a better system going forwards, and then to change the existing tables, even if it is done so gradually. It has to be done thus, otherwise no change to the format of the tables could ever be implemented.

In any case, if it is decided that we should implement a change, I will make an effort to go around and change all the tables. It would be a good idea to template the change (like our dutch colleagues have done); I'm thinking something like this:. In the future, any changes to the convention that are decided upon would then only need to be made on the template page and we will not need to go through this difficulty again.

(And I apologize for the length of these replies; I'm just trying to be thorough...) Krea (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that we were only going to change the fastest lap indicator and only for seasons were these yielded a championship point. The current font variations we use for both pole positions and fasted lap both have accessibility issues. In case of the pole positions this is a small issue because they don't affect the championship standings. In case of the fastest lap, it is an issue since this season since most of these yield a championship point. So I thought we were looking for a new marker to distinguish fastest lap+point. In any case we need to make a decision because we now had a race where a driver set a fastest lap without earning a point and this isn't being distinguished to our readers.Tvx1 15:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have explanation above the table that point could receive only top 10 finisher, so the problem and the necessity of introduction of a new marker is a bit exaggerated. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What to do if the fastest lap holder was outside the top 10 had occurred to me also. I did think that if an extra point was awarded we should use "+" instead of "L", but in the end I thought that this would complicate things a bit too much. Like Corvus said, the regulations on this are right above the table so it's probably not too important. There's also the fact that since the table entries are colour-coded, effectively "purple + marker" = no point, and "non-purple + marker" = extra point, so this info is there, it's just at one remove from being explicit.
 * But having said all this, I am not completely against the idea. In any case, if we template the race positions something like so:, we can always change the template to differentiate between these scenarios without much trouble; so even if we don't go with this idea for now, it would not necessarily be dead forever: this is a point we can come back to in the future if needs be.
 * As for the scope of the changes being proposed, I gathered from the other contributors that consistent styling across all the tables was eminently desirable. My personal priority is for making changes to the current table and going forwards, but I am happy to make the changes to all the past tables too if that's what the consensus is. Also my original suggestion was to just change the fastest lap marker, but it was suggested above that we imitate what our dutch colleagues have done, and that implied that we should also change the pole position marker so that it was all a little more consistent. I appreciate that I have written a lot and that reading through it all is a bit much, but the other contributors opinions on all this is above somewhere, and the consensus seemed to point to adopting the (modified) dutch styling. You're welcome to share your ideas or objections on this.
 * Speaking generally, since it's now the end of Sept, and we should all have some idea of a timetable, I suggest that whatever consensus is formed by the last race of the year (1st December) should be implemented. The benefit of this is that if any objections are made after the changes have been made (if any), they can be discussed and possibly reverted during the off-season, where interest in the tables is likely to be lower than average. This gives us approx. 8 weeks, which should be more than enough time.
 * In the meantime, I will start thinking about what form the template should take. Even if we decide that no changes are to be made, it would still be a good idea to template even the current bold-italics scheme so that any future changes that are decided upon need only be made on the template page and would filter to all the tables automatically, thus making it easier for future editors. Ideas on this would be welcome. Krea (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Some points that have recently come to my mind and need to be expressed. Firstly per 's concerns above I would have to agree that using colours may not be the best idea.


 * Secondly, if you are going to make this template I suggest you get started now and start implementing it, this way if and when this discussion reaches a consensus to change we can do a lot of articles at once, I would agree with your approach that we should start with the most current season and its respective constructors, cars and drivers and work backwards. The template should only include the postion and any formating relating to fastest lap/pole, but not the colouring of the cells, that would make it too complex.


 * Thirdly, and most importantly, the key. Now the indicators for fastest lap and pole have recently been added to the relevant keys (at least the Formula One keys) which are templated in or linked to next to results tables. Now this introduces an issue. That issue being that the keys won't accuratly reflect the reuslts tables because only some of the results tables will have been updated. The solution for this is simply to create a second key which shows the new markers and then when we change one given article we can simply switch out the keys. Also bear in mind that we can't just make the keys indicate two indicators whilst we make sure all the articles are the same as the key is also used in articles which aren't within this projects scope and therefore the consensus for these changes don't apply to all the articles where the keys are substituted/linked from. My last two points are instramental to ensuring a smooth hand over of table indicators should thius discussion reach a consensus. SSSB (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, with the template, I've made a prototype that works as follows:
 * : current bold policy for pole position:
 * : current italic policy for fastest lap:
 * : current bold+italic policy:

Some points to note:
 * 1) The template name is/will be called race position. Of course Motorsport is not the only sport that conducts races, but we will have to be using this template a lot, so it shouldn't be too cumbersome. Alternatives welcome.
 * 2) It uses unnamed parameters  and not named parameters:  like the dutch wiki use. This makes using the template more intuitive to use, but does have some potential coding downsides. The template code (and some documentation) are here: User:Krea/sandbox/Template:race position. If anyone wants to look at how I've done it and raise an objection about this design decision, I'm willing to listen.
 * 3) Re the above point, the pole and fastest lap markers are indicated by giving an input called "pole" or "fast" respectively in either or both of the next two parameters of the template (after the first parameter, which is the race position/finish). These can be abbreviated to just "p" and "f" respectively. Objections/alternatives to these choices of names are also welcome.

Once we sign off on the mechanics of this template, we can move it to the main namespace and start using it straight away. Then, as you said, we can make any changes we may decide across many pages all at once. I suggest we spend not too long on this, but we should definitely iron out major objections before we start making changes because this template will be used everywhere and it will be a pain to make corrections (like renaming the template) after we've already started to use it. Krea (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll give it a week or so and then I'll make the template official and we can start using it. Krea (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, the template is now live (Template:F1_race_position) and anyone can start using it to update the tables.


