Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 48

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Wikipediaeditperson in topic RfC on the teams and drivers table of post-2013 season articles
Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 → Archive 55

Season article names

Latest comment: 6 years ago324 comments12 people in discussion

The problem

At the urging of @DH85868993 and @Cherkash, I have decided to revisit a discussion from a few months ago: the names of season articles.

Currently these articles follow the naming convention of "19/20XX Formula One season"; for example, 2017 Formula One season. However, I believe that these names do not suit the content of the article. The season articles only discuss the World Championship for that year, and so "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" (or some slight variation thereof) would be the better name.

Season articles currently use the "season" name on the grounds that the articles cover all Formula 1 racing in a calendar year. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases—and exclusively so for the past thirty-odd years—the only racing that has taken place in the calendar year has been the World Championship. Thus, "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" most accurately reflects their content. Indeed, the championship is consistently referred to as the "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" by the sport, its administrators, competitors and the media alike. We cannot let an absolute minority of articles dictate the editing practices that are applied to all articles. While "19XX Formula One season" may accurately reflect the content of half a dozen articles, "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" may more accurately reflect the content of the remaining sixty.

There are a few exceptions to this, with 1952 being the most commonly-cited example. While "1952 Formula One season" is an appropriate name for the article given its coverage of racing outside the championship, the 2017 article should not be named based on the needs of the 1952 article. As there is no requirement that we keep consistent or homogenous article titles across the scope of the WikiProject (it's nice, but we should not let it get in the way of accurately portraying content), we can have differing names without causing problems.

In summary, article names should most accurately reflect the content of the article and I believe that the current naming conventions do not. Furthermore, articles should not be named based on the requirements of other, related articles or else we wind up with—as @Cherkash put it—"the tail wagging the dog", and finally there is no requirement for homogenous article names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I support the general principle of this proposal, i.e. the move from article names based around the word "season" to names based around the name of the championship, for the following reasons:
Of course there are details to sort out, e.g. whether or not to include "FIA" in the article titles, "Formula 1" or "Formula One", "Championship" or "Championships" and how to handle years where there were non-championship races (i.e. before 1984) but these can all be discussed if there is concensus for the general principle. DH85868993 (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't object strongly, but I have one quibble - it's further entrenching the Formula 1/World Championship conundrum. The WDC was not exclusively, or sometimes at all, for Formula 1 up till 1960. I know the organisation of the articles treats them as having always been synonymous, but it grates a bit enshrining it in the titles. Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not an issue in WRC articles, which originally only awarded a manufacturers' title. But there is nothing stopping us from using one article title for pre-1960 articles and another for post-1960 articles.
Like DH85868993 said, at this point we're more interested in establishing that the naming conventions are an issue before we try and find solitions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree there's a problem, because the 1952 Formula One season article is in fact mainly describing a season of F2 racing! If the overall consensus is to change the convention, then I'd expect to see season names broken into three categories: up to 1960 ('XXXX FIA World Motor Racing Championship'?, including one regular non-F1 race, and two seasons with no championship F1 races at all); 1960-1983 ('XXXX F1 season'?, mainly World Championship, but with non-championship races) and post-1983 ('XXXX F1 World Championship'?). 4u1e (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@4u1e — that's one option, yes. But I would prefer to wait a little longer to see how the issue is received by the community before we start exploring solutions because if successful, it would represent a pretty significant change to the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The proposal

Updated 26 August in light of new information.

Now that this has been up for a few days and has had some interest from users—including @DH85868993, @Cherkash, @Ian Dalziel and @4u1e—I thought the time is ripe to start discussing potential solutions (and something concrete might encourage others to get involved.

First of all, I suggest we rename all post-1981 articles to be 19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship (or some variation thereof; this is my preferred version because it brings the title in line with the likes of FIA Formula 2 Championship and FIA Formula 3 European Championship). These articles only cover the World Championship for that year, so aside from the possibility of a few minor changes to the lead, the content of the articles will be unaffected. I do not think this change would be particularly controversial, and we could reasonably implement it even if other parts of this proposal are still being debated. 1984 saw the sport restructured so that the only Formula 1 racing in a calendar year was the World Championship, and so renaming the articles would be justified even if pre-1984 articles kept their current titles.

Next, we split all of the pre-1984 season articles. All of the championship content would be kept in an article called 19XX Formula 1 World Championship and all of the additional content (such as non-championship rounds) would be moved to an article called 19XX Formula 1 season or 19XX in Formula 1. In the event of other Formula 1 championships (such as British Formula 1) being run, this method would open up the possibility of separate articles for them. This is what—thanks to @DH85868993—I am calling the "Supercars model". Ever since 1996, V8 Supercars has run a non-championship round in support of the Australian Grand Prix. However, because it is a non-championship round, it is not included in the championship article as was the case in 2016. Instead, it was addressed in a separate article called 2016 V8 Supercar season which addressed all forms of V8 Supercar racing in the 2016 calendar year: the "main game" (the premier category), the non-championship round (which also has a separate article covering the event as a whole rather than individual events) and the second-tier category. These two articles—2016 International V8 Supercars Championship and 2016 V8 Supercar season—are linked together to show that there is a relationship. This is the model that I am proposing for all pre-1984 Formula 1 articles. However, if there are other models out there, I am happy to hear them.

Now, as per @Ian Dalziel's comments, another method may be needed for pre-1960 articles. To be honest, I know little about the earliest forms of the sport and so I am unsure what would best suit the needs of the article—but based on what I do know, I think the "Supercars model" would still work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I support the principle of this proposal (i.e. a single article for each year from 1984 onwards, and two articles for each year from 1950-1983). I'd probably suggest slightly different names for the articles, but we can sort that out later if there is consensus for the general principle. DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I support the principle of splitting the pre-1984 articles. I would suggest that the championship articles would best be named 19xx World Championship of Drivers (from 1950 to 1980) and 19/20xx Formula One World Championship (from 1981). GTHO (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@GTHO — I'm not sure I agree with calling the pre-1980 articles "19xx World Championship of Drivers" as a Constructors' title was still awarded. The difference is in how the points were awarded; only the highest-placed drivers from each constructor scored points for their constructor (so in Hungary, Ferrari would have scored 25 points courtesy of Vettel and Mercedes 18 by way of Bottas; Räikkönen and Hamilton would not have scored constructor points). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The particulars

As a way of keeping the discussion managable, I thought it best to divide it into sub-sections so that newcomers to the conversation can join at the appropriate place and the discussion remains cohesive. In the meantime, I've created this sub-section to discuss the finer points of the issue and work towards a resolution.

If we are going to move articles, then we need to decide where the articles should be moved to:

For post-1984 articles

I would sugggest the following possibilities:

  1. 19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship
  2. 19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship
  3. 19/20XX Formula 1 World Championship
  4. 19/20XX Formula One World Championship

If there are any further suggestions, I will add them to the list. If you have a suggestion, post it below and tag me with "@{{U|Prisonermonkeys}}" (obviously you should not use the "nowiki" markup).

For pre-1984 articles

Obviously this is going to hinge on how we actually handle pre-1984 articles. Right now, the proposal is to split them into a championship article and an article for everything outside the championship. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to the championship article as the "primary article" and the other as the "extra article". These are our options:

  1. The primary article will be known as 19XX Formula 1 World Championship and the extra article as 19XX Formula 1 season
  2. The primary article will be known as 19XX Formula 1 World Championship and the extra article as 19XX in Formula 1
  3. The primary article will be known as 19XX Formula One World Championship and the extra article as 19XX Formula One season
  4. The primary article will be known as 19XX Formula One World Championship and the extra article as 19XX in Formula One

Once again, if you have suggestions, please be sure to tag me and I will update the list.

If you are sharing your preference, please include a phrase in bold (eg "My preference is ...") so that other editors can quickly and easily determine your stance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

My preference for post-1984 articles is the name "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship". My reasoning is this:
However, I do realise that the FIA prefix may only be a relatively recent addition and thus may not be appropriate for all articles (although I am watching a season review from the 1990s—1993, I think—and the FIA prefix is being used).
When it comes to the pre-1984 articles, my preference is for the primary article to be known as "19XX Formula 1 World Championship" and the extra article to be "19XX in Formula 1":
  • As much as I have protested against the demand for homogenous article titles superseding the needs of individual articles, I do think we need to refer to the name of the sport consistently.
  • I prefer "19XX in Formula 1" over "19XX Formula 1 season" because I find the "season" name to be a little unclear given that the definition is "all Formula 1 racing in a calendar year".
Although as previously stated, my knowledge of the early days of the sport is limited, and I would be willing to defer to the judgement of others when deciding pre-1984 naming conventions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that:
(1) The FIA replaced the "World Championship of Drivers" with the "Formula One World Championship" for 1981
(2) The Indianapolis 500 (a non-F1 race) counted towards the championship each year from 1950 to 1960
(3) There were no Formula One races counting towards the 1952 & 1953 championships
My preference is the term World Championship of Drivers rather than Formula One World Championship for the pre-1981 championship pages.
It may be worth considering the words contained in the 1983 FIA Yellow Book:
"1 In application of the decisions taken during the FIA Rio Congress of 15th April 1980, the FISA is organising the new FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 1st January 1981. As a result, the old World Championship for Drivers is suppressed."
"2 The new Formula 1 World Championship, which is the property of the FIA, will have 2 World Championship titles, one for Drivers and one for Constructors." GTHO (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@GTHO — okay, I'm willing to defer to that kind of judgement. In that case, we would be looking at a name change from 1981, and a single article from 1984. Which, admittedly, is a bit more complex than what I had envisioned, but far more representative.
PS — I indented your comments a little to help others distinguish where my comments end and yours begin. Hope you don't mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
My original preference (see below for my revised preference) was as follows:
Years Article names
post-1984 "YYYY Formula One World Championship", noting that I think it's OK to use the name "Championship" for an article which actually covers two Championships.
1961-1983 primary article: "YYYY Formula One World Championship"
extra article: "YYYY in Formula One" (second preference "YYYY Formula One season")
1950-1957 primary article: "YYYY World Drivers' Championship" (second preference "YYYY World Championship of Drivers")
extra article: "YYYY in Formula One" (second preference "YYYY Formula One season"). Another possible name for the extra article would be "YYYY Grand Prix season" (i.e. continuing the pre-1950 naming scheme), thereby allowing scope to include non-championship F2 Grands Prix if desired - particularly relevant for 1952/1953. (When researching non-championship "Grand Prix" races in 1952 and 1953 I find sources are usually unclear as to whether the races were purely F1, purely F2, or allowed both to compete.)
1958-1960 Either the same as 1961-1983, i.e.
   primary article: "YYYY Formula One World Championship"
   extra article: "YYYY in Formula One" (second preference "YYYY Formula One season")
recognising that using "Formula One" in the name of the primary article kind of ignores the non-F1 Indianapolis 500

OR the same as 1950-1957. i.e.
   primary article: "YYYY World Drivers' Championship" (second preference "YYYY World Championship of Drivers")
   extra article: "YYYY in Formula One" (second preference "YYYY Formula One season")
recognising that naming the primary article "World Drivers' Championship" kind of ignores the Constructors' Championship.

My preference is to use "Formula One" rather than "Formula 1" mainly for consistency with all our other Formula One articles. However I acknowledge Prisonermonkey's statements regarding the use of the numeral and if the consensus if for "Formula 1", that's OK with me.
My preference is to not include the term "FIA" in the article names - the use of "FIA" in the championship names always strikes me as a "branding" (or maybe copyright?) thing, e.g. I have a vague recollection that the FIA weren't able to trademark the term "Formula One", but they were able to trademark the term "FIA Formula 1". But again, if the consensus is to include "FIA", then that's OK with me.
My preference is for "World Drivers' Championship" over "World Championship of Drivers" because it sounds more "English language" to me - "World Championship of Drivers" always sounds like French-translated-into-English to me. But again, if the consensus is "World Championship of Drivers", that's OK with me.
I'm also open to the suggestion of using "World Drivers' Championship" all the way up to 1980 and "Formula One World Championship" from 1981 onwards, although this extends the period for which the Constructors' Championship is kind of "ignored".
Sorry it's so complicated, but so is the history of the championships. DH85868993 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — complexity doesn't bother me. It's more important that we represent content accurately.

On the subject of the FIA "branding", I understand your concerns, but it's not uncommon in the world of sport. The UEFA Champions League stands out as an example in football, as does the FIFA World Cup. Then there's the UCI World Tour in cycling, the IAAF World Championships in athletics and FIS Alpine World Ski Championships in skiing. All of those articles carry the name of the sport's sanctioning body, not to mention the wide range of motorsport articles that do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment. As indicated above, I'm happy to "go with the flow" regarding the inclusion of "FIA". DH85868993 (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, many articles entitled "Championship" cover multiple titles. 2017 World Rally Championship covers three (drivers, co-drivers and manufacturers), while 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship covers six (a world championship for drivers in all four classes, plus two for manufacturers in LMP and GT). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem that arises every time this is discussed is that no one can really come up with a better idea that everyone is comfortable with. The history of Formula One is not simple, and the first decade of the championship presents problems with the non-F1 Indy 500 and the Formula Two championship years. The reason XXXX Formula One season has persevered is because it is just about accurate enough, keeps article titles consistent - which is important for reader usability - and doesn't confuse non-experts who want to know who the Formula One world champion was in 1960, even if such a thing doesn't technically exist.

It's a classic British fudge if anything. No one is sure why it came to be, it has flaws, but has worked well so far, and changing it may be more problematic than its worth. QueenCake (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"The reason XXXX Formula One season has persevered is because it is just about accurate enough, keeps article titles consistent - which is important for reader usability"
That's not much of an argument. The proposed name changes coincide with major changes to the sport's organisation. Case in point, the formal creation of the WCC. All of this should be documented in the text of the article so that it's obvious to the reader why the name has changed.
I also think you're massively overstating the reader usability angle. In the past thirty years, the Supercars Championship has been known by four different names. It started out as the Australian Touring Car Championship, then it became V8 Supercars, the International V8 Supercars, and now it's Supercars. MotoGP and its sister categories were originally known as the 500cc, 250cc and 125cc championships, but were restructured into MotoGP, Moto2 and Moto3—and the transition was staggered, so for a while we had MotoGP, Moto3 and 125cc. And the World Rally Championship has a very complex history; in addition to the WRC there was the Production WRC, Super 2000 WRC and Junior WRC, which were varioisly reorganised, replaced and restructured and are now known as the WRC, WRC-2, WRC-3 and the Junior WRC. Then there was the CART and IRL fiasco in America, various iterations of Formula 3, and International Formula 3000 being replaced by GP2 which is now Formula 2.
The point is that all of these series underwent changes in their naming, many of which did not coincide with rule changes or the series being reorganised—and yet all of the affected articles address these changes without a problem. Here, we have the added advantage of proposed name changes only affecting one series and coinciding with restructuring—as in 1980. Don't get me wrong; I understand your point. But we're talking about renaming blocks of articles here. It's not like we will have a new name every other year.
"The history of Formula One is not simple, and the first decade of the championship presents problems with the non-F1 Indy 500 and the Formula Two championship years."
But the later years are much more simple. They should not be saddled with an inaccurate or inappropriate name for the benefit of a handful of articles. Between 1950 and 2018 there are sixty-eight articles. With the series being officially reformed as the Formula 1 World Championship in 1980 that means that there are thirty-eight articles—more than half in total (and nearly four times as many as the affected decade)—for which there is a better name available. Even if we were to keep all of the articles between 1950 and 1960 as they are, the organisation of the sport means that later articles require renaming. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Re the above comment "naming the primary article "World Drivers' Championship" kind of ignores the Constructors' Championship", it should be noted that there was no Constructors Championship as such prior the the creation of the Formula 1 World Championship in 1981. What we had was an International Cup for Formula 1 Manufacturers. To quote the 1974 FIA Yellow Book, under a heading of International Cup for Formula 1 Manufacturers: "An FIA Cup will be granted to Manufacturers of racing cars of the International Formula 1 participating in the qualifying events of the World Championship of Drivers." This suggests to me that the Manufacturers award was subordinate to the Drivers award and that the inclusion of it in an article headed "19xx World Championship of Drivers" would be in keeping with its status at the time. By contrast the 1983 FIA Yellow Book tells us that "The NEW FORMULA 1 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP... will have 2 World Championship titles, one for DRIVERS and one for CONSTRUCTORS" (their emphasis, not mine). Personally I would prefer to see the term World Championship of Drivers rather than World Drivers' Championship as the former is the term used by the FIA pre 1981. GTHO (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@GTHO — I fully agree with that assessment. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
In light of GTHO's comments, my revised preference is as follows:
Years Article names
1950-1980 primary article: "YYYY World Championship of Drivers"
extra article: "YYYY in Formula One"
1981-1983 primary article: "YYYY Formula One World Championship"
extra article: "YYYY in Formula One"
1984 onwards "YYYY Formula One World Championship"
but as indicated earlier, I'd be happy with "Formula 1" instead of "Formula One" and/or the inclusion of "FIA" in the title of the primary article from 1981 onwards, if that's the consensus. DH85868993 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — that works. It's representative and it keeps things simple. Let's give it 24 hours, and if there are no strong objections (we might have overlooked something), I think we'll be in a position to move all of the articlrs from 1981 to 2018. I think it should be "Formula 1" because that's the name used in the Yellow Book. We'll leave the discussion for the 1950-1980 articles open for a little longer because it's a bit more complex. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We probably should consider that the FIA uses the term "FIA Formula One World Championship" in their 2017 Formula One Sporting Regulations. They have been doing so since at least 1990, going by the FIA Yellow Book of that year. I will check back on some earlier issues tomorrow, but it would seem that they revised the format in the Yellow Book from Formula 1 World Championship to FIA Formula One World Championship sometime between 1983 and 1990. GTHO (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We have a consensus!

