This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
It can seem that sometimes this wikiproject can wind up tying itself in knots trying to give precise statistics where reliable sources don't always agree (sometimes even with themselves). While sometimes this is driven by a desire to find the most accurate information, albeit in a pedantic manner; there are other times when this can cross over into POV pushing, even if the POV being pushed is that of the FIA. I don't really have any specific example to give here, and this is a far broader issue among F1 fans than just on Wikipedia; but I think we need to keep in mind that it's sometimes okay to say "depending on how one counts it, Driver McDriverface either started 92 or 94 races" or things to that effect, rather than searching (read: arguing) too hard for the "correct" answer when really any given answer is just an opinion. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Despite the race not taking place this year due to obvious reasons shouldn't the Mexico City Grand Prix have it's own separate article from the Mexican Grand Prix considering it's a new Grand Prix title? It just wouldn't be statistically correct to have it's results (when there are results) included with the Mexican GP's. That would be like including the Eifel GP's results with the German GP's, It being held at the same circuit is irrelevant. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone (admin or page mover) move Draft:2020 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to mainspace ( 2020 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix). As there's currently a redirect, cannot move it myself- this is a problem we've had all year since someone created loads of the articles as drafts months in advance. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles on Formula One inevitably wind up being filled with jargon. Some are obvious (MGU-H, DRS) and sometimes can only be adequately explained by using Wikilinks or laconic explanations, in other cases the jargon can be easily avoided and plain English used instead (ie. "soft and hard tyres" rather than "option and prime tyres"). However, in certain cases both the fact that something is jargon, and the best way to avoid jargon may not be so obvious.
HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 04:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
"power unit" in reference to modern F1 cars, which I think it's fair to assume many readers would interpret as meaning "battery".- are you joking? A power unit is the part of something that provides power. I think you massively underestimate the intelligence of our readers. Power unit is perfectly acceptable and describing the MGU-K as part of the engine is just wrong and it fairly intuitive that "power unit" refers to the part of the car that provides its power. Weather it be electrical or in another form.
A mere wikilink from the word "intermediate tyre" is not likely to prompt a reader to think "oh, this is clearly a different thing from a medium tyre, I should click on this link to learn the difference"- disagree, reading any article it's fairly clear we don't wikilink for fun. A potential compromise would be to state in the background section "3 compounds of dry tyres named soft, medium and hard as well as two compounds for wet weather running, dubbed intermediate and wet tyres, for low and high levels of standing water respectively (it's only worth describing the wet tyre range if it is used). Putting "medium hardness (dry) tyre" is unnecessary and makes for bumpy. Medium tyre is more than sufficient, again you underestimate our readers intelligence. (Monsoon tyre is made up terminology, should be avoided, and is misleading as it doesn't require monsoon conditions).
Could I remind editors that changes do not take effect until the end of the year. This is true particularly of any that might take place at Red Bull, which must be sourced and not changed until announced by a reliable source. No matter what anyone thinks Sergio Perez is "poised" or "set" to do. Britmax ( talk) 10:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
What do you think to separate Template:Grand Prix results from Template:Formula One constructors like in PLWP? Eurohunter ( talk) 21:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I notice that the 2020 race report articles fairly consistently say that the FIA were responsible for drafting the revised schedule, but looking at relevant sources I'm not sure that this is an accurate characterisation. It would seem that the rescheduling was actually a combined effort between the FIA, the Formula One Group, all of the teams, and all of the individual race promoters and track owners. Obviously describing this concisely is difficult, but I think it may be worth figuring out the optimal wording. I'm also not sure how relevant this information is for races whose dates didn't change, for example the 2020 Italian Grand Prix. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 20:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Article Roman Staněk was deleted recently (November) in an AfD. I asked for a draft version to be created and worked on it. I think FIA Formula 3 Championship drivers are considered notable and would like to know your opinion on the draft, which is different than the deleted article (I added 4 more sources and a lot of text). Should I create it or wait? Thanks. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Australian Grand Prix § Photo question. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox person}} has a field for the subject's signature, and I have several autographs from F1-related people (Binotto, Newey, Horner, Abiteboul, Brown, Tost) whose articles use this infobox. However, is the use of an autograph acceptable for this purpose? While browsing through some articles on actors and directors it seems that this is acceptable, and the only
relevant policy essay I could find suggests this is OK, since the autograph is 1) self-published 2) reproduced 3) reliable since they are original and 4) relevant to the article. I'm interested to see if there are any problems anyone is aware of in this situation, but if not I will go ahead and scan them in.
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 02:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP editor recently added Berta-Ford to 1975 Formula One season (listing withdrawn entries for the 1975 Argentine and Brazilian GPs for Nestor García-Veiga). The information is supported by Stats F1, autosportworld, 8W, Motor Sport and grandprix247 (although the latter two only mention the Argentine GP). Should we add "Berta" to List of Formula One constructors and Nestor García-Veiga to List of Formula One drivers (noting that these lists already include other constructors/drivers with no starts)? DH85868993 ( talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Austrian Grand Prix § Hamilton pre-race penalty position. FozzieHey ( talk) 20:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be better to split some of the car articles into their 2020 and 2021 variants, especially if there are going to be major changes between them. For example, the McLaren MCL35 is already a pretty big article and it seems a bit confusing alternating between each variant in different headers? Similarly with the Ferrari SF1000 which Ferrari have already said they will make major improvements for 2021. FozzieHey ( talk) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
With the announcement that the Emilia Romagna GP is due to be revived again, it is clear that it is no longer considered a "one-off" race, and thus, I have began a race page at Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. Contributions to bring the page to a satisfactory level are welcome. Admanny ( talk) 12:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of Imola and the F1 races held there, I would like to reraise something I pointed out a couple of months ago without any reaction. I noticed that our coverage of the circuit's early existence is quite poor and even at some spots incorrect. We apparently have no maps depicting its early configurations on Wikimedia. The infobox incorrectly list the version of the circuit used for its inaugural formula one world championship race (in 1980) as the "original configuration". That is quite incorrect. The circuit has existed since the fifties and its original layout was quite different to the one used in 1980 as well as to later revisions. The circuit has even been used for formula one races, albeit non championship ones, before 1980. A full chronology of all the different layouts can be found for instance here. T v x1 20:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I've bought this up a few times but I think it's worth addressing; I'm not entirely sure how much sense it makes to treat the Emilia Romagna GP and the San Marino GP (or indeed the Dino Ferrari GP) as being separate events rather than continuations of the same event. Most sources I see generally talk about the Emilia Romagna GP as if it's just a new name for the San Marino GP, and I find it hard to disagree with that, especially with the 2021 race being scheduled for San Marino's traditional early season calendar slot. I don't know exactly how we should go about handling this, but I think it may be worth giving consideration. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
especially with the 2021 race being scheduled for San Marino's traditional early season calendar slot.- complete coincidence. Sources make it clear that it replaces the Chinese Grand Prix. This is therefore not a factor worth considering.
This may have been addressed before, but I notice that often different sources will seem to give conflicting reports on when pit stops took place depending on whether they choose to describe a pit stop as happening at the end of lap (x) or at the start of lap (x+1). Since the FIA seem to notate pit stops as happening at the end of lap (x), I would tend towards using this notation and refer to their official records if there was any need to avoid doubt. However, I'm wondering if there's some way in which we can clarify to readers that two sources are not actually in conflict with one another and just using a different definition when saying that "Schumacher stopped for new tyres on lap (x)" or "Schumacher stopped for new tyres on lap (x+1)", just in case there's potential for confusion. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone able to look at 2020 Formula 2 Championship? It's reached the templates limit because templates are being used for every driver in every race. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
8 of the 10 teams have unveiled chassis names, and it is generally understood that 2021's chassis should be considered B-spec of 2020. However this runs into naming issues for Aston Martin and Alpine. I am proposing the following:
1. Move the following pages to its' new name:
2. Do not touch the following pages, in consistency with other B-spec chassis:
3. Adjust Haas accordingly.
This avoids having to create new pages while keeping page naming consistent. Open to ideas. Admanny ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Carfan568 (
talk ·
contribs) has added the | engine =
parameter to the infobox at
Template:Infobox F1 driver and various pages were already changed by the editor. I have not actively edited F1 pages for years, but I have some of them on my Watchlist so I am notifying active editors about the change. –
Sabbatino (
talk) 10:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the "Formula One drivers from XXX" articles be renamed to "Formula One drivers who represented XXX". Interested editors are invited to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
AS19Portsmouth has created the following articles:
and looks set to publish one at
2018 Abu Dhabi Young Driver Test by the current appearance of their user page.
First off, the first two are at the wrong titles (and so will the 2018 article if it is created). They were never labelled or intended as young driver tests, which is pretty clear from both the sources and the participants list. Secondly, none of these articles are particularly notable and received meagre – if any – coverage, which is reflected in the quantity and quality of sources. As far as I understand it, there has been a long-standing convention in the project that testing does not receive the notability required for a Wikipedia article and should not be included since Wikipedia is not
an indiscriminate collection of statistics. However,
2020 Formula One pre-season testing was kept after two failed AfDs. I would like to nominate all three articles for deletion immediately, but I would like to know if anyone here believes we should be reconsidering our treatment of testing.
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The teams convened at the Circuit de Catalunya for 5 days of testing between 32nd and 36th of Smarch.") Occasionally a test may be more noteworthy for other reasons (for example the Abu Dhabi "Young Driver" test last year and the controversy about who did or did not get to participate) which may warrant a separate article to discuss it. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
An extension of the 2020 Racing Point fiasco - on the 2020 page it has been noted their 15-point penalty applies specifically to the Styrian Grand Prix (7.5 points on each car). This means that the first car (Perez's car) scores 0.5 points, whereas the second car (Stroll's car) scores -1.5 points. Theoretically, therefore, Stroll's result in the constructors' table should be coloured as... something we haven't used before. The problem with this is that whilst most editors on the 2020 page seem to agree in the talk page the colours should be changed, this clashes with precedent. The two off the top of my head I can think of are 2007 (McLaren at Hungary) which has been changed recently (the page used to say "0 (203)" which is 109 (ALO) + 109 (HAM) - 15 (Hungary pts)), and 2000 (McLaren on HAK's car at Austria) which has "1*" on Hakkinen's car in the usual colour, and no footnote given next to 152 (HAK + COU = 162 for the season). Spa-Franks ( talk) 00:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Along with the reveal of the AT02 contender for the 2021 Season, AlphaTauri released a virtual tour of their new car which can be accessed through their website or directly through here. Once the virtual tool has loaded, clicking on the cogwheel located above the engine will show the user 'Tech Specs' about the car, which includes vague information for areas such as the brakes, suspension, steering, gearbox, and others. Within that section, the engine specification states RA621H which seems to be the name for the 2021 Honda engine, which is a continuation from previous engines as the RA620H & RA619H.
I'd also like to mention that the verified Honda Racing F1 Twitter account also seemingly confirmed this earlier in this tweet on 16 February. With this being said, I will be updating the Complete Formula One results section within the Scuderia AlphaTauri wiki page for the 2021 year.
As per the tweet, I have no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity per WP:TWEET since the account is verified.
I also do not have any resonable doubt to think that the RB16B's engine will be given an engine specification that differs from RA621H, but nonetheless I will refrain from updating the
Racing record section within the
Red Bull Racing wiki page until further confirmation from official Red Bull Racing sources.