 * Change a table entry that has pole (bold): 1 —>


 * Change a table entry that has fastest lap (italic): 2 —>


 * Change a table entry that has pole and fastest lap (bold+italic): 3 —>


 * Krea (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Its also important to remember to update the key. See F1 race position for details. SSSB (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Right. I did add a line to the doc page, but it's not showing up on the page yet, for some reason. I suppose it's waiting for an admin to sign off on the edit.
 * I've made a TODO list on the talk page Template_talk:F1_race_position so that we can keep track of what needs to be done. I've just put the championship pages on there right now, but the car/chassis and racer pages will also need to be done if we're going to change those tables too. Krea (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ALL of these ideas (including the existing methods) are poor for accessibility. I wish there was a way to do these things semantically, instead of visually. Imagine trying to understand a tenth of these tables if you are relying on a screen reader because of a visual impairment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * New here, just trying to help a little. If we use the letter indicator format, we haven't yet seen a full example (got just a taste) of a particular scheme that seems to have at least some approval; the P and F with no colors. Below I have added a couple lines to user Krea's examples for additional comparisons with the PF no-color style, and also with the alternate PL no-color scheme:


 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align:middle; text-align:center;"

!style="vertical-align:middle"|Pos. !style="vertical-align:middle;background"|Driver !Race1 !Race2 !Race3 !Race4 !Race5 !Race6 !Race7 !Race8 !Race9 !Race10 !Race11 !Race12 !style="vertical-align:middle"|Points !1 !2 !3
 * style="text-align:left"|italics
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1†
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2†
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3†
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4†
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0;text-align:center"|1
 * style="text-align:left"|dutch
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 P
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 F
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 F
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P F
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 P F
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P F
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 P F
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1† P F
 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2† P F
 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3† P F
 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4† P F
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0;text-align:center"|2
 * style="text-align:left"|dutch-mod1
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 F


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P F


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4† P F


 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P F


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2† P F


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P F †


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 C


 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 C P F


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 P F C


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3† P F


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 P F C

!4
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0;text-align:center"|3
 * style="text-align:left"|dutch-mod2
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 F


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P F


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4† P F


 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P F


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2† P F


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P F †


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 C


 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 C P F


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 P F C


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3† P F


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 P F C

!5
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0;text-align:center"|4
 * style="text-align:left"|dutch-mod3
 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 L


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P L


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4† P L


 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 P L


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2† P L


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3 P L †


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 C


 * style="background:#FFFFBF;"|1 C P L


 * style="background:#DFDFDF;"|2 P L C


 * style="background:#FFDF9F;"|3† P L


 * style="background:#DFFFDF;"|4 P L C


 * style="background-color:#EAECF0;text-align:center"|5
 * }
 * }


 * Just me, I think we need the colors (or the L), but you guys decide. Hope this helps. See ya. --DB1729 (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Potential complication with drivers results matrix
With the drivers it is the 3 letter race code which is bolded or italicised to reflect if the driver got pole/fastest lap. (see Kimi Raikkonen for example). Whilst this is not a problem for the template discussed above I am worried that the proposed system of letters (or any of the other proposed systems) wouldn't look right if we put them next to the the race code. I would therefore propose that we instead format the result in these tables rather than the race code as I think it looks and works better, and that it is also more consistent with other types of results matrices. SSSB (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just move to a system where fastest lap is only italicised if points were awarded? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That is rebutted above but also irrelevant to this level 3 header. Please place those concerns in the relevant place in the discussion above. SSSB (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If I don't hear anything back I will (due to this being a highly vistited page) assume unanimous support. SSSB (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to say about the accessibility concerns I expressed above? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * no, because I don't have a solution and neither, I think, do you. As we don't have a solution we might as well make what we've got work as well as we can. SSSB (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that I don't have a solution; however, implementing the changes you propose will likely exacerbate the problem. To be honest, any Wikipedia table that uses non-semantic methods will cause accessibility problems, so perhaps I shouldn't worry so much about it in the F1 WikiProject. It's just that the tables used in F1 articles are particularly egregious accessibility offenders. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , just so we are clear are you against my proposal of formatting the result rather than the race code in the driver results matrix or against the proposal of using letters to inidcate pole/fastest lap instead of bold/italics. Because in this level 3 section of the discussion I am only asking for opinions for the former, the latter is discussed above the level 3 header. If you are against the former can you please explain why because I don't see how formatting the result rather than the race code affects accessibility. SSSB (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the proposals are acceptable from an accessibility point of view. I recommend you proceed as you see fit and we can circle back to the accessibility issue if a solution presents itself. Right now, I can't think of any elegant solution, since accessibility compliance is not something I am well versed in. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. The usage of the letters P and L can easily be made not to have accessibility issues. We intend to use a template to generate them and we can easily coded it so that if even caters to blind people. Just like the flag templates do.Tvx1 16:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

As for the driver results table, I would argue that it works OK as it is. The 3-letter abbreviations for the race work OK with bold/italics (but not brilliant); adding the P/L markers would clutter the table up. The downside is that it introduces an inconsistency. The only solution that I have for that is maybe to consider using bold/underline instead of bold/italic or the proposed P/L markers:

This is a solution that I would not be against. It does help spot the fastest laps a bit better than italics alone. As for accessibility, however, it probably won't help the situation, although the tables possibly already have a problem in that regard anyway. I don't have an answer to that problem, unfortunately. Krea (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For accessibility reasons the icons are preferred over font variations. Font variations are simply not accessible to a number of readers. And clutter is a matter of opinion. It does not come across as clutter to me.Tvx1 17:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not clutter if it adds value and improves accessibility IMO. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But the question is:Is there a way we can have the same level of accessibility but have it look less cluttered? I have to agree that it looks cluttered but the icons are still prefered despite this as its more accessibly than any of the other proposals (which I remember, there have been so many) SSSB (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All I can really say is: good question! A big part of accessibility here is considering screen readers, and if they need something to read then it kind of has to be an icon, right? Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Future
I will make the proposed changes that were broadly agreed on to the 2019 page so that people can judge the proposal in a live setting. However, I don't regard the issue as settled yet since there are still concerns that a few people have flagged so far, accessibility included. So, as always, comments and suggestions are welcome. Krea (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also bear in mind that I have applied the template to pages for all the 2019 cars and results pages for the 2019 constructors upto and including Red Bull if you go through them alphabetically if anyone is interested to see how they look there. SSSB (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks absolutely hideous. Nineixsixine (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, any suggestions for improvements or alternates? The whole point of this discussion revolved around the issue that the previous system may not have been hideous, but was useless in transmitting information (at least for me with the fastest laps). You can look at the alternatives above, or else a new suggestion would be more than welcome.
 * Incidentally, I will correct the template since I made a mistake: the fastest lap marker should be "L" and not "F" (for accessibility reasons). Krea (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It should not. It does not change anything in accessibility and conflicts with lap leaders. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When the text is very small, a P (for pole position) can be hard to distinguish from a F (for fastest lap). It is much easier to distinguish between P and L. As long as the key next to the table makes it clear, why does it matter? Achilles&#39; Wrath (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

By year sections in Grand Prix articles
Hi, a few days ago made this edit at Abu Dhabi Grand Prix placing the by year section into chrolological order i.e. 2009 first (which was leter undone by  with this edit), just wondering is either side supported by convention/policy or is it just down to personally taste? If it is down to personal taste would it be worth making this WP:F1 convention? SSSB (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression that convention, for Grands Prix at least, is to list past winners in reverse chronological order. Personally I would prefer that they be listed in chronological order as this is the most intuitive, but I do recognise that (especially for the current races) people are more likely to want recent winners. Anyway, in answer to the question I would support standardising chronological order (oldest at top) in Grand Prix articles as this is generally more common in most other types of racing. A7V2 (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was also under that impression, but couldn't find reference to that convention in the wikiproject's subpages on convention SSSB (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Having a look at a few different major races which weren't F1 GPs they all use chronological order. See: Gordon Bennett Cup (auto racing), Daytona 500, Monte Carlo Rally, List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners, List of Indianapolis 500 winners and Bathurst 1000. A7V2 (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:F1's (undocumented) convention is to have latest year at the top. However, I think there's at least 1 Grand Prix article (I can't remember which one) which has latest year at the bottom - it used to have latest year at the top, then an editor came and changed it to be latest year at the bottom, and I reverted their change, quoting our (undocumented) convention, then they reverted my revert, pointing to a section of the MOS (I can't remember exactly where) which said that chronological lists should be in ascending chronological order. I'll try to find the article and the section of the MOS. DH85868993 (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. The article was Australian Grand Prix (in which the "By year" table is in ascending chronological order) and the "section of the MOS" (actually a section of Stand-alone lists) was WP:SALORDER which says: "Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order." DH85868993 (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I do think its worth pointing out that WP:SALORDER specifically applies to stand alone lists (being in the page about stand alone lists, with SAL standing for "stand alone list"), these lists aren't stand alone as they are incorparated into a wider article. I also think its worth noting that we are independent to all the examples A7V2 listed above and therefore their way shouldn't necessarily be our way. I'm not particularly fussed which order they appear in, i was just wondering about if there was an official line. SSSB (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also WP:CHRONO (which is part of the MOS) which says "Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order". WP:CHRONO was probably the reference I was originally thinking of, rather than WP:SALORDER. I also note that the edit history for Australian Grand Prix doesn't support the sequence of events I described above; perhaps it was a different article and then someone else came along later and reverted the list to "WP:F1 standard order". But Australian Grand Prix does have the list in ascending order. I would be happy with all the lists of Grand Prix winners being in ascending order, but we'd possibly also want to consult at WP:MOTOR since many of the Grands Prix have not been exclusively F1 events for their entire history. DH85868993 (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case it is evident that these lists should be chronological. I will place an advertisment for this at WT:MOTOR. SSSB (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My examples were meant more to be illustrative to show that doing it latest-to-earliest is unusual, which now that I'm aware of them I'd say is likely due to the policies meantioned by DH85868993. And in many cases F1 GPs have a history outside of F1 so are presumably shared by WP:MOTOR (eg Australian, German and French GPs), so it's probably a good idea to have a convention which is consistent across all motorsport articles. A7V2 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed it back because all similar lists should be in the same order. Anyone reading through all the GP lists may find it odd that one GP is in opposite order of the others.  One thing to consider is that most other motorsport lists, such as champion & season lists are in chronological order.  I would be fine with either order.  Mcbjmund  (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It has been over a week now, and as there have been no objections, and it is supported by policy (WP:CHRONO), I think all Grand Prix articles should be changed to (oldest at top) chronological order, and perhaps this should be listed in the WP:F1 conventions also. Unless there are last minute objections I will implement this later today (or unless someone else does it first). A7V2 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There WAS a stipulation to use reverse chronological order for these lists (see ). I have changed this policy to reflect the consensus here and to reflect WP:CHRONO. I've also changed most articles to have the list of winners in chronological order. I would have done it earlier but it was actually a lot more needing to be done than I had thought! In the end I wrote a computer program to do it for me, but I still had to manually fix the rowspans and the 19xx-19yy for when a race had a gap. Anyway, if anyone sees any long tables that I missed which should be reversed and you can't be bothered doing it yourself manually let me know (on my talk page I suppose) as I can do it reasonably quickly (especially if there's no rowspans or gaps!) A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Mike Fisher/1967 Mexican Grand Prix
Sources differ regarding Mike Fisher's result at the 1967 Mexican Grand Prix: Lang says "Only 18 cars faced the starter on Sunday afternoon for during the warm-up lap Fisher's Lotus-B.R.M. was found to have a fault in the fuel-injection system, so he had, reluctantly, to withdraw at the last moment." What result should we go with? (I'm leaning towards "Did not start"). DH85868993 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * formula1.com, ChicaneF1, StatsF1 and grandprix.com say "Ret/DNF"
 * FORIX (subscription site), Motor Sport and Mike Lang's Grand Prix! say "Did not start".
 * OldRacingCars also say Fisher was a DNS as he retired on the parade lap. I mostly prefer to go with race reports of that time as they tend to have more information and usually are more accurate. So I would prefer to go with "DNS". Jahn1234567890 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Motor Sport's report backs that up; "the car was wheeled off the dummy grid and retired", therefore, it did not make the official start. Use of the word 'retired' here has maybe been interpreted incorrectly by some. Halmyre (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. It looks like there's consensus for "DNS". If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I'll update the affected articles. DH85868993 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've updated all the affected articles. Thanks for your input, everyone. DH85868993 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I've split McLaren Grand Prix results into subsections based on decade to show what it would look like. Normally I'd do it in my sandbox, but it's too big for that. I haven't totally changed everything so that the article can be reverted easily if we decide against it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