@DH85868993, @GTHO, @Cherkash, @QueenCake — this discussion has been open for some time, and it's quite clear that we have a consensus. Based on the 1980 Yellow Book, we should move all articles from 1980 onwards. 19/20XX Formula One season should now be 19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship. However, before we move the articles, there is one last thing we need to do — we need to figure out the wording for article leads. This is the current version:

"The 2017 Formula One season is the 71st season of Formula One motor racing. It features the 68th Formula One World Championship, a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers are competing in twenty Grands Prix—starting in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."

I would propose the following as a replacement:

"The 2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship is 68th running of the FIA Formula 1 World Championship, a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers are competing in twenty Grands Prix—starting in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."

As for the pre-1980 articles, I think we have a consensus there, too. Although I am still very tentative about calling it, given my lack of knowledge. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I should also tag @Ian Dalziel and @4u1e as they contributed to the initial discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: Just to clarify, when you say "we should move all articles from 1980 onwards" do you mean "starting with 1980" or "starting with 1981"? (because I believe 1981 was the first year the championship was named the "Formula 1 World Championship") DH85868993 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@DH85868993 — sorry, I meant 1981. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Just thought it was worth checking. DH85868993 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I would use Formula One - One as a word rather than a number - based upon the pre-existing consensus to prefer that usage on Wikipedia. QueenCake (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@QueenCake — is there a reason for that consensus? Everything I can find, from the FIA to teams to events, uses the digit rather than the number. And it's quite a common practice across Wikipedia; Formula 2, Formula 3, Formula 4, Moto2, Moto3, World Rally Championship-2 and World Rally Championship-3 all do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I would try to avoid the repetition of the necessarily long "FIA Formula 1 World Championship" in the first sentence - and perhaps change it to "The 2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship is 68th running of the motor racing championship for Formula 1 cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the sport's governing body, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars." -- de Facto (talk). 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I would change that ever so slightly:
"The 2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship is 68th running of a motor racing championship for Formula 1 cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the sport's governing body, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars."
The use of the definite article "the" in "the motor racing championship" was a bit awkward because it implies authority. And while it does have authority, the second half of the paragraph is geared towards demonstrating that authority. It was a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Anyway, I for one am happy with that. I can start making changes tonight, unless someone wants to start sooner. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, there isn't any proper usage, the choice between the digit and word is a stylistic choice which has varied between publications over the years. The broadsheets normally use One, the broadcasters nowadays use 1, the racing publications have sometimes varied, Formula One Management uses Formula One professionally and Formula 1 to the audience, and apparently hasn't made its mind up. Since both are correct, and Wikipedia universally uses Formula One throughout article titles and text and apparently has done since the beginning, you have to stick with the Formula One.
There is not a guideline on this that I know of, but this is analogous to ENGVAR, where the original use stands. QueenCake (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@QueenCake — that seems a little out of step with the way things are done elsewhere. For example, Formula Three refers to the class of car, but specific championships use "Formula 3", such as 2017 FIA Formula 3 European Championship. To my mind, we should be making a similar distinction, especially if we are covering things like British Formula 1. As much as the terms "Formula One" and "Formula 1" are used synonymously, we have to remember that they actually refer to two different things: the class of car and the championship. As the articles are structured around the championship, I think "Formula 1" fits better because it leaves "Formula One" open to discuss the class of car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an idea of your own making. There's no distinction between them, and from previous investigation on this I have found no intended usage, with the preference being set by the style guide of each publication. Should you wish, I can provide you with a selection of style guides indicating the variety between word and digit. You are also incorrect with how Wikipedia deals with Formula Three (All-Japan Formula Three Championship, German Formula Three Championship, etc), which consensus has also emerged to have no set style, but to keep to first usage.
I would again stress there are ~5000 articles concerning Formula One on Wikipedia, and every season, car, driver and team uses Formula One, by convention that has existed long before either of us came here. You've got consensus to change the titles, but not to differ from established usage, which you're not going to get because there is no right or wrong answer. QueenCake (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@QueenCake — we have the consensus, so that's the important thing. I'll get started tonight, but it would help if as many people as possible can contribute.
I will say that it does strike me as odd that we position the FIA as our guiding star, but then ignore it. So much of the highest-order evidence—entry lists, WMSC rulings, the official calendar, etc.—all use the digit, but we stick with the word. It's more important that the change to titles is made than the exact form of that change, but it seems odd given that we set so much stock in the FIA sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
As previously mentioned, the FIA uses the term "FIA Formula One World Championship" in their 2017 Formula One Sporting Regulations. GTHO (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Before we "get started", can we have a summary of what we are starting on. I'm not sure that we have consensus yet. I still have some concerns, e.g. with claiming that the 2017 championship is the 68th running of a motor racing championship for Formula 1 cars. GTHO (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@GTHO — mostly the process of moving articles. While the leads will need to be tweaked, I don't think we need to worry too much about a consensus as I expect water will find its own level there. There will be a lot of links piped to "19/20XX Formula One season" that will need to be changed, but there are a number of bots that will automatically update them. We may need to adjust some infoboxes and navboxes, but otherwise we should keep an eye out for further changes that need to be made and document them here so other editors are aware of what needs atrention. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Without wishing to stifle progress on this issue, I think we should try to gain agreement on the exact titles for the 1981-2018 articles before moving them. (I think the last thing we want is to move the articles to one title, only to have to move them all to a different title a couple of days later). By my reading of the discussion, we have one editor (Prisonermonkeys) strongly in favour of "Formula 1", one (QueenCake) strongly in favour of "Formula One" and one (me) with a preference for "Formula One", but happy to accept "Formula 1". GTHO and Cherkash (and anyone else who cares to contribute), are you able to state your preferences? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I consistently support the use of the number in the title, since this is a more common name. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@DH85868993 — I understand the concern, but I think we need a resolution very soon. We've had a consensus for a few days now and I feel that if we don't act on it then nothing will get done. I'm open to the use of the word if that's the consensus established, but given the choice, I will opt for the digit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm also in favour of the articles being moved soon, but I think that if a few extra hours of discussion means we get it "right first time", then that's worthwhile. DH85868993 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
If I wasn't clear, although I have an idea as to what should be used, my argument is based upon what is already used. Since one is already in use, it makes no sense to deviate from that for a handful of article titles. I have no strong opinion on the main point, and I've been quite happy to sit back and wait to see what you all came up with. QueenCake (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@QueenCake — is "we have always done it that way" really the best justification for continuing to do something? The public face of the sport presents itself as "Formula 1", and looking back through the archives there doesn't seem to have been a conscious choice to have picked up the name "Formula One"; it seems to have grown out of a matter of convenience.
Also, if we're aiming for some consistency, it's worth bearing in mind the FIA Global Pathway—the FIA is trying to streamline the path from karting to Formula 1. All of the series that form the ladder use the digit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
With the FIA having used the term FIA Formula One World Championship in its Sporting Regulations since circa 1990, my vote would have to be for FIA Formula One World Championship. GTHO (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@GTHO — from a commercial standpoint, the sport is most frequently represented as FIA Formula 1 World Championship. I often like to think that the best articles are written in such a way that someone with no knowledge of the subject could click "random page", be directed to the article and have a working knowledge of the subject after reading it. With that in mind, if someone with no knowledge of the sport is flipping through the channels on a Sunday afternoon and lands on a Grand Prix, they're going to see the sport represented as "Formula 1". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "One" to "1" and think we should honour WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:LINKCLARITY and use the most specific and most natuaral link for a phrase rather than break a phrase and link all the terms or link to unspecific lists and link all subject-specific terms (including "open-wheel racing cars"). de Facto (talk). 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, we now seem to have two editors with a preference for "1" (Prisonermonkeys and Corvus tristis), four with a preference for "One" (myself, QueenCake, GTHO and de Facto) and one with "no opinion" (cherkash - see comment in the following section). Does that count as a consensus for "One"? (Please advise if I have misrepresented anyone's view or missed anyone). DH85868993 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The final wording

I'm spinning this off as a separate discussion to the above, which is about the use of "Formula 1" as opposed to "Formula One".

Currently, championship articles feature a common introduction, which reads as follows:

"The 2017 Formula One season is the 71st season of Formula One motor racing. It features the 68th Formula One World Championship, a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers are competing in twenty Grands Prix—starting in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."

But with articles being renamed, a few changes are needed, such as the following:

"The 2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship is 68th running of a motor racing championship for Formula 1 cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the sport's governing body, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers are competing in twenty Grands Prix—starting in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."

But this might not go far enough. In particular, the "68th running" is open to debate. The Formula 1 World Championship as we know it was formally created in 1981 and so "37th running" (if my maths is correct) might fit better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "68th running" is incorrect. GTHO (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I think changing it to "The 2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship is the 37th running of a motor racing championship for Formula 1 cars..." would be asking for trouble. The numbers currently in the articles are frequently "corrected" (e.g. in this example, "71st" changed to "68th") by drive-by editors as it is. I think you would be better off just removing the number altogether, i.e. "The 2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula 1 cars...". DH85868993 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@DH85868993 — that kind of editing is always an issue, but I think it's more important to position the articles in the historical context of the championship. I suspect that a lot of those issues currently stem from the wording "the 71st season [...] the 68th Formula One World Championship" which is a by-product of the "season article" name we just resolved to fix. The wording is there because Formula One regulations were first run in 1946 (or 1947), but they weren't organised into a competition until 1950. It's confusing because the "71st season" is the only part of the article that suggests that there is any racing in the calendar year outside the championship. Therefore, I would suggest the following:
"The 2017 FIA Formula 1 World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula 1 cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. It is the 37th running of the World Championship in the combined history of Formula 1 racing, which dates back to the 1946 Turin Grand Prix. Teams and drivers are competing in twenty Grands Prix—starting in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."
It's not perfect, but I think it works. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
We should probably drop the history bit if it is likely to lead to a perpetual edit loop, so:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers are competing in a series of twenty Grands Prix—starting in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."
Note I've underlined a bit I've added for clarity too. -- de Facto (talk). 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that. For one, calling it "a series of" only benefits people who don't understand what a championship (as a concept) is. It's bordering on tautology. Secondly, the use of "a" is once again an indefinite article; it implies that teams and drivers only need to compete in 20 races to be eligible to win the titles and that therefore there are more the 20 races that they could compete in.

Also, could you please keep this part of the discussion limited to the specific wording of the article lead? Because there are so many side issues to discuss here, I have tried to structure the discussion to contain sub-sections so that editors can manage multiple topics at one. If you want to talk about the use of "One" or "1", please do so in the section above. If it's an issue, you can assume that "One" and "1" are interchangable in this section and that the community will use the preferred term in the final wording. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Coming into this discussion a bit late, here are a few comments I have from reading the whole thing. Sorry, Prisonermonkeys, it applies to the whole discussion not to this single section...
I would be against using anything novel like "37th running" for the 2017 season: the subtle distinction of how pre- and post-1981 championships were formally named, although it may be important for a subtler point of naming the Wikipedia articles, is largely unimportant in counting official F1 championships since 1950. I think there is clear and overwhelming evidence all around that the vast majority (in fact, I can't think of a single exception) of sources that cover history of F1 do treat the championships as starting in 1950 (and number them accordingly), without going into semantics of whether the series' numbering is reset every time the official name changes slightly. So I'm for using the "1st" for 1950 and "68th" for 2017, and against anything novel and OR-like in the vein of "71st season" or "37th running" for 2017.
In the same vein, while the actual formal naming had varied over the years (e.g., International Cup vs. Constructors' Championship), there is a relatively common way to refer to all these as constructors' championships. For what it's worth, I would make a distinction here between the proper name (capitalized) and common name (uncapitalized): the former is a formal name by which the championship has been known in recent years, and the latter is a generic name that describes what it is/was rather than giving it a formal name (so it equally applies to the years when it was named "International Cup" as well as the years when it was named "Constructors' Championship").
I would also like to see the final summary (and consensus) of what the renaming will entail. From reading the discussion above, I don't get clarity that the fine points of "1 vs. One", etc. have been fully resolved. On the "1 vs. One" I don't have an opinion: they are fully interchangeable in my view, and the choice is purely stylistic as has been mentioned already. cherkash (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I would rather see the "xx running" phrase left out of the article introduction rather than have it make an inaccurate claim re the number of Formula One World Championships which have been held. I think that we may be getting too hung up in our motorsport articles with trying to sanitise the history of a championship or series in each of the year by year articles just to have a standard intro. History is not always convieniently neat and tidy. That fact that most sources choose to simplfy the history of the championship doesn't mean we need to forego the opportunity to do a more accurate job of it. GTHO (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
That depends. Cherkash is right that 1981 was a name change, and it's been treated as such, when noted at all, by all sources I have seen, both contemporary and modern. Marking 2017 out as the 37th Formula One World Championship is not supported by any source, and implies that pre-1981 was a different championship, which again is not supported by any source. There is no indication even Balestre had intended to create a new championship; this was about changing the regulations to increase the power of FISA over individual events, and arguably more crucially asserting the legal ownership of what was even then largely known as "Formula One".
There is only so far you can deviate from the sources. The point I think you're getting at GTHO could be argued to be correct from a certain technical point of view, but we as a project cannot say one thing when everyone else says another, and have to yield to overwhelming sources.
I do however think we should abandon having a standard intro, when we don't have a standard championship. QueenCake (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@QueenCake —
"Marking 2017 out as the 37th Formula One World Championship is not supported by any source, and implies that pre-1981 was a different championship"
But it was a different championship—it was the World Championship of Drivers and the trophy for manufacturers. The 1981 changes completely restructured the category, giving equal weight to the WDC and WCC. That's why I deliberately phrased it to say "the 37th running of the World Championship in the combined history of Formula 1 racing, which dates back to the 1946 Turin Grand Prix". It's designed to recognise the current (post-1981) form of the championship without suggesting that the championship has only existed since 1981.
"I do however think we should abandon having a standard intro"
There is some merit to it, or at least a partial form—some degree of common content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Making all these subtle distinctions makes sense in some general article about F1 and/or F1 championships, not spread out over multiple individual seasons' articles. cherkash (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cherkash — the precise wording changing from "World Championship for Drivers" to "World Drivers' Championship" might sound subtle, but the full extent of the 1981 changes were not. It completely changed the way championship titles were awarded. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"It completely changed the way championship titles were awarded."
How so? We still got two titles before and after, one for drivers, one for manufacturers. So "completely changed" is quite an overstatement. It was just a renaming, with some relatively minor re-structuring of how points were counted towards the championships (I say "minor" because e.g. the 1978->1979 changes were much more dramatic: suddenly, more than one car from a manufacturer became eligible for CC points). cherkash (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash — that's why I specifically used the words "combined history". It's designed to acknowledge that there has never been just one version of Formula 1. Leaving it out implies that the sport has always been run the same way and we know that it hasn't been. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I must admit that this wording ("combined history of Formula 1") is very confusing to me. I bet it would be as confusing to most readers, unless accompanied by an additional discourse (into what we are "combining" here and why), which admittedly should be present in a general F1 history article, not in all the individual seasons' pages. cherkash (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, is your claim of 1981 being the first year "giving equal weight to the WDC and WCC" (meaning somehow the weight wasn't equal before) strongly supported in a variety of sources? What does the word "weight" even mean in this case? cherkash (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cherkash —
"I must admit that this wording ("combined history of Formula 1") is very confusing to me."
The wording could be tweaked. It means that there are several distinct phases to the sport—the pre-war racing, the early seasons, the restructuring and so on. Despite this, it's all Formula 1.
"What does the word "weight" even mean in this case?"
It means that both championship are treated equally. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I cannot help but feel that we're getting a bit distracted by the wording. I'd like to move ahead with moving the articles; I suspect that water will find its own level and the best wording will emerge naturally. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Please see my comment in the section below. cherkash (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary of current proposal

Here's a summary of my understanding of the current proposal:

1981 onwards Existing "YYYY Formula One season" article to be moved to "YYYY FIA Formula 1 World Championship" or "YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship" (depending on the final outcome of the "1 vs. One" discussion still in progress in the "We have a consensus!" section above) and lead section to be updated as per the final outcome of the final wording discussion above)
1950–1980 1. Existing "YYYY Formula One season" article to be moved to "YYYY World Championship of Drivers" and lead to be updated accordingly.
2. A new article named "YYYY in Formula 1" or "YYYY in Formula One" (depending on the final outcome of the "1 vs. One" discussion still in progress in the "We have a consensus!" section above) to be created.
3. Info about non-World Championship races to be moved from "YYYY World Championship of Drivers" to the new article.
Other changes In addition to moving the existing articles/creating the new articles, there will also be some templates to be updated (at least {{F1}}, {{F1 season}}, {{F1 race report}} off the top of my head). Note that I don't think we will need to manually update many existing links, since the vast majority of links to "YYYY Formula One season" actually refer the year's championship, and of course moving the articles will leave redirects behind, so no links will immediately be broken.