Xprts (
talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
A recent RM which attempted to move this page to another title recently failed. However, I still feel that the current naming strucutrs is in contradiction to WP:PRECISE (and reading through the discussion, no-one argued that the current names were good or staisfactory). My reasoning is this:
The current titles do not match the scope. Consider one example of many, Alex Albon, he was born and raised in London, to all intents and purposes he is "from the United Kingdom". Yet he represented Thailand, and is therefore detailed in Formula One drivers from Thailand, despite not being from Thailand at all.
Rather than rush head long into another discussion I thought it best to discuss what the best destination might be. Some of the suggestions from that discussion were:
Of these it is probably option 1 that had most wide ranging support in the discussion, but I thought it would be better to discuss first.
The problem with proposal 1 (as well as 3-4) is that it implies that Mazepin would be included in the scope of the Russia article. However, as Formula One isn't considering him Russian, neither can we and we can't then include him in the "F1 drivers from Russia" article.
SSSB (
talk) 09:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Alain Prost for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of
original research going on with
Category:Formula One controversies. Having gone there are clicked on 5 random, none of them actually identify themselves as contraversial. Evidently, someone has read boycott in
1985 South African Grand Prix and then had an seemingly original thought of "this makes the event contraversial". I have already removed
1982 San Marino Grand Prix from the category on similair grounds and will continue to remove more. The rules on original research are clear, for these events to be readded to the category, the pages must contain a sourced statement calling them contraversial.
SSSB (
talk) 16:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
any race which had competitors boycott should be able to be called controversial, after all presumably they were boycotting for a reason.If Ham boycotted the 2021 Saudi GP, this doesn't make the 2021 Saudi GP contraversial, the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, yes (it already is). But the individual 2021 event, I would argue not. Looking at the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, it seems that it is regarding contraversial because of the Pironi/Villeune incident, not becuase of the boycot, a boycot which was unrelated to the race.
Since this came up with the recent deletion discussions I think it may be worth having this conversation. The creation of a general article which provides coverage of the topic of Formula One testing without giving WP:UNDUE weight to individual tests (which it's generally difficult to write much of substance about) may be worthwhile, particularly with the increasing number of restrictions on testing which have come into place since the mid-2000s.
Hopefully an article like this could provide meaningful coverage of what these tests are and potentially discourage the creation of jargon filled articles which try to cover individual tests but lack any real information beyond "the test happened here on this date and these teams and drivers participated". Many aspects of testing are notable and worthy of coverage, but it needs to be done in a manner which is comprehensible to readers who don't already have a deep level of existing knowledge. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
To separate off the discussion of articles on individual tests from the initial proposal I'm making a more focused subheading here. At the moment I think some useful topics to cover would include:
I'm sure there are other topics which could be covered, and I'd like to see this article well developed before it gets full created to ensure it's harder for it to become a target for WP:INDISCRIMINATE statistics and trivia. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
RB16B, FB43B, MCL35M are the only car without their own article. Should be split or not? - FungTzeLong ( talk) 18:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Why did the Grand Prix results of both Aston Martin and Mercedes-Benz from the 1950's get separated from the rest of the results? Just seems like a unnecessary change. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 17:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I have created Template:F1estat for F1 engine manufacturer statistics (similar to Template:F1cstat for chassis statistics), as I think it will be easier to have the engine manufacturer statistics in one place and now all the different pages where the statistics are included don't need to be individually updated. I have also added calculations based on F1cstat, so now the engine manufacturer statistics will be automatically updated after each race after F1cstat is updated (if the calculations work as intended), however the calculations will have to be updated if teams change engine makes or possibly in "Did not start" type situations. I think it will overall reduce the time spent on updating the statistics, and the statistics should also be quicker up to date after the races. Carfan568 ( talk) 19:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. Also, article creation based on Wikiproject Guidelines would be curtailed. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Please note that there are currently two ongoing Requested Move discussions underway: at Talk:List of Formula One engine constructors, and Talk:List of Formula One constructors. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed a list on Nigel Mansell's Grand Prix victories has been created. I'm fine with the list being notable enough to warrant its own article but what would be the limit for meriting such an article? A list with ten victories wouldn't warrant a separate article. My thinking is 20 Grand Prix victories. I think this is a sufficient number to warrant a list being created. Open to suggestions on this. NapHit ( talk) 11:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement about whether articles should open by saying "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One motor race
" (which I believe is the long standing convention) or "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One Grand Prix
". Personally I think the latter is a redundant statement and isn't particularly helpful to somebody who doesn't know what a Grand Prix is. However concerns have been raised that the "motor race" wording be misleading people on the grounds that practice and qualifying sessions are not a "race" by some definitions. If these concerns are deemed to be significant enough then "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One motor racing event
" may be a preferable wording. The counterpoint to this would be that the race is still the primary subject being discussed and that many sources would treat "Formula One race" and "Formula One Grand Prix" as synonymous, in which case the former would be preferable as it is closer to
WP:PLAINENGLISH.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk) 14:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One Grand Prix" violates MOS:REDUNDANCY as it uses Grand Prix twice. As it has Grand Prix in the title, it's obviously a Grand Prix.
Formula One motor racing eventor
Formula One motor racewould be preferable in my opinion. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The 1726 Lilliputian Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held on 32 February 1726" rather than "
the 1726 Lilliputian Grand Prix was a Formula One motor racing event held over the weekend of 30-32 February 1726". The latter version is better suited to the background section of the main body of a race report article such as 2019 United States Grand Prix, and is unnecessary on general race articles such as United States Grand Prix. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why "somebody who doesn't know" is a thing." On some level the term "Grand Prix" is WP:JARGON. People who don't already know about Formula One will be unlikely to know what a Grand Prix is. Wikipedia is written with the assumption that readers are here to learn. WP:TECHNICAL goes over some of this. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is not just to document information, but to explain it to a general audience. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Formula One Grand Prix races". The wording used in this Guardian article generally treats the term "Grand Prix" as exclusively referring to the race itself. This Autosport article sees a similar usage. This BBC article makes reference to "
the main Grand Prix on Sunday" although it also says that the proposed sprint races would take place "
at three Grands Prix". HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 17:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:AOWR regarding the chassis make driven by Bill Mackey in the 1951 Indianapolis 500. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 12:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
With the sport moving forward to introduce sprint races from this season, we should really discuss how to include these additional points in our championship tables. I would consider a similar system as we use for the points awarded at Power Stages in the World Rally Championship. Any other suggestions? T v x1 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Ex |
41 P F |
I think that it is important to distinguish between poles through qualifying and poles through sprint race, or is this just me? I suggest we do this through a footnote, so we get {{f1stat|HAM|poles}}{{efn|Includes/Excludes {{f1stat|HAM|sprintpoles}} poles gained through winning the sprint race.}}
I suggest we add the same note to
List of Formula One polesitters.
I'd also like to point out that we're going to have to wait for some indication from the FIA about if that note should be "includes" or "excludes". I daresay we will be looking at those overhead boards that say "xth pole for Hamilton".
SSSB (
talk) 08:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
How are we going to adapt the
2021_Formula_One_World_Championship#Grands_Prix tables. I advise that the "pole" column list the sprint race pole sitter, and then we add a column for the sprint race winner?
SSSB (
talk) 08:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
A fairly simple question, although not one I expect to have a simple answer. The Port Imperial Street Circuit and Grand Prix of America articles both cover a clearly notable subject, but as the circuit was never built and the races were never held it's unclear whether these two articles actually cover separate subjects. With no news for several years regarding the proposal it's unlikely that either article will ever be expanded to a point where having the information distributed across two separate pages would be particularly advantageous. If races were actually held at the circuit then having an article to specifically document information about those races separate from information about the venue would be far more advantageous. There are possible parallels here with the merge that took place of the Bern Street Circuit and 2019 Swiss ePrix articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
was waiting to see how the financial situation surrounding the Grand Prix was resolved before he could commit to bringing the Formula E series to the city" and does not state that there was any actual plan to host Formula E races on the Port Imperial Street Circuit. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 21:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
With the announcement that the Styrian GP is due to be revived again, it is clear that it is no longer considered a "one-off" race, and thus, I have began a race page at Styrian Grand Prix. Contributions to bring the page to a satisfactory level are welcome. Admanny ( talk) 13:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Name of track is "Autodromo Nazionale Monza" (website, social media + name is used in Italian media). How anyone got "Autodromo Nazionale di Monza"? Eurohunter ( talk) 15:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Requested move discussion started here, feel free to contribute thoughts there. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here. T v x1 00:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I think Monaco GP column in the standings should be as narrow or as wide as the others. That way the view is more esthetic.
Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.53.93 ( talk) 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Just want to inform the members of this project about MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk · contribs) who has continued adding trivial or unsourced content after the editor's block expired. – Sabbatino ( talk) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fuck this, I'm done. I give up ( Personal attack removed) I fucking quit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It's difficult to find a source online stating how many times the French Grand Prix has been held. Nearly all agree that the first was held in 1906, that sixteen tracks have hosted the event, and that the 2019 edition was the 60th time the French Grand Prix has been a part of the World Championship, but the only source I can find for the number of times it's been held is on the McLaren website, whose claim of 86 contradicts our article which claims the 2019 French Grand Prix was the 88th. This seems to be compounded by attempts to retroactively label races in the 1890s as French Grands Prix in order to claim the event is the oldest motor race in the world. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Many race reports have "notes" sections below the qualifying classification and the race classification. The notes system which is frequently used has serious issues, such as directing users to notes regarding the qualifying classification when they click on a footnote marker in the race classification, which presents a potential MOS:ACCESS issue. The way they are located in the middle of articles rather than at the end also gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is usually essentially an explanation of minor details. I would personally recommend replacing them with explanatory footnotes in most cases, unless another suitable system for making footnotes has already been established in a given article. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice the recent creation of 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix tyre controversy. It probably needs to either be expanded or deleted. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
"Jesus Mary Joseph H Christ" is my initial reaction to seeing this article's existence. I would resist ANY and all attempts to create it. Spa-Franks ( talk) 02:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Heads up:- The Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps has suffered major damage to its access roads and digital safety infrastructure due to the 2021 European floods. It is possible that the race may be in jeopardy. Mjroots ( talk) 15:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @
Tvx1: since he has reverted my changes.
I went through this afternoon and corrected the label for DNP from "Did not practice" to "Did not participate" in all our results keys. I say "corrected" because the usage of this abbreviation has only been, as far as I have found, in situations where a team arrived and then did not participate in the event. For example,
Andrea Moda, who entered into GPs and showed up but then didn't go out on track. The term "Did not practice" is nonsensical in the context of the other results codes. Either the driver practised and did not further participate, and is recorded as WD (e.g. Stroll last year) or skipped practice and participated in the event, in which case they recorded an actual result (e.g. Hulkenberg last year). In fact, the only situation where "Did not practice" could be a useful and coherent result would be a situation where the driver is only entered for a practice session and then does not drive, such as Callum Ilott at the Eifel GP last year. But we used TD and an endnote for that, not DNP. Finally, the abbreviation is explained correctly in other templates such as {{
Motorsport driver results legend}}. If they were entered and did not participate at all, sure, they didn't practice, but they also didn't do anything else (one could even venture to say they did not participate in the weekend).
So sure, we can say DNP means "Did not practice", but that doesn't make sense, and I would love to know what situation it does because I'm sure it's a very interesting bit of F1 history.