De facto vs. de jure
There is currently an ongoing disucussion at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship about whether our maps should use de facto or de jure borders. SSSB (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Renault F1 Team page
The current article for Renault F1 team is simply Renault in Formula One, which includes sections on Équipe Renault Elf (1977-85), Renault F1 Team (2002-2010), Lotus Renault GP (2011), and Renault Sport Formula Team/Renault Formula 1 Team (2016 - Present), as well as Renault's involvement as an engine supplier throughout the years.

Would it not be much clearer to have 5 pages overall:

4 sporting pages: - Renault Elf (1977-85) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Renault Formula 1 Team (2002-2010) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Lotus Renault GP (2011) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Renault Formula 1 Team (2016 - Present) in the style of a current F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc.

- Renault in Formula One, an overview from a more business point of view, describing Renault's investment in 4 of its own f1 teams, and its role as an engine supplier.

This would be far clearer, and makes a lot more sense. There is currently no article for the current team known as 'Renault Formula 1 Team', instead it occupies a small section in a much bigger, convoluted article. This is ludicrous. One of 10 current constructors should have its own page. There is very little continuity between the 1977 French team and the 2019 British/French team, beyond the fact that they were both invested in by the same massive manufacturer.

The teams should each have their own page, I think it would be much clearer. What do you think?

Achilles&#39; Wrath (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there may be no continuity between them but we go on reliable sources. I am yet to find a source where the results for the Renault team from 1977-1985 are credited to a separate team than the results of Renault for 2016-present. It would therefore be original research for us to have a separate page for each iteration of the team. SSSB (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but I hope you can see why there is still confusion. For example, at the top of the Renault in F1 page there is a French Flag. That would be correct for the original French team, but incorrect for all Renault-branded teams since 2002, which ran under a British license and would more accurately have both a French and a British flag. If we just have one page full of all the Renault teams, should we keep a French Flag there or a British one?


 * Also, the infobox on the Renault F1 page has Previous Names: Benneton Formula (1986-2001) and Lotus F1 Team (2012-2015). If there is enough continuity between Benneton->Renault->Lotus Renault GP -> Lotus F1 -> Renault Sport -> Renault F1, for Benneton and Lotus F1 to be listed as previous names, why are there not sections on Benneton and Lotus F1 in the 'Renault in F1' page?


 * It is clearly because they were different teams, just like Renault in 1977 was a different team to Renault today. I understand that a lot of sources have them as the same team, but there is some ambiguity there as well. For example on the year by year profile on F1.com, it considers the team in its current incarnation to have begun in 2012 as Lotus, then officially changed its name in 2016. So should we have a page for