I plan to update this section as various details are finalised. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — that sounds about right. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@DH85868993 — I would say that this is a good reflection of where we should be headed. GTHO (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe the championship was actually called "World Championship for Drivers", not "... of Drivers". cherkash (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we're all pretty much in agreeance that @DH85868993's summary is the direction that we need to take. Despite the objections of some editors, it seems that there is consensus to call the articles "Formula One" as opposed to "Formula 1"; as for the wording, I suspect that a preferred version will emerge once we make the changes. So, @Cherkash, @GTHO, @QueenCake, @DeFacto—and anyone else I might have overlooked—are there any final questions, comments or concerns, or are we ready to go ahead and start implementing these changes? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there consensus for the pre-1981 titles? I think there is agreement for 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship et al, but the others were not as widely discussed.
I am now increasingly concerned that we may be violating WP:COMMONNAME here. Our readers, to the point of near unanimity, are looking for an article on a Formula One season. A non-Formula One title could create confusion. In addition, it's hard to ignore the preponderance of sources referring to the "Formula One World Championships", even before such a thing technically existed. I stress the point I made above; anything that implies two separate championships is not supported by sources, and trying to force that point on the world is beyond our our scope. QueenCake (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If readers are looking for articles called "season", it's likely a problem we created by calling them "season" in the first place. But a lot of articles shifted away from "season" names a few years ago and it hasn't been a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
And of course, when the articles are moved, redirects will be created, such that if someone types "1961 Formula One season" into the search box, they will be taken to "1961 World Championship of Drivers". DH85868993 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Redirects are no justification to disobey the Commonname policy.Tvx1 21:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Except that we created this problem. The name "season" was chosen as a matter of convenience when Wikipedia was started, but it's clear from the discussion that editors no longer feel that it's a representative name. Some, such as myself, feel that it never was representative. It is evident from the 1980 Yellow Book that the FIA have been referring to it as the "World Championship" for nearly forty years, so our calling it "19/20XX Formula One season" is original research. Insisting on calling it "19/20XX Formula One season" for the sake of observing COMMONNAME is no justification for violating OR. Especially when "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship" is equally (if not more) valid under COMMONNAME. The vast majority of third-party sources use "World Championship"; we are the only ones that regularly use "season". And this was not an issue when the wider scope of motorsport articles were moved away from "season" articles a few years ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I may not have been clear enough Prisonermonkeys, it is the lack of "Formula One" in the title that is concerning me, not the lack of season. I was a supporter of removing season in the discussion last year, and carried out much of the grunt work to implement it, so I certainly have no problem there. By saying season I was referring to our yearly articles - readers are looking an article titled in the form of 1962...Formula One..., with the other words not as important. I'm fine with "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship" for post-1981 articles. I have issues with "19XX World Championship of Drivers", because although that was the championship's official designation, it's certainly not the common name for the topic, and it's not how the championship is referred to in modern sources. Things are sometimes recorded differently in history than they were known as at the time.
I'm really not sure what the answer could be. There's problems with leaving it, and problems with moving it. The text in the articles mentions the drivers and constructors were competing for the World Championship of Drivers and the International Cup for F1 manufacturers, and we have covered the changes in 1981 in the right articles. We need something in the spirit of how we cover Ascari, in that we regard him as a two-time Formula One World Champion, according to sources, while mentioning the championship was run to Formula Two rules in those years. QueenCake (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@QueenCake — ah, I see. I suppose that's what I get for reading your comments at five in the morning.
Since the consensus for pre- and post-1980 articles is not mutually inclusive, I think we can start moving all of the post-1980 articles. "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship" seems to be the preferred name that has emerged. In the meantime, we can keep discussing the pre-1980 materials to form a further consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of moving 1981–2018 articles but with one caveat: we didn't discuss what to do with 1981 and 1983 in the context of non-championship races run in those years (South Africa-1981 and RoC-1983). Pending agreement on how we treat pre-1981 seasons, I would suggest not to change the articles in any way beyond the renaming – and only fork out the non-championship info at a later time when we have agreed on how it will be done for pre-1981 years (in fact, I would strongly suggest leaving some of them as it is even then, as e.g. the non-championship status of Spain-1980, or rather the stripping of the race of the championship status, was strongly tied to the politics that was happening in the championship at the time). cherkash (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. The Spanish race that year definitely plays a role in understanding what went on in 1980, in a way that the non-championship events of earlier years did not, being largely their own affairs. The same goes with the South African GP in '81, a key event in the 1981 World Championship, despite not being part of it!
Yes Prisonermonkeys, I think there are no problems with moving those articles. QueenCake (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to need some help moving them please. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to assist. GTHO (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've gone as far back as 2004. I tried to move the 2003 article, but it turns out that the article already exists, housing a redirect to 2003 Formula One season. I don't know how to go about moving that. I also need to adjust the lead wording from 2004 to 2016. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: before the lead wording is changed we need to reach consensus on that wording and particularly on the links we use. We need to ensure we comply with WP:LINK and specifically WP:SPECIFICLINK. I'm not sure you've got it right for 2018 or 2017. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just tweaked it so that "20XX Formula One season" is now "20XX FIA Formula One World Championship" and removed a redundancy. It can be changed again. I've put it aside for now to figure out how to deal with 2003 FIA Formula One World Championship already existing and redirecting to 2003 Formula One season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted the non-name-change changes on those two until agreement on that is reached here. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions for that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's start a new sub-section on that... -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording and links

The following wording has consensus and can be implemented: "The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix held in different countries throughout the world. Drivers and teams are competing for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion respectively". I understand that there is not an unanimous consensus on the phrase "held in different countries throughout the world" but there is no consensus for any of the alternatives to this phrase (for example, naming the first and last race or the continents) whereas the majority of editors are happy to accept this version as a compromise. Caveats: I'm not an administrator but an experienced editor who hasn't edited F1 articles in a major way on Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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


Following on from earlier discussion, the only consensus reached so far, as I see it, was the use "Formula One" rather than "Formula 1" and perhaps not to go into the controversial area of how many times an event has occurred. Also taking into account the advice in WP:LINKS about linking, especially WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:LINKCLARITY. So my starting proposal for a pro-forma for the first couple of sentences is:

"The YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship [was|is|is due to be] a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers [competed|are competing|are scheduled to compete] in the series of [how many] Grands Prix which [started|is due to start] in Australia on [date] and [ended|is due to end] in Abu Dhabi on [date] for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."

-- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the "in the series of". It's not necessary at all. Likewise "in a series of". I would suggest the following:
"Teams and drivers [competed|are competing|are scheduled to compete] in [how many] Grands Prix—which [started|is due to start] in Australia on [date]"
The "in the/a series of" does not really serve any purpose at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm ok with omitting that. That would leave:
"The YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship [was|is|is due to be] a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers [competed|are competing|are scheduled to compete] in [how many] Grands Prix – which [started|is due to start] in [ country 1 ] on [date 1] and [ended|is due to end] in [ country 2 ] on [date 2] for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."
-- DeFacto (talk). 12:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Changed the first wikilink to be more specific to a general subject (previously it linked to an article that mostly discussed an individual Grand Prix weekend's structure):
"The YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship [was|is|is due to be] a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers [competed|are competing|are scheduled to compete] in [how many] Grands Prix – which [started|is due to start] in [ country 1 ] on [date 1] and [ended|is due to end] in [ country 2 ] on [date 2] for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."
cherkash (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Many seasons also list specific details even in the first paragraph of the lead: e.g. 2003 FIA Formula One World Championship saying "World Championship titles were awarded for both drivers and constructors with Michael Schumacher winning the former and Ferrari awarded the latter." I think it's totally fine and should be left as is – in fact our proposed boilerplate insertion should be least intrusive on the rest of the relevant article's contents. If not, we are again going to go for uniformization (which is unasked for) vs. the specific content that already exists and is relevant. So let's keep this in mind when making those changes. cherkash (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to include the second hyphen. It should read like this:

"Teams and drivers [competed|are competing|are scheduled to compete] in [how many] Grands Prix—which [started|is due to start] in Australia on [date] and [ended|is due to end] in Abu Dhabi on [date]—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships.

@Cherkash — some of the more-recent articles have a three-paragraph structure to the lead. The first is the general introductory paragraph, which is what we're debating now. The second covers major changes (in brief), such as the arrival of a new team (eg Haas), the expansion of the calendar (Azerbaijan) or major changes (2014-generation engines). The third recounts the title fight(s) and major events (such as tge death of Senna). I don't see that format changing any time soon because it works quite well. Maybe it (or at least a version of it) could be applied to earlier articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So with the extra hyphen and Cherkash's link (which seems fine to me) we have:
"The YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship [was|is|is due to be] a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers [competed|are competing|are scheduled to compete] in [how many] Grands Prix—which [started|is due to start] in [ country 1 ] on [date 1] and [ended|is due to end] in [ country 2 ] on [date 2]—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."
I agree with PM that this two-sentence paragraph would be core to all articles, and other specific and pertinent content could be added in subsequent paragraphs. Looks good to me now. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is correct to say that (eg) twenty Grands Prix started on date 1 and ended on date 2. That implies that they all started on date 1 and all ended on date 2. It was a SERIES (of twenty Grands Prix) which started and ended on these dates. I know that there a dislike for the inclusion of the word "series", but the sentence does not make sense without it. GTHO (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The subject of the article is the championship. The sentence is about the subject of the article; thus, the sentence is about the championship, and the "series" is implied. If a reader cannot understand this, they probably have bigger problems than reading the article. Explicitly stating that the championship is a series of races would be better-suited to the Simple English Wikipedia. There is a risk here of engineering the meaning out of the article—if you say "a series of" it suggests that there is more than one series of races out there because "a" is an indefinite article. Grammatically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Are we moving these articles, incorporating the new wording and changing the templates or not? I can't do it all on my own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We need to wait until we've agreed the wording before we change the wording and the discussion seems to have stalled on that. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I've moved (renamed) and changed the bold text in the lead of all the articles from 1981 to 2002 except for 1981 Formula One season and 1985 Formula One season which already have redirects of the proposed new names which I do not know how to overwrite. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Defacto. I've moved and updated the leads for 1981 and 1985. DH85868993 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
On the subject of the wording, I think this works just fine:
The YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship [was|is|is due to be] a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers [competed|are competing|are scheduled to compete] in [how many] Grands Prix—which [started|is due to start] in [ country 1 ] on [date 1] and [ended|is due to end] in [ country 2 ] on [date 2]—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships.
The only change that I have really made is to simplify some of the w-links. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: the links don't work properly like that though. It isn't just the cars that are Formula One, it's the whole motor racing championship too. And "(FIA)" should remain part of the linktext for the organisation, as it is part of the term we are linking, so I prefer the version prior to your link change. WP:SPECIFICLINK is a useful guide for what to link to what. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
"A motor racing championship for Formula One cars" is far too long for a w-link. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't include the "A" at the beginning, but apart from that, it's better not to split the phrase if the link covers it all, as in this case. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Your original version linked "motor racing championship for Formula One cars" to "Formula One". That makes little sense; "Formula One" should link to "Formula One". Especiall since there is a separate article called "Formula One cars". So when you link "motor racing championship for Formula One cars", it's not clear where the target destination is—Formula One or Formula One cars. As per WP:SUBMARINE, "make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: see WP:SPECIFICLINK. The Formula One article covers specifically "motor racing championship for Formula One cars". It goes against the guideline (which states "always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics") to break the phrase - see the "the flag of Tokelau" example. We have an article which covers the context of the whole phrase so we should link the whole phrase to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

But "Formula One cars" would be an equally valid article to link to, and there is nothing that linking all seven words does that only linking to "Formula One" does not do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: did you look at WP:SPECIFICLINK and follow the examples - that explains. We have an article/phrase match so there is no need to subdivide it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Except that a) "Formula One cars" would be an equally valid article to link to, b) readers could reasonably expect that link to lead to "Formula One cars", c) separately linking to "motor racing" is not possible, d) it isn't an issue in the current version of the article leads, and e) WP:SPECIFICLINK is part of the Manual of Style and the MOS is a series of guidelines, not absolute rules. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: no, Formula One cars only covers the car aspect of the phrase, not the full context, including the "motor racing championship" bit, but Formula One covers it all. We need a strong reason and rationale to defy MoS, I don't think we have one here. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. The indefinite article "a" is probematic. It implies that there are other Formula 1 championships out there. That's why the current version includes the historical context.
  2. You use this indefinite article when linking to a "motor racing championship", the implication being that the link will take the reader to an article about another championship, not to a concept.
  3. You specifically include the words "Formula one cars" in a link that does not take the reader to Formula One cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here's a possibility:

The YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. It is the ZZth running of the Formula One World Championship in the history of Grand Prix racing. Teams are free to compete in cars complying with Formula One regulations over twenty Grands Prix starting in Australia on [Date A] and ending in Abu Dhabi on [Date B]. The championship will see titles awarded to the the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Champions.

Insert the various tenses where needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

We are getting there, but can we say that "teams are free to compete in cars complying with Formula One regulations..." when they are are in fact compelled to compete...."? And I'm still concerned with the the ZZth running of the Formula One World Championship. How can we say (e.g.) that the 1953 World Championship of Drivers is the "fourth running of the Formula One World Championship" when the first two championships both comprised races for Formula One cars and Indycars and the next two both comprised races for Formula Two cars and Indycars? GTHO (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Prisonermonkeys: it's a bit rambling, as if you're trying to create places for every F1 related link possible, and as it contravenes WP:LINK in several places and you have reintroduced the controversial "Nth running..." sentence I am not keen on this version. These changes will make it liable to continuous change/revert/change cycles. Let's keep it short, sweet, uncontroversial and guideline coompliant, at least. We could replace Formula One with Formula One World Championship in the previous version and I would agree with that. Like this:
"The YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship [was|is|is due to be] a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers [competed|are competing|are scheduled to compete] in [how many] Grands Prix—which [started|is due to start] in [ country 1 ] on [date 1] and [ended|is due to end] in [ country 2 ] on [date 2]—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."
-- DeFacto (talk). 10:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You don't like the "Nth running"; I don't like the "[Formula One World Championship|motor racing championship for Formula One cars]" for reasons prebiously stated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's try tweaking the wording a bit more then, and see if we can reach agreement. How about:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is an international motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile). Formula One is the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars governed by the FIA. Teams entered cars and drivers to race in 20 Grands Prix at 20 circuits, each in a different country—the first of which was in Australia on 26 March and the last is scheduled to be in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—to compete for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."
Note the links to specific Formula One article sections, which in turn link to related more specific articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You cannot refer to the series as an "international championship". The FIA recognise international championships differently to world championships. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's try and be constructive then - how else can we word it (without defining world as 'world') as it is an international championship? Do you agree with the rest of that draft? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No. The diction is more appropriate to Simple English Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording and links (convenience break 1)

We must keep trying... How about:

"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is an international motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile). Formula One is the FIA's highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Ten teams entered cars and drivers to race in 20 Grands Prixeach at a different circuit—the first of which was in Australia on 26 March and the last is scheduled to be in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—to compete for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."