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 11:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Grand Prix consists of free practise sessions, qualifying sessions, race and all other past sessions like warm up or new sessions like sprint race so saying that "The 2021 British Grand Prix (officially known as the Formula 1 Pirelli British Grand Prix 2021) was a Formula One motor race held on 18 July 2021 at the Silverstone Circuit" is fake. Whole article is about all the sessions not just race and article itself is named "2021 British Grand Prix" not something like "Race of 2021 British Grand Prix".
2021 British Grand Prix including free practise sessions, qualifying sessions, sprint race and the main race took place between 16-18 July 2021:
"Grand Prix" ≠ "Race"
Eurohunter ( talk) 17:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but, unless you have any (new, conclusive) evidence this amounts to little more than a personal rant, and is not worthy of anyone's attention.
SSSB (
talk) 19:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. The official standings published at the end of the British Grand Prix does not include position achieved during the sprint qualifying. Why are we doing that here, as well as for the Constructors standings? Island92 ( talk) 20:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Just in case I've gone about this in completely the wrong way, I'm going to link to something I've posted on the 2021 talk page regarding the language used surrounding the sprint. tl;dr - "sprint", "sprint qualifying", or "sprint race": all are used at present. Spa-Franks ( talk) 01:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm not (currently) a project member, but I've been attempting an overhaul of Alonso's article to get it to GA-standard, based on comments from the 2010 peer review. I'd appreciate any help with that. IronManCap ( talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've now nominated it for GA status. Anyone is free to improve the article or give it a review. IronManCap ( talk) 17:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The title of "Sir" should be dropped. Lewis Hamilton was awarded MBE, but only the senior two classes grant honorees the title of Sir or Dame. MBE is the least senior class. /info/en/?search=Order_of_the_British_Empire
I can't make this change myself as the page is locked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieBarbarossa ( talk • contribs)
I missed that he had been made a knight bachelor. You're correct. ZombieBarbarossa ( talk) 01:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Had this scenario been successful it would've created a host of issues how to classify/how to sort etc. the race and its statistics because it was rather a rare breach in the rules to allow that and turns the race into a Formula E-style race. Are we going to just act like that never happened and move on? No mention of it at all at 2021 Belgian Grand Prix. Admanny ( talk) 21:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a superscript 'P' (in addition to the superscript '1') in the Max Verstappen/2021 British Grand Prix cell of:
to identify Verstappen as the polesitter. As the recent Italian Grand Prix has shown, it doesn't necessarily follow that the driver who finishes 1st in sprint qualifying is the polesitter. I was recently using Red_Bull_Racing_Grand_Prix_results to count how many pole positions Red Bull-Honda have achieved and I missed the 2021 British GP because it didn't have a 'P'. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 05:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
{{efn|Bottas won the sprint race but started the main race from last following a grid penalty. Verstappen was promoted to pole.
SSSB (
talk) 08:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
If the sprint quali winner has lost pole, I think the reality is that you're unlikely to spot an extra P floating around in a column of 20+ drivers with 4 other superscript characters unless you knew it was meant to be there- but you would know that it was meant to be there as we would have a note within the table to that effect.
for situations like the British GP we could use a P instead of a 1 since they mean the same thing in those contexts.
- they don't mean the same. The 1 identifies that points were awarded, the P doesn't.
SSSB (
talk) 09:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
in those contexts, because sprint quali is still quali. Regardless of how you choose to interpret that, the simplest and most elegant solution to this issue is to add a P for every race. It is unambiguous and consistent across all situations. I see no need to introduce exceptions and rules when we can have one system that will work everywhere.
31
[a]
. A similar thing would be in place for Verstappen. Personally, I consider this the most elegant and simpliest solution - because it doesn't mean adding notations where they are not necessary.
SSSB (
talk) 10:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Notes
– they don't mean the same. The 1 identifies that points were awarded, the P doesn't.That's the point. They mean different things and so they should both be displayed independent of each other.
Why entrants instead of teams? Eurohunter ( talk) 09:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
These templates ({{ F1R2020}} etc.) were created to make updated results easier, fine. However, I think it may be worth subst: them at the end of each season. After the season is over, in fact after the results are out, these templates no longer serve much of a purpose. I understand that Wikipedia doesn't have space restictions, but if Russell ends up with a Raikkonen length career then the transcusion limit will be exceeded. Simiarly, the transcultions limit will soon be exceeded on Mercedes engine customers' Grand Prix results (more than 130 transclusions for this year alone). I therefore propose that when we add the new year row, we subst: the old year's results. (i.e. when we add 2022, subst: 2021). SSSB ( talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
{{F1R2021|BOT}}
would output all of Bottas' results for the season, rather than having 22 instances of {{F1R2021|BOT|XXX}}
(one instance for each race). Apart, from anything else, it would make updating {{
F1 Drivers Standings}} easier (After the
2021 Turkish Grand Prix we would just swap {{F1R2021|HAM}}
and {{F1R2021|VER}}
, @
Tvx1: can correct me if I'm wrong about my interpretation of his comment....)I still think it would be a good idea to subst: the templates if we took that approach (maybe try it for next year) SSSB ( talk) 09:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to complain because I find articles dedicated to Grand Prix are created much too late. Especially for new Grand Prix, which are frequent these days. If I want to know details about future Grand Prix (like schedule, characteristics. changes in the track wrt previous years, etc) I have to look at other languages wikipedias. Thanks. Hektor ( talk) 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Most drivers have infobox flags, why doesn't former driver Jacques Villeneuve have one? -- 2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548 ( talk) 13:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
It's been a recurring thing for years for some editors to just pass by a driver article and delete the flag. Just keep your eyes open and restore it when you see a deletion. If that editor starts an argument then direct them to the endless discussion on the matter. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 01:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am a motorsport historian and recently added Tyre Supplier data to around 100 F1 World Championship events, from 1975 through to 1983. After spending several hours on this task, someone (no username given, just IP 80.31.37.137) undid all my hard work. They gave no reason for why they did this but experienced expert Wikipedia contributor SSSB, who had advised me perhaps correctly not to add a tyre supplier column to races where only one tyre supplier was used, suggested I should discuss the issue here as maybe IP 80.31.37.137 didn't think the column was important or relevant.
I thoroughly disagree that tyre data isn't worthy of a column and countless historical motorsport race results and records do include it so I believe it is fair to say it is valid. It has also been included on the official Formula One results shown on TV in some years and so I think it has its place and makes the results more thorough. Many motorsport fans believe it is just as important as engine supplier as a performance variable and I would be one of them! :) Certainly a quick scan of historical race results from reputable sources have more meaning when tyre data is added and often it makes for very interesting reading!
Whilst I think SSSB might have a point in arguing that having a column for the tyre supplier is less important when all runners use the same supplier, I think it is essential for events where there were multiple suppliers and I hope we could reach some consensus that it is a good addition before I undertake adding the data to all races from 1984 where this is the case!
I'm new to the Wikipedia community and very much shall look forward to hearing your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoutside29 ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Brabham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mika Salo#Discussion of "paid contributions" template – some input would be helpful from people familiar with the subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I realised (not having noticed it before) that on race articles, the bolding of fastest time in each qualifying session is not actually explained anywhere in the article. Should we add a short note above these tables (eg "Bold indicates the lastest time in each session" or "Fastest time in each session in bold")? As a side point, should a driver disqualified have their times bolded (eg Hamilton at the 2021 São Paulo Grand Prix) given that in effect, the time was not actually set? I can't remember off the top of my head another occasion to check how this was done previously. A7V2 ( talk) 00:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to bring up the Race abbreviations we use. Firstly, there is the Miami Grand Prix, I suggest we go for "MIA", if no-one has any objections.
More contraversially, (hence why I wasn't bold with Miami) I want to bring up something Ved havet brought up at {{ F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{ F1 Constructors Standings}}. The problem (s)he identified is that every race which is named after a country uses some form of international country code, either IOC country codes or ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes (which are mostly identical), apart from Saudi Arabia. I therefore propose that we adopt the IOC country code for all countries/regions where it is applicable, for two reasons:
Unless anyone has any objections? (note: "too much work" is not an objection, the only one that needs updating is the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix from "SAU" to "KSA"), there is only one istance of this, and we don't need to bother updating the field names in {{ F1R2021}}) SSSB ( talk) 12:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
{{flagicon|SAU}}
produces
. We didn't make upthe code, SAU is actually more widely accepted and used than KSA. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC), expanded 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
{{flagicon|KSA}}
also produce the Saudi Arabian flag (
).
KSA is a redirect to
Saudi Arabia, and the KSA abbreviation is mentioned on the first line of the country's article. It's clearly not uncommon. Judging by articles used as sources in that article, it looks to be a common abbreviation for the country in the arab world.
Ved havet ≈ (
talk) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Most people probably utilize the flag icons to identify the correct column, rather than the code by itself.- yes. But this change is more to benefit to pages where we use the code without the flags (which is all instances of the code outside of the standings templates, I believe) SSSB ( talk) 16:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Formula One is not an Olympic sportis the killer, because as I have said above there is no need to adobt IOC codes when they actually do not make sense.
If we're going for recognisability, all else aside, SAU matches Saudi Arabia an awful lot better than KSA does.Although you've successfully picked apart all my attempts to name the trend in the abbreviations, you're yet to dispute this. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 23:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I've just had look at the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix coverage, which had a graph showing the points gap between Hamilton and Rosberg throughout the season up until that point. I'm not sure what the source material was that they used, but I'm sure it can be found easily, which sorts out the Saudi problem... I hope. In 2016 the list went as follows: AUS, BRN, CHN, RUS, ESP, MON, CAN, AZE (surely an error given that was the "European" GP?), AUT, GBR, HUN, GER, BEL, ITA, SGP, MAL, JPN, USA. So I suggest we use whatever that source material has for Saudi. It's worth noting that at WP:EUROVISION, the Eurovision Song Contest has used ISO 2-letter codes for some time now in terms of listing countries but from 2015 they started adding hashtags on the entries on-screen according to the same list: #GBR, #NED, for example. In 2019 they changed that list to telephone codes (#UK, #NLD) but reverted back this year (no contest in 2020). The point is we know what source they were from, and I suggest a similar approach here. Spa-Franks ( talk) 16:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm starting to regret bringing this up. When I made my original post on this thread I thought it was only Saudi Arabia that needed updating to IOC standard, but I clearly didn't check properly because Singapore and Bahrain would also need updating. I thought (and still think) it would be worth the effort of updating one instance of a GP for the benefit of a consistent system. But I question if its worth the effort of changing it for the 12 instances of the SIN/SGP Grand Prix.
I therefore suggest we drop this and just choose whichever abbrevation we think best (every system has a least one country where the abbrevation doesn't make sense to a speaker of common English) - preferably using a letter combination that is used somewhere else. SSSB ( talk) 17:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
While we are here, I thought it worth bringing up that an editor has suggested Sao Paulo GP uses the abbreviation of SP. See the mini, de facto thread buried in Talk:2021_Formula_One_World_Championship#São_Paulo_Grand_Prix. SSSB ( talk) 17:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
While making some edits to the Dutch Grand Prix article following it's revival, I noticed the worrying state of its official names section. While I get that we have generally assumed that whatever appears on the covers of the official programmes as documented on the Programme Covers Project, I really find the suggestion that the 1977-1983 editions of this Grand Prix having been named nothing but "Grand Prix" just laughable. I think we're taking an immense leap here with sticking rigidly to just these covers. T v x1 17:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow, I just discovered this discussion now! It is amazing that I independently reached the exact same conclusion as User:Tvx1 in their original post, see my comments at Talk:Mexican Grand Prix#Official names. Yes, the "Official names" sections are flawed. Official names are not based on program covers (as referenced in these sections). The minor variations on the front covers of the programs are merely typographical, or branding at best, and should not be misconstrued as evidence of an official name change. If there is some point in keeping these sections, then I suggest to accurately reflect what they really are: Program Covers branding. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly introduced in the article introduction unless there are many of them, or they are relatively obscure, in which case:
The alternative name should be mentioned early (normally in the first sentence) in an appropriate section of the article.
