Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Active discussions
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Project-class)
This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Proposal for Template:F1R2020Edit

Hi, everyone. I have an idea how to make possible work the template {{F1R2020}} with "Complete Formula one results" tables in the drivers article. This is the demonstration of how it works. I don't went all WP:BOLD and implemented it because I am not sure if it is easy solution for our community to use in regular updates. But I believe that the benefit of updating all the data in one place is huge and prevails. I think it is ridiculous that we need to open and edit such amount of articles if a driver got a penalty for example. The line of code for Bottas Austria 2020 update if we decide to implement this:
| AUT = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}} {{safesubst:<noinclude />#switch: {{{3|}}} | WDC = '''[[2020 Austrian Grand Prix|AUT]]'''<br>}}{{F1 race position|1|p}}

So, what do you think? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of not having to manually update the driver results tables after every race, and having the tables auto-update using {{F1R2020}} (in the same way that the car results tables, constructor results tables and Championship tables in the season summary article do). However, I see a couple of issues:
  1. It makes the markup for each line of {{F1R2020}} quite complex (although, in reality, it's likely to be either you or me updating the template after every race anyway, so that's probably not that much of a problem), and
  2. For drivers like Hamilton, Bottas and Verstappen, the "2020" rows in their results tables will have "P" and "F" for pole and fastest lap (as well as bold and italics), whereas the rows for preceding years won't, which might cause confusion for some readers.
I think we might be better off sticking with manual updates to the driver results tables for the rest of 2020 and then have a discussion about whether we want to update the driver results tables (either for current drivers or all drivers) to use the "P" and "F" notation throughout. Alternatively, if people are happy for current driver results tables to use the "P" and "F" notation, we could probably update those fairly quickly (and populate the cells for the remaining 2020 races with {{F1R2020}}), and then have a discussion later on about whether we want to update all driver results tables to use the "P" and "F" notation. DH85868993 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I've never had a problem with the P and F notation (personally I don't see any downside) but I do see a potential problem if only half of the results matrices use letters. It not so much a problem if different articles use a different style temporariy (so long as the new key is made clear) but it is a problem if Lewis Hamilton has 13 rows of just bold and italics and for row 14 we suddenly add Ps and Fs. Its confusing.
SSSB (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather continuing doing the results manually personally, but then I mainly focus on tables away from F1, 2 and 3 which do not receive such "quick" attention after a weekend. I'm not sure how it would work for other series either, take the WEC or GT World Challenge for example, not every driver either has a page or has a results table. Would you complete their results as well? I also dislike having P and L next to the number as it makes it look cluttered and clunky in my eyes and that's just in the tables on each series' page. Alright I understand not every driver has the amount of poles and fastest laps in their table that Lewis Hamilton has for example, but frankly I don't see what is wrong with bold and italics. If someone really doesn't understand, that's what the Key is for which is basically universal anyway. RewF12012 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
As has been explained countlessly, using font variations like bold and italics is an accessibility issue. And in all honesty, I find it very difficult to spot bold and italics in some very large tables.Tvx1 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, well I've not been part of those explanations so forgive me for not knowing about what accessibility issue this would cause. And I'm sorry you have those issues with spotting fonts. However in my mind, some people may have equal issues in making out P and Fs with numbers as well. Unfortunately you can't please everyone. RewF12012 (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, we can't possible make everybody happy. However, through the discussions we established that using the P and F letters cater to more people than the font variations and thus we chose the former. We ignored the accessibility issue prior to 2019 because poles and fastest laps were supplementary information and not vital. However since then points were awarded for one of these concepts and we finally decided to rectify the accessibility issue.Tvx1 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If we don't want the P and F notations in the driver articles, update all the tables with the templates to have this notations in all tables and have a code that a bit clearer we may use this solution. It leaves table in the driver articles exactly like it looks now. But it will require to add the information twice. Example of the code for Bottas Austria 2020 data:| AUT = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}} {{F1 race position|1|p}} | AUT2 = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}}'''[[2020 Austrian Grand Prix|AUT]]'''<br>1
Although it still makes our life easier because we don't have to open and edit 20 pages, we edit just one template. And we have more certainty that in all articles with the template is the same data, and it will be easier to spot if it is not. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that. I wonder if it would be worth adding "WDC pos" (with appropriately coloured background) and "Points" (with appropriately coloured background) to {{F1R2020}} as well - that way we shouldn't need to update the driver tables at all after each race. (I'm aware there's already a "Points" field without a coloured background in {{F1R2020}} that's used in the Drivers' Championship table, but if we can have two versions the race result, I don't see why we can have two versions of Points as well). DH85868993 (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Support your idea. Do we really need to wait the start of 2021 then? I think we can wait till the week in Spa for the other comments. If we did not get arguments why we should not do it, we can implement it. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
In all honesty, I would support applying the P and F letters to all the pre-2019 tables as well. After all the current font variations in these tables are an accessibility problem.Tvx1 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing against despite I personally don't like it. But I can not deny the accessibility problem, so the letters is probably the only solution here. I am not that interested to do such task due to other wiki tasks, will be happy if someone will do it. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we could actually request a bot for that.Tvx1 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tvx1:, Sorry for the long response, I wanted to think about it. My thoughts is to introduce my second proposal prior Spa as it is not so big step. Then after the finish of the season (to not confuse readers during the mid-season) we request a bot to do all the changes, and then create the F1R2021 template in the way of my first proposal. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@RewF12012: The creation of the template does not require to make work of the template happen all the driver articles and/or result tables in them. I.e. you have articles for drivers A-Y, but you have not article for driver Z, then you update the data for all the drivers (A-Z) which will be featured in the drivers' and teams' standings and update the second parameter for the tables in the driver A-Y articles and just not creating parameter for driver Z. Also really don't understand what is the motivation behind the manual updates. It requires to do the same actions but with excessive opening, editing and saving, and you brought the information to the reader much slower. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
My motivation is because I enjoy doing it. The results tables, honestly are my only real thing I care about on driver articles. Why do you think I go through and do so many? I'm not contending that it would be simpler, but for my, shall we say, simple thinking mind in this case, it's like taking away something I enjoy. And frankly, I don't even know how to get to these templates. I'm just here to help out with what was a pretty simple thing to do. But there we go. I barely ever do F1, 2 or 3 anymore as they are done fairly quickly and now with these templates, potentially even faster. I get the P and F's being handy in the Championship tables on the championship tables, but I still don't see the need in the driver's tables. And you can say accessibility all you like, it doesn't change my opinion, sorry (mainly because I don't have any of these problems myself, but that is of course, not a particularly valid argument against). So clearly I can't nor do I really look to change anyone else's as it has already been discussed and changed. So when do these get rolled out to WEC, BTCC, NASCAR, Indy etc? RewF12012 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I assume that if nobody will express interest to change the bold/italics in WEC, BTCC, etc than nothings gonna change. The same with templates, I see only the interest from WP:F1 community now, but not from WP:MOTOR (the editors who commonly updates result cells), so I would not push for it. My proposal now is only to create a template for interested editors, but I haven't time to update everything. If everyone fine with the current state, then would be it. Anyway thank you for your opinion on both F1 and other series aspects of the proposal. P.S. If you want to ask anything about templates in general, you may visit my talk page. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Having missed this conversation and now seen the driver results tables edited to include these templates, I do not think this is an improvement. There is now no way to edit these tables via the driver page. There isn't even a link to edit the template. This just makes it very hard (or impossible) for editors, especially new editors, to get involved. I've been on Wikipedia for 14 years and edited more driver tables than anyone else here (I created most of them) and now I have no idea how to edit that table. It smacks of a closed shop – "only those in the know can edit this table". Doing the updates manually takes seconds (I used to do an entire grid of drivers' tables in about ten minutes, before the podium ceremony) so I fail to see any advantage here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the template gives us an opportunity to update, championship standings, results for entire grid, all constructors; and chassis' tables in five or even less minutes, this is the clear advantage within one template (by the way, while you have parameters for each cell you can use auto-change in any text editor to update them even quicker). Also it makes us certain about the data integrity across all of these pages. The templates are not that hard (it is just different namespace with slightly different markup, which can easily edit any user who knows how edit the table), so it is just a matter of a desire to spent few minutes to learn quite easy things. If you think that we need an edit button we may add it via {{Edit}}, but it may attract nonconstructive users too. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Only if you have the knowledge of where to edit. There isn't even a link to edit that template, so you have to be in the club, knowing where it is already. I don't see why doing everything instantly is an advantage, where is the guideline that says speed is important? There isn't one. Give me a material advantage with this system that is based in Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't guarantee data integrity across all the pages because you make one mistake with the template and many articles are then wrong, like in the example I gave you. There you go, you want to exclude users you consider "non-constructive"; that is not how Wikipedia works. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Not correct anymore, it has the link now. Not all things are ruled by WP guidelines, if you think that the templates breaks any, then it is your burden to prove such breach. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Some improvement. I still don't see a consensus for this. Actually, everything here is governed by Wikipedia guidelines, unless you have another set of rules I am not aware of. Your burden is to prove that the community want this change, not for the community to prove anything at all. I see two editors against it, and a couple of others who have reservations. Some might say creating a system where one editor takes control of editing multiple articles in one hit, using a system not everyone understands, might be a violation of WP:OWN. As @RewF12012: implied, there was no real problem before. He and other editors are basically being told, "Hey you know that job you were doing, well I've devised a much easier way to do it. By the way, you now don't have a job." Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, links to edits made it easier to understand the system and I have added them to driver articles. So your argument is outdated. It seems that you don't want to allow even to try this, so it looks like WP:OWN from your side as you believe that everybody should the edit tables the way you invented 14 years ago. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No, my argument is not outdated: you followed my suggestion. There's a difference. No, I believe that everybody should edit. Full stop. What I am saying is (obviously) the exact opposite of WP:OWN. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, edited by multiple people. This template system is the antithesis of that, and I can never agree with it. After a race, one person makes a few clicks and that's it. Everyone else is excluded. You cannot deny that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No, no-one is excluded. The templates aren’t protected in any way. Everyone is free to edit them. If some editor is too lazy to look for the correct place, it’s not our fault. This way of working is used by multiple project and is not at odds with any Wikipedia policy or guideline.Tvx1 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
One editor is required to make the edit to the template, therefore everyone else is effectively excluded. Claiming that other editors are "too lazy" to trawl through complicated templates that (until today) didn't even have a link to them is exclusive and unfair to inexperienced editors. For someone who carps on regularly about accessibility, that comment represents a double standard. I have still not received a single material reason why this is an improvement. I know other projects use them because I edit football tables. They changed the tables to templates so now they're counter-intuitive to edit and more time-consuming, they take up more space, and some other editors gave up because they didn't understand them. The editors who previously edited the tables were not consulted. The people who created the templates did so then disappeared, leaving the work to others. A work of inclusive genius. Whether it's against any guideline is immaterial; it is absolutely against the spirit of collaboration upon which this encyclopedia is built. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Another thing involved the template in the season article drivers' table. Whoever updated the template after one race this season got it wrong, and the table showed incorrect information. We then had to wait for someone who knew how to edit the template to fix their mistake, and the table was wrong for quite some time. The same thing will happen with the driver tables, it's inevitable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The mistakes are not dependable on the updating method and inevitable in any case. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
They are, but you are making it too hard for inexperienced editors to fix mistakes. We had very few problems with mistakes before anyway. I think this is a tech nerd "solution" for problems that didn't exist. I also don't see a consensus for it... Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Someone may say that the table itself a "tech nerd solution". Corvus tristis (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
It's a very simple way to show results. Results have to be shown. It needs to be no more complicated than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I know it may switch on the trigger to link to other stuff exists, but I believe that I can here something more detailed than that. 2018 FIFA World Cup article has far more attraction than the same year F1 article in terms of edits and page views. Also it has quite a load of templates based on the same principle (i.e. Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group A table). Is anyone complain that this is complicated and that it is not a table? Does anyone says that this is a violation of WP:OWN? Corvus tristis (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I do know those tables do not need to be templates. What's the point? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The point is to edit one template instead of tables in 50 articles, instead of giving 49 pointless opening-editing-saving tasks each Grand Prix for fake inclusivity sake. Other words, probably learning how to drive a car it is not an absolute easy task for everyone, but not sure if it means that we all should stick to the horse. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
You're still not explaining why that is better. If it's too boring to edit, then don't edit. Other editors have no problem making multiple edits. "Fake inclusivity", what a nice phrase to use. Your analogy is utter nonsense, obviously. This is a collaborative exercise, whereas travel is not. I can't believe I had to explain that, absolutely shaking my head. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I have explained that already, if you not satisfied with the explanation then I can not help you. If it is too hard to edit, then don't edit. Other editors have no problem editing templates. Ok, if you are not good with getting into the heart of matter and want an exact collaborative analogy. You are proposing our community to use logs to cross an ocean all by themselves, while I propose to use the cruise ship, yes it is probably make us a bit dependable on a captain, but I think if we collaborate we can improve our cruise ship the way it will be easy to be a captain for anyone. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
That is an incredibly arrogant stance, I hope you are proud of it. I have no interest in editing stupid templates, I prefer to create content. You want this to be a club for people who are capable of more advanced editing, this, the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Plenty of editors struggle to edit templates, you just don't care about them. Admit it, like Tvx1 did. Hiding links to edit templates until you are prompted to provide them. You haven't adequately explained it, you just said it would be slightly faster. Speed is utterly irrelevant, yet you can't see that. You provide another ridiculous analogy, and I never asked for analogies in the first place. You seem to think I want stone age editing, I don't know where you get that idea from. I just prefer editing to be easy and straightforward for everyone. Self-appointed captains who spend time devising ways to exclude people operate to the detriment of all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Whatever, if you feel that such "content creating" is better for both editors and readers, you are free to revert my yesterday edits. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
That would be very petty. I just wish people here would have more thought for less experienced editors. Let's see how it progresses in use. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been cautiously supportive of the use of {{F1R2020}} in driver results tables (see above), but I'm not sure it's a good idea having an edit link embedded within the table; I think it's likely that we'll end up with edit conflicts and/or incorrect changes as editors (who may not understand how the template works) attempt to update their favourite driver's results while someone else is in the process of updating the entire template following a race. It's true that that could also happen without the edit link, but I think the fact that the edit link takes the editor directly to the template in edit mode makes it more likely. I'd also point out that we don't have edit links in the driver infoboxes (where the stats are updated via {{F1stat}}) and that system has worked well for years. DH85868993 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is kind of what I mean. You're worried about inexperienced people making mistakes because they don't understand the template, so the solution is not to keep it simple, but apparently to hide it so only the chosen few are likely to edit it. To me, that goes against the whole ethos of the project, and for negligible benefit. You will get edit conflicts, yes, because all the results are done in one edit, rather than spread around many pages. It just looks like this is aimed at excluding people who are inconveniently not as familiar with this stuff as they might be, and that is unfair. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I take your point. I guess it's a tradeoff of one, more complicated, more time consuming edit which updates multiple articles consistently all at once versus multiple, simpler, quicker edits in separate articles, which may result in inconsistency between articles. And different people will have different opinions on which is preferable. DH85868993 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I expected a balanced response from you, and I got it. I do think though, that any inconsistencies caused by editing across multiple pages are rectified quickly enough so as not to be a real problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes/TriviaEdit