-- DeFacto (talk). 06:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, you cannot call it an "international motor racing championship". "International" is a classification given to a series by the FIA, a step down from a world championship. Not many series advertise it, though. Supercars used to—for example, 2016 International V8 Supercars Championship. And then there's the proposed International Formula 3.
This might work better:
The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Trams and drivers entered twenty Grands Prix—starting in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships.
Far too much of what you wrote feels like it's better-suited to the Simple English Wikipedia. You're introducing too many concepts, and it's distracting. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it works well, but propose a couple of minor changes:

The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers contested twenty Grands Prix—commencing in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships. GTHO (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I would put the info on the start and end dates in a seperate sentence rather than between colons or dashes. That makes everything much clearer.Tvx1 13:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Ironically, we seem to be back to the current article lead, albeit with the removal of the historical dates:
The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Teams and drivers are competing in twenty Grands Prix—starting in Australia on 26 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships.
It's served as well for a couple of years now, so the old adage about not fixing things which aren't broken springs to mind.
In the meantime, we need to get a move on with updating templates and infoboxes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I had been holding off updating the templates until we had agreed the naming scheme for the 1950-1980 articles, i.e. so each template only had to be updated once. But if that's still some way off(?) then we could update the templates in two phases. DH85868993 (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
We may need two separate templates, one for pre-1981 seasons and one for post-1980 championships. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we should be able to use just one template, and just have it display/link to one thing for 1950-1980 and something else for 1981 onwards. I also note that {{F1 season}} and {{F1 race report}} already say "FIA Formula One World Championship", so there's probably no pressing need to update them anyway. DH85868993 (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion Prisonermonkeys. There are outstanding comments to consider. I'm not happy with those links because I think they're not specific enough and there were other comments such as that from Tvx1 who suggested adding a sentence for the info between the dashes, and the suggested tweaks from GTHO. Taking account of those we would get something like this:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Ten teams and drivers are contesting twenty Grands Prix for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships. The series started in Australia on 26 March and is scheduled to end in Abu Dhabi on 26 November"
-- DeFacto (talk). 06:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I hate to say it but "ten teams and drivers are contesting...." suggests that each of the ten teams has one driver. Also, using "teams and drivers" and then reversing the order with Drivers and Constructors (Championships) could confuse. I also suggest dropping the number of teams as this can vary between the start and end of the Championship. How about:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Drivers and teams are contesting twenty Grands Prix for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships. The series started in Australia on 26 March and is scheduled to end in Abu Dhabi on 26 November"
GTHO (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That's more or less how I would do it. Though, I would replace "series" by "season" or "championship".Tvx1 10:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. Although for some technical grammatical reasons, I would change the wlink "motor racing championship" to "a motor racing championship". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Rolling in those last couple of comments then, we would have:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Drivers and teams are contesting twenty Grands Prix for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships. The championship started in Australia on 26 March and is scheduled to end in Abu Dhabi on 26 November".
Looks good to me, shall we go with that now? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Any more comments on this, or are we ready to go with it now? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok for me.Tvx1 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I do find "... Constructors' championships. The championship ..." to be a bit clumsy. That's why I find "Drivers and teams are contesting twenty Grands Prix—which started in Australia on 26 March and is scheduled to end in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships." to be better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So the proposal is now "The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Drivers and teams are contesting twenty Grands Prix—which started in Australia on 26 March and is scheduled to end in Abu Dhabi on 26 November—for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships.' Looks good to me. GTHO (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I find it awkward to provide particulars on dates/places in the lead. Is this really the most important information that the lead cannot live without? Why not drivers/teams/champions/championship leaders/etc.? I would suggest just stating the number of Grands Prix and optionally say "throughout the year":
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Drivers and teams are contesting twenty Grands Prix [optionally: throughout the year] for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships."
cherkash (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cherkash —
"Why not drivers/teams/champions/championship leaders/etc.?"
They do get included. The article lead is made up of three paragraphs. The first, which we're discussing here, contains general details about the championship; what it is and when it happened. The second contains details of significant changes to the championship, such as the establishment of a new team or the expansion of the calendar. The third is a review of the season, including details of the defending champions and the final championship standings. That's where the comtent you're suggesting would go. We're not discussing the second and third paragraphs here because they're written for each individual page, but the first paragraph is common to all championship articles (even if the start and finish dates change). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I already objected above to using dashes or commas, so why are they back in? It's much more clear without them. Just change championship to season for the second instance if you want variation.Tvx1 22:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Except that we agreed that the use of "season" means "all racing in a calendar year". There is potential for confusion if it is used (especially since pre-1981 articles are still "season" articles rather than "championship" articles). And the use of dashes is appropriate as the dates read more like a dependent clause than an independent one, so gramatically at least, it's better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
We define the dates the season runs in the exact same contested sentence. The suggestion that any reader might misunderstand this is ridiculous. And I really think using a separate sentence without dashes is much much clearer that forcing everything into one long sentence. I don't see how it's grammatically better either.Tvx1 11:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording and links (convenience break 2)

As it appears to be all up in the air again, let's insert another break. And to kick it off I'll offer an attempt to get a compromise on the second sentence, starting from the version that was close to an agreement and taking account of {{u|Cherkash]], Prisonermonkeys's and Tvx1's subsequent comments. Voila:

"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Over twenty Grands Prix between 26 March and 26 November, drivers and teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships.

How is that? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That's good compromise for me.Tvx1 18:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm still baffled by why there is an insistence on including the race dates of the first/last GP. They are not even GP dates, but race dates (a GP being a 3-day event, whereas the races are singularly held on Sundays). This is a largely irrelevant piece of trivia that belongs to a season calendar table somewhere in the article. If the goal is simply to emphasize that the championship is a prolonged affair, why don't we say something summary-like like this: "20 GPs held throughout the year across the globe"? Surely, the geographical extent is as important, if not more, than the temporal one. And this summary statement will be more adequate for the lead, rather than trivia like dates. cherkash (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
You raise a good paint. The start date should actually be the start date of first Grand Prix weekend.Tvx1 21:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cherkash: We could easily accomodate that - could you accept it with the earlier start date? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
"How is that?"
The verb-subject agreement in the line "Over twenty Grands Prix between 26 March and 26 November, drivers and teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships." is wrong because you have started the sentence with a dependent clause. It's also written in the passive voice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: can you suggest a wording for that sentence conveying the same data then please. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I already have. The version using the dashes had no issues with its grammar. That's one of the reasons why it was written that way in the first place. I don't understand why we're not using them aside from a dislike of them by some people. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: I'm sure that with your grammar knowledge you could compose an acceptable sentence, without dashes, that would convey the same anount of data. Take the challenge for the team. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 22:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, let me have a go:

The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars. It is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars and features cars built to a specific set of regulations, or "formula". The championship, which is being contested over twenty Grands Prix, started in Australia on 26 March and is scheduled to finish in Abu Dhabi on 26 November. Drivers and teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championship titles.

A few notes:

  1. I think it's important that we mention that the championship is for Formula 1 cars. I know that's implied in the title, but to someone with no knowledge of the sport, it's unclear.
  2. I think we need to mention what "formula" means, although I think it's less necessary than the previous point.
  3. I don't think it's enough to simply mention when the championship is being run; we need to mention where it takes place. The world, after all, is a big place.
  4. It should be mentioned that the WDC and WCC are titles. If you win, you can call yourself "World Champion".
  5. The final sentence works as an independent clause and thus is a complete sentence, but it feels like something is missing. I don't know what that might be.

I'd be willing to write point #2 out, but I think the rest are necessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anything is missing. I think it's fine.Tvx1 10:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: you have introduced/reintroduced problems though. We need to remember this is the lead for a specific year's championship, so should be focused on that.
  1. The subject of the article is the specific year's championship (2017 in the example), so the "it" starting the second sentence refers to the 2017 championship - but the sentence is about Formula One in general and not just for the one specific year.
  2. I think the second sentence labours the definition of Formula One and should be left out - readers can click the link to see the details if they want.
  3. And "features cars built to a specific set of regulations" suggests there are other car types too.
  4. We decided not to single-out two of the twenty GPs, just give the date spread.
Reducing it a bit then we get:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. The championship, which is being contested over twenty Grands Prix, started on 25 March and is scheduled to finish on 26 November. Drivers and teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championship titles."
-- DeFacto (talk). 11:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. It seems that all it takes it one person opposing something and it's off the table for good. The article lead should cover all of the basics: who, what, where, when, how and why. In this case, who is the subject; what is the explanation of what it is; where gives the venues; when gives the dates; how is the fact that it's 20 races; and why is the rationale (winning the titles). Furthermore, the article is divided into sections and the lead sets them all up. Here, the dates and venues set up the calendar, while the reference to teams and drivers establishes the entry list. The subsequent paragraphs—the major changes and season review—set up the changes and results section. There is no good reason to omit the venues from the lead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: this is trying to reach a unanimous consensus. With everyone on-board there is more chance of amicable stability. The lead should be an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The most important details of a specific year's championship are: what it is, under whose authority is it run, how many rounds there are, when it starts and ends, who enters and what the goals are. You don't need the ins and outs of what "Formula One" means, that can be found through the links and what's the point of knowing just two of the twenty venues. All we are possibly missing is something about the global spread of the twenty venues used, as suggested by cherkash and by myself in an earlier version above. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Naming only Australia and Abu Dhabi doesn't answer the where. It takes place in more just those two venues. Heck, it takes places in venues spread over Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Oceania.Tvx1 22:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If I'd known that you wanted to do that, I would have taken it into account when I was asked to do the rewrite with proper grammar because it completely changes the back half of the paragraph.
It's necessary because without it, the lead is abstract when it should be concrete. The proposed version gives a sense of what happens and when, but without a physical place to tie it to, it's purely conceptual. It's a "world championship", but the world is a big place. More importantly, "world" is a designation given to the championship by the FIA. Its being a "world" championship is what makes it the highest class of competition. On the other hand, an "international" championship crosses continents but is restricted in its scope to stop it competing with other series (eg V8 Supercars are not allowed championship rounds in Europe), while a "regional" championship is limited to one continent (like European Formula 3), and a "national" championship is limited to one country (like the BTCC) or small group of countries where one country could not sustain a series on its own (like TCR Benelux or SMP Formula 4). But when we are talking about the World Championship in the article, we are talking about it being a championship that physically takes place all over the world. Giving the start and end locations is a way of doing that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Trying again:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. The championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix throughout Europe, Asia and the Americas. [Then I hit a bit of a wall here because the next part is a dependent clause and cannot be included with the previous sentence because none of the conjunctions work with the shift in tense] started on 25 March and is scheduled to finish on 26 November. Drivers and teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championship titles."
I'll have to think about it some more. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I strongly oppose including just two venues for the first/last GP in the lead: unlike the dates which are obviously ordered, it doesn't give an idea of the scope, as it's not the same as including first/last number in the series of numbers (or dates) where the rest of the series can be deduced; e.g. if the series, purely hypothetically, started in France and ended in Spain, then saying so would give no scope or even a faintest idea on how many other diverse venues there are, and how widely it is (or is not) spread throughout the globe. So I'd favor either saying something like "throughout the globe" or a bit more specific like naming the continents (which in itself may be problematic, as "continents" – and more specifically, naming conventions for them – are a somewhat culturally-dependent term and is not universal in this sense). So let's keep it general enough here, and leave the details to the appropriate "Calendar" section in the article. cherkash (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting in Australia on 25 March, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix throughout Europe, the Asia-Pacific and the Americas before its scheduled finish in Abu Dhabi on 26 November. Drivers and teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championship titles."
I know naming the specific Grands Prix is unpopular, but the grammar is the sentence works and allows us to address the way that not all races are in countries. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

We are not looking just for grammar, a succinct introduction is the prime objective, and mentioning two of the twenty locations is illogical. And in the same way we mentions the number of events we should probably also mention the number of teams. So:

"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting on 24 March, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix across Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas before its scheduled finish on 26 November. Twenty-three drivers and ten teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championship titles."

-- DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I would stick to naming the continents. The continent is Australia, not "the Pacific".Tvx1 12:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point, in which case we have:
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting on 24 March, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America before its scheduled finish on 26 November. Twenty-three drivers and ten teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championship titles."
Any more comments, or are we finally there? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the way you have listed all five continents. It's an extended list and just plain clumsy because it takes the focus away from the subject. That's why I kept it to three regions: Europe, "the Americas" (which includes both North and South), and "the Asia-Pacific" (which is Asia and Australia). Also, I was reading an interview with Sean Bratches on the future direction of the sport, and he spoke about restructuring the calendar to group races geographically, citing Asia, Europe and the Americas as the three regions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to simplify one more time. Instead of naming all the continents, why don't we just say it simple and make it succinct. Also, saying "23 drivers and 10 teams" is another piece of trivia which does change as the year progresses – and it's a good indication that the summary is not quite a summary if you need to change it every time a small detail changes (like, for example, a stand-in driver is being introduced into the ranks for a race or two). So how about this:

"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting on 24 March, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix at various locations throughout the globe, before its scheduled finish on 26 November. Drivers and teams are concurrently competing for two separate titles: World Drivers' Championship and World Constructors' Championship."

Are we getting close? cherkash (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No, further away. "At various locations throughout the globe" is far too vague. "Throughout Europe, the Asia-Pacific and the Americas" is both specific enough to be meaningful but succint enough not to shift the focus away from the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording and links (convenience break 3)

Continued from the above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well then how about this (sticking to the continents rather than vague "regions" like Asia-Pacific; and also eliminating precise dates as we are bound to have eternal drive-by edit wars with the Fri vs. Sun start date):
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix at various locations throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. Drivers and teams are concurrently competing for two separate titles: World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion."
cherkash (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
As the FIA awards World Championships in more than just Formula One, shouldn't the titles include the term Formula One? The 2017 Formula One Sporting Regulations refer to "The Formula One World Championship driver's title" and "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor". GTHO (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@GTHO — I couldn't think of a more awkward way of phrasing that. And given that the article does not allude to any other World Championship, specifying the precise World Championship title isn't necessary. The article already makes it clear that it's Formula One. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@cherkash — start and end dates have been used in articles for ages. It's never been a problem. And I would dispute the idea that the Asia-Pacific is vague as a descriptor. As soon as you start adding extra areas in, it's not long before "Europe, the Asia-Pacific and the Americas" becomes "western and central Europe, the Gulf states, the Caucasus region, north and south-east Asia, Australia and north and Latin America". If we limit it to three, we cover 90% of the calendar in one fell swoop. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I really think you are thinking way to much into this as well as unnecessarily assuming future events. Europe, Asia and Australia are continents and the Americas is a collective name of the North and South American continents. Everyone understands what that means. I really don't see why anyone would start editing that to more specific regions. And "Pacific" is extremely vague, given that the Pacific overlaps five continents, stretching all the way from Asia to the Americas, while also encompassing Australia and come near to Antarctica to the south. Add to that, no race actually takes place within the largest area of the Pacific (between Asia and the Americas) The only motive I see to use this is refusal or dislike to name the continent of Australia.Tvx1 14:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. I'm Australian. Why would I be opposed to any specific mention of my country in the lead? If there is any country whose specific mention I would oppose, it's Britain because I feel that British influence over and significance to Formula 1 is grossly overstated and even misrepresented by the English-language media which is predominantly British-based (case in point, their response to the opening lap in Singapore). So even when I do have reservations, they're supported by an argument, not because I don't like it.
  2. I previous lobbied for a specific mention of Australia in the lead. Why would I suddenly oppose its continued inclusion, but support the inclusion of other, specific areas?
  3. Asia-Pacific is actually a very common term. It refers to the western edge of the Pacific, everything from Australia to Japan. The Australian, Malaysian, Singapore, Chinese and Japanese (and Korean) Grands Prix all sit in the Asia-Pacific.
  4. As previously started, I feel that the longer the list is, the more that it shifts the focus away from the actual subject. Why specify Asia and Australia when we can cover both off with "Asia-Pacific"? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: Asia-Pacific excludes the Middle East and by the time you've added another double-barrelled name to your list it is no shorter. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: why not just stick with the represented classic continents, the full list being: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Because it's lengthy, cumbersome, shifts the focus away from the subject, and can be done in a more succinct fashion. Plus it's verging on asyndeton to the point of a reduced relative clause. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The subject is a world championship - which has races around the world. Adding the continents involved to the introduction makes perfect sense. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I'd either name the continents or just say "around the world". There's nothing wrong with the latter (it's neither factually wrong, nor misleading as the races are indeed widely spread across the continents), so why don't we just say this and be done? cherkash (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Because it's vague. There are nearly 200 countries around the world, but only 10% of them host a race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It's called a world championship despite only 10% of the countries hosting a a race. No one seems to have a problem with that. And when we say "around the world" it's not equivalent to "in every country of the world". So I don't see your objection being to the point... cherkash (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And "Asia-Pacific" sufficiently covers two of them and reduces the negative grammatical effects. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What "negative grammatical effects" you keep referring to?? Let's just say "around the world" – this will surely reduce all the negative grammatical effects. cherkash (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

When I say "negative grammatical effects", I mean the asyndeton (cumulative listing without conjunctions). The more this is used, the more it becomes a reductive relative clause (it becomes further and further removed from the subject). Three articles in a list is fine. Four may be acceptable, but we can use "Asia-Pacific" in lieu of "Asia and Australia", effectively killing two birds with one stone. With five, the asyndeton becomes too pronounced and the whole thing reads like a list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

But Asia-Pacific doesn't cover the west Asian countries in the Middle East, so you need to add that too. So you gain nothing. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Technically, the Middle East is part of Asia Minor. When you think of Asia, you don't automatically think of the Middle East. Indeed, the name "Middle East" was adopted because of its proximity to western Europe (China being the Far East and Eastern Europe being the Near East). "Europe, the Asia-Pacific and the Americas" covers 90% of the calendar. It's a trade-off, but an acceptable one as the alternative is a messy sentence structure that takes the focus off the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone please explain to my how on earth "Europe, the Asia-Pacific and the Americas" is dramatically shorter than "Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas? I see the exact same number of geographical terms in both sentence. The only difference is that the first sentence use a vague term (the Pacific being a gigantic region), whereas the latter is precise (naming the continent of Australia). I really don't see the problem other than personal dislike is.Tvx1 14:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: why accept 90% when it's so easy to achieve 100%? "The Americas, Asia, Australia and Europe" covers it succinctly, alphabetically and grammatically. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Why alphabetically? The championship starts in Australia, goes up through Asia, into Europe, across to North America, back to Europe, back to Asia, back to North America, into South America, and then back to Asia again. If you're insisting on four, it should be Australia, Asia, Europe and the Americas since that's the order the championship visits the continents for the first time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much qualms about the order. If you want chronological order that's no problem for me. But I must say that the calendar is in charge of providing the chronology and not so much the lead.Tvx1 14:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Prisonermonkeys: alphabetical because it's objective and bias free. Any other order is subjective and therefore open to argument. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm ok with any order. But let me ask again: why don't we just say "around the world"? This is a world championship, so saying "around the world" fits both the spirit of it, as well as wide geographic distribution of host venues. cherkash (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@DeFacto — alphabetical order implies that the championship starts in the Americas and ends in Europe. Chronological order is better.