The redirect should point to this section.
Therefore, most of these "Official names" sections need to be removed and merged into the lead. SSSB ( talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
A reminder that the F1 world championship is an ITNR event, but it won't get posted if the orange tag on the article isn't addressed and removed. Mjroots ( talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a thread hidden in one of the individual Grand Prix talk pages, which I believe deserves a wider attention in order to reach conclusion and find consensus. The question boils down to what is considered a Grand Prix title, and when should different titles be considered not to be different at all:
So the argument some editors made this year is that some sources specifically mention an event's "renaming". And then these editors' conclusion was that we should go by what the sources say on the subject. I find this argument weak – mainly because even if a source says the event was "renamed" it is still open to interpretation as to what the word "renamed" means. This could be easily interpreted in two opposite ways: 1) it's a confirmation the event got a new title, and hence deserves recognition on its own; or 2) the event is somehow the same, and it even retains the same "title", although the title in reality has changed.
These two opposite interpretations hint at a dichotomy of what is the title of the event:
I personally think the title is what it's named after. Plain and simple. And historically, by the title we always meant an entity after which the event was named (whether a country, a city, a region, or even a hotel).
If we now start interpreting the title as being something completely different (as, for example, the combination of track/organizer – which seems to be hinted at in both of 2021 cases), then this would have to lead to a lot of historic revisions, as European GP/Azerbaijan GP in 2016/2017 would be part of the same event series, while the European GP in Valencia would be an event that belongs to a different series than, say, the European GP in Donington, etc.
cherkash ( talk) 21:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
our argument on different organizers (at least for Nurburgring) doesn't even apply to European/Azerbaijan renaming in 2016/2017.
- no-one's claimed that. Tvx1 was just explaining that Luxembourg isn't a relavant example.
...could be considered just a location specifier...
- this is conjecture which has zero supporting evidence and does have opposing evidence. They don't seem to do this with any other GP (using the same document as linked above, i.e. entry list),
2020 Styria, [
70th anniversary,
2020 Sakir,
2021 Styria don't follow this convention. This reads as a rather desperate arguement.
the FIA itself clearly treats each of the newly created race titles as a new title in its own right
- Firstly, this isn't clear at all. That document describes it as the "51st event name". Wikipedia doesn't base it on event name, but event. For it to be clear it would have to be the "51st event", not "51st event name". Secondly, we are not the FIA. Just because the FIA consider it one way, doesn't mean other sources do, and it doesn't mean we should. Espically given that a promotional document is the best evidence you have provided so far.
SSSB (
talk) 13:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Luxembourg GP was just an off-hand example from my memory - it is by no means a cornerstone of any argument, just one of many recent examples of name changes. I should have pointed to the European/Luxembourg pair (instead of German/Luxembourg) which is more relevant here: the European → Luxembourg → European back-and-forth name change for the successive races on the same track is pretty much as close to the current situation as it gets.
As for the European/Azerbaijan GP, here is a somewhat detailed treatment of the name change circumstances quoting a few people involved, which highlights how it was basically a branding/PR exercise on the part of the Azerbaijani government and the race organizers: [7]. Again, a very similar circumstance to the Mexico City and Sao Paulo: same venue, same organizers. But again, the title is the title - and we never questioned such name changes in the past - and never arbitrarily assigned them to the same series based on venue, as opposed to the GP title. So what's so different this year (that is, apart from some emotional attachment to the Mexican GP and Brazilian GP monikers which happened to change)? cherkash ( talk) 01:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
What's different is that the FIA continues to "assign[] them to the same series based on venue, as opposed to the GP title." on their documents and website, [8] and that third-parties are doing the same. The motivation behind this is irrelevant, this is just the way it is, and we have to reflect this (otherwise we are engaging in WP:OR). SSSB ( talk) 09:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
May I suggest what is currently sitting at the end of the 2006 San Marino Grand Prix article as a catch-all?
In the case of Nurburgring 1996-99, may I suggest we change them to this, for example on 1996:
Spa-Franks ( talk) 21:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it me, or is our article on the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix currently showing a bias in favor of Mercedes' point of view on the championship outcome. I mean, the reactions section contains a monumental amount of mostly British sources criticizing the result and none at all dealing with Verstappen's championship performance. T v x1 01:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
There are currently no sporting regulations covering the 'Pole Trophy" the last set of sporting regulations I can find to mention the existence of such a trophy awarded at the end of the season for the most pole positions is 2018 with the regulations for 2019 omitting the "Pole Trophy". As such it appears to have been replaced with the wind tunnel tyre awarded after each qualifying event. I have tried to find sources for the winner of the 2019 and 2020 "Pole Trophy" as described, but none can be found. As such I think this needs removing from articles from 2019 onwards as the FIA from the loos of the regulations have scrapped the overall trophy at the end of the season with the Wind Tunnel tyres. The relevant regulation was 6.7 of the sporting code and I have included the 2014 to present Sporting Regulations for reference below:
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Sparkle1 (
talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Enough |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I personally believe that *just* because a driver from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland competes/competed under the Union Jack, does *not* mean that they cannot be described as anything other than British. That is, I see no reason why the likes of the Hills, Hunt, Mansell and Hamilton cannot be described as English rather than British, and no reason why the likes of Clark, Stewart and Coulthard cannot be described as Scottish rather than British. (If Nicola Sturgeon gets her way, then drivers from Scotland will *definitely* have to be described as Scottish and not British...) Also, it's *not* a good idea to describe a driver from Northern Ireland as British, even though they too compete(d) under the Union Jack (they don't/didn't really have a choice there). For one thing, Britain is *just* England, Wales and Scotland (so it's not really a good idea to describe any drivers from the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands as British either, and indeed these aren't even part of the UK). For another, try describing *anyone* from NI who happens to be Catholic/Nationalist/Republican as British... it's not going to go down well at all with them, trust me. And in any case, will it *really* blow casual readers' minds to see, for instance, Graham Hill being described as English and Clark being described as Scottish, even though the Union Jack appears next to both their names in the qualifying and race result tables rather than St George's Cross and St Andrew's Cross respectively? 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:1C9D:26B6:9F59:E589 ( talk) 16:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
You know something? What has taken place on this talk page has made me realise a number of things once and for all, including (1) editing Wikipedia is not as fun as it seems, (2) it is an even bigger waste of time than one could think, and (3) even though it's supposed to be an encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit, it doesn't always feel like that. I already know that Wikipedia is never going to be perfect. New people will always come along, new objects will always be created, and new events will always take place, all of which will merit articles of their own and/or revisions to existing articles. And there will always be ennui, there will always be disagreements, and there will always be editors that genuinely do not know better (i.e. trolls and those who treat Wikipedia as if it's a toy). I'd like to think that Jimmy Wales himself knew that Wikipedia was never going to be perfect when he founded it all those years ago, and that he still knows it today. But what has taken place on this talk page has made me finally realise that Wikipedia is never even going to be *close* to being perfect. It has also made me finally realise, I'm sorry to say, that there are just too many editors who seem to have allowed power to get to their heads, who seem to insist on things being done one way and one way only (whether or not actual rules of Wikipedia and/or real-world laws and norms are involved), and who *don't* seem to realise that Wikipedia is never going to be close to being perfect, no matter how frequently they edit it and how they go about their editing. And I'm even more sorry to say, these editors seem to form cliques, whether they intend to or not - and seemingly *any* editor who is not in any of these cliques (but particularly anonymous editors like myself, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to say that I have always preferred to edit anonymously) is not to be trusted immediately. And surely that goes against assuming good faith, one of the most important principles of Wikipedia if not *the* most important - and, in turn, goes against the idea of Wikipedia being something that *anyone* can edit? When one realises that Wikipedia is never going to be close to being perfect, then they realise that there isn't as much fun in editing it as they thought there was, and that they are *really* wasting their time editing it, more than they could have thought. And when one realises that there are just too many editors who seem to have the aforementioned unappealing qualities, and who seem to band together, then they realise that Wikipedia doesn't always feel like something that anyone can edit, even though that's what it's supposed to be. As I said, what has taken place on this talk page has made me finally realise all these things. But it is not *solely* what has taken place on this talk page that has brought me to these realisations - it is a whole combination of less-than-pleasant experiences during my time on Wikipedia. And not just to do with Formula One, but UK train operating companies and UK towns and villages too, among other subjects. And having been brought to these realisations, I now know for sure that it would be far, far better for me if I gave up on editing Wikipedia altogether. There is no shortage of other things to do on the 'Net - and no shortage of things to do away from a PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone, either - that *are* fun and always will be, that are not big wastes of time (if indeed they're wastes of time at all), and that take place in atmospheres that never feel hostile or unwelcoming. Any future edits from IP addresses in the range that I'm at will be made by different people. Possibly trolls, possibly people who treat Wikipedia as if it's a toy, quite likely people who couldn't care less how far away Wikipedia is from being perfect, and almost certainly people with different interests to mine (football rather than F1, rock bands rather than railways, etc.). In any case, the Sisyphean task of making Wikipedia close to being perfect will continue. And, alas, there will continue to be mountains made out of molehills, including when sportspeople from England, Wales and Scotland who happen(ed) to compete under the Union Jack are described as English, Welsh and Scottish respectively rather than British. There will also continue to be great objections when someone explains why it is not a good idea to describe someone from Northern Ireland as British, even if they are/were loyal to the Union Jack and even if it's written in law that anyone who was born and raised in the UK including NI must be described as British. (Not every law is right, even if it's made with the best of intentions.) And there will continue to be editors who seem to let power get to their heads and don't seem to realise that making Wikipedia close to being perfect is a Sisyphean task, and who seem to band together and hence give the impression that Wikipedia *isn't* something that anyone can edit. I won't be around to witness any of it. And indeed, I won't be around to witness any replies to this comment, if people feel compelled to make them. You can call me a selfish git or a bitter old lemon; you can say I've thrown my toys out of the pram; you can even question if I'm a Sinn Féin supporter or something - I'll be elsewhere and will never know. So long, and thanks for all the fish. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:34FD:12E8:F86B:1464 ( talk) 22:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC) |
Please see Template talk:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)#One row, many constructors. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Tavo Hellmund ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article seems to be a pretty bad case of WP:PROMO, mainly authored by an SPA. It would benefit from one of you F1 specialists (which I’m not) taking a look at it. DeCausa ( talk) 12:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
{{ Formula One}} – top of Formula One, the articles in that series, and the six F1 lists.