Noticing there is a return to trivia sections - again labelled as "Notes" in grand prix articles. Can a stop be put to this again and restore these "notations" to race reports? --Falcadore (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

100% agreement. Trivia/notes sections are against Wikipedia's policies. There is even a maintenance template for these sections asking editors to intergrate them into prose ({{trivia section}}).
SSSB (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean like the current version of 2020 Hungarian Grand Prix (permanent link in case it changes)? That article contains a whole 3 separate "notes" sections but I'm not sure there's much that could be done about them as they all really are just explanatory notes? Could you give an example of what you mean if not that? A7V2 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: this is the kind of section I mean (but Falcadore may be targeting something different.)
SSSB (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes definitely that is just quite arbitrary trivia. Especially bad is "21 of the 24 race starters were race winners at some point during their career; the remaining three (Jarier, Stuck and Giacomelli) would all have podium finishes" - this could be done for any race, and where would one draw the line as to when to mention it and when not to?! I would definitely support removing these kinds of things, or at least put them in the report somewhere (but even then I'm not sure I'd bother mentioning unless it was something really interesting like the 1961 Dutch Grand Prix which has three things in the notes section, all of which are probably worth putting in the lede/report. A7V2 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
A7V2 There should not be any dedicated Notes sections. Notes 2 & 3 in the first notes bit belong in the text. The third bit - the actual section titled Notes should be folded into the report as well. The championship standings note and the fastest lap note are fine. --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: - I'm not sure I agree. For one, if there was no notes section, where would the note about fastest lap go? It has to go somewhere! And I would argue the note about the finishing positions of the two RPs Haases do belong on the table. The reasons for having to start from the pitlane should be in the prose, however (the qualifying positions are in the qualifying table anyway). I will grant that the reasons for the penalties probably don't need to be in the table, and could be moved to the prose but definitely the fact that the penalties were applied (and that this dropped them in position) should be there. A7V2 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, while trivia sections are against the MOS, explanatory notes are not, eg see Help:Footnotes. A7V2 (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Where it is now is fine. It is about appropriate content. We shouldn't be using addendums to tables to display material in sentences when we have a race report that can fulfill the function. It is, frankly, lazy writing sticking notes about pit lane starts on the back of a table. --Falcadore (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused if we agree or not... I agree that the stuff about starting positions ought to be in prose, not a note, I just think the penalties (I am myself uncertain if the reason should be given) should be mentioned in notes on the table as well as in the prose. A7V2 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Points in bracketsEdit