 * What do you suggest to help clear issues like the flag up, if you don't want separate pages? Achilles&#39; Wrath (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - Renault-branded teams since 2002, which ran under a British license - this is not correct, since 2002 all entrants with Renault in their name have run under the french with the exceeption of 2011 when Lotus ran the team and Renault only built the chassis (as explained at Renault in Formula One). a French Flag there or a British one - French because Renault is a French company or both as they had a chassis entered under the British flag when they collaborated with Lotus in 2011 or French as this is the flag the team currently race under (this is how the issue has been dealt with at Alfa Romeo in F1 but I think this rationale violates WP:RECENTISM) why are there not sections on Benneton and Lotus F1 in the 'Renault in F1' page - because that falls outside of the scope of the article, a simply sentence is all that is needed to say that Renault bought the team from X and sold it to Y, stating anything more about X and Y would be inappropriate and would, in my opinion, constitute WP:UNDUE Renault in 1977 was a different team to Renault today. - you keep stating this but you have provided no reliable sources which list them seperatly, something you acknowledge when you say I understand that a lot of sources have them as the same team. A failure to provide sources to assert this claim constitutes WP:OR. I understand that a lot of sources have them as the same team, but there is some ambiguity there as well. For example on the year by year profile on F1.com, it considers the team in its current incarnation to have begun in 2012 as Lotus, then officially changed its name in 2016. - this may be true but the number of sources which contradict this view point by far outnumber those that agree, (see Renault's profile on StatsF1 for example) and F1.com still consider the Renault team from 2002 to be the same as the Renault team today criditing today's F1 team with 2 F1 championships. What do you suggest to help clear issues like the flag up, if you don't want separate pages? - I have made 2 suggestions on how I think we can deal with the flag problem you raised but I think the other issues you talk about have been dealt with sufficently in the article as is. Clearly you disagree but I think the best way for you to try and fix the problems you raised would be by [[WP:BRD]. I also think that this discussion is actually better suited to Talk:Renault in Formula One as this thread is specifically about Renault and doesn't touch on anything else (i.e. a WP:CENTRALIZED discussion here is unnecessary). SSSB (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the detailed response and advice - I understand that many sources disagree with me, but it doesn't feel right to have the teams as the same. But after reading WP:OR, I recognise that we must do as the sources suggest. I'll think about the best way to keep the page as one page but perhaps make it a bit more readable and useful. I think one of the main issues is a lot of the Season report pages have very little information beyond 'X and Y driver was signed for the team.' I'll try and make a few edits later and see if WP:BRD works. Thank you so much for all the help! Achilles&#39; Wrath (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is illogical to use, in effect, 'team owner' as the unit of measure for an article (e.g. Renault, Mercedes, etc.). A more logical heading, in my opinion, is by 'physical team'. By that I mean, for example, that the current Renault-owned team should be covered in the same article as it was when it was owned by Toleman, Benetton, Renault the first time and Lotus. Similarly for the team currently owned by Mercedes, it was originally owned by Tyrrel, then BAR, then Honda and then Brawn. Sure, if FIFA use the team owner to aggregate the points, then so could we, but there is nothing to stop us having one article for each physical team, sectioned perhaps by ownership eras. That way we can follow the Formula 1 related activities such as the continuity of car development, driver development, team members, team management, team location, etc., and not merely the vanity trips of big-name automotive companies who buy oven-ready successful teams. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing course slightly, I've noticed that articles like McLaren Grand Prix results (I assume there's one for Renault, too) are basically one giant table. Would it be better to break these up into several smaller tables, say by decade? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Re-thinking results matrices
As most of you know, I browse and edit Wikipedia almost exclusively on the mobile site. Lately, however, I've been doing a bit of browsing on the main site and I have noticed a bit of a problem: results matrices&mdash;in season, car, team and driver articles&mdash;are getting to be pretty big. With 21 races in 2019, 22 in 2020, and the sporting regulations now allowing up to 25, I think the problem is only going to get worse.

When I say the tables are getting big, I mean that they're getting pretty wide&mdash;so wide that they exceed the width of the article and the reader is either forced to side-scroll to see the whole table, or read a small-print version of the article because the browser forces the whole article to be shown at once. I find both these solutions to be far from ideal, so I'm starting this discussion to see if we can find another way. I think there are two options (but am open to more): Anyone? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Using markup to reduce the size of tables. Our tables open with, but we can change this. Supercars have run as many as 38 races in the recent past, and so their articles&mdash;such as Scott McLaughlin&mdash;use  for their tables. This is probably the easiest way to fix the problem, but I have reservations about making the font too small.
 * 2) Changing the format of tables completely. I know this won't be terribly popular, but I think it's justified given the problem. I'm not sure what it would look like, but I'm open to ideas.


 * Just did a mock-up of what this might look like in my sandbox. It's a return to the old style of matrix, and came out much better than I anticipated. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the design you suggest. The current one (eg McLaren Grand Prix results) is quite awful... apart from being far too wide I hate how much empty space there is. If the change suggested by McLarenfan is considered too extreme, could we also consider moving the points and championship position to the left of the race results so it isn't separated by all the empty race slots when the season wasn't the longest season? A7V2 (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * the McLaren Grand Prix results article (and other, similar articles) can be fixed by breaking the one big table into several tables, one for each decade. That way earlier seasons when there were only, say, fifteen races won't have half a dozen blank cells thanks to seasons with over twenty races (unless they were in the same decade).


 * For me, the real issue is the width of the tables. I think it is a problem project-wide as superfluous stuff has crept in over the years. I'm a firm believer that less is more because tables should supplement prose, not replace it. However, I think results matrices are the more immediate problem as there is little appetite to trim other tables down. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This issue has been on my mind for some time, it is very annoying. I have to say that I quite like McLarenfan17's suggestion of separating a season's results across 2 rows. It wouldn't even make the results matrix longer, take a look at Alexander Albon for example. I also support Mclarenfan17's suggestion of separating results by decade. It is a much better may of dealing with white extra cells and makes it easier to track a teams results over a certain time period. You haven't got to scroll as far. Not to mention it will get rid of the lag when I try to edit them. I had actually tagged the Ferrari results page with subsections for this exact reason. SSSB (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The results matrices in championship articles will be harder to figure out, though. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so here's what I'm thinking for the WCC/WCM matrices in championship articles: We can see how that goes and take it from there. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) We make the results key a link (the way we do in car/driver/team articles) rather than keep it alongside the matrix. There is already a separate table outlining how points are scored, so the key really only details more-obscure results such as disqualifications.
 * 2) We reduce the size of the matrix from 85% to 80%, which should keep it within the bounds of the article whilst still being readable.
 * I think keeping the key visible without having to click a link is important - the results tables include a lot of very useful information and condense it with colours and symbols, so it is important for all users to immediately know what each colour and symbol means. Is there no other way to save space than to collapse the results key? Achilles&#39; Wrath (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * short of making the matrices very small or completely reformatting their design, I cannot find any other solutions. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The existing keys next to the WDC/WCC tables could be replaced by a slightly modified version of the existing landscape results key (F1 results key - see below) placed either above or below the tables. The new key could be non-collapsible if desired. DH85868993 (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I find that a pretty clumsy solution. The problem we are trying to fix is the way wide tables are creating articles that exceed the width of the screen. Widening the results key is the opposite of what we're trying to acieve.