So I want to revitalize WikiProject Formula One on the Indonesian Wikipedia, and I have a question: What are the six F1 lists that must have the F1 template? Thanks all. Klrfl ( talk) 07:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
It can seem that sometimes this wikiproject can wind up tying itself in knots trying to give precise statistics where reliable sources don't always agree (sometimes even with themselves). While sometimes this is driven by a desire to find the most accurate information, albeit in a pedantic manner; there are other times when this can cross over into POV pushing, even if the POV being pushed is that of the FIA. I don't really have any specific example to give here, and this is a far broader issue among F1 fans than just on Wikipedia; but I think we need to keep in mind that it's sometimes okay to say "depending on how one counts it, Driver McDriverface either started 92 or 94 races" or things to that effect, rather than searching (read: arguing) too hard for the "correct" answer when really any given answer is just an opinion. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Despite the race not taking place this year due to obvious reasons shouldn't the Mexico City Grand Prix have it's own separate article from the Mexican Grand Prix considering it's a new Grand Prix title? It just wouldn't be statistically correct to have it's results (when there are results) included with the Mexican GP's. That would be like including the Eifel GP's results with the German GP's, It being held at the same circuit is irrelevant. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone (admin or page mover) move Draft:2020 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to mainspace ( 2020 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix). As there's currently a redirect, cannot move it myself- this is a problem we've had all year since someone created loads of the articles as drafts months in advance. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles on Formula One inevitably wind up being filled with jargon. Some are obvious (MGU-H, DRS) and sometimes can only be adequately explained by using Wikilinks or laconic explanations, in other cases the jargon can be easily avoided and plain English used instead (ie. "soft and hard tyres" rather than "option and prime tyres"). However, in certain cases both the fact that something is jargon, and the best way to avoid jargon may not be so obvious.
HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 04:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
"power unit" in reference to modern F1 cars, which I think it's fair to assume many readers would interpret as meaning "battery".- are you joking? A power unit is the part of something that provides power. I think you massively underestimate the intelligence of our readers. Power unit is perfectly acceptable and describing the MGU-K as part of the engine is just wrong and it fairly intuitive that "power unit" refers to the part of the car that provides its power. Weather it be electrical or in another form.
A mere wikilink from the word "intermediate tyre" is not likely to prompt a reader to think "oh, this is clearly a different thing from a medium tyre, I should click on this link to learn the difference"- disagree, reading any article it's fairly clear we don't wikilink for fun. A potential compromise would be to state in the background section "3 compounds of dry tyres named soft, medium and hard as well as two compounds for wet weather running, dubbed intermediate and wet tyres, for low and high levels of standing water respectively (it's only worth describing the wet tyre range if it is used). Putting "medium hardness (dry) tyre" is unnecessary and makes for bumpy. Medium tyre is more than sufficient, again you underestimate our readers intelligence. (Monsoon tyre is made up terminology, should be avoided, and is misleading as it doesn't require monsoon conditions).
Could I remind editors that changes do not take effect until the end of the year. This is true particularly of any that might take place at Red Bull, which must be sourced and not changed until announced by a reliable source. No matter what anyone thinks Sergio Perez is "poised" or "set" to do. Britmax ( talk) 10:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
What do you think to separate Template:Grand Prix results from Template:Formula One constructors like in PLWP? Eurohunter ( talk) 21:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I notice that the 2020 race report articles fairly consistently say that the FIA were responsible for drafting the revised schedule, but looking at relevant sources I'm not sure that this is an accurate characterisation. It would seem that the rescheduling was actually a combined effort between the FIA, the Formula One Group, all of the teams, and all of the individual race promoters and track owners. Obviously describing this concisely is difficult, but I think it may be worth figuring out the optimal wording. I'm also not sure how relevant this information is for races whose dates didn't change, for example the 2020 Italian Grand Prix. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 20:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Article Roman Staněk was deleted recently (November) in an AfD. I asked for a draft version to be created and worked on it. I think FIA Formula 3 Championship drivers are considered notable and would like to know your opinion on the draft, which is different than the deleted article (I added 4 more sources and a lot of text). Should I create it or wait? Thanks. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Australian Grand Prix § Photo question. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox person}} has a field for the subject's signature, and I have several autographs from F1-related people (Binotto, Newey, Horner, Abiteboul, Brown, Tost) whose articles use this infobox. However, is the use of an autograph acceptable for this purpose? While browsing through some articles on actors and directors it seems that this is acceptable, and the only
relevant policy essay I could find suggests this is OK, since the autograph is 1) self-published 2) reproduced 3) reliable since they are original and 4) relevant to the article. I'm interested to see if there are any problems anyone is aware of in this situation, but if not I will go ahead and scan them in.
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 02:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP editor recently added Berta-Ford to 1975 Formula One season (listing withdrawn entries for the 1975 Argentine and Brazilian GPs for Nestor García-Veiga). The information is supported by Stats F1, autosportworld, 8W, Motor Sport and grandprix247 (although the latter two only mention the Argentine GP). Should we add "Berta" to List of Formula One constructors and Nestor García-Veiga to List of Formula One drivers (noting that these lists already include other constructors/drivers with no starts)? DH85868993 ( talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Austrian Grand Prix § Hamilton pre-race penalty position. FozzieHey ( talk) 20:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be better to split some of the car articles into their 2020 and 2021 variants, especially if there are going to be major changes between them. For example, the McLaren MCL35 is already a pretty big article and it seems a bit confusing alternating between each variant in different headers? Similarly with the Ferrari SF1000 which Ferrari have already said they will make major improvements for 2021. FozzieHey ( talk) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
With the announcement that the Emilia Romagna GP is due to be revived again, it is clear that it is no longer considered a "one-off" race, and thus, I have began a race page at Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. Contributions to bring the page to a satisfactory level are welcome. Admanny ( talk) 12:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of Imola and the F1 races held there, I would like to reraise something I pointed out a couple of months ago without any reaction. I noticed that our coverage of the circuit's early existence is quite poor and even at some spots incorrect. We apparently have no maps depicting its early configurations on Wikimedia. The infobox incorrectly list the version of the circuit used for its inaugural formula one world championship race (in 1980) as the "original configuration". That is quite incorrect. The circuit has existed since the fifties and its original layout was quite different to the one used in 1980 as well as to later revisions. The circuit has even been used for formula one races, albeit non championship ones, before 1980. A full chronology of all the different layouts can be found for instance here. T v x1 20:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I've bought this up a few times but I think it's worth addressing; I'm not entirely sure how much sense it makes to treat the Emilia Romagna GP and the San Marino GP (or indeed the Dino Ferrari GP) as being separate events rather than continuations of the same event. Most sources I see generally talk about the Emilia Romagna GP as if it's just a new name for the San Marino GP, and I find it hard to disagree with that, especially with the 2021 race being scheduled for San Marino's traditional early season calendar slot. I don't know exactly how we should go about handling this, but I think it may be worth giving consideration. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
especially with the 2021 race being scheduled for San Marino's traditional early season calendar slot.- complete coincidence. Sources make it clear that it replaces the Chinese Grand Prix. This is therefore not a factor worth considering.
This may have been addressed before, but I notice that often different sources will seem to give conflicting reports on when pit stops took place depending on whether they choose to describe a pit stop as happening at the end of lap (x) or at the start of lap (x+1). Since the FIA seem to notate pit stops as happening at the end of lap (x), I would tend towards using this notation and refer to their official records if there was any need to avoid doubt. However, I'm wondering if there's some way in which we can clarify to readers that two sources are not actually in conflict with one another and just using a different definition when saying that "Schumacher stopped for new tyres on lap (x)" or "Schumacher stopped for new tyres on lap (x+1)", just in case there's potential for confusion. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone able to look at 2020 Formula 2 Championship? It's reached the templates limit because templates are being used for every driver in every race. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
8 of the 10 teams have unveiled chassis names, and it is generally understood that 2021's chassis should be considered B-spec of 2020. However this runs into naming issues for Aston Martin and Alpine. I am proposing the following:
1. Move the following pages to its' new name:
2. Do not touch the following pages, in consistency with other B-spec chassis:
3. Adjust Haas accordingly.
This avoids having to create new pages while keeping page naming consistent. Open to ideas. Admanny ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Carfan568 (
talk ·
contribs) has added the | engine =
parameter to the infobox at
Template:Infobox F1 driver and various pages were already changed by the editor. I have not actively edited F1 pages for years, but I have some of them on my Watchlist so I am notifying active editors about the change. –
Sabbatino (
talk) 10:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the "Formula One drivers from XXX" articles be renamed to "Formula One drivers who represented XXX". Interested editors are invited to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
AS19Portsmouth has created the following articles:
and looks set to publish one at
2018 Abu Dhabi Young Driver Test by the current appearance of their user page.
First off, the first two are at the wrong titles (and so will the 2018 article if it is created). They were never labelled or intended as young driver tests, which is pretty clear from both the sources and the participants list. Secondly, none of these articles are particularly notable and received meagre – if any – coverage, which is reflected in the quantity and quality of sources. As far as I understand it, there has been a long-standing convention in the project that testing does not receive the notability required for a Wikipedia article and should not be included since Wikipedia is not
an indiscriminate collection of statistics. However,
2020 Formula One pre-season testing was kept after two failed AfDs. I would like to nominate all three articles for deletion immediately, but I would like to know if anyone here believes we should be reconsidering our treatment of testing.
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The teams convened at the Circuit de Catalunya for 5 days of testing between 32nd and 36th of Smarch.") Occasionally a test may be more noteworthy for other reasons (for example the Abu Dhabi "Young Driver" test last year and the controversy about who did or did not get to participate) which may warrant a separate article to discuss it. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
An extension of the 2020 Racing Point fiasco - on the 2020 page it has been noted their 15-point penalty applies specifically to the Styrian Grand Prix (7.5 points on each car). This means that the first car (Perez's car) scores 0.5 points, whereas the second car (Stroll's car) scores -1.5 points. Theoretically, therefore, Stroll's result in the constructors' table should be coloured as... something we haven't used before. The problem with this is that whilst most editors on the 2020 page seem to agree in the talk page the colours should be changed, this clashes with precedent. The two off the top of my head I can think of are 2007 (McLaren at Hungary) which has been changed recently (the page used to say "0 (203)" which is 109 (ALO) + 109 (HAM) - 15 (Hungary pts)), and 2000 (McLaren on HAK's car at Austria) which has "1*" on Hakkinen's car in the usual colour, and no footnote given next to 152 (HAK + COU = 162 for the season). Spa-Franks ( talk) 00:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Along with the reveal of the AT02 contender for the 2021 Season, AlphaTauri released a virtual tour of their new car which can be accessed through their website or directly through here. Once the virtual tool has loaded, clicking on the cogwheel located above the engine will show the user 'Tech Specs' about the car, which includes vague information for areas such as the brakes, suspension, steering, gearbox, and others. Within that section, the engine specification states RA621H which seems to be the name for the 2021 Honda engine, which is a continuation from previous engines as the RA620H & RA619H.
I'd also like to mention that the verified Honda Racing F1 Twitter account also seemingly confirmed this earlier in this tweet on 16 February. With this being said, I will be updating the Complete Formula One results section within the Scuderia AlphaTauri wiki page for the 2021 year.
As per the tweet, I have no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity per WP:TWEET since the account is verified.
I also do not have any resonable doubt to think that the RB16B's engine will be given an engine specification that differs from RA621H, but nonetheless I will refrain from updating the
Racing record section within the
Red Bull Racing wiki page until further confirmation from official Red Bull Racing sources.