@Cherkash — "around the world" is too vague. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: but chronological would be: Australia, Asia, Europe, Americas, Europe, Asia, Americas, Asia. Alphabetical is clear, simple, concise and NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And misleading, since the championship visits every other continent before Americas. The best solution is "Australia, Asia, Europe and the Americas" because that's the order in which the championship visits the continents. It visits all four before it starts the return journey. And chronological order is the way other articles—like 2017 World Rally Championship—do it. It's not an issue there and it won't be an issue here. Suggesting that it will arguably breaks NPOV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: please expand how alphabetical could break NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias"
We are representing content. A better way of putting it is re-presenting content. Readers do not go directly to the content; they go through us. That means that we control the message, even if we are aiming for absolute neutrality. What you are proposing is re-presenting content—the calendar—produced by the FIA. But you are re-presenting content differently to the way it is initially presented.
Maybe moreso than any other policy, NPOV does not just apply to what he present—it also applies to what we do not present and to how we present it. Putting the list in chronological order is most consistent with the source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Chronological order doe not make sense when, rather than progressing clearly from one to the next, it dots about from one to another and back again like it does. And concentrating on the first time it enters each continent doesn't convey the imbalance in the number of times it occurs in each continent. Let's take another break and try another approach. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording and links (convenience break 4)

How about trying to give a sense of the number of times it takes place in each continent too. Something like:

"Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix at various locations: nine in Europe, six in Asia, four in the Americas and one in Australia."

-- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's far too much detail for the lead. "Australia, Asia, Europe and the Americas" is succinct and reflect the calendar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: the lead should summarise the content. A short sentence detailing the GP count per continent is a valid summary of the table of GPs. Ordering by number of GPs is neutral too, and gives appropriate weight to each continent - unlike the order you proposed. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
A short sentence detailing the GP count per continent is a valid summary of the table of GPs."
But the article isn't about the number of races. The more time and space you give over to it, the more you shift focus away from the subject.
"unlike the order you proposed"
The order I have proposed most closely reflects the calendar. None of your proposals have done that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The articles that this is to be part of the lead for are about one season, race destinations can vary by season, so the number per continent is indeed relevant and adds value as part of the introduction to a season. On the other hand, a list of continents ordered by first race date in that continent adds little value and does not reflect the complexity of the calendar in any way. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
An article lead should summarise the contents of the article. The subject of the article is the championship, but by deconstructing the calendar in the lead, you're taking the focus away from the subject and putting far more emphasis on the calendar than any other element of the lead. You don't want to discuss the championship in the historical context of the sport, and we're not detailing the precise numbers of teams and drivers, but you want to break the calendar down in the lead. We're already pushing it by naming the continents (and we're only doing that because saying "20 races around the world" is too vague), but you're taking things a step too far. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: you wrote An article lead should summarise the contents of the article. That is exactly why the numbers of GPs in each continent are relevant in the lead, as a summary of the season calendar. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you not read my comment? By deconstructing the calendar in the lead, you're placing an undue emphasis on it. You might as well go and break down the driver table, listing the number of nationalities among drivers and the number of teams using each engine.

The lead is meant to summarise the content of the article, not replace the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I read your comment and I disagree with it. Did you not read mine? As I said, GPs per continent is a useful summary of the calendar not a deconstruction' of it or a re-write of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Then get a consensus to include it in the calendar section (bearing in mind that we already have the calendar and the map there). Breaking the calendar down feels like it is just padding the introduction out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

We're getting distracted

All this talk over the wording has driven us to distraction. Right now, I'd say this is the best we've got:

"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix. Drivers and teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championship titles."

We need to make a decision, and soon. This has taken weeks longer than expected. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion went the way of splitting hairs, whereas in reality we could live with relatively generic description like the one above. I would still like to add something to the tune of "at various locations around the world", as I don't think it's too vague (all the details about race locations are in the text of the article anyway), and without it it just leaves the intro lacking. But as I said, I personally can just live with the latest proposal. Here's the same with wikilinks added back (and a minor modification to the last sentence):
"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix. Drivers and teams are competing for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion respectively."
cherkash (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
As a summary I agree that it needs to mention the global spread. And in the same way as it gives the number of GPs, I think it at least needs to give the number of teams competing if not the number of drivers too. Many casual visitors to the page will only read the lead, and we need to make sure they get the full flavour of the event from that. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to mention the global spread. I've been looking at other world championship articles outside the scope of WP:MOTOR and there is no universally-recognised need to discuss it. It's a world championship; its global spread is clear in the title. Is it any more or less of a world championship if races happen in Belgium, Brazil and Japan than if they happen in Moldova, Bolivia and Angola? All we really need to mention is that it's a world championship and has twenty races. The specifics of where and in what order come later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
World championship refers to the competitors and the title they can win, not to the venues. They could have the entire championship take place in Belgium and it would still be a World Championship. Many sports organize their World Championship in one venue/country (e.g. Football, Cycling, Athletics, Snooker, Darts,...).Tvx1 11:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
And if we were debating the content of the entire article, I'd agree with you. But we're just discussing the content of the lead. The lead sets up the main points in the article, and lets the body of the article develop them further. The current proposal puts lots of emphasis on the calendar relative to the competitors and historical context, and so it becomes unbalanced. If we elevate the competitors and context to the same level of detail as the suggestion for what the calendar should be, then the lead is doing what the body of the article should be doing.
In short, brevity is what we need. Mentioning that 20 races are contested over the course of a year is enough; going into detail of exactly where they are comes later in the article. It's much more appropriate and much more effective to discuss those details in the calendar section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Since discussion has stalled, this seems to be the best we've got:

"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix. Drivers and teams are competing for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' championship titles."

I honestly don't see any value in trying to further refine it because nobody can agree on anything more than this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we agreed to drop the idea of mentioning the global spread of the GPs. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to get it. The most we've agreed on so far is mentioning the number of races. We could spend another month debating the inclusion of the global spread, and come no closer to an agreement than we already are. I think it's time to accept that there is no consensus on that partucular point and get on with the business of implementing all of the changes that were part of this little project. We've spent—wasted—so much time tying ourselves in knots trying to settle on the wording that we've completely forgotten about the pre-1981 articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, reposting the latest from above with wikilinks and mark-up. As a reasonable compromise, I suggest we say "twenty Grands Prix held in different countries throughout the world." This would be a good compromise between being too detailed and not saying anything at all:

"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix held in different countries throughout the world. Drivers and teams are competing for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion respectively."

cherkash (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's reasonable at all. For one, it's a vague, empty sentence. It adds nothing to the article but a few extra words. And secondly, the races are not held in "various countries"—Abu Dhabi is not a country.
We're at the point where we're just repeating previous arguments. They didn't work then, and they're not going to work now. It's time to accept that there is no consensus on this point, and move on with something more constructive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
How strange, last time I checked all races took place in a country. They're not all named after one, but do take place in one. The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix takes place in the United Arab Emirates.Tvx1 11:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that Abu Dhabi deliberately requested that they be known as the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, not the United Arab Emirates Grand Prix. And that's just one example—it doesn't take into account the likes of the European and Pacific Grands Prix, or Detroit or Dallas, USA West or Caesars Palace, none of which were named for countries and all of which would be affected by the implications of the wording. We even had the Luxembourg Grand Prix, which for political reasons (Hockenheim held the rights to the title "German Grand Prix" and Jerez already hosted the European Grand Prix) wasn't actually in Luxembourg. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
None of that alters the fact that they each take place in a country on a continent. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Be that as it may, "held in different countries throughout the world" is still a vague sentence. It contributes nothing to the article except padding. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys: What you are referring to as "vague" is actually ok in this case: this is the whole point of an article lead section. The lead summarizes contents in (sometimes) vague terms which are generally correct (as they are in this proposed case), and then leaves the gory details to be discovered in the article text itself. There is absolutely nothing incorrect about the proposed "in different countries throughout the world" phrase, and it summarizes it succinctly. cherkash (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't summarise anything. It's an empty statement, unless the sport decides to hold races on the moon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's finish this

DeFacto, Prisonermonkeys, Tvx1, GTHO, DH85868993 (if I missed anyone else who participated in this discussion so far, please tag them as well).

Collectively, we spent a significant amount of time debating minor points after most of the lead proposal had already been whipped into shape. I suggest we make final push and finish it. Besides a very minor point, I feel we are all in agreement. So in the spirit of moving this forward, let's try to get our opinions stated again. Let's avoid running into single-editor's vetoes, as we have done so far on multiple occasions. Let me remind everyone that reaching consensus doesn't require unanimity (see WP:CONS), but we need to have a strong evidence of where the pendulum swings in terms of aye or nay. So I suggest we state our opinions about the last mostly uncontested version we've been mulling over for so long now. Here it is again:

"The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the governing body of international motorsport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix held in different countries throughout the world. Drivers and teams are competing for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion respectively."

So DeFacto, Prisonermonkeys, Tvx1, GTHO, and DH85868993: please state your agreement or disagreement with this particular version (I suggest we vote for it as is, with no further changes proposed) and let's see if we can reach WP:Consensus at this point. I sincerely hope we can. cherkash (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm completely opposed to the line "held in different countries throughout the world". It's a meaningless sentence. Where else are the races going to be held? It just feels like padding the lead out for the sake of saying something rather than including important details. Besides, where else are the races going to be held if not in different countries? There is absolutely nothing wrong with limiting the sentence to "Starting in March and ending in November, the championship is being contested over twenty Grands Prix". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: this is the whole point of the lead, to summarise the article. Many, if not most, sports' word championships take place in just one country each year, F1 is clearly unusual in that it has several rounds, and each in a different country. This is one of this sport's defining characteristics so to miss it out of the summary is illogical in my view. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a reasonable inference to assume that a "World Championship" takes place all around the world. The use of the "FIA" in the article title has been criticised on the grounds that it does not matter what other championships do, so I don't see why it's suddenly so important here. If we were editing the Sumple English Wikipedia, the wording might have merit, but not here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: your "argument" comprises nothing but non-sequiturs!
  1. Some world championships include rounds in different countries and some do not
  2. That some contributors made that argument against the use of "FIA" in that way does not imply that we should not include relevant information in the lead of this article
  3. The availability of the full range of English vocabulary (as is appropriate in this Wikipedia but not in Simple) to write an article does not mean that the scope or breadth of the content coverage has to be reduced
How can we seriously consider any of those to be valid reasons not to include the proposed content? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
"Some world championships include rounds in different countries and some do not"
We're not interested in what other World Championships do.
"The availability of the full range of English vocabulary (as is appropriate in this Wikipedia but not in Simple) to write an article does not mean that the scope or breadth of the content coverage has to be reduced"
That's not what Simple English is for. Simple English is for explaining concepts to an audience that may not be proficient in the English language. Part of this is using simple diction, but part of it is also explaining things at length.
"How can we seriously consider any of those to be valid reasons not to include the proposed content?"
Because you've forgotten who the audience for the article is. We can reasonably assume that most people reading the article are people who searched for the article. In order to search for the article, they need some awareness of the sport—a schema, or the basic level of knowledge about the subject. For example, we could expect that a reader is aware that the article is about a motor racing championship; however, we cannot expect that they are aware that it is the highest class of competition for open-wheel cars. Thus, I think the "held at various circuits around the world" falls within the realm of things we could reasonably expect the audience to know. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: you are still not making a logically sound argument. Whether we are interested in other world championships, or not, doesn't alter the fact that an encyclopaedic summary of this article would include the fact that the rounds take part in a diverse range of different countries. Why do you assume that to add that would mean we must therefore be interested in different sports? That is nonsense. Your characterisation of Simple is wrong too. The use of a reduced vocabulary would not mean that things we assume readers already know need to be included there yet not here. That is nonsense too. Why would we assume that anyone who came across this article would only expect some of the key information to be summarised in the lead? That's also complete nonsense. You have failed to give a logically sound reason to omit this information, yet you still object to its inclusion. I am beginning to wonder what your agenda is here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
"Why do you assume that to add that would mean we must therefore be interested in different sports? That is nonsense."
No, it's your words:
"Some world championships include rounds in different countries and some do not"
Since Formula 1 has always run its World Championship in different countries, I can only assume you meant other World Championships when you said "some do not". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, I put forward a version of the lead that specifically mentioned that the formula referred to the regulations. It's a context-specific word; "formula" has other meanings. You rejected that wording on the grounds that someone who sought the article out would have enough knowledge of the sport to know what this meant. So how can it be that the reader knows enough to know what a context-specific word such as "formula" means, but needs to be told that the races in the World Championship happen all aeound the world? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer to see all the involved continents mentioned - to give the full context of the breadth of coverage - but I can accept this compromise. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy with the proposed wording. DH85868993 (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I will oppose any inclusion of "held in different countries throughout the world". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I support the proposed wording. GTHO (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

So we have an intermediate tally now: 4 "for" votes (DeFacto, DH85868993, GTHO, cherkash), and one "against" (Prisonermonkeys). Although all the participants of the discussion except Tvx1 have stated their preferences, let's give it a bit more time for anyone else to have a chance to say things. cherkash (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. We should exhaust all options before putting ourselves in a position where the majority overrule the minority. While I'm opposed to the specific wording suggested, I am open to alternatives. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I support the proposed compromise as well. I will add that consensus is not unanimity and that one user cannot block a change simply by stating "I oppose".Tvx1 15:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"one user cannot block a change simply by stating 'I oppose'."
Except for when you do it. Remember the WRC Trophy? The editors involved had a consensus, but you opposed it and forced us to go through the whole process again. @Cherkash clearly said the following when he started this subsection:
"Let's avoid running into single-editor's vetoes, as we have done so far on multiple occasions."
Clearly, the wording of the lead is open to discussion. So why are we not discussing it? Previously-discarded versions—that were rejected because one person opposed it—should be reconsidered because they may actually serve the article better. I for one would be willing to revisit "twenty Grands Prix" across Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary: So it seems we have a consensus. To summarize, we have 5 "for" votes (DeFacto, DH85868993, GTHO, cherkash, Tvx1), and one "against" (Prisonermonkeys), with all the participants of this discussion having stated their preferences for the current proposal. And although voting is not necessarily the best way to reach a consensus, neither is a single-editor's veto an acceptable way to prevent reaching it.

Since I'm writing this as a summary, let me summarize a few points after re-reading the whole discussion:

  • Let me start by saying that personally, I am pretty neutral on the subject. I've just been trying to steer us all towards a consensus from the beginning. So I'm writing this in the spirit of leading us to a conclusion rather than leaving it all to waste.
  • This is the lead of a bunch of articles we have been discussing here, and to the extent it summarizes some main points while being generic enough (as to be considered a lead for multiple years), this is good enough.
  • There is more than one paragraph to the lead in most seasons. This is fine and should be retained. We are only planning to change the first paragraph of every respective lead, leaving the rest of the respective leads intact.
  • Having re-read the whole discussion, I must say there is no way to treat the only remaining objection as anything but "I don't like it" – as all these points have been addressed ad nauseum before – and what we got in the current proposal is the best compromise between 1) saying nothing at all about geographic extent and 2) saying too much and being too specific (the latter being in lieu of having the relevant sections of individual articles speak to the details).
  • I think this discussion did benefit a lot from all the individual contributors. There were many subtle points of grammar and meanings raised and discussed, and it looks like the result is pretty solid. So there is a good reason to be happy about it. And even if there are some remaining points for each of you that you may not be fully satisfied with, looking at the big picture this is pretty good. I hope you'll find it in yourselves to admit to that.