I believe that the decision to show RP's points prior deduction is wrong and confusing. If I see this information in brackets for the first time I should read the note anyway to understand what numbers are actual. So the better decision is to left this info for the note solely and show only the actual points which we can verify. I maybe wrong, as it is only my assumption but none of the sources tracks amount of points without deduction. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. No sources keep records of points scored if penalties had not been issued. These points no longer exist therefore should not be tracked at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
How about McLaren in 2007? Keeping those points show what the constructor would have achieved and were they would have placed. It accounts for why total awarded points in the season doesn't match total points in the standings. Most importantly, it gives readers context on the team's actual performance rather than their apparent performance. I think it's appropriate to keep for context, and I do not see how it could be confusing.
5225C (talkcontributions) 23:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I just don't think it should be in the table as it is a table of facts. Would haves and if onlys don't belong in it. This stuff is important but should be explained in text with a footnote. Again, do any other sources include points teams would have scored if they hadn't cheated? Their actual performance was that they cheated, so they didn't score any constructor points. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
But the points were still awarded, weren't they? So it would be suitable to report Racing Point's total before the penalty was applied, same as we did for McLaren in 2007.
5225C (talkcontributions) 00:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @5225C: Thank you for this case, because it is combo. If you remember McLaren not only lost WCC points at all, but also lost the 15 points in Hungary, so basing on your logic we are obligate to show this fantasy points based on actual performance too and it will be "0 (McLaren points with deduction) (McLaren points without deduction)" and also move their row behind the Ferrari to give such context. On this case confusion is even bigger. 166 points are the points with or without Hungary deduction? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe that there should be two layers. The first is factual what we actually see in every source. Because it maybe just a reader who just want to quickly get the verifiable factual information without reading the note or trying to understand why he sees two or three different amounts of points. The second is the note (with an article itself as well) for the readers who desire to know the reason why McLaren has zero points. Showing points in the brackets is imposing of the information which I may be don't need at all. Like if I want to know what comes from 2x2 and calculator shows me 4 (5-1). Corvus tristis (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how this is confusing for a reader at all, even in the McLaren case as everything is adequately explained in the notes. This issue is very simple: the number itself represents the championship points, the number in the brackets indicates the total points scored before the penalty. This is explained in the note.
5225C (talkcontributions) 08:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Once again, place yourself in the shoes of reader who wants just quickly retrieve factual information without reading a note and who does not know in case of RP meanings of each amount of points. From this side I don't understand why I should have distracting inverifiable info in brackets. If we already have note, the info in brackets gives us more help or overload us with unnneccesary stuff? I think that the note itself is quite explanatory already. Corvus tristis (talk)
Once again, this is not confusing. And if it is, that's what the note is for. No reader is going to be in such a rush they cannot take the additional few seconds to read the note.
5225C (talkcontributions) 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I get that we won't agree on the visual aspect or that we can have situations in which haven't additional few seconds. But what on the factual side? Would you provide to us any reflection in the sources about 166 McLaren's fantasy points or 78 RP's fantasy points in the actual championship standings? Or you want to keep trivia in the table which against the policy? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not trivia. The points were awarded and then taken away. The brackets account for that.
5225C (talkcontributions) 07:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Then provide the source that McLaren (As far as I remember McLaren hadn't 166 points at all, because the court was prior the season ending, so they were never awarded with this points) and RP were awarded with such amount of points. Otherwise they are imaginary points which do not exist. It is simple. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
McLaren drivers scored a total of 218 points, but the team was not awarded points after the Italian GP. So those points aren't "fantasy" they were the total McLaren had been awarded before that ruling and then had excluded. RP is in a similar situation that they were awarded points and those points were then excluded. At the moment, sources only discuss the points difference as of the British GP, so you could use that as an excuse to remove the bracketed points. However, if you're going to justify its inclusion/exclusion based on sources we'll be having this discussion again when there is inevitably some analysis of the penalty.
5225C (talkcontributions) 22:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, your both wrong. While the total of points both drivers scored would have been 218. That number was never awarded to McLaren in any way. At the conclusion of the Italian Grand Prix (see 2007 Italian Grand Prix) they were officially credited with 166 points for the constructors' championship. A few days later they were stripped of all these points at a court of appeal hearing. Here is an official sources showing they did officially hold 166 points at one point.Tvx1 10:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
So the points were awarded and then removed. The points did, at some point, exist, and were counted. Then they were removed. What you've said is exactly what I've been saying.
5225C (talkcontributions) 13:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I admit that I haven't been enough attentitive to this detail. But what relevance of points awarded prior Italian Grand Prix to the overall season standings? It contradicts with your first goal to "show what the constructor would have achieved and were they would have placed". 218 points show what they would have achieved and were they would have placed, 166 points do not. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Because the team was no longer awarded points after the Italian GP, so those points never existed. Whereas the 166 they had before their exclusion definitely did exist and were awarded to the team.
5225C (talkcontributions) 08:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not deny it, I just say that it does not serve the claimed purpose. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, with regards to McLaren in Hungary 2007, there was no deduction. They were penalized prior to the race and never scored any constructors' points at all there. Likewise, they weren't awarded any more points following their disqualification prior to the Belgian Grand Prix.Tvx1 09:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for correction, but it is not the point. The point is that this is bad both visual and factual solution to use. Can you even prove that this amount of points exists in the standings of any sources? I'm okay if we place this amount as an explanation, but it definetely should not be the part of standings table. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't really know why you ask me. I have no strong feelings either way. As long as we don't list points competitors were never awarded (as was the case for a long time for McLaren in 2007.Tvx1 13:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Isn't the precedent here rather worrying? Wouldn't this also have to apply to Michael Schumacher in 1997, or any "gross" points for 1990 and prior? Strongly keep the points in parenthesis. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, no. Schumacher was never stripped of his points. Only his position.Tvx1 17:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Can't see any reasons to be worried: 1. Michael Schumacher in 1997, 2. "gross" points for 1990 and prior. Both cases have reflection in the sources. Representation of the gross points we can probably leave for the different discussion. Now I'm worried more with the 2020 article, which brings us unverifiable trivia. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Infrequent editor here in the project throwing in an opinion. I don't think it matters whether or not the bracketed points are confusing or distracting. They just don't belong in the table. RP was penalized. Those points are gone. Has anyone found a source that's tracking them? If the sources aren't doing it, we shouldn't either. Yes, what happened is an important part of the season, so keep it in the note, but the bracketed total itself is trivia. --DB1729 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, 100%. Particularly the point about other sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There is only one points User:5225C. The points the team had at the time of the race in question. Anything and everything else is speculation, for which Wikipedia has a policy specifically about. WP:SPECULATION. --Falcadore (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Corvus tristis, can you please not make changes on this subject while this discussion is still ongoing? That’s just respectless.Tvx1 10:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There are no signs, that discussion is ongoing since 21 August. How long should we keep irrelevant to the overall season standings and unsourced total in the standings for "respect" purposes? P.S. Please spell correctly my nickname. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
As long as it takes to form a proper consensus to remove them. I don't have that impression here. Moreover, you merely moved these totals to the footnote and edit entirely fictional constructors' tallies there. There was no support for that whatsoever.Tvx1 11:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The longer I think about this, the more I feel that we simply cannot adopt one black and white rule that could be strictly applied to every such case that ever occurs in the history of the sport. Take the active example of Racing Point for instance. They officially held 42 points at the conclusion of the British Grand Prix, were docked 15 points a few days later and have now exceed their post-Great Britain total once again. Thus whatever points they end up at the end of the season + 15 points would be an entirely fictional total they were never credited with and the inclusion of that would be wrong. But in a case like McLaren's in 2007 were they did officially held a grand total of 166 which were later stripped in their entirety, following which they did not receive any more points I can still see some merit in listing it with a note that these were stripped.Tvx1 12:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
How is the total fictional though? Under the current scoring system, the team/constructor score is the sum of the points scored by the drivers. In Racing Point's case, they have been penalised 15 points from that total. The points clearly existed prior to their penalty, and the points were only taken out of the championship after they had been scored. Very similar to the 2007 McLaren case but with a portion instead of the entirety.
5225C (talkcontributions) 12:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Simple questions: Do the McLaren or RP points exist in the real overall standings or not? Are the overall standings supposed to show any previous point totals or sum of drivers' points? Can we verify these bracket points in the third-party sources, that at 2020 Spanish Grand Prix RP scored 78 points towards constructor's standings or as 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix McLaren scored 166 points towards constructor's standings? Probably no. Then why McLaren's Italian points total should be in the column which shows us overall season points? As you said in the first place your goal was to "show what the constructor would have achieved and were they would have placed." 166 points in case with McLaren only leads to confusion which I have demonstrated accidentally, because this number is unnatural and counter-intuitive in the context of the other constructor's totals which are similar to the sums of the driver's points. 218 points show their possible achievements. I really don't understand why we have such long discussion, if nobody says that the note should be deleted. Why the note and text coverage in the article can't satisfy desire to show alternative points? Corvus tristis (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not true that constructors' results are simply the sum of the drivers' results. Mathematically that will often match, but rules-wise that's not how it works. The FIA scores these championships seperately. The constructors' results are actually the sum of all the results credited to each constructor for each Grand Prix.Tvx1 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I have missed the word "mostly/usually", I just described how looks the context. But it is not the point. Nor you, nor @5225C: haven't answered more important questions. So, I will repeat it again: 1. Are the overall standings supposed to show any previous point totals? 2. Why McLaren's Italian points total should be in the column which shows us overall season points? 3. Why the note and text coverage in the article can't satisfy desire to show this Italian total? I definitely can't understand why we can't use black and white rules which will be understandable for everyone and why you both against WP:VERIFY policy which clearly gives such black and white answers to these situations. Tvx1, argument is quite sophisticated, and I don't see nor why it justifies exception to avoid policies nor how it gets a support from community. If you feel that we are in the dead end with this discussion may be it is time to address it to WP:DRN? Corvus tristis (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous name of Racing Point Force IndiaEdit