Xprts (
talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
A recent RM which attempted to move this page to another title recently failed. However, I still feel that the current naming strucutrs is in contradiction to WP:PRECISE (and reading through the discussion, no-one argued that the current names were good or staisfactory). My reasoning is this:
The current titles do not match the scope. Consider one example of many, Alex Albon, he was born and raised in London, to all intents and purposes he is "from the United Kingdom". Yet he represented Thailand, and is therefore detailed in Formula One drivers from Thailand, despite not being from Thailand at all.
Rather than rush head long into another discussion I thought it best to discuss what the best destination might be. Some of the suggestions from that discussion were:
Of these it is probably option 1 that had most wide ranging support in the discussion, but I thought it would be better to discuss first.
The problem with proposal 1 (as well as 3-4) is that it implies that Mazepin would be included in the scope of the Russia article. However, as Formula One isn't considering him Russian, neither can we and we can't then include him in the "F1 drivers from Russia" article.
SSSB (
talk) 09:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Alain Prost for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of
original research going on with
Category:Formula One controversies. Having gone there are clicked on 5 random, none of them actually identify themselves as contraversial. Evidently, someone has read boycott in
1985 South African Grand Prix and then had an seemingly original thought of "this makes the event contraversial". I have already removed
1982 San Marino Grand Prix from the category on similair grounds and will continue to remove more. The rules on original research are clear, for these events to be readded to the category, the pages must contain a sourced statement calling them contraversial.
SSSB (
talk) 16:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
any race which had competitors boycott should be able to be called controversial, after all presumably they were boycotting for a reason.If Ham boycotted the 2021 Saudi GP, this doesn't make the 2021 Saudi GP contraversial, the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, yes (it already is). But the individual 2021 event, I would argue not. Looking at the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, it seems that it is regarding contraversial because of the Pironi/Villeune incident, not becuase of the boycot, a boycot which was unrelated to the race.
Since this came up with the recent deletion discussions I think it may be worth having this conversation. The creation of a general article which provides coverage of the topic of Formula One testing without giving WP:UNDUE weight to individual tests (which it's generally difficult to write much of substance about) may be worthwhile, particularly with the increasing number of restrictions on testing which have come into place since the mid-2000s.
Hopefully an article like this could provide meaningful coverage of what these tests are and potentially discourage the creation of jargon filled articles which try to cover individual tests but lack any real information beyond "the test happened here on this date and these teams and drivers participated". Many aspects of testing are notable and worthy of coverage, but it needs to be done in a manner which is comprehensible to readers who don't already have a deep level of existing knowledge. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
To separate off the discussion of articles on individual tests from the initial proposal I'm making a more focused subheading here. At the moment I think some useful topics to cover would include:
I'm sure there are other topics which could be covered, and I'd like to see this article well developed before it gets full created to ensure it's harder for it to become a target for WP:INDISCRIMINATE statistics and trivia. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
RB16B, FB43B, MCL35M are the only car without their own article. Should be split or not? - FungTzeLong ( talk) 18:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Why did the Grand Prix results of both Aston Martin and Mercedes-Benz from the 1950's get separated from the rest of the results? Just seems like a unnecessary change. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 17:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I have created Template:F1estat for F1 engine manufacturer statistics (similar to Template:F1cstat for chassis statistics), as I think it will be easier to have the engine manufacturer statistics in one place and now all the different pages where the statistics are included don't need to be individually updated. I have also added calculations based on F1cstat, so now the engine manufacturer statistics will be automatically updated after each race after F1cstat is updated (if the calculations work as intended), however the calculations will have to be updated if teams change engine makes or possibly in "Did not start" type situations. I think it will overall reduce the time spent on updating the statistics, and the statistics should also be quicker up to date after the races. Carfan568 ( talk) 19:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. Also, article creation based on Wikiproject Guidelines would be curtailed. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Please note that there are currently two ongoing Requested Move discussions underway: at Talk:List of Formula One engine constructors, and Talk:List of Formula One constructors. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed a list on Nigel Mansell's Grand Prix victories has been created. I'm fine with the list being notable enough to warrant its own article but what would be the limit for meriting such an article? A list with ten victories wouldn't warrant a separate article. My thinking is 20 Grand Prix victories. I think this is a sufficient number to warrant a list being created. Open to suggestions on this. NapHit ( talk) 11:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement about whether articles should open by saying "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One motor race
" (which I believe is the long standing convention) or "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One Grand Prix
". Personally I think the latter is a redundant statement and isn't particularly helpful to somebody who doesn't know what a Grand Prix is. However concerns have been raised that the "motor race" wording be misleading people on the grounds that practice and qualifying sessions are not a "race" by some definitions. If these concerns are deemed to be significant enough then "the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One motor racing event
" may be a preferable wording. The counterpoint to this would be that the race is still the primary subject being discussed and that many sources would treat "Formula One race" and "Formula One Grand Prix" as synonymous, in which case the former would be preferable as it is closer to
WP:PLAINENGLISH.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk) 14:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
the Lilliputian Grand Prix is a Formula One Grand Prix" violates MOS:REDUNDANCY as it uses Grand Prix twice. As it has Grand Prix in the title, it's obviously a Grand Prix.
Formula One motor racing eventor
Formula One motor racewould be preferable in my opinion. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The 1726 Lilliputian Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held on 32 February 1726" rather than "
the 1726 Lilliputian Grand Prix was a Formula One motor racing event held over the weekend of 30-32 February 1726". The latter version is better suited to the background section of the main body of a race report article such as 2019 United States Grand Prix, and is unnecessary on general race articles such as United States Grand Prix. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why "somebody who doesn't know" is a thing." On some level the term "Grand Prix" is WP:JARGON. People who don't already know about Formula One will be unlikely to know what a Grand Prix is. Wikipedia is written with the assumption that readers are here to learn. WP:TECHNICAL goes over some of this. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is not just to document information, but to explain it to a general audience. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Formula One Grand Prix races". The wording used in this Guardian article generally treats the term "Grand Prix" as exclusively referring to the race itself. This Autosport article sees a similar usage. This BBC article makes reference to "
the main Grand Prix on Sunday" although it also says that the proposed sprint races would take place "
at three Grands Prix". HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 17:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:AOWR regarding the chassis make driven by Bill Mackey in the 1951 Indianapolis 500. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 12:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
With the sport moving forward to introduce sprint races from this season, we should really discuss how to include these additional points in our championship tables. I would consider a similar system as we use for the points awarded at Power Stages in the World Rally Championship. Any other suggestions? T v x1 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Ex |
41 P F |
I think that it is important to distinguish between poles through qualifying and poles through sprint race, or is this just me? I suggest we do this through a footnote, so we get {{f1stat|HAM|poles}}{{efn|Includes/Excludes {{f1stat|HAM|sprintpoles}} poles gained through winning the sprint race.}}
I suggest we add the same note to
List of Formula One polesitters.
I'd also like to point out that we're going to have to wait for some indication from the FIA about if that note should be "includes" or "excludes". I daresay we will be looking at those overhead boards that say "xth pole for Hamilton".
SSSB (
talk) 08:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
How are we going to adapt the
2021_Formula_One_World_Championship#Grands_Prix tables. I advise that the "pole" column list the sprint race pole sitter, and then we add a column for the sprint race winner?
SSSB (
talk) 08:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
A fairly simple question, although not one I expect to have a simple answer. The Port Imperial Street Circuit and Grand Prix of America articles both cover a clearly notable subject, but as the circuit was never built and the races were never held it's unclear whether these two articles actually cover separate subjects. With no news for several years regarding the proposal it's unlikely that either article will ever be expanded to a point where having the information distributed across two separate pages would be particularly advantageous. If races were actually held at the circuit then having an article to specifically document information about those races separate from information about the venue would be far more advantageous. There are possible parallels here with the merge that took place of the Bern Street Circuit and 2019 Swiss ePrix articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
was waiting to see how the financial situation surrounding the Grand Prix was resolved before he could commit to bringing the Formula E series to the city" and does not state that there was any actual plan to host Formula E races on the Port Imperial Street Circuit. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 21:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
With the announcement that the Styrian GP is due to be revived again, it is clear that it is no longer considered a "one-off" race, and thus, I have began a race page at Styrian Grand Prix. Contributions to bring the page to a satisfactory level are welcome. Admanny ( talk) 13:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Name of track is "Autodromo Nazionale Monza" (website, social media + name is used in Italian media). How anyone got "Autodromo Nazionale di Monza"? Eurohunter ( talk) 15:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Requested move discussion started here, feel free to contribute thoughts there. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here. T v x1 00:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I think Monaco GP column in the standings should be as narrow or as wide as the others. That way the view is more esthetic.
Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.53.93 ( talk) 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Just want to inform the members of this project about MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk · contribs) who has continued adding trivial or unsourced content after the editor's block expired. – Sabbatino ( talk) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fuck this, I'm done. I give up ( Personal attack removed) I fucking quit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It's difficult to find a source online stating how many times the French Grand Prix has been held. Nearly all agree that the first was held in 1906, that sixteen tracks have hosted the event, and that the 2019 edition was the 60th time the French Grand Prix has been a part of the World Championship, but the only source I can find for the number of times it's been held is on the McLaren website, whose claim of 86 contradicts our article which claims the 2019 French Grand Prix was the 88th. This seems to be compounded by attempts to retroactively label races in the 1890s as French Grands Prix in order to claim the event is the oldest motor race in the world. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Many race reports have "notes" sections below the qualifying classification and the race classification. The notes system which is frequently used has serious issues, such as directing users to notes regarding the qualifying classification when they click on a footnote marker in the race classification, which presents a potential MOS:ACCESS issue. The way they are located in the middle of articles rather than at the end also gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is usually essentially an explanation of minor details. I would personally recommend replacing them with explanatory footnotes in most cases, unless another suitable system for making footnotes has already been established in a given article. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice the recent creation of 2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix tyre controversy. It probably needs to either be expanded or deleted. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
"Jesus Mary Joseph H Christ" is my initial reaction to seeing this article's existence. I would resist ANY and all attempts to create it. Spa-Franks ( talk) 02:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Heads up:- The Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps has suffered major damage to its access roads and digital safety infrastructure due to the 2021 European floods. It is possible that the race may be in jeopardy. Mjroots ( talk) 15:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @
Tvx1: since he has reverted my changes.
I went through this afternoon and corrected the label for DNP from "Did not practice" to "Did not participate" in all our results keys. I say "corrected" because the usage of this abbreviation has only been, as far as I have found, in situations where a team arrived and then did not participate in the event. For example,
Andrea Moda, who entered into GPs and showed up but then didn't go out on track. The term "Did not practice" is nonsensical in the context of the other results codes. Either the driver practised and did not further participate, and is recorded as WD (e.g. Stroll last year) or skipped practice and participated in the event, in which case they recorded an actual result (e.g. Hulkenberg last year). In fact, the only situation where "Did not practice" could be a useful and coherent result would be a situation where the driver is only entered for a practice session and then does not drive, such as Callum Ilott at the Eifel GP last year. But we used TD and an endnote for that, not DNP. Finally, the abbreviation is explained correctly in other templates such as {{
Motorsport driver results legend}}. If they were entered and did not participate at all, sure, they didn't practice, but they also didn't do anything else (one could even venture to say they did not participate in the weekend).
So sure, we can say DNP means "Did not practice", but that doesn't make sense, and I would love to know what situation it does because I'm sure it's a very interesting bit of F1 history.