So by the common WP notions, this sounds like a consensus to me. I would suggest we start implementing it. And if there's an appetite for further discussion on subtler points, the interested editors may continue debating it. But please keep in mind, this is just the lead and not the contents. So I'm not sure if the time wouldn't be better spent doing something more productive instead, e.g. making the actual contents of the articles better ;) cherkash (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we need a "formal" closure so we can easily refer back to this as the current consensus for future reference. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
"I must say there is no way to treat the only remaining objection as anything but 'I don't like it'".
Not at all. I have pointed out that the phrase in question is an empty statement, and that concern has not been addressed. It's on par with saying "teams and drivers score points relative to their results, and the team and driver with the highest total sum of points is declared champion at the end of the championship". Nobody has adequately attempted to address this concern.
Furthermore, you have requested that editors make an effort to avoid rejecting a proposal outright simply because one editor disagreed with it. Fair enough, but then there was no attempt to revisit any of the previously-rejected wordings even if those wordings meet the needs of the article better than the current proposal. In short, it's worth asking whether we're rushing to achieve a consensus for the sake of having a consensus rather than actually meeting the needs of the article.
So I would dispute that there is any consensus because in order to achieve a consensus, we need discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
We have been running this discussion for almost two months (starting in early September). So you can't say we didn't have discussion Prisonermonkeys. If anything, this discussion has been running for too long. The main thing I did above, was to summarize the points of the discussion and its status on where the unanimous conclusion was reached and where it wasn't (but not for the lack of discussion). As a pretty impartial observer (as I said, my comments have mostly been to the point of reaching a consensus, rather than strongly pushing a particular view), I think I'm justified in providing a summary of this very long discussion, and calling for a consensus having been reached. cherkash (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
"We have been running this discussion for almost two months (starting in early September). So you can't say we didn't have discussion"
We've had discussion, sure. But in creating this section, you suggested that we need to start afresh. As you put it:
"Let's avoid running into single-editor's vetoes, as we have done so far on multiple occasions."
If we were falling afoul of "single-editor vetoes", then surely you would agree that there is a possibility that we were too quick to dismiss potential phrasings outright based on a single editor's objections. And if so, then how can we be sure that we there is no value in the phrasings we rejected?
A better solution would be to close off this entire section and start over with a new section at the bottom of the page. Separate it out as a different issue so that new voices can join the conversation. Because this is an epic conversation and difficult for newcomers to join. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No, no one was "too quick to reject" things here. You are bending the truth. There were multiple versions tried, and the latest one I put to vote was a semi-stable solution that we kept falling back on time after time. And what proves this to be the case, is that 5 editors out of 6 have agreed on this being so and are ready to move forward. You are the only one trying to veto it Prisonermonkeys. This is exactly what I meant by "single-editor veto", and something that although we tried to resolve in this discussion we were unable to. So this is the consensus at this point, whether you like it or not. Let's move on. cherkash (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
"This is exactly what I meant by 'single-editor veto'."

So what would you all of the instances above where wording was rejected because a single editor opposed it?

"5 editors out of 6 have agreed on this being so and are ready to move forward"

They considered a single version without any discussion. That's not a consensus. That's groupthink. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

DeFacto, I support your proposal to post a request for closure.Tvx1 21:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion is essentially closed, with the summary (written above) staying essentially unchanged. Let's move on to the implementation phase. cherkash (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to have this formally closed like DeFacto suggested before implementing anything.Tvx1 20:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Reading request for closure, it's fairly clear that requesting a formal closure could be an overkill – especially in this case, where an uninvolved editor would have a burden to go through this massive discussion thread to distill the points that have already been distilled above in the summary I provided. Quoting from WP:AN/RFC: "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." and "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale." (emphasis is added by me). But if you, despite this, still want to go ahead with an RfC, then of course feel free to submit a request. cherkash (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I have placed the request.Tvx1 12:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template updates

FYI, {{F1}} has been updated such that if the year is > 1980, it now links to "YYYY FIA Formula One World Championship" instead of "YYYY Formula One season", e.g. {{F1|1980}} produces 1980 but {{F1|1981}} produces 1981. The template can be updated again when the 1950-1980 season articles are renamed. DH85868993 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We still need to do Template: F1 season and the infobox for race reports. I'd do them myself, but even when others tell me how to do it, I still make a mess of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: What changes do you think are required to Template:F1 season? The "Previous" and "Next" links? Or the wording? If it's just the links, I can have a go at that, although I note that they still work in their current form (via the redirects) and I personally don't find it offensive to navigate from one article to the previous/next one via the redirects.
What changes do you think need to be made to the race report infobox? DH85868993 (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@DH85868993 — it's mostly the years in the season template. I always find going through redirects messy, especially when it's a long-term change like the one we just implemented.
Fair enough. I'll have a crack at making the necessary changes. DH85868993 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, Template:F1 season has been updated. DH85868993 (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
As for the race report infobox, it still says "round X of Y in ZZZZ Formula One season". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah I see. I'll update that too, noting that in the fullness of time that line should disappear from all the WDC race reports, once the "Race_No" and "Season_No" fields are depopulated per the template usage and the "Race 1 of the World Championship was not always Race 1 of the Formula One season" discussion above. DH85868993 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I would not rush into depopulating these: see my counter-proposal in the aforementioned discussion above that starts with "These changes are weird." The race numbering within a championship is very meaningful, and I think it was ill-conceived to start removing those numbers. cherkash (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The context, including the numbers, should be in the lead and not in the infobox.Tvx1 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
And you are saying this based on what? The way I see it, this is one of the key pieces of info about a championship round. Much more so than some trivia like the precise time of the fastest lap as an example. cherkash (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Major issue resulting from the moves

I've detected a major issue resulting from the moves. The talk page archives have become corrupted. They are no longer accessible. Normally links to all the archive pages are present in the talk page header. However these are formed from the talk page title and since the archive pages use the old F1 season title, they are not displayed. Moreover, all the archivebots on all the talk pages are still configured to create archives using the old name.Tvx1 13:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe we can solve this by moving the existing archive pages to reflect the new page titles, and updating the bot configurations. I'll do this sometime over the weekend unless someone else has a better idea/wants to do it before I get to it. (In case anyone else does want to it: to save you looking, the first (post-1980) season article which seems to have archives is 2007). DH85868993 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the talk page archives and updated the bot configurations (and fixed the links to a couple of GA and peer reviews while I was at it). Apologies for the delay; I was unexpectedly busy in RL over the weekend. Please let me know if you see any (post-1980 season article) discussions being archived to somewhere unexpected. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I still can't find the archive on the 2018 season's talk page.Tvx1 13:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. For some reason the archive bot seems to have started with "Archive 4" rather than "Archive 1" (and when I didn't see an "Archive 1" I mistakenly believed there weren't any archives for the page). Thanks for letting me know. DH85868993 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The reason is that whomever set up the archiving just copied the settings from another talk page instead of properly setting up the archiving for the article in question. Since the talk page copied from already had 4 archive pages, the counter was set at 4 and when copied to the 2018 talk page it continued archiving in archive page 4. Similarly the archive indexing has not been properly been set up and won't work as it stands. Anyway, I have (hopefully) cleaned up the mess with the archive pages.Tvx1 22:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Tweaking the names

I would like to suggest that we drop the "FIA" from the article titles. In fact, I cannot find agreement to include it in the first place. "FIA Formula One World Championship" is the official name, not the WP:COMMONNAME. We cannot ignore a policy like that. I became aware of how little the official name is used through partaking in the AFD on the 2019 article. A google search there yielded a dozen or so hits, none of which strem from the mainstream reliable sources we always use (e.g. Autosport, Motorsport Magazine, GPUpdate, SKY, BBC) The same applies to the 2018 season's offcial name, which yields around 70 hits (or just about two pages) which strem either from the FIA or from a bunch of low quality sources, some of which even copy Wikipedia's content. Therefore I think it's better no to use the full official name.Tvx1 11:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason the "FIA" was included was because it takes into account the wider scope of Wikipedia—not just WP:MOTOR, but sporting championships in general. From UEFA to the FIS and the IAAF, championship articles generally have the name of the sanctioning body in the title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, we can't ignore policy. Contrary to the likes of FIFA World Cup, the official title discussed here is barely used.Tvx1 15:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It is used in all of the documentation produced by the sport. Furthermore, it is consistently used in all of the World Championships under the FIA's purview. We already have articles for the FIA World Endurance Championship and the FIA World Rallycross Championship. I was in the process of moving all of the World Rally Championship articles to FIA World Rally Championship and was about to start moving World Touring Car Championship to FIA World Touring Car Championship before you came along and decided that you didn't like it here, and so it shouldn't be used anywhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, only the FIA themselves really uses it. Outside of them the official title is barely used. So I can see no reason not to follow WP:COMMONNAME here. This has nothing to do with me (not) liking something, but with respecting policy.Tvx1 13:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't move the WTCC articles either. Taking a look at all the sources used in the 2017 article, none of them use the FIA moniker. The WP:COMMMONNAME in the case appears the one without FIA as well.Tvx1 20:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I believe we reached a consensus to use this name pattern (for the post 1980 years) by the end of the "#Summary of current proposal" sub-section above in this thread. Several editors participated in that discussion, and there were no objections after PM and myself went through all those articles and moved (renamed) them. Sure new arguments can arise and consensus can change, but for now, the consensus seems clear to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 05:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
We now have the FIA moniker attached to four of the five World Championships: 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship, 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship, 2017 FIA World Rally Championship and 2017 FIA World Rallycross Championship. I'll get around to the likes of 2017 World Touring Car Championship tomorrow, which will make it five out of five. It is also attached to a variety of feeder series for the respective championships, such as 2017 FIA Formula 2 Championship, 2017 FIA Formula 3 European Championship, 2017 FIA World Rally Championship-2, 2017 FIA World Rally Championship-3 and 2017 FIA Junior World Rally Championship. There are probably feeder series for the WEC, World RX and WTCC that could (and probably should) have it added, but I don't know much about those categories so I'm probably not the best person to be moving things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You should not move any other article without discussion either. Especially if the only justification is giving similar names to articles on different championships. As DeFacto states a consensus was achieved to move. However, no-one apparently bothered to research the extent to which the official name is used. I should done so in hindsight, but regardless came across the issue and decided to raise it here. I don't see any arguments here providing any justification to act like a major policy does not exist. I also cannot see what "FIA Formula One World Championship” does that ”Formula One World Championship" does not. Even without the FIA in it the title tells which sport this is the World Championship of. We don't have articles on the "2017 WBSA World Snooker Championship" or on the "2017 FIM MotoGP season" either.Tvx1 14:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You know that there is no requirement to discuss every change in advance, and I certainly don't need to get the approval of one person. If I made changes to other articles, I did so independently of these ones. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It's more than just a change, It's renaming dozens of articles. Such a massive action should always be discussed in advance. Especially when it requires ignoring a policy.Tvx1 22:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FIA part being redundant in most of these articles. It may be needed if multiple championships with same or similar names were run by different sanctioning bodies. But this is not the case here. So my vote is to remove the "FIA" part as well from anywhere it's redundant. cherkash (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

So where do we stand here? If no one brings any meaningful justification for a continued ignorance of an important policy, I'm going to tweak the article titles over the weekend.Tvx1 21:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

We have a consensus to use that name. If you want to change it, you need a new consensus. You know this. You don't get to override a consensus because you disagree with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I can't, but policy can. You can't just act against policy for the sake of it. You need to provide a strong justification to do that. Besides the only consensus I can see is one to merely rename the articles, not one that exact name to use. And this new discussion has already provided multiple opinions in favor of dropping FIA from the titles.Tvx1 22:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion extensively discussed several possible names. So yes, you do need a new consensus, because the name you prefer was discussed at the time and rejected.
Also, four people have participated in this branch of the discussion. You want to make the change. I don't. @DeFacto pointed out that the consensus had been achieved. And while @Cherkash agreed in principle, he pointed out that "it may be needed if multiple championships with same or similar names were run by different sanctioning bodies", British Formula One demonstrates the need for something to distinguish between the two. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of having a consensus, could you please leave the WRC articles alone? You don't have a consensus here, and you haven't even attempted to establish one there. Any consensus you achieve here is limited to the subject of the articles. The WRC articles ate completely separate, so a consensus achieved here does not apply there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't need a consensus to make an article follow policy (a user once tried that trick on me and even escalated it to ANI, but logically got boomeranged for it quite massively). Not here, not for WRC articles. I never claimed I had any sort of consensus for the WRC articles. I merely reinstated their titles in line with the policy on article names after you started renaming them without any form of discussion and clearly against policy. A site-wide policy trumps a local consensus every time. And the distinction with British Formula One is already there. We call British Formula One British Formula One and the World Championship the Formula One World Championship. Every lay reader understands that. Cherkash's explanation relates to such examples were there different championships in a sport with the same only being distinguished by the governing body's name. For instance, PDC World Darts Championship and BDO World Darts Championship. That doesn't apply here as there is only one Formula One World Championship. Every knows what F1 championship the articles deal with even without the FIA moniker.Tvx1 10:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"I don't need a consensus to make an article follow policy."

You do when the name you're insisting on was considered as part of the original discussion, was discussed in the context of the policy you quoted, and rejected because the consensus felt that another name applied better and still observed the policy. You had every opportunity to discuss it at the time, and you chose not to. To come in now and insist otherwise smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT abd WP:OWN.

"I never claimed I had any sort of consensus for the WRC articles. I merely reinstated their titles in line with the policy on article names after you started renaming them without any form of discussion and clearly against policy."

Except that if you'd bothered to do your reading, you would know that the FIA moniker is used frequently in the WRC. But no, you made a decision about Formula 1 articles and decided that it applied to other, unrelated articles.

Do you know why I don't make editing decisions about E. Stevens Henry? Because I know nothing about him. I suggest you stop editing articles that you don't know anything about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Or you should stop assuming that someone doesn't know about a subject just because they don't edit those articles as frequently as others. You're constant accusations that I don't know anything about the WRC just because I make edits there which you don't like have to stop. Instead of jumping to assuming bad faith you could for once consider that someone is acting out of good faith concern that we are ignoring a major policy. Maybe you'd better stop assuming things about my actions altogether. Your assumptions about my actions are always wrong anyway. My actions here and at WRC are independent and my conclusion were formed independently based on looking at independent sources showing that the names we use in both Projects are not the common names of those subjects and thus run afoul of a major policy. And just because something has been somewhat discussed before doesn't mean it can't be discussed again and just because there was some consensus it doesn't mean it can change. In fact, you have just achieved this name change through applying that exact same principle after an earlier attempt ended with a clear no. So it would be only be fair if you showed some mutual respect for receiving a second try at your own proposal by actually reading now what other contributors write and by considering their good faith concern that we are deliberately breaching a policy for the sake of stylistic reasons instead of deciding on "no" beforehand and resorting to launching personal attacks at another contributors and trying to shut them down because "it has been discussed before".Tvx1 15:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm trying yo point out that the issue you are concerned about has already been discussed and a consensus achieved. Ergo, you don't have the right to override that consensus on the grounds of enforcing a policy.
And what am I supposed to think when you selectively move articles only after you state your case here? It looks like you're trying to strengthen your argument here by moving those articles. Especially when you insist a discussion is necessary, but then avoid taking part in it when you don't like it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
You just shouldn't have such a constant suspicion over other user's contributions. Learn to accept that more often than not other contributors act in good faith. My actions on the WRC articles have everything to do with what the sources show me is the common name. Sources you obviously never bothered to check. You are actually the one who over a week ago started unilaterally moving those articles without any form of discussion, not me. And you did that just as much based on what you think saw best fit for other articles on a related subject. You want to change the name, so the WP:BURDEN to discuss and achieve a consensus for it. And that consensus needs a very strong justification as the proposed move involved outright breaching an important policy. And yes I do have the right to override a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here if it's in clear breach of policy. Especially if that consensus does not provide any serious justification to do so. Since you still do not believe me, I urge you once again to read that ANI thread I linked to. In fact having read through the entire discussion above, I cannot find anywhere where the inclusion of FIA was ever specifically discussed. So given that this a policy breach, it's more than justified to have a discussion now.Tvx1 20:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
"Sources you obviously never bothered to check."
I did more than a Google search. Physical publications, archives of results, broadcast media and materials issued to spectators, crews and competitors all use the name with "FIA" in it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the last statement. In my experience, much more often than not, the "FIA" part is dropped. Even at the bottom of the formula1.com website, the copyright statement says "© 2003-2017 Formula One World Championship Limited" which without going into much argument and hair-splitting on what this actually is and what it means, demonstrates quite a lot in both obvious and subtle ways. So again, I think the "FIA" part could definitely be dropped from the article names per arguments above. cherkash (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Cherkash — the website is administered by the commercial rights holder. It's not affiliated with the FIA in any way. So when you see that copyright attached to the website, "Formula One World Championship Limited" is the trading name of the commercial enterprise (that's what the "Limited" is, a limited liability company) and has nothing to do with the administration of the sport. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I know. This is what I meant when I said "without going into much argument". But it's still indicative of how important or not the FIA part is in the name. Just one of the examples. You again seem to focus on one thing you may disagree with (I started it with "even..."), and ignore a bigger picture mentioned (what I started with "in my experience"). cherkash (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash — actually, it's not indicative at all. A company owned and operated by FOM/Liberty cannot legally trade under the name of another organisation like the FIA if the FIA does not own a stake in the company (and they don't since commercial operations and administration are completely separate).