A discussion has started at Talk:Racing Point Force India about what the "previous name" field in the infobox should say.
SSSB (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Engine nationalityEdit

Guys, do we have such thing as engine nationality? I have nothing against to say in the Honda article that Honda is a Japanese engine manufacturer or in Ford article that Ford is an American one (or British as it was built by Cosworth?), but in F1 all the flags means official FIA recognition. I haven't seen such in entry lists, only in F1stats which shows flags different from the article. Also there was a consensus for flags removal back in 2009. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because it's not FIA recognised doesn't mean it can't be verified. I'm sure there's alternative sources to use and engine nationality is just as significant as team/constructor nationality.
5225C (talkcontributions) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No it isn't. Constructors' need a licence from a national motorsports governing body and they are recognized as a representative of their country through the playing of their national anthem after having won a race. None of that applies to engine suppliers'. Nationality isn't even always clear for them (e.g. Ford/Cosworth, TAG,...). We simply should not use flags for them.Tvx1 11:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
But what's the significance of constructor nationality?
5225C (talkcontributions) 11:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
They are directly representing their countries as evidenced by the playing of their national anthems. There is just no way you can claim that constructors' and engine suppliers are comparable with regards to nationalities.Tvx1 12:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. But then again, there is no harm to including them as we do with teams (which would be consistent).
5225C (talkcontributions) 12:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:NOHARM. Moreover, that would just be to far off what MOS:FLAGS suggests us to do, because these simply are not representative nationalities.Tvx1 12:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOHARM appears to deal with verifiability and XfD rather than content, and as I said this would provide consistency over team/constructor/engine.
5225C (talkcontributions) 12:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No it wouldn't, because we would be applying MOS:FLAGS inconsistently. Moreover drivers and constructors each compete in a dedicated championship where they officially represent a nation. That's another thing that is not the case for engine suppliers. Another factor where they are fundamentally not consistent on. And there still is the issue of the verifiability. Some of these nationalities were simply assumed by the editor adding them through synthesis. The only thing you are concerned with is aesthetics (i.e. the tables should all look the same) and that simply is the least of our concerns.Tvx1 13:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence for the national anthem being played for the constructor or the entrant? For example, in 1968 Joakim Bonnier Racing Team apparently entered Cooper-Maseratis, McLaren-BRMs and Hondas under a Swiss nationality, so would they have played the national anthem of the entrant or the constructor? Carfan568 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course we do. It's called the podium ceremonies after the races.Tvx1 17:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean that do they play the anthem for the constructor or the entrant? Carfan568 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
For the constructor of course. On-screen graphics only ever mention a winning driver and a winning constructor.Tvx1 00:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not really evidence for it. The sporting regulations from FIA say that "The national anthem of the winning driver and winning team will be played. The Nationalities of the teams and drivers will be notified to the organiser by the FIA and will accord with Article 9.5.2 of the Code." In podium ceremonies the announcer mentions the entrant name, not the constructor, and the on-screen graphics do not show flags next to the constructors like they do for drivers. The official FIA and F1 websites don't list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings like they do for drivers. Also, before sponsorship liveries came to F1, teams painted their cars in the racing colours of the team, not the constructor, like NART did with the Ferraris in 1964 for example. If the constructors indeed do not have official nationalities, and we remove the flags from engine manufacturers because the FIA doesn't officially recognise their nationality, we should also remove the flags from constructors for the same reason. Carfan568 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
What the sporting regulations refer to as teams as what we refer to as constructors. What the What the sporting regulations refer to as entrants is what we often refer to as teams. Aside of the drivers' championship there only is a world championship for constructors. The compete for the world title and represent a nation while doing so, not the entrants. Entrants have never competed in any championship. Watch any podium ceremony an you will see that they mention a trophy being presented to the winning constructor.Tvx1 20:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
In the competitors applications section of the sporting regulations it says that they must include "The name of the team (which must include the name of the chassis).", which clearly refers to the team/entrant. Just below where it says that they will play the national anthem of the winning driver and team, it says that they will award a trophy to "a representative of the winning constructor", so there is a clear differentiation between the constructor and the team, especially when they are so close together. So certainly the national anthems played on the podium are not good sources as the national anthem could well come from the racing license of the team/entrant. "The compete for the world title and represent a nation while doing so, not the entrants. Entrants have never competed in any championship." I know there is no championship for teams/entrants, but they have a racing licence, enter the cars and are recognised in official entry lists. And what source do you have that the constructors represent a nation? How do you explain that in for example this entry list Team Rebaque had a Mexican nationality and entered a Lotus, while the factory Lotus team's nationality was British? Also note that the official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers. Carfan568 (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Carfan568: thank you for the sources, although I don't get it, why they are hidden and none of them confirms that TAG has any relation to Luxembourg, F1 stats claims that they are German. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you elaborate which sort of mentioning of engine suppliers' nationalities you are referring to? It's no really clear from the opening posts.Tvx1 11:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that putting nationality implies or requires official recognition, nor do I agree we should base our decision on the present day television broadcasts (not for the older seasons at least). However I do agree that engines don't need (and indeed shouldn't have) nationalities/flags in season, race, etc articles (but as Corvus tristis says in their initial question, of course things like mentioning Honda is a Japanese manufacturer in the Honda article is fine). Clearly drivers are representing their nationality, but I believe manufacturers are too. This is supported by reliable sources both in the present day (especially since they currently register in a certain country) but also historically: for example in the Temple Press "Classic Motor Races" books (French, Monaco, German Grand Prix) from the mid '60s they list the nationality of constructors in the cars appendices, however I've never seen engines presented this way. Also there's the issue of what nationality to give for Ford (probably other issues as others have raised also) of whether it should be USA or UK (where the engines were actually made). A7V2 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Attendance figuresEdit