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 11:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Grand Prix consists of free practise sessions, qualifying sessions, race and all other past sessions like warm up or new sessions like sprint race so saying that "The 2021 British Grand Prix (officially known as the Formula 1 Pirelli British Grand Prix 2021) was a Formula One motor race held on 18 July 2021 at the Silverstone Circuit" is fake. Whole article is about all the sessions not just race and article itself is named "2021 British Grand Prix" not something like "Race of 2021 British Grand Prix".
2021 British Grand Prix including free practise sessions, qualifying sessions, sprint race and the main race took place between 16-18 July 2021:
"Grand Prix" ≠ "Race"
Eurohunter ( talk) 17:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but, unless you have any (new, conclusive) evidence this amounts to little more than a personal rant, and is not worthy of anyone's attention.
SSSB (
talk) 19:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. The official standings published at the end of the British Grand Prix does not include position achieved during the sprint qualifying. Why are we doing that here, as well as for the Constructors standings? Island92 ( talk) 20:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Just in case I've gone about this in completely the wrong way, I'm going to link to something I've posted on the 2021 talk page regarding the language used surrounding the sprint. tl;dr - "sprint", "sprint qualifying", or "sprint race": all are used at present. Spa-Franks ( talk) 01:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm not (currently) a project member, but I've been attempting an overhaul of Alonso's article to get it to GA-standard, based on comments from the 2010 peer review. I'd appreciate any help with that. IronManCap ( talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've now nominated it for GA status. Anyone is free to improve the article or give it a review. IronManCap ( talk) 17:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The title of "Sir" should be dropped. Lewis Hamilton was awarded MBE, but only the senior two classes grant honorees the title of Sir or Dame. MBE is the least senior class. /info/en/?search=Order_of_the_British_Empire
I can't make this change myself as the page is locked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieBarbarossa ( talk • contribs)
I missed that he had been made a knight bachelor. You're correct. ZombieBarbarossa ( talk) 01:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Had this scenario been successful it would've created a host of issues how to classify/how to sort etc. the race and its statistics because it was rather a rare breach in the rules to allow that and turns the race into a Formula E-style race. Are we going to just act like that never happened and move on? No mention of it at all at 2021 Belgian Grand Prix. Admanny ( talk) 21:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a superscript 'P' (in addition to the superscript '1') in the Max Verstappen/2021 British Grand Prix cell of:
to identify Verstappen as the polesitter. As the recent Italian Grand Prix has shown, it doesn't necessarily follow that the driver who finishes 1st in sprint qualifying is the polesitter. I was recently using Red_Bull_Racing_Grand_Prix_results to count how many pole positions Red Bull-Honda have achieved and I missed the 2021 British GP because it didn't have a 'P'. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 05:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
{{efn|Bottas won the sprint race but started the main race from last following a grid penalty. Verstappen was promoted to pole.
SSSB (
talk) 08:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
If the sprint quali winner has lost pole, I think the reality is that you're unlikely to spot an extra P floating around in a column of 20+ drivers with 4 other superscript characters unless you knew it was meant to be there- but you would know that it was meant to be there as we would have a note within the table to that effect.
for situations like the British GP we could use a P instead of a 1 since they mean the same thing in those contexts.
- they don't mean the same. The 1 identifies that points were awarded, the P doesn't.
SSSB (
talk) 09:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
in those contexts, because sprint quali is still quali. Regardless of how you choose to interpret that, the simplest and most elegant solution to this issue is to add a P for every race. It is unambiguous and consistent across all situations. I see no need to introduce exceptions and rules when we can have one system that will work everywhere.
31
[a]
. A similar thing would be in place for Verstappen. Personally, I consider this the most elegant and simpliest solution - because it doesn't mean adding notations where they are not necessary.
SSSB (
talk) 10:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Notes
– they don't mean the same. The 1 identifies that points were awarded, the P doesn't.That's the point. They mean different things and so they should both be displayed independent of each other.
Why entrants instead of teams? Eurohunter ( talk) 09:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
These templates ({{ F1R2020}} etc.) were created to make updated results easier, fine. However, I think it may be worth subst: them at the end of each season. After the season is over, in fact after the results are out, these templates no longer serve much of a purpose. I understand that Wikipedia doesn't have space restictions, but if Russell ends up with a Raikkonen length career then the transcusion limit will be exceeded. Simiarly, the transcultions limit will soon be exceeded on Mercedes engine customers' Grand Prix results (more than 130 transclusions for this year alone). I therefore propose that when we add the new year row, we subst: the old year's results. (i.e. when we add 2022, subst: 2021). SSSB ( talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
{{F1R2021|BOT}}
would output all of Bottas' results for the season, rather than having 22 instances of {{F1R2021|BOT|XXX}}
(one instance for each race). Apart, from anything else, it would make updating {{
F1 Drivers Standings}} easier (After the
2021 Turkish Grand Prix we would just swap {{F1R2021|HAM}}
and {{F1R2021|VER}}
, @
Tvx1: can correct me if I'm wrong about my interpretation of his comment....)I still think it would be a good idea to subst: the templates if we took that approach (maybe try it for next year) SSSB ( talk) 09:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to complain because I find articles dedicated to Grand Prix are created much too late. Especially for new Grand Prix, which are frequent these days. If I want to know details about future Grand Prix (like schedule, characteristics. changes in the track wrt previous years, etc) I have to look at other languages wikipedias. Thanks. Hektor ( talk) 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Most drivers have infobox flags, why doesn't former driver Jacques Villeneuve have one? -- 2A01:36D:1200:42DA:55DE:BDEA:5BC6:D548 ( talk) 13:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
It's been a recurring thing for years for some editors to just pass by a driver article and delete the flag. Just keep your eyes open and restore it when you see a deletion. If that editor starts an argument then direct them to the endless discussion on the matter. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 01:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am a motorsport historian and recently added Tyre Supplier data to around 100 F1 World Championship events, from 1975 through to 1983. After spending several hours on this task, someone (no username given, just IP 80.31.37.137) undid all my hard work. They gave no reason for why they did this but experienced expert Wikipedia contributor SSSB, who had advised me perhaps correctly not to add a tyre supplier column to races where only one tyre supplier was used, suggested I should discuss the issue here as maybe IP 80.31.37.137 didn't think the column was important or relevant.
I thoroughly disagree that tyre data isn't worthy of a column and countless historical motorsport race results and records do include it so I believe it is fair to say it is valid. It has also been included on the official Formula One results shown on TV in some years and so I think it has its place and makes the results more thorough. Many motorsport fans believe it is just as important as engine supplier as a performance variable and I would be one of them! :) Certainly a quick scan of historical race results from reputable sources have more meaning when tyre data is added and often it makes for very interesting reading!
Whilst I think SSSB might have a point in arguing that having a column for the tyre supplier is less important when all runners use the same supplier, I think it is essential for events where there were multiple suppliers and I hope we could reach some consensus that it is a good addition before I undertake adding the data to all races from 1984 where this is the case!
I'm new to the Wikipedia community and very much shall look forward to hearing your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoutside29 ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Brabham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mika Salo#Discussion of "paid contributions" template – some input would be helpful from people familiar with the subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I realised (not having noticed it before) that on race articles, the bolding of fastest time in each qualifying session is not actually explained anywhere in the article. Should we add a short note above these tables (eg "Bold indicates the lastest time in each session" or "Fastest time in each session in bold")? As a side point, should a driver disqualified have their times bolded (eg Hamilton at the 2021 São Paulo Grand Prix) given that in effect, the time was not actually set? I can't remember off the top of my head another occasion to check how this was done previously. A7V2 ( talk) 00:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to bring up the Race abbreviations we use. Firstly, there is the Miami Grand Prix, I suggest we go for "MIA", if no-one has any objections.
More contraversially, (hence why I wasn't bold with Miami) I want to bring up something Ved havet brought up at {{ F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{ F1 Constructors Standings}}. The problem (s)he identified is that every race which is named after a country uses some form of international country code, either IOC country codes or ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes (which are mostly identical), apart from Saudi Arabia. I therefore propose that we adopt the IOC country code for all countries/regions where it is applicable, for two reasons:
Unless anyone has any objections? (note: "too much work" is not an objection, the only one that needs updating is the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix from "SAU" to "KSA"), there is only one istance of this, and we don't need to bother updating the field names in {{ F1R2021}}) SSSB ( talk) 12:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
{{flagicon|SAU}}
produces
. We didn't make upthe code, SAU is actually more widely accepted and used than KSA. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC), expanded 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
{{flagicon|KSA}}
also produce the Saudi Arabian flag (
).
KSA is a redirect to
Saudi Arabia, and the KSA abbreviation is mentioned on the first line of the country's article. It's clearly not uncommon. Judging by articles used as sources in that article, it looks to be a common abbreviation for the country in the arab world.
Ved havet ≈ (
talk) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Most people probably utilize the flag icons to identify the correct column, rather than the code by itself.- yes. But this change is more to benefit to pages where we use the code without the flags (which is all instances of the code outside of the standings templates, I believe) SSSB ( talk) 16:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Formula One is not an Olympic sportis the killer, because as I have said above there is no need to adobt IOC codes when they actually do not make sense.
If we're going for recognisability, all else aside, SAU matches Saudi Arabia an awful lot better than KSA does.Although you've successfully picked apart all my attempts to name the trend in the abbreviations, you're yet to dispute this. 5225C ( talk • contributions) 23:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I've just had look at the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix coverage, which had a graph showing the points gap between Hamilton and Rosberg throughout the season up until that point. I'm not sure what the source material was that they used, but I'm sure it can be found easily, which sorts out the Saudi problem... I hope. In 2016 the list went as follows: AUS, BRN, CHN, RUS, ESP, MON, CAN, AZE (surely an error given that was the "European" GP?), AUT, GBR, HUN, GER, BEL, ITA, SGP, MAL, JPN, USA. So I suggest we use whatever that source material has for Saudi. It's worth noting that at WP:EUROVISION, the Eurovision Song Contest has used ISO 2-letter codes for some time now in terms of listing countries but from 2015 they started adding hashtags on the entries on-screen according to the same list: #GBR, #NED, for example. In 2019 they changed that list to telephone codes (#UK, #NLD) but reverted back this year (no contest in 2020). The point is we know what source they were from, and I suggest a similar approach here. Spa-Franks ( talk) 16:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm starting to regret bringing this up. When I made my original post on this thread I thought it was only Saudi Arabia that needed updating to IOC standard, but I clearly didn't check properly because Singapore and Bahrain would also need updating. I thought (and still think) it would be worth the effort of updating one instance of a GP for the benefit of a consistent system. But I question if its worth the effort of changing it for the 12 instances of the SIN/SGP Grand Prix.