And you say I only focus on the one thing I disagree with, but that's the only specific example you give. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

How's yours "I did more than a Google search." any better? You didn't bring up any concrete examples. Here's another one for you. An absolutely random piece of news to demonstrate the point. It skips the "FIA" part altogether, but there's no confusion whatsoever which championship is meant: [1] cherkash (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Cherkash — that was in relation to something else. Tvx1 removed the "FIA" moniker from another series of World Championship articles under WP:COMMONNAME, but given the way he did it and the sources he ignored, I strongly suspected (and still believe) that he did it there to try and strengthen his argument here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree then. So let's skip the "FIA" part in the names. cherkash (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where you're getting the idea that we agree from. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems you are still making unnecessary and completely wrong assumptions about my actions and are still making accusations of bad faith. I didn't act anywhere in order to strengthen any case anywhere else. I act independently on two different places because of the same good faith concern that we are willingly ignoring a major policy without any good justification. The sources make my case for me. All the kind of sources you mention are official publications naturally using the official titles. And you do realize that a number of the sources I quote (e.g. Autosport, Motorsport Magazine) are actually online version of articles that are also printed in their offline magazines, don't you? You only make a vague claim that sources allegedly exist without naming any specific ones. Where are the names? Issues? Dates? Article titles? Pages? Forgive me that I'm extremely skeptical that you would actually have made the effort to go and collect some books and magazines when you have proven multiple times that even the most basic of only searches is to big of an ask for you. Just this weekend you made a claim about who got which penalty and was using which power unit quota for Toro Rosso which was entirely wrong, which showed very clearly you hadn't bothered to even the slightest effort to use your browser to check even one source covering the penalties issued to Toro Rosso.Tvx1 15:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"you are still making unnecessary and completely wrong assumptions about my actions and are still making accusations of bad faith"
What am I supposed to think when you only selectively move articles?
"Issues? Dates? Article titles? Pages?"
I would have to say all of them. These are bespoke publications that I'm talking about. Just as Autosport covers all forms of motorsport and F1 Racing only covers Formula 1, the likes of RallyXS and Max Rally only cover rallying, and they use the name consistently throughout.
"which showed very clearly you hadn't bothered to even the slightest effort to use your browser to check even one source"
I used the most up to date source that I had at the time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"I used the most up to date source that I had at the time"
Actually, you didn't. Or rather you probably did read the source you are referring to, but your conclusions from it amounted to original research: it was not claimed in that source that Kvyat is taking over his old car, but you just assumed he did – until contradicted by other sources. So instead of admitting it could be either way in the absence of explicit statement clarifying it (which was eventually provided), you kept insisting on your own version of events. Which is pretty bad from the quality editing perspective... cherkash (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
"Which is pretty bad from the quality editing perspective..."
You know what they say about people living in glass houses? They shouldn't throw stones. Especially when they have already been directed to a talk page discussion about the issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Neither is a fair point, since I justified my edits in the edit summary (see the link you provided), and there was clearly a contradiction in multiple "consensuses" having been reached over time (see my comment here, which you later acknowledged). And in any way, you are referring to the formatting issues, which are debatable but not too important as these are just alternative ways to present uncontested information. What you did was much worse: you insisted on your own (not supported by sources) version of events. You should really refresh yourself on what original research is, and how it's something we are expected to avoid here. cherkash (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
"there was clearly a contradiction in multiple "consensuses" having been reached over time"

So why didn't you raise the issue on the talk page when you were directed to it? Why did you ignore all of it and see fit to undo the edits in line with the consensus you preferred? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a serious case of perverting the truth and thinking that you are a final authority (so anything you say or do must be obeyed: your "when you were directed to it [by me]" says it all). Please read above: I already told you why: there was a reference to a consensus stated right at the top of the relevant table, and I wasn't aware of any other purported consensus until it was mentioned here. So as I'm trying to discuss the issues at hand here on the issues' own merit, you seems to be much more willing to discuss the behavior of other editors and looking for faults in people, rather than address the issue at the core of this discussion. cherkash (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Please show me the policy that says we're free to ignore a consensus and talk page discussion if we think we have a really good reason to. I could understand making the edits the first time if you were unaware, but when they were reverted, you were directed to a talk page discussion that directly addressed your concerns and you ignored it. Even when you felt there was a contradiction between the consensuses, you made no attempt to direct anyone's attention to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've already linked it a couple of times. It's WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.Tvx1 12:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
We're not calling for changes to policy or guidelines. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So the question of removal the "FIA" part from the names is still very much alive despite some attempts to bog down discussion with unrelated distractions. I can see a clear case being made for removal, but I don't see a clear case made for keeping it. Can the editors advocating strongly for keeping it, try to summarize their arguments again (or maybe put them forward for the first time, as they have not been made clear yet) – anything apart from trying to refer to previous consensus (whether real or imaginary) when in reality this discussion is clearly targeted to achieve a new consensus based on merits of the proposal and counter-proposal (and hence trying to stick to a status quo is just not a valid argument anymore)? cherkash (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. From the quoted policy: " For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." That is the exact description of the sort of action which is happening here and which I am complaining about.Tvx1 01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

So despite my call a week ago for any proponents of keeping "FIA" part to make their case clear, we have nothing still? cherkash (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I just discovered this massive renaming exercise and I have to say I'm not too happy about it. A major change like this should have gone through the requested moves process, where major controversial moves are always discussed, rather than a WikiProject local consensus. I would like to initiate a requested move to put them back at their long term stable titles of 2017 Formula One season etc. but thought I'd gather some views here first. The current titles are very unwieldy and I'm not seeing much evidence that third party sources call the seasons by these names. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. For one, it wasn't a particularly major move. It only affected local articles (from 1981 to the present) and the parameters of a few templates. The discussion was started in late August and it was nearly three weeks before any action was taken. That action was delibetately delayed to allow as many editors to contribute as possible. A good half a dozen editors took part in the discussion, and the consensus was achieved quite smoothly—the only opposition arose from the precise method of moving the articles, rather than opposing the move outright. Any issues that arose prior to the move were addressed through consensus, which was once again very smooth. It has been nine weeks since the articles were moved, and there has been no dispute over the move in that time.
Furthermore, it was not a particularly controversial move. The only contentious points have been the wording of article leads (which is a separate issue entirely) and the use of "FIA" in the titles. Neither is enough to invalidate the articles being moved in the first place, so there isn't much of a case for moving "championship" articles back to "season" articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Well you say that, but the discussion was actually only really carried out between five or so people, so although I don't disagree there was a lot of discussion, and the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here was clear, that doesn't mean the same outcome would have resulted if it had gone through WP:RM and been seen by a lot more of the regular people there, who can evaluate the moves against policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY. I have to say that personally I much preferred the old titles. They were clear, and consistent with what we do in most other sports, where the word season is often included. As for common name, there is virtually no source which uses the term "2017 FIA Formula One World Championship", apart from the FIA themselves. But per WP:OFFICIALNAME that is not automatically the name we use, and arguably the season consists of more than just the championship anyway. I think I will start a request to move these back shortly, once I've had a chance to put examine the evidence properly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
"But per WP:OFFICIALNAME that is not automatically the name we use, and arguably the season consists of more than just the championship anyway."
As per WP:PRECISION, article titles should be precise. The justification for "World Championship" is that all Formula 1 racing in a calendar year relates to the championship. The only thing that happens outside the championship is testing, and that is directly related to the championship.
"I think I will start a request to move these back shortly, once I've had a chance to put examine the evidence properly."
I think you should respect the local consensus by at least getting some agreement here first. As you said, everything was done properly here, and as has been pointed out to you, there has been no controversy in the three months since the articles were moved. Given that your reasons for going to RM are "the outcome might have been different" and "I prefer the old style of title", doing so without support here might be constructed as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an attempt to undermine the local consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Stuck/1979 Argentine Grand Prix

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A discussion has been started regarding whether Hans-Joachim Stuck should be listed as "DNQ" or "DNS" at the 1979 Argentine Grand Prix. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to a new section here. cherkash (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Ferrari page

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi,

Could you ask for protection on Ferrari's page user cherkash keeps on reverting the page because he want the page to reflect the team and not the constructor. I've said to him again and again that the notes on the page can differentiate the team vs constructor (with privateers) but to no avail. Regards,RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RPP.Tvx1 22:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RafaelS1979, please stop this nonsense. There is a section above which you should go to to debate this if you want. So far, you've done nothing but aggressively revert the changes yourself, while threatening me at every turn – and now you are trying to cry foul. There is simply no consensus so far to the changes you insist on. I've outlined this – again! – on your Talk page (here). Your aggressive behavior is not tolerable, so stop this and engage in a civil discussion instead. cherkash (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no nonsense here. We have articles on cosntructors, not teams. That is the WP:F1 consensus. After all, Formula One doesn't have team championships but constructors championships.Tvx1 00:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This section is not the right place to debate the actual subject – please do it in the section above.
By nonsense, I meant RafaelS1979's attempts to strong-arm a certain version of the page to be considered for protection. We should engage in a civil debate, without using childish threats and throwing tantrums. See RafaelS1979's talk page where I justified what I just said. cherkash (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Old races with "alternate" drivers: DNS or DNQ?

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

There are two discussions (one of them very recent) on essentially the same subject that I feel deserve another shot at a thorough consideration:

There are most certainly other cases like this as well, so this should be considered with a view towards resolving such matters.

The gist is, we are talking about old days of F1 when there was such a thing as "alternate" drivers – which essentially means that one or more of the non-qualifiers (drivers who originally didn't make the grid based on the results of the qualifying session alone) could be promoted to the starting grid (that is, they were given a chance to participate in the race – "chance" is an important word here). This usually happened in case one of the originally qualified drivers withdrew from the event or could not start the race with enough advance notice to the organizers that the alternate(s) could be notified and be given a chance to start.

So the question is: In case such a promoted driver didn't take the start for whatever reason, what should we list as their race result: is it DNS or DNQ?

The answer may very well depend on the individual race's circumstances – specifically, how organizers'/stewards'/officials' decisions were phrased, etc. So we must have an appreciation that one answer may not fit all such cases. But in case of the two above-mentioned Grands Prix, it seems the circumstance were similar enough.

Please feel free to either add other similar cases to this discussion, or just chime in on the subject itself ("DNS or DNQ?"). cherkash (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash — I have always understood "DNQ" to mean that the driver took part in qualifying but did not set a time that was good enough and so did not start the race (like HRT in Melbourne a few years ago). "DNS" means that they qualified for the race but did not start it (like Räikkönen in Sepang this year). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It was quite a bit more complicated in the days past... cherkash (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Cherkash — then it comes down to the entry list. Who was on the entry list, and what did they actually do at the Grand Prix? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
DNS/DNQ questions can not be resolved by the entry lists. The entry lists show all cars entered into an event – they say nothing about what actually happened beyond that. If you meant official starting grid instead, then still consider that starting grids usually undergo multiple revisions. So an ability to resolve DNQ/DNS/WD/etc. questions is usually beyond what's stated on the starting grid, and is determined by what's actually happened in the event – and not by the fixed "snapshot" of what the starting grid of the race was scheduled to be at some point before the race. cherkash (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Very difficult to come to an easy answer, especially when there is so much variation amongst sources. I feel in both cases DNQ is correct, as they did not qualify for the race, and the rationale given in the linked discussions makes sense. They did not have an entry by right or qualifying, but were given a chance, which was then given to another driver, which means the opportunity for an entry must have also been taken away from them when their car was not ready. When the time came for the actual start, neither Stuck nor Craft were entitled to be on the starting grid, and you cannot fail to start a race if you weren't allowed to start it in the first place (though Hans Heyer may disagree...), so their original status as a non-qualifier stands.
That's my view based upon the information provided and a bit of logic. If there was some explanation of the rules for each Grand Prix it might help, but even then the decision may have been made on the organisers prerogative, and the rationale may be lost to history. QueenCake (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
First, a minor note on the terminology: by "entry" we usually mean an entry into an event (as in applying and being accepted as an entrant – and hence appearing on an "entry list"), not an entry into the race (as in appearing in a version, maybe one of many such versions, of the "starting grid").
Now more to the point of addressing your argument of "you cannot fail to start a race if you weren't allowed to start it in the first place" – if we are to hold to this maxim, then both Pescarolo and Ganley should be listed as DNQ instead of DNS as their "result" in Canada-71 (surely, they weren't eventually allowed to start the race), and the same applies to Patrese in Argentina-79. Yet, all three are listed as DNS. Hopefully you can see why your argument wouldn't work on the face of it. cherkash (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo as a 2018 engine supplier

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Recently, Speedy Question Mark included a supposed "rebranding" of Ferrari engines as Alfa Romeo for 2018 in the Alfa Romeo in Formula One article, using a Sauber press release as source. I was curious about the press content, as most F1 news outlets didn't mention a "engine rebranding" but a title sponsorship. As I read through the press release, I didn't came with anything about a rebranding, but the contrary: the article explicitly says the Saubers "will be equipped with the 2018 Ferrari (emphasis mine) power units", and ommits any comment about rebrandings. I changed the text on the article, basically saying in my edit summary that the engine rebranding was a supposition (as it isn't explicitly said in any part of the PR piece) and we shouldn't include that. Speedy reverted my edits, alleging that if the name of the team is "Alfa Romeo Sauber" the logical conclusion is that the engines will be rebranded "Alfa Romeo". I would say it's not always the case, as we had a "Jaguar" team using "Cosworth" engines and will have an "Aston Martin Red Bull" using "Tag Heuers".