It's my understanding that most events with attendance figures are estimates, I don't see many primary sources for these and I don't think the organisers frequently release them. Do we include estimates? Let's say an estimate is a round number of 100,000, is that more generalised than an estimate of 105,000? At what point do we consider these reliable enough to include in the infobox? Obviously older races will probably have more leeway than modern races. FozzieHey (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's an estimate, then it should be displayed as an estimate (so c. 100000 rather than 100000).
5225C (talkcontributions) 23:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. However most attendance figures either seem to be rounded or estimates but sometimes it's not clear in the sources. Do we just assume they're estimates if a figure isn't released by the organiser? FozzieHey (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that would be appropriate. Unless we have the exact number from the organiser/F1/local government, it should be treated as an estimate.
5225C (talkcontributions) 23:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The thing is that even if they have an exact number (which they will) they are likly to round it (espically for on-screen graphics etc.), to the closest thousand or ten thousand. If its 100,917 or 100,000, most people don't care, its an error of less that 0.92% and 100,000. Its the same reason why in quali commentators say lap time of 1:15.1 and not lap time of 1:15.109.
SSSB (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
So do you believe it's not necessary to specify the number is approximate if it's only a small approximation?
5225C (talkcontributions) 12:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't really care. I was simply stating another thing we should consider. Personally I think it's obvious there is some rounding and estimation involved. Espically for street circuits.
SSSB (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, even the official number (when available) should probably be rounded since they are unlikely to be as accurate as to the nearest one person, and such precision isn't really informative anyway. A round number generally implies that it has been rounded so no need to put "circa" either. The MOS does give an example where extreme precision could be kept, so for example if the attendance breaks an official record, or is otherwise specifically notable, it could be given precisely. A7V2 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense to me.
5225C (talkcontributions) 22:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Most of the time attendances are not estimates, but the accuracy is highly questionable. Fortunately Wikipedia dodges the entire issue as if we round the number ourselves that becomes original research and not the thing wikipedia does. Take the number as sourced, not our own made up rounded number. --Falcadore (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not original research to round numbers. MOS:UNCERTAINTY states: "Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason.". Also given is the example of a population: "The city's 1920 population was 10,000 (not population was 9,996 – an official figure unlikely to be accurate at full precision)". If you feel that this constitutes original research then you'd better suggest changes to the MOS. A7V2 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Further to my above comment, see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Simple calculations: "You may round to appropriate levels of precision..." A7V2 (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Constructor nationalityEdit