 * As for putting it above or below the matrix, that placement strikes me as counter-intuitive. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Formula One championship-winning cars
There's a discussion in progress at Category talk:Formula One championship-winning cars regarding the scope of the category, i.e. whether it should only include cars which won the Constructors' Championship, or whether it should also include cars which won the Drivers' Championship. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Career summary tables
An editor has recently added "career summary" tables to a number of F1 driver articles - see here for a list. Unfortunately, the tables don't conform to the WP:MOTOR standard format. I'm planning to reformat the tables when I have time, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone wants to help out. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed this at Williamson's page earlier today; I left a message at the editor's TP. The tables do not conform and there's a degree of trivia; not every result needs to be recorded (WP:NOTSTATS). Eagleash (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the current status:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Driver ! Status
 * Alex Ribeiro || table removed
 * André Ribeiro (racing driver) || table removed
 * Ayrton Senna || (table has been removed)
 * Chico Serra || table removed
 * Didier Pironi || table removed
 * Elio de Angelis || table reformatted
 * Gilles Villeneuve || table removed
 * Gunnar Nilsson || table removed; similar, partially improved table added by an IP; table reformatted
 * Jo Siffert || table removed
 * Marco Greco || table needs reformatting
 * Nelson Piquet || (table has been removed)
 * Patrick Depailler || table removed
 * Paul Stewart (racing driver) || table needs reformatting
 * Renzo Zorzi || table needs reformatting
 * Roger Williamson || table updated to WP:MOTOR standard format; now erased by 'creator'
 * Roland Ratzenberger || (table has been removed)
 * Tommy Byrne (racing driver) || table needs reformatting
 * Tony Brise || table needs reformatting
 * }
 * DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nelson Piquet || (table has been removed)
 * Patrick Depailler || table removed
 * Paul Stewart (racing driver) || table needs reformatting
 * Renzo Zorzi || table needs reformatting
 * Roger Williamson || table updated to WP:MOTOR standard format; now erased by 'creator'
 * Roland Ratzenberger || (table has been removed)
 * Tommy Byrne (racing driver) || table needs reformatting
 * Tony Brise || table needs reformatting
 * }
 * DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Roland Ratzenberger || (table has been removed)
 * Tommy Byrne (racing driver) || table needs reformatting
 * Tony Brise || table needs reformatting
 * }
 * DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tony Brise || table needs reformatting
 * }
 * DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Name of Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit article
Hello all, I've started a discussion at Talk:Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit regarding moving the article to either Albert Park Circuit or Albert Park Grand Prix Circuit and invite interested editors to participate there. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC notice
A Request for Comment has been posted at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship to seek additional input about a world map showing Grands Prix locations. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Sponsors" section of Grand Prix articles
has recently made many additions to the sponsors section of Grand Prix articles (for example ) and in the process has changed most of the headings from something along the lines of Sponsors to Official names and sponsors. Maybe there were others but at least on Vietnamese Grand Prix, changed it back, giving the reason as "convention". I don't see anything in WikiProject_Formula_One about this section heading so I think something should be added. Personally I very much dislike calling the section just "sponsors" since whether or not a long time ago that's all that was included, in practice these sections always seem to list the official names, so I think we should establish a new convention of calling these sections "Official names and sponsors" or something along those lines, but I wonder what others think? A7V2 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit redundant to me. Take the Vietnamese Grand Prix&mdash;it's called the "VinFast Vietnamese Grand Prix". It's the official name, but it's also the sponsor name. Calling it both adds nothing. It would be like calling the results table in a car article "Complete Formula 1 and Grand Prix results". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not redundant, but instead meaningful. The Vietnamese race may have a sponsor for now but this is meant for the long term, if they possibly lose a sponsor, as well as a general standardisation; by naming everything under one name (as opposed as what it is now, with one Wiki calling it "Sponsors" and the other "Title sponsors" for example), it becomes more clear and avoids confusion. Like I said, I am going to name all mentioned races the same, even if they only have a sponsor list and not just some, and will include all previous names (so also names without sponsors) so I agree with here. MatteoNL97 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The Vietnamese race may have a sponsor for now'' but this is meant for the long term
 * Then how about you wait until it happens?
 * ''if they possibly lose a sponsor
 * That's speculation.
 * ''it becomes more clear and avoids confusion
 * By making it more confusing? Your title for the section suggests that official names and sponsors are two separate things, which is not the case.
 * Like I said, I am going to name all mentioned races the same, even if they only have a sponsor list and not just some'', and will include all previous names (so also names without sponsors)
 * No, you're going to wait until you get a consensus for this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider the entire section redundent and unenclopedic as well as putting WP:UNDUE on the event's official name. I have never seen a secondry source (the official F1 website is not secondry) that mentions the official name. Let alone one which lists all the official name that any Grand Prix has ever had. SSSB (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To awnser the actual question, use official name because thatis what it is. If it says sponsers, no big deal. Official names and sponsers is silly because the official name contains the title sponser, therefore specifing sponsers is redundent. SSSB (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think SSSB's second point here is probably right. No need to include the word "sponsors" really. In reply to McLarenfan17, I disagree that sponsors and official names are the same thing. For example, the British Grand Prix, where John Player was the sponsor from 1972-1978, but for '72-76 the race was the "John Player Grand Prix" and for '77-78 it was the "John Player British Grand Prix", and similarly when Shell was the sponsor there were two different names.
 * In reply to SSSB's first point, I don't think the section is redundant. According to Official_names, arguably we should have all the official names bolded and early in the article - but I don't think this is a good idea since there's often too many. However, I propose this: keep the section, calling it "Official names" (or similar), and maybe even putting the current/most recent one somewhere in the lead, but then in cases such as the Vietnamese Grand Prix we can remove the section and just include it in the leed since there's only one. Arguably also according to the policy we should have redirects from all the official names, which while it sounds a bit like overkill, isn't this exactly what's been done for most NASCAR, Indycar and (V8)Supercars race articles? A7V2 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * NASCAR articles do it because there's not much of an alternative. What else could you call the Worry-Free Weather Guarantee 350?