So, my suggestion is that we should remove all things about an engine rebranding until we have concrete evidence of such engine rebranding, either from the parts involved or from the FIA's entry list. Wikipedia is about stated facts that can be proven through reliable sources, not likely scenarios. Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there a countless examples of car brands in F1 using engines or power units from a different brand. Marussia, Caterham, Spyker, Lotus(x3), Jaguar and McLaren are all examples of constructors which are also car brands which uses different brand engines or power units. Moreover we have examples like Infiniti Reb Bul Racing-Renault and Aston Martin Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer. Given there is no official evidence of the rebadging I will revert the changes.Tvx1 21:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I heard a BBC radio report that the engines would be re-branded as Alfas... but have seen nothing in any subsequent reports that would confirm this. At this stage agree we should not change. Eagleash (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I've found another source from a reliable website that we use quite often which reports that they will be badged as Alfas next year. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
...and that is?? Pyrope 14:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns37881.html Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Same issue as the speed cafe source. Personal assumption of the author. None of the quoted people involved actually mention rebadging.Tvx1 15:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Motor Sport (magazine) only hints at it in very vague terms here. Agree grandprix.com is not that convincing. Eagleash (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and Mark Hughes's comments are clearly presented as personal opinion and a "what if" sort of scenario. I haven't regarded grandprix.com's news feed as reliable for quite a few years, and this does nothing to dispel that. Pyrope 16:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

An update here. The 2018 entry list has been released and has the Sauber PU as Ferrari.Tvx1 20:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ferrari statistics

Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Recently, the Ferrari statistics at List of Formula One records and List of Formula One constructors have been changed from "results achieved by all Ferrari cars" to "results achieved by works Ferrari entries only" - the differences being number of starts, wins, podiums, 1-2 finishes and fastest laps. Since these articles document constructor statistics, I believe they should list the results achieved by all Ferrari cars (noting that this is the approach taken for all the other constructors listed on those pages - e.g. they show 79 wins for Lotus (= the number of wins achieved by all Lotus cars), not 74 (= the number of works team wins). Opinions? [P.S. The statistics have also been changed in the infobox at Scuderia Ferrari, but that's a separate issue - it's common practice for "team" stats (with appropriate footnotes) to be listed in the team articles.] DH85868993 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be all results; as you say, it's constructor statistics, not team statistics. Halmyre (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
To be quite honest I don't think that privateer entries are relevant since they are...privateers...RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Privateers they may be but they're still using chassis XYZ; for example, Rob Walker Racing gave Lotus their first World Champion F1 win. Under the works-only system of counting statistics, that significant victory wouldn't count as a Lotus win. Halmyre (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
If you think it's better to include the privateers, I'm not against, but if so, they should also be included on Ferrari's wiki page and some notes added to the page.RafaelS1979 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the privateer stats to List of Formula One records, List of Formula One constructors and Scuderia Ferrari and adjusted the footnotes accordingly. I've also added a "‎Privateer entries" section to Scuderia Ferrari - feel free to expand it as desired. Thanks for your input, everyone. DH85868993 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with including the privateer stats in the articles on constructors' records (as those stats are explicitly stated to be about constructors), I don't see a reason to automatically include the same in the Scuderia Ferrari article. After all, the Ferrari article is specifically about Ferrari the team, as opposed to Ferrari the constructor. There is a significant difference between team's stats, and similar (but not same) constructor's stats. This fact, until now, was clearly stated in the article's notes – so there was no confusion whatsoever. I'm restoring the team's stats as they were. cherkash (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't, the article is on the constructors. All our articles are and Ferrari's article is no exception.Tvx1 00:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is clearly on the team, not the constructor (the distinction really matters only for earlier years, as recently these two terms have been synonymous). If in doubt, read the lead – as well as consider that e.g. results of Lancia cars in 1950s should not then be included in the Ferrari the constructor stats. cherkash (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you're wrong and it's about time you accept that. I have clearly explained on your talk page how we define these articles. Moreover, you're contradicting yourself. First you say that it's about the team, not the constructors and then you say they are synonymous. So then why are you making a problem here? The indisputable fact is that the contested results (including those Lancias which were entered and races as Lancia-Ferraris or simply Ferrari and which weren't even privateer entries) were actually awarded to Ferrari by the sport and thus they quite patently belong in Ferrari's article.Tvx1 16:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
What do you even mean by "were actually awarded to Ferrari by the sport (emphasis is mine)? This makes no sense. "The sport" is not an entity that somehow awards anything. The team stats are just that – the stats. And the numbers depend on the decision of what's relevant to be included. My point is, since the article is about the team (Scuderia Ferrari, which is a team, despite your very recent attempt to change the lead from "racing team" to "constructor"), then the stats should include only de-facto team's results, not all the constructor's results. cherkash (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

My personal preference is for the infobox to contain the constructor stats (with appropriate footnotes), so that the numbers match the numbers at List of Formula One records and List of Formula One constructors, to avoid potential confusion for non-expert readers who may not appreciate the distinction between "team" and "constructor". But another approach would be for the existing infobox to list the "team" stats, and to add another "Ferrari as a Formula One constructor" infobox containing the constructor stats, as we have at Team Lotus and Tyrrell Racing. Cherkash, RafaelS1979, Tvx1 - would you all (and everyone else) be happy with that? DH85868993 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy with the latter proposal (to follow Lotus's and Tyrrell's precedents). And it actually makes a lot of sense. cherkash (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm okay with it, we have to come to a solution anyway and I think it's the best for everybody.RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Take, the Team Lotus article for example. I find the two-infobox structure rather confusing. For some reason, the second infobox list more wins despite dealing with the exact same period containing the exact same amount of entries without any form of explanation for the difference. Back to Ferrari, which source would we base ourselves on? Don't forget, that we cannot go an define ourselves what was and what wasn't credited to Ferrari. It's already pretty confusing, given that our infobox stats contradict the official sources.Tvx1 22:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
In the Team Lotus article, the first infobox details the achievements of the team (Team Lotus); the second infobox details the achievements of all Lotus cars, i.e. the works cars plus Lotus cars run by other teams. Would it perhaps be clearer if the infoboxes were labelled "Team Lotus" and "All Lotus cars"? Regarding consistency with formula1.com and the FIA - it would be nice if they were even consistent with each other! e.g. formula1.com credits Ferrari with 230 wins, 206 poles and 243 fastest laps, whereas the FIA media guide you linked credits them with 228 wins, 228 poles and 244 fastest laps! DH85868993 (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If you look carefully, you'll see that the FIA sources' stats predates this year's Brazilian GP. That explains the difference with F1?com. Regardless, our numbers match neither, so which reliable source are they based on? And as a motorsports enthousiast, I know what distinction in the Lotus article ought to be, but you cannot assume the lay reader knows that. And even I still find it confusing. Both infoboxes list the exact same number of entries (and starts), but end up with a different number of wins. How on earth can the exact same number of cars starting yield a different number of wins? My main question is why do we even have an infobox listing the stats for what we call the team (which the FIA defines as "entrant"), when in reality race results have only ever credited to what we call the constructor (and which FIA defines as such as well even though they refer to them as "teams" sometimes) by the people governing the sport and thus actually in charge of crediting results? My preference is the exact same as DH85868993's: For one infobox to contain the constructor stats (with appropriate footnotes), because that way it matches the results as they have actually been credited in real life. Anything other creates nothing but confusion.Tvx1 16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"If you look carefully, you'll see that the FIA sources' stats predates this year's Brazilian GP. That explains the difference with F1?com." With due respect, it doesn't: formula1.com says 230 wins; the FIA source says 228 wins - that's not due the one source being before the Brazilian GP and one being after; formula1.com is just plain wrong - the correct current total is either 229 (if you include Baghetti's privateer win in the 1961 French GP) or 228 (if you don't). But that's a side issue. To answer your question regarding which reliable source our numbers are based on: As a general rule, our constructor stats match the "make" stats at FORIX, except for cases where we and they identify the entities differently (e.g. they combine the stats for Lotus (1958-1994) and Lotus (2012-2015), whereas we count them separately). DH85868993 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of tyre column from 2018 season summary article

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a discussion in progress at 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant regarding whether the "Tyres" column should be removed from the "Contracted teams and drivers" table in 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. I'm advertising the discussion here because the outcome of the discussion potentially affects other articles, i.e. the logic that applies to the 2018 season also applies to 2017, 2016, etc. But please continue the discussion there, not here. DH85868993 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Toro Rosso's constructor name?

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

They are listed down as "Scuderia Toro Rosso" on the 2018 F1 article instead of just "Toro Rosso" like they have always been since 2006, why has this suddenly changed now? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Because that's how it appears on the entry list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
But the problem I'm having is that Red Bull Racing has appeared as "RBR" on past FIA entry lists but we didn't change it then. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly: FIA has not been very consistent in the past. E.g., Ferrari appeared as both "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro" and "Scuderia Ferrari" in 2011, whereas Red Bull in 2009 appeared as both "RBR Renault" and "Red Bull Renault". cherkash (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget Scuderia Toro Rosso did change their constructor name a couple of times through the years. Engine names are part of constructor names, so when these change the name changes. Scuderia Toro Rosso has regularly changed their engine/power unit supplier. Last year there wasn't even a PU supplier in the constructor name, they simply were Toro Rosso. This year they changed PU supplier again, so it's perfectly possible that "Scuderia" was re-added to the name. Generally, the constructor names are consistent throughout the season and individual Grand Prix entry lists, so time will tell us more. Red Bull Racing, on the other hand, have appeared with Red Bull Racing-Renault or Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer as constructor name since as far back as 2010. It's also very obvious that RBR and STR are merely abbreviations used sometimes for convenience.Tvx1 01:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, they need to re-submit their paperwork year on year. Each entry list is for the upcoming championship and what was submitted the previous year has little bearing on the new one. It's only when there are major changes (such as in the case of a change in ownership) that the process becomes more complicated. WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, but entry lists are not written with WP:COMMONNAME in mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

AfDs

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

FYI, List of Formula One World Drivers' Championship runners-up has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Formula One World Constructors' Championship runners-up has also been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The result of both discussions was "delete". DH85868993 (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

1950 British Grand Prix

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Just a quick question: Shouldn't Farina have 10 points in the championship standings, because of his fastest lap? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Eight points for a win 1950–1953. The 9 shown in the results table is a bit misleading at first sight. (See List of Formula One World Championship points scoring systems). Eagleash (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That is misleading indeed. Maybe it would be better to use a system like in Formula E articles with a note for whom gets an additional point for fastest lap and remove the fastest lap chart? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the fastest lap table from 1950 British Grand Prix - you're right; it's potentially confusing (and it's the only WDC race report to have such a table). I'm open to the idea of indicating points scores which include the point for fastest lap, but I'd like to establish a firm consensus first, since there are 84 articles which would need to be updated. DH85868993 (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Autosport paywall

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:2018 FIA Formula 2 Championship that affects us all. An editor is claiming that we should not use Autosport if another source is available because Autosport uses a paywall. It's a clear violation of WP:SOURCEACCESS, and one that threatens all of our articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pm, this sort of thing is worth raising here, but please consult WP:CANVASS before you do. Pyrope 12:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of CANVASS, just as I am aware that the editor in question a) has the potential to invalidate one of our most relied-upon sources and b) refuses to listen to me. As much as the issue affects WP:F1, the article in question does not get much traffic, so what would you do differently? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Just go and read CANVASS; it's written in fairly simple terms and you shouldn't need me to explain it here. Pyrope 21:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a difference between canvassing to influence the outcome of a discussion and calling other editors' attention to an issue because you know that someone won't listen to you. That particular editor made a series of contradictory edits to some articles. Unsure as to which version was the intended version of the article, I reverted it to the last good version. He got very upset when I pointed this problem out to him and now takes every change I make to his edits personally. This was a clear violation of SOURCEACCESS and if anyone else had pointed it out to him, he would have accepted it without issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Oy, but you are hard work. In this context I do not give a monkey's (prisoner, or otherwise) what the debate was about, this is about the manner in which you drew attention to the ongoing discussion here. Go. And. Read. CANVASS. Pyrope 03:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
You probably should have left out the sentence about SOURCEACCESSS here in favor of a neutral request for additional opinion.Tvx1 15:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
There's no "probably" about it. I was hoping PM would take the hint and examine their own behaviour before calling out others. Ah well. Pyrope 15:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you familiar with every policy and guideline? SOURCEACCESS is not a policy that we regularly encounter. If you've got a better way of drawing the community's attention to issues without actually telling them what that issue is, I'd like to hear it.

"I was hoping PM would take the hint and examine their own behaviour before calling out others."

I'd be careful with statements like this as it opens the door up to an examination of your own behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Indication of point for fastest lap

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

As noted above, a consensus should be found how to indicate a WC point given to a driver for the fastest lap of the race in the period when this was the case (1950-1959). So far, the point simply appears in the result table in the race reports, without a specific note. Formula E articles (such as 2015 Berlin ePrix) have a note added, explaining which points were awarded for what. I feel that it would be a good idea to add this to F1 articles as well in order to avoid confusion (such as my confusion with 1950 British Grand Prix noted above). Thoughts? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

We probably should have a footnote. I'm not fussed whether we use a numeric indicator (like the Formula E articles) or just an asterisk. Noting that the Formula E articles need to use numeric indicators because there are usually at least two footnotes (one for pole position and one for fastest lap), whereas in the Formula One articles there will usually be only one. DH85868993 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Some additional info: we typically use numeric indicators for footnotes in modern race result (and qualifying) tables - see 2017 United States Grand Prix, but we have used symbols (e.g. an asterisk) in some older races - see 1958 Italian Grand Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
My suggested format for the footnote is "Includes 1 point for fastest lap" or appropriate variant thereof, e.g. "Includes 1⁄7 point for shared fastest lap" in 1954 British Grand Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Pyrope 15:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. It looks like there's consensus for the footnotes to be added. I'll probably do it some time over the weekend (unless someone else beats me to it). With regard to indicator format, I'll probably go for numeric indicators, for consistency with the modern race report articles. DH85868993 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. DH85868993 (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Four wheel steering on the Benetton B193

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Our article on the Benetton B193 has a paragraph on its use four wheel steering. However it's rather confusing and does not quite supported by the sources which are cited. Two sources are being cited. One from Motorsport Magazine and one from F1 Fanatic. The Motorsport Magazine article claims it was used during the last four races (one of which was won by a B193 driven by Michael Schumacher) of the 1993 season, while the F1 Fanatic source claims it wasn't used in any race at all. Our own article morphs this into a third version where the system was used during the last two races of that season. The sources also contradict each other with regards to Schumacher's thoughts about the system. F1 Fanatic claims he didn't think it brought a benefit while Motorsport Magazine claims he thought it did. So what happened in reality?Tvx1 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the teams and drivers table of post-2013 season articles

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

For post-2013 articles, should each unique entry in the Teams and Drivers table be defined as a driver/team/number/car combination or as a driver/team/number combination? FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

For this purpose, car is defined as the entity that receives allocations for power units, gearboxes, and tyres. This question has arisen from the series of driver replacements at Toro Rosso in the latter half of the 2017 campaign. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

I am in support of an entry being defined as simply a driver/team/number combination. My reasoning behind this is that in pre-2014 articles, drivers were only listed twice if they changed number or team. Admittedly it could be argued that in pre-2014 articles, numbers were synonymous with cars. However, in 2002, the power unit and gearbox regulations did not exist, yet as you can see from the table below, each unique table entry is based on a unique driver/team/number combination (Alex Yoong is only listed once);

  KL Minardi Asiatech Minardi-Asiatech PS02 Asiatech AT02 M 22   Alex Yoong 1–12, 15–17
  Anthony Davidson 13–14
23   Mark Webber All

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

So ... what, if anything, changes? You've given us half of what we need. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you are misunderstanding that example and I have already explained that to you. The way drivers were listed pre-2013 had nothing to do with numbers. You are putting way too much emphasis on these numbers. Even if your above example didn't contain any numbers the drivers would still be presented like they are right there. We have always preferred to provide our readers a full chronology of the driver changes using the rounds column as the differentiator. Also it's not up to us to define an entry. That's up to the sport's governing body.Tvx1 15:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
On the official F1 entry list, the FIA make no mention of cars, so clearly their definition of an entry does not involve cars. The entry list does contain headers for the driver number, driver name and team name (as well as chassis and engine name), so the entry will remain unchanged unless one of these change, hence supporting the driver/team/number combination. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The FIA entry list does not list in-season replacements, so it is of no value to our argument. And you're making your own synthesis of what you think an entry is. What we in reality should do is look wat the regulations define as an entry. But as I have explained before multiple times I doesn't even matter. Even if we answer this question it does still not help us to decide how we should present our content to our readers. Even if the official definition does not include a car it does not forbid us to group drivers by who they replaced and when. The real question we have been debating about is how do we most accurately and clearly tell our readers who replaced whom and where during the course of the season in question.Tvx1 16:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The official FIA entry list is changed each race to incorporate any changes, but the point I was trying to make was that the only thing that differentiates one entry from another is the driver/team/number combination, and this was in response to your comment that "it's not up to us to define an entry", hence why I used the official FIA entry list as an example. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't and it doesn't yield us any helpful information. I don't know where you get that idea.This is how it looked during the Hungarian GP weekend. No sign of Lance Stroll on the official entry list. The official entry list merely lists the entries at the start of the season and isn't changed at all once the season is underway. You're just synthesizing what you think it tells us an entry us. One could easily think the number column away and you'd still have the same entry list with the same amount of content in the same order. Most importantly, the FIA entry list NEVER includes the whole set of drivers and their in-season replacements. As a result, it does not help us any way with regards to our tables which do include those whole sets. As I said countless times before, the definition of an entry doesn't matter to our problem.Tvx1 15:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Tvx1, I believe that Wikipediaeditperson is referring to the entry lists for individual races, such as this document published before the 2017 United States Grand Prix, and not the season entry list. This document does show Hartley's entry. However, due to the short notice on which he raced, the entry list for the 2017 Hungarian Grand Prix does not show Paul di Resta as an entrant. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@FactualCollector7d1, I was actually referring to both entry lists - as you can see from this updated entry list from September, it has Gasly at Toro Rosso, and as you say the entry list for each race shows much the same. @Tvx1, I fear you may have misunderstood the question being asked at this RFC - we are not discussing what defines an entry into the F1 championship, the question is actually asking what defines a unique entry to the 'Teams and Drivers' table. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Jesus, you're still debating this? It's been three months! You're running the risk of a knee-jerk reaction (albeit the slowest recorded reaction) to a very unusual situation and one with the potential to affect dozens of articles. All of the fears of an unreadable table, drive-by edit wars and mass confusion have amounted to nothing. Just leave it as it is because if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As I already stated at the 2017 article's talk page, the question posed here is not the issue that was discussed over there.Tvx1 21:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to see some kind of outline as to how the proposed changes would affect articles so that people actually know what they're discussing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_48&oldid=955583442"