Can anyone prove that the FIA officially recognise nationalities for constructors? The official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers. The podium anthem is not a good source because the anthems could well come from the racing license of the team, and the sporting regulations state that the podium anthem is played for the team, not constructor. And if the constructors would have a nationality, why then for example in this entry list Team Rebaque had a Mexican nationality and entered a Lotus, while the factory Lotus team's nationality was British? If no one can prove that the constructors officially have a nationality, we should remove flag icons from them as we did with other manufacturers which don't officially have a nationality. Carfan568 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Would agree that in the current state of F1, constructors and teams are synonymous?
5225C (talkcontributions) 23:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
(Copying from Talk:Formula One)
Teams ARE constructors in the past few decades. Although constructor and team were separate in the past, the specific articles you are editing are all ones in which every team was required to be a constructor. Hence the nationality of the team is the nationality of the constructor. The359 (Talk) 23:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Further, per your example of the Formula One sporting regulations, your say that entrants must include "The name of the team (which must include the name of the chassis)." This means that the name of the team must include the name of the constructor. The name of the chassis does not refer to the F1000 or E23 or FW38 or whatever each team wants to call their cars. It refers to the constructor name used in the full name of the chassis. We had this problem before of previously listing "Red Bull" as the constructor when the FIA recognized "Red Bull Racing" or "RBR" as the constructor. Your attempt to claim that the FIA considers the team and constructor to be separate is WP:SYNTH. Your repeated use of Rebaque does not negate that the line between entrant and constructor has merged since the 1990s. The359 (Talk) 23:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Despite being Australian and racing in Australian national colours, Brabham was always registerred as British. Racing teams need to be registerred to compete at every level of competition with ASNs. Below Formula One level teams have and can be registerred under multiple nationalities. It is hardly unusual for a team to be based in one country and registerred in another. Benetton/Renault - the "Enstone team" and Red Bull Racing are prominent examples. --Falcadore (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
So you can't prove it, but want to assume that the team's nationality is the constructor's nationality because recently multiple teams haven't raced for the same constructor? Well, if you look at entry lists when multiple teams raced for the same constructor, those teams had different nationalities. Also there is still a difference between constructor and team. For example, the constructor for McLaren is "McLaren-Renault", but the team is operated only by McLaren. Carfan568 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you legitimately asking me to prove that teams have to construct their own car under current regulations? Rules change, you can't hold a single universal standard to cover all 70 years of Formula One. It's not even a recent change, it's part of the regulations, as you yourself demonstrated.
And yes, there is a naming difference between McLaren and McLaren-Renault, but are you arguing that they are not the same entity? I'd love to see you prove it. The359 (Talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
McLaren the team and McLaren-Renault the constructor are the same entity. Same with all the other current teams.
5225C (talkcontributions) 14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm asking you to prove how this affects the FIA's recognition of nationalities. McLaren-Renault the constructor also includes the engine manufacturer. If the engine changes, it's a different entity in the championship, which has always been the case with constructors. Carfan568 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Renault is an engine supplier.
Are you arguing that McLaren-Honda and McLaren-Renault are different teams? Or do you acknowledge that the constructor and the team are the same? The359 (Talk) 15:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There are more than 80 mentions of "power unit manufacturer" in the sporting regulations. I'm not arguing that they are different teams, they are different constructors. Either way that wasn't really the main point. The main point was that can you prove how teams having to construct their own chassis under current regulations affects the FIA's recognition of nationalities. Carfan568 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The "nationality belongs to constructors" vs "the nationality belongs to the team" is based almost exclusively on WP:OR (Rebaque in 1978 is not applicable). There is simply no telling who the FIA designates the nationality to now because in this context constructor/team are synonymous. As constructor/team are currently synonymous I see no evidence that the status quo (flags of constructors) should be disruptive.
SSSB (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Why is it not applicable? I can provide multiple other entry lists which have the same thing. Do you just happen to like the flags? "There is simply no telling who the FIA designates the nationality to now because in this context constructor/team are synonymous." There was evidence back when multiple teams raced for the same constructor, why should this be ignored? The official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers, why should this be ignored as well? Carfan568 (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There was evidence back when multiple teams raced for the same constructor, why should this be ignored? - because it was multiple decades ago. WP:AGE MATTERS, entry lists from the 70's can not be used to justify the removal of flags from 2020 Formula One World Championship (for example).
The official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers, why should this be ignored as well? - we aren't ignoring them because they say nothing on the subject. Meanwhile I could argue that you are ignoring the national anthems on the podiums.
And for the record I don't like the use of flags next to constructors (I find constructor nationality meaningless as they can choose to change it at any time) but I see insufficent justification for their removal.
SSSB (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
entry lists from the 70's can not be used to justify the removal of flags from 2020 Formula One World Championship (for example)
Do you not realise that the flags are unsourced in the first place? And this wasn't only about the recent seasons, this was about F1 as a whole. No evidence has been brought that the FIA's recognition of nationalities has changed. Should we then remove the flags from the old seasons?
we aren't ignoring them because they say nothing on the subject
If they don't list nationalities for constructors in official entry lists and results tables, then certainly that is not evidence that they have a nationality, rather it points to them not having a nationality.
I could argue that you are ignoring the national anthems on the podiums
That is not evidence for either case. The sporting regulations state that it's the anthem of the team, so again this is certainly not evidence that the constructors represent a nation. Carfan568 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you really think this is the first time this project has had this debate? Perhaps you should look up the past history of the subject instead of insisting it all be repeated for your benefit? I really think you should spend some time in the archives before any further responses. You'll find every answer to your questions.
Please. Just do it. --Falcadore (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to go through over 50 archived talk pages to start a discussion? If you know any relevant old discussions, then feel free to cite them. From the search that I did, I found this discussion where users also point out that the constructors don't have a nationality. Carfan568 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
You went to the trouble of going through the sporting regulations about entry applications, yet you didn't find the specifics that say that all teams have to constructor their own car? Again, rules changed, what appliedin the 1970s does not apply today because Formula One is constantly evolving. The359 (Talk) 00:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Teams only have to make their own chassis under current regulations. No one has brought any evidence that the FIA's recognition of nationalities has changed, only speculation that they must have changed. Look at this entry list from 2010, still no nationality listed for constructors. Do you think that the flags should be removed from the old seasons, but left for the recent ones? Carfan568 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it really neccessary for any of us to do it because you refuse to? --Falcadore (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
What exactly do you want me to find? I did a search and did not find sources/evidence that constructors officially represent a nation. Carfan568 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Alpine articleEdit

I have created a draft article at Draft:Alpine in Formula One. For now, I have created Alpine in Formula One which redirects to Renault in Formula One, and have put this link on the 2021 and 2022 articles.
5225C (talkcontributions) 09:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@5225C: someone has created Alpine F1 Team.
SSSB (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I will redirect my draft.
5225C (talkcontributions) 10:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of what is meant by the term "Grand Prix"Edit