 * Supercars articles do it in articles, like the Newcastle 500, which is more in line with what we're discussing. If it were up to me, those articles would not do it at all. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I can live with the proposal of to create just a "Official name" section, seeing how the overwhelming amount of mentioned GPs have non-sponsored names (mainly from the past, some also from the present) which fits the category better than just "Sponsors", hence why I called it "Official names and sponsors" to begin with. However, I do not agree that the category should be named by the sponsor name, seeing how some often change sponsor by year and the affromentioned Wiki's I edited are too broad to just be named by one sponsor. MatteoNL97 (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can live with the proposal of @A7V2 - what are you on about, that was my propsal. Anyway, thats not the point, what do you mean by I do not agree that the category should be named by the sponsor name, seeing how some often change sponsor by year and the affromentioned Wiki's I edited are too broad to just be named by one sponsor. - what categories are you talking about, and what affromentioned Wiki's, you haven't mentioned any other wikis. Please clarify that statement. SSSB (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me also clarify my own statements. It's not that I think listing official names is redundant, listing sponsors is redundant. This difference is significant. Also note that listing the official names is not required by convention. This is because the official name of the British Grand Prix (for example) has never been the John Player British Grand Prix but the official name of the 1972 British Grand prix was the 1972 John Player British Grand Prix. Therefore we don't have to list the official names because it was never the official of the any Grand Prix but rather the official name of the XXXX (insert nation here) Grand Prix. SSSB (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * what are you on about, that was my propsal. - Uh no, that was the proposal of AV72, but I digress. what do you mean by "I do not agree that the category should be named by the sponsor name, seeing how some often change sponsor by year and the affromentioned Wiki's I edited are too broad to just be named by one sponsor." - what categories are you talking about, and what affromentioned Wiki's, you haven't mentioned any other wikis. Please clarify that statement. - what you mentioned in your last reply, basically. The "X Grand Prix" pages, which lists all the GPs a nation has ever hosted, should not be named by the current year sponsor, purely because it covers too many races for that to be allowed. Renaming the individual race wiki names wouldn't be an option either, seeing how some names are non-English and it would cause big confusion on the English Wikipedia. I think the way the official names are mentioned in the individual race articles are fine as is, honestly. MatteoNL97 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, you confused me. You were referring to the proposal to redefine the sections to contain official names (A7V2's idea) and I thought that you were referring to my proposal to limit the section header to Official names. If I understood what you just said correctly I don't think anyone would disagree with you for 2 reasons
 * As I pointed out before the Official name of the Grand Prix for year X is not the official name of the Grand Prix in year X (I.e. the official name of the British Grand Prix is not the Formula 1 Pirelli British Grand Prix even though the official name of the 2020 British Grand Prix is the Formula 1 Pirelli British Grand Prix 2020
 * Such an edit would be a violation of WP:COMMONNAME.
 * But, are you happy for those section to be renamed to Official names. SSSB (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly I would to clarify what I meant by them all being official names. In 1974, the official name of the British Grand Prix race (in general) was the John Player Grand Prix, while now, in 2020, the official name of the race (in general) is the Pirelli British Grand Prix, but of course for the individual years they have their own official names. But anyway, I will restate, for claritiy (and having read the opinions above) that I propose we change the section title to Official names, and also (as a separate, definitely unbundled proposal!) to include in the leed something along the lines of "The British Grand Prix (currently known for sponsorship reasons as the Pirelli British Grand Prix) is...", per WP:OFFICIAL. A7V2 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And I recognise that the first part is what SSSB already suggested! A7V2 (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha. Agreement from me. SSSB (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * But, are you happy for those section to be renamed to Official names Yes, I am fine with this. The reason I changed these sections to begin with was because I expanded it to older names that did not have any sponsorship, so this change would reflect on all these sections in a more neutral way IMO. MatteoNL97 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone through all the articles of the current races and changed all the headers to exclusivly state Official names. SSSB (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Article created for 2022 Formula One World Championship
An editor has created 2022 Formula One World Championship which at this stage is comprised of a list of driver/circuit contracts. If anyone knows of any additional content which can be added please do so. Also note that I have started an AfD for this article. SSSB (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Website field for Template:Infobox F1 driver
An editor has proposed adding a "website" field to Infobox F1 driver. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An example of the website field in use can be seen in my Sandbox. 5225C (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The field has been added to the infobox and websites have been added to all 2018, 2019, and 2020 drivers. 5225C (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Pole position/Fastet lap mess
I have not bean that active on wikipedia the last couple of months. Today I went through the Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results page and to say is was quite surprised would be an understatement. I went through the WP:F1 talk page to see how a consensus was reached to change the indicators for the pole position and the fastet lap. I understand some of the accessibility issues but I don't understand how this change is an improvement. I have multiple issues with the new indicators.

I always thought the main point of the F1 result tables was to display the results. So first and foremost the most important thing is the display of the actual result of a driver/team. I'm not saying displaying the PP and FL is not important but it's just a detail. Using symbols for the PP and FL clutters up the results tables and I have real trouble to read the tables properly now. Especially with successful teams like Ferrari and Mercedes the result table are impossible to comfortably navigate. So I feel like the new symbols harm the actual goal of these result tables. Not to mention that a lot of result are not centrally displayed anymore as the FL and PP symbols clutter up the table. We already use a symbol to indicate a driver DNF the race but was classified as he competed 90% of the race. And very infrequently we use a symbol to indicate that half points were awarded as less than 75% of the race distance was completed. Two symbols in one result box is already very uncomfortable to read but in very rare cases there are even three. I feel like we are losing touch of what these result tables are meant for.