I therefore suggest we drop this and just choose whichever abbrevation we think best (every system has a least one country where the abbrevation doesn't make sense to a speaker of common English) - preferably using a letter combination that is used somewhere else. SSSB ( talk) 17:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
While we are here, I thought it worth bringing up that an editor has suggested Sao Paulo GP uses the abbreviation of SP. See the mini, de facto thread buried in Talk:2021_Formula_One_World_Championship#São_Paulo_Grand_Prix. SSSB ( talk) 17:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
While making some edits to the Dutch Grand Prix article following it's revival, I noticed the worrying state of its official names section. While I get that we have generally assumed that whatever appears on the covers of the official programmes as documented on the Programme Covers Project, I really find the suggestion that the 1977-1983 editions of this Grand Prix having been named nothing but "Grand Prix" just laughable. I think we're taking an immense leap here with sticking rigidly to just these covers. T v x1 17:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow, I just discovered this discussion now! It is amazing that I independently reached the exact same conclusion as User:Tvx1 in their original post, see my comments at Talk:Mexican Grand Prix#Official names. Yes, the "Official names" sections are flawed. Official names are not based on program covers (as referenced in these sections). The minor variations on the front covers of the programs are merely typographical, or branding at best, and should not be misconstrued as evidence of an official name change. If there is some point in keeping these sections, then I suggest to accurately reflect what they really are: Program Covers branding. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly introduced in the article introduction unless there are many of them, or they are relatively obscure, in which case:
The alternative name should be mentioned early (normally in the first sentence) in an appropriate section of the article.
The redirect should point to this section.
Therefore, most of these "Official names" sections need to be removed and merged into the lead. SSSB ( talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
A reminder that the F1 world championship is an ITNR event, but it won't get posted if the orange tag on the article isn't addressed and removed. Mjroots ( talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a thread hidden in one of the individual Grand Prix talk pages, which I believe deserves a wider attention in order to reach conclusion and find consensus. The question boils down to what is considered a Grand Prix title, and when should different titles be considered not to be different at all:
So the argument some editors made this year is that some sources specifically mention an event's "renaming". And then these editors' conclusion was that we should go by what the sources say on the subject. I find this argument weak – mainly because even if a source says the event was "renamed" it is still open to interpretation as to what the word "renamed" means. This could be easily interpreted in two opposite ways: 1) it's a confirmation the event got a new title, and hence deserves recognition on its own; or 2) the event is somehow the same, and it even retains the same "title", although the title in reality has changed.
These two opposite interpretations hint at a dichotomy of what is the title of the event:
I personally think the title is what it's named after. Plain and simple. And historically, by the title we always meant an entity after which the event was named (whether a country, a city, a region, or even a hotel).
If we now start interpreting the title as being something completely different (as, for example, the combination of track/organizer – which seems to be hinted at in both of 2021 cases), then this would have to lead to a lot of historic revisions, as European GP/Azerbaijan GP in 2016/2017 would be part of the same event series, while the European GP in Valencia would be an event that belongs to a different series than, say, the European GP in Donington, etc.
cherkash ( talk) 21:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
our argument on different organizers (at least for Nurburgring) doesn't even apply to European/Azerbaijan renaming in 2016/2017.
- no-one's claimed that. Tvx1 was just explaining that Luxembourg isn't a relavant example.
...could be considered just a location specifier...
- this is conjecture which has zero supporting evidence and does have opposing evidence. They don't seem to do this with any other GP (using the same document as linked above, i.e. entry list),
2020 Styria, [
70th anniversary,
2020 Sakir,
2021 Styria don't follow this convention. This reads as a rather desperate arguement.
the FIA itself clearly treats each of the newly created race titles as a new title in its own right
- Firstly, this isn't clear at all. That document describes it as the "51st event name". Wikipedia doesn't base it on event name, but event. For it to be clear it would have to be the "51st event", not "51st event name". Secondly, we are not the FIA. Just because the FIA consider it one way, doesn't mean other sources do, and it doesn't mean we should. Espically given that a promotional document is the best evidence you have provided so far.
SSSB (
talk) 13:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Luxembourg GP was just an off-hand example from my memory - it is by no means a cornerstone of any argument, just one of many recent examples of name changes. I should have pointed to the European/Luxembourg pair (instead of German/Luxembourg) which is more relevant here: the European → Luxembourg → European back-and-forth name change for the successive races on the same track is pretty much as close to the current situation as it gets.
As for the European/Azerbaijan GP, here is a somewhat detailed treatment of the name change circumstances quoting a few people involved, which highlights how it was basically a branding/PR exercise on the part of the Azerbaijani government and the race organizers: [7]. Again, a very similar circumstance to the Mexico City and Sao Paulo: same venue, same organizers. But again, the title is the title - and we never questioned such name changes in the past - and never arbitrarily assigned them to the same series based on venue, as opposed to the GP title. So what's so different this year (that is, apart from some emotional attachment to the Mexican GP and Brazilian GP monikers which happened to change)? cherkash ( talk) 01:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
What's different is that the FIA continues to "assign[] them to the same series based on venue, as opposed to the GP title." on their documents and website, [8] and that third-parties are doing the same. The motivation behind this is irrelevant, this is just the way it is, and we have to reflect this (otherwise we are engaging in WP:OR). SSSB ( talk) 09:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
May I suggest what is currently sitting at the end of the 2006 San Marino Grand Prix article as a catch-all?
In the case of Nurburgring 1996-99, may I suggest we change them to this, for example on 1996:
Spa-Franks ( talk) 21:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it me, or is our article on the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix currently showing a bias in favor of Mercedes' point of view on the championship outcome. I mean, the reactions section contains a monumental amount of mostly British sources criticizing the result and none at all dealing with Verstappen's championship performance. T v x1 01:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
There are currently no sporting regulations covering the 'Pole Trophy" the last set of sporting regulations I can find to mention the existence of such a trophy awarded at the end of the season for the most pole positions is 2018 with the regulations for 2019 omitting the "Pole Trophy". As such it appears to have been replaced with the wind tunnel tyre awarded after each qualifying event. I have tried to find sources for the winner of the 2019 and 2020 "Pole Trophy" as described, but none can be found. As such I think this needs removing from articles from 2019 onwards as the FIA from the loos of the regulations have scrapped the overall trophy at the end of the season with the Wind Tunnel tyres. The relevant regulation was 6.7 of the sporting code and I have included the 2014 to present Sporting Regulations for reference below:
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Sparkle1 (
talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Enough |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I personally believe that *just* because a driver from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland competes/competed under the Union Jack, does *not* mean that they cannot be described as anything other than British. That is, I see no reason why the likes of the Hills, Hunt, Mansell and Hamilton cannot be described as English rather than British, and no reason why the likes of Clark, Stewart and Coulthard cannot be described as Scottish rather than British. (If Nicola Sturgeon gets her way, then drivers from Scotland will *definitely* have to be described as Scottish and not British...) Also, it's *not* a good idea to describe a driver from Northern Ireland as British, even though they too compete(d) under the Union Jack (they don't/didn't really have a choice there). For one thing, Britain is *just* England, Wales and Scotland (so it's not really a good idea to describe any drivers from the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands as British either, and indeed these aren't even part of the UK). For another, try describing *anyone* from NI who happens to be Catholic/Nationalist/Republican as British... it's not going to go down well at all with them, trust me. And in any case, will it *really* blow casual readers' minds to see, for instance, Graham Hill being described as English and Clark being described as Scottish, even though the Union Jack appears next to both their names in the qualifying and race result tables rather than St George's Cross and St Andrew's Cross respectively? 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:1C9D:26B6:9F59:E589 ( talk) 16:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
You know something? What has taken place on this talk page has made me realise a number of things once and for all, including (1) editing Wikipedia is not as fun as it seems, (2) it is an even bigger waste of time than one could think, and (3) even though it's supposed to be an encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit, it doesn't always feel like that. I already know that Wikipedia is never going to be perfect. New people will always come along, new objects will always be created, and new events will always take place, all of which will merit articles of their own and/or revisions to existing articles. And there will always be ennui, there will always be disagreements, and there will always be editors that genuinely do not know better (i.e. trolls and those who treat Wikipedia as if it's a toy). I'd like to think that Jimmy Wales himself knew that Wikipedia was never going to be perfect when he founded it all those years ago, and that he still knows it today. But what has taken place on this talk page has made me finally realise that Wikipedia is never even going to be *close* to being perfect. It has also made me finally realise, I'm sorry to say, that there are just too many editors who seem to have allowed power to get to their heads, who seem to insist on things being done one way and one way only (whether or not actual rules of Wikipedia and/or real-world laws and norms are involved), and who *don't* seem to realise that Wikipedia is never going to be close to being perfect, no matter how frequently they edit it and how they go about their editing. And I'm even more sorry to say, these editors seem to form cliques, whether they intend to or not - and seemingly *any* editor who is not in any of these cliques (but particularly anonymous editors like myself, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to say that I have always preferred to edit anonymously) is not to be trusted immediately. And surely that goes against assuming good faith, one of the most important principles of Wikipedia if not *the* most important - and, in turn, goes against the idea of Wikipedia being something that *anyone* can edit? When one realises that Wikipedia is never going to be close to being perfect, then they realise that there isn't as much fun in editing it as they thought there was, and that they are *really* wasting their time editing it, more than they could have thought. And when one realises that there are just too many editors who seem to have the aforementioned unappealing qualities, and who seem to band together, then they realise that Wikipedia doesn't always feel like something that anyone can edit, even though that's what it's supposed to be. As I said, what has taken place on this talk page has made me finally realise all these things. But it is not *solely* what has taken place on this talk page that has brought me to these realisations - it is a whole combination of less-than-pleasant experiences during my time on Wikipedia. And not just to do with Formula One, but UK train operating companies and UK towns and villages too, among other subjects. And having been brought to these realisations, I now know for sure that it would be far, far better for me if I gave up on editing Wikipedia altogether. There is no shortage of other things to do on the 'Net - and no shortage of things to do away from a PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone, either - that *are* fun and always will be, that are not big wastes of time (if indeed they're wastes of time at all), and that take place in atmospheres that never feel hostile or unwelcoming. Any future edits from IP addresses in the range that I'm at will be made by different people. Possibly trolls, possibly people who treat Wikipedia as if it's a toy, quite likely people who couldn't care less how far away Wikipedia is from being perfect, and almost certainly people with different interests to mine (football rather than F1, rock bands rather than railways, etc.). In any case, the Sisyphean task of making Wikipedia close to being perfect will continue. And, alas, there will continue to be mountains made out of molehills, including when sportspeople from England, Wales and Scotland who happen(ed) to compete under the Union Jack are described as English, Welsh and Scottish respectively rather than British. There will also continue to be great objections when someone explains why it is not a good idea to describe someone from Northern Ireland as British, even if they are/were loyal to the Union Jack and even if it's written in law that anyone who was born and raised in the UK including NI must be described as British. (Not every law is right, even if it's made with the best of intentions.) And there will continue to be editors who seem to let power get to their heads and don't seem to realise that making Wikipedia close to being perfect is a Sisyphean task, and who seem to band together and hence give the impression that Wikipedia *isn't* something that anyone can edit. I won't be around to witness any of it. And indeed, I won't be around to witness any replies to this comment, if people feel compelled to make them. You can call me a selfish git or a bitter old lemon; you can say I've thrown my toys out of the pram; you can even question if I'm a Sinn Féin supporter or something - I'll be elsewhere and will never know. So long, and thanks for all the fish. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:34FD:12E8:F86B:1464 ( talk) 22:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC) |
Please see Template talk:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)#One row, many constructors. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Tavo Hellmund ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article seems to be a pretty bad case of WP:PROMO, mainly authored by an SPA. It would benefit from one of you F1 specialists (which I’m not) taking a look at it. DeCausa ( talk) 12:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
{{ Formula One}} – top of Formula One, the articles in that series, and the six F1 lists.
So I want to revitalize WikiProject Formula One on the Indonesian Wikipedia, and I have a question: What are the six F1 lists that must have the F1 template? Thanks all. Klrfl ( talk) 07:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)