@Joseph2302: What did you find confusing about this edit that you had to revert it: [1]? I actually find the previous version more confusing, since the term "Grand Prix" can be used to denote both individual races and the series of similarly named races run in different years. So my edit was intended to clarify that. Please feel free to propose a different edit that would clarify this distinction in a better way. cherkash (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Cherkash's edits made the page less confusing.
SSSB (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, heading was "Grands Prix (race titles, not individual races)"- what does that even mean? Also, Cherkash changed the terminology to say we should only be covering World Championship races, which there is no consensus for, and Grand Prix makes a hell of a lot more sense than "title of a race". They mean the same thing, but Grand Prix is an understandable name, but "title of a race" is not. Also, project conventions shouldn't be unilaterally changed without a clear consensus to do so- changes in scope this radical (changing to only covering World Championship races) should only be done with a consensus, and probably an RFC. Rather than unilaterally from a user who seems only to unilaterally declare random things. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, some of it could have been improved but the term "Grand Prix" in that context is ambigous. Does it refer to the series of events (Italian Grand Prix) or individual events (2020 Italian Grand Prix).
Changes to project conventions need wider discussions, yes. But Cherkash's attempts to make the text less confusing worked.
SSSB (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: And with respect to my alleged change in terminology to cover WC races – this is not a change, but rather a clarification of terms. We have always intended to cover WC races, not just Grands Prix (which e.g. Indy 500s in 1950–1960 were not). I even linked the explanation of why "WC race" is a more appropriate term than a nowadays generically used "Grand Prix": they have been synonymous for many years now, but not so in the first years of the World Championships. cherkash (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
What about all the races in Category:Formula One non-Championship races? They are all Grands Prix, but not World Championship races, and your edit has removed them from the scope of this project. This shouldn't be done without a consensus, and I would wholeheartedly disagree with doing so. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: No, they were not "all Grands Prix". Look at 1970 for example: none of the three F1 non-championship races that year were Grands Prix. cherkash (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
And so it would be easy to modify my clarification to include "F1 non-championship races" to the scope. Are we all good with this correction then? cherkash (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Slightly off topic but only slightly: @Cherkash: I noticed you changed the section titles in season articles from "Non-championship race results" to "Non-championship races results" - I can't put my finger on it but that just doesn't sound right and I believe is grammatically incorrect. What was your reason for making this change? A7V2 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: to answer your off-topic: Some seasons already had this version of this subsection's title – so I simply did this across all season articles for consistency's sake. I guess "races' results" may be more grammatically correct, although an attributive usage as in "races results" is also fine. "Race results" for multiple races is correct only if the word combination "race result" is treated as one semantic unit, but in this case "non-championship race" forms an indivisible semantic unit – which then serves as a qualifier (hence, an attributive usage) to the "results". And so it's "NC races results" (or "NC race results" for a couple seasons with a single non-championship race) that logically makes sense. cherkash (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cherkash: I don't know, it still sounds weird. Given that these are not actually a list of results, but a list of races (the only result listed is the race winner, the actual results are found in the report) why don't we just get rid of the word "results"? Then the heading is just Non-championship races. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: I have no problem with that. Please have a go at it! cherkash (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Done except for '77, '78, '80, '81 and '83 as I wasn't sure if it should be plural or not (since in theory it's a list of "races" but there's only one on the list. It's not a big deal anyway. A7V2 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed those years as well. cherkash (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I've had another go at the clarifications. Feel free to edit further to make it even better ;) cherkash (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of flags makes articles more legible and accessible to dyslexic or visually impaired readersEdit

In amongst all of the debate surrounding flags this very simple fact seems to have been forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:18B8:86EC:5BD1:68F7 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

F1 cars on webpagesEdit

Why there are no links to car bookmark on official webpages of teams? AlphaTauri AT01 has no link to at01 or Red Bull Racing RB16 has link just to team webbpage instead of car bookmark. Eurohunter (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is a car-specific webpage then that can be added.
5225C (talkcontributions) 09:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Races column in Career summary tablesEdit

Is the "Races" column in a driver's "Career summary" table, the number of races entered for the season, or the number of races started? My understanding was that it was number of races entered, e.g. Sebastian Vettel's career summary table shows 21 races for 2016 (when he was entered for 21 races but only started 20) and Felipe Massa's career summary table shows 10 races for 2009 (when he was entered for 10 races but only started 9). However the 2020 rows for the current F1 drivers show the number of races started, e.g. "1" for Nico Hülkenberg (who was entered for 2 races, but only started 1) and "8" for Carlos Sainz Jr. (who was entered for 9 races but only started 8). I was going to change the 2020 rows to number of entries, but thought I would check first. (And yes, I'm aware that the values are calculated using templates; I was planning to update the template calls, not just hardcode the numbers!) DH85868993 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would support entries (staus quo). But the most important thing is to be consistent.
SSSB (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if we have status quo with entries, because all tables which I created had "Races" column which had starts' numbers, not entries\. I don't have any preferences, but I think that probably we should have unified terminology and change "Races" to "Entries" or "Starts" to avoid such confusion. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Grand Prix results tablesEdit

What do you guys think is the better format for engine supplier results tables: this where the results are split by era of participation, or this where they are split by main team? Carfan568 (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • The list now contains third-party sources which treat Williams and McLaren as different chapters for Honda. If you have any sources that 1983-1992 is one era for Honda then provide them. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Honda themselves consider 1983–1992 (source) as the second era and 2000–2008 (source) as the third era etc. StatsF1 does the same thing. Carfan568 (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Honda is a primary source, while Wikipedia:Independent sources prevail in such cases. Also has doubts about reliability of StatsF1 as you have added flag of Luxembourg for TAG Porsche, while StatsF1 says that they are German. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
That's why we have removed flags from engine suppliers. They simply do not have an officially registered nationality in the sport. In the case of TAG Porsche both Germany and Luxembourg would be technically correct as it had ties to both countries, but there was no official sort of representation.Tvx1 12:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Independent sources deals with notability, bias and promotional tone, and the topic here is not related to any of those. And it is not only Honda which considers the eras like that, here is another one. The sources which you added only confirm that Honda provided engines to certain teams for certain periods, they don't say anything about the manufacturer's era of participation in the sport. As for the TAG Porsche flag thing, first of all that is not relevant here, and secondly they consider the manufacturer as "TAG Porsche" while on Wikipedia it is just "TAG", just like they also differentiate "Ford" and "Ford Cosworth" and give different flags to them. Carfan568 (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Formula One".