I also have a real problem with the lack of consistency this is creating. I always felt the WP:F1 community got their stuff together with the result tables as everything looked very uniform. This is certainly not helping. For whatever reason the interest in the WP:F1 or the number of people that actively participate in this wiki project has decreased over the years (including me). In the past when a major change was about to be made we used to vote about this stuff. This has not been done now and it bothers me.

These changes not only create inconsistencies within the WP:F1 pages but also all the other result tables that fall within WP:Motorsport. I think the best thing to do is revert back to the previous system and when an actual solution with the accessibility issues is found we can think of a change. Now we are just moving the problems around. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This change came about because of a change in the sport. Fastest Laps are results now. Most of the times drivers get a point for it. That's why they need to be more clearly shown now. Moreover the new system actually is the solution to the accessibility issues that existed with the old system's font variations.Tvx1 22:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Are we using "debut" or "début"?
Is there any particular consensus on whether to use or ? This doesn't seem consistent across the project. 5225C (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not particulary fussed, nor do I see why this is something we need to be consistant on. However if we, the wikiproject, would choose one I would suggest without the accent simply becuase I (and most probably most people) spell it without an accent and wouldn't know how to add an accent anyway. SSSB (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, me too. According to Fowler's (4th edition, 2015), "debut is usually spelt without the accent of the original French (début) in British English". I'd go with that. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The accented é is simply on your "2" key on the top left of your keyboard.Tvx1 17:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are from Belgium you would presumably have a French layout keyboard which would be quite different to a standard English one. Since accents are rarely if ever used in English, standard keyboards in English speaking countries don't have accented letters on them. A7V2 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I simply have an Apple AZERTY keyboard. On a QWERTY keyboard you get this particular accented é by pushing alt+e followed by another push on the e key. Anyway I though that the accented letters were still somewhat common in the English language countries in the Gaelic regions?Tvx1 23:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , exactly, most, if not all, of the English speaking world use QWERTY which doesn't have any accented characters. If I want to accent a character I would have to word, insert, symbol. Then copy and paste if I want to put it on the internet. That is the problem with using début (copy and pasted from 5225C's original comment), I simply can't type an accent without copy and pasting it from word or somewhere where it is already present. Similary if I am writing a race report I have to copy Raikkonen and Perez's name from results tables as I can't accent the a (for rai) or the e (for perez). SSSB (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You actually can accent all those letters on a QWERTY keyboard. As I said you get the ´ by pressing alt+e end then whichever vowel you want accented. For the umlaut ¨ you press alt+u followed by the vowel. For the for the ` accent you press  alt+` followed by the vowel. For the circonflex ^ accent you press alt+I followed by the vowel. So a name like Räikkönen kan perfectly be generated on a QWERTY keyboard. And you actually have to use key combinations on an AZERTY keyboard to get most of these accented letters as well. Only é,è,à and ù have a dedicated key on those. And just so you know, to type this post I changed my computer's settings to use QWERTY input while my keyboard does not have an ALT GR key ;-).Tvx1 00:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That works when you have an AltGR key on a QWERTY, but those aren't very common. I don't think I've ever seen one in Australia. You can configure to have an alt key give AltGR but probably most people wouldn't do this unless they type in other languages a lot and when I last tried it it caused other problems.
 * Alternatively if you are editing on desktop (maybe on mobile too, I never have so I don't know) you can at the top of the editing window click "Special Characters" and in the first section "Latin" é is there along with various other accented letters. A7V2 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When I use QWERTY it works with either of the ALT keys.Tvx1 00:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are probably using the US-International configuration or something like that. The point is that out of the box, with no configuring or changes in any way, certainly in Australia and the UK, the vast majority of keyboards don't have these shortcuts to get accented letters because accents simply aren't used. But ultimately this isn't really that relevant to the original question! A7V2 (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the UK keyboards don't have these? I would have thought that there are fair number of Gaelic British people would use these accents commonly. Quite often simply in their names (e.g. Dómhnaill, Pádraig, Sinéad, Gráinne, Ó Briain). Anyway, it could also be dependent on the system you use. I use Apple and neither their AZERTY nor their QWERTY have AltGr keys. In fact Alt keys are actually generally called Option keys by Apple. Regardless, it's likely that pressing Ctrl+Alt on your keyboard functions the same way as AltGr would. In fact the presence or absence of an Alt Gr key is not even an AZERTY vs QWERTY thing, but rather a manufacturer thing. It's really only Apple keyboards which don't have those buttons whatever the layout. Non-Apple AZERTY keyboards do have that key. Tvx1 00:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to continue arguing about this almost entirely irrelevant point but you are simply wrong. Keyboards in Australia (and I'm talking about Windows here, not Mac) rarely (if ever) have AltGr. Due to the use of Alt for various other shortcuts, none of what you suggest work without doing some fiddling around with installing different keyboards/configuring which most people would not do as they have no reason to since, as I said, English practically never uses accents! A7V2 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just tried creating accents using alt+u etc. but it didn't work alt+u does nothing whilst alt gr.+u gives . I can't then umalat it. alt gr.+e gives the same accent but on the e instead. Thanks anyway. SSSB (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On the topic, I wouldn't start to modify articles on the basis of WP:BROKEN. We could recommend to use the form without accent but it's not a big issue at all. I too believe that a lack of consistency on this does no constitute a problem.Tvx1 00:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted arequest for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports regarding two users contributing to this project. If anyone wishes to add evidence for arbitrators to consider, you can add it to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.Tvx1 23:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Günther/Guenther Steiner
Guenther Steiner was recently moved to Günther Steiner. There is a discussion in progress at the article's talk page regarding the spelling of his first name. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've started an WP:RM to move it back. SSSB (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)