Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Using icons for teams in race reports

Not entirely relevant to this page in specific, but there wasn't any other place I'd put it.

Saying, for example, "Lewis Hamilton of Mercedes" makes it so a lot of space is needed just because the name of the teams needs mentioning, while an easier approach would be to use an icon, made into a template so it's easier to use: " Lewis Hamilton" or " Alexander Albon"

Now there are some problems with this such as it being expensive to load. I'd leave it up to you to check the trade-offs. Mohammad.darg (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This only works if everyone knows what these symbols mean. Which they don't. Only F1 fans will reconginse Williams logo. Does anyone know what Toleman's logo was? I don't think so. The only positive is that it saves a small bit of space. The negatives are endless. SSSB (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Any question of whether or not this is good for users is irrelevant, there's simply no way this would be compliant with licensing requirements. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It is compliant. We already have the logos in the articles for the Constructors. SSSB (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Please re-read WP:Non-free content and WP:Logos as this is unequivocally prohibited. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not "unequivocal". This is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be, after all, all the logos appear on the Wikipedia pages of the respective constructors (Scuderia Ferrari contains the Ferrari logo). From WP:LOGOS: "long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes". Several of the logos contain the statement "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." (File:Logo Williams F1.png as an example) and all the others could arguable be allowed under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The only reasons to argue that it wouldn't be allowed under would be because it doesn't fufill criteria #3 and #8 under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. But again, this is something that could be debated. It is not unequivocal. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a shocking misrepresentation of policy and not something I would normally expect from you. Such use of logos is clearly not minimal as required for the use of non-free content, and is clearly very replaceable (by prose). Again, such use of logos is very explicitly disallowed. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, you appear to be the one not understanding the situation. The vast majority of these logos is not subject to copyright simply because they don‘t pass the trehold of originality. Those files are in the public domain and the non-free content simply doesn‘t apply to them. They aren‘t non-free. For the few that are, stricter limitations do apply. There are other more important reasons why this proposals are unworkable though. Tvx1 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a moot point, since the Red Bull, RB, Ferrari, and Aston Martin logos unambiguously do pass the threshold of originality, and depending on which version you want to use the Kick Sauber and Mercedes may do as well. They are non-free. So unless you're seriously proposing only doing this only for 50% of the teams (which would be comically stupid) then it does not even slightly matter if a few of them aren't subject to policies on non-free use, no matter how poorly you interpret copyright policies. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as we should we using names not logos, as just logos violates the MOS, and names are easier for casual readers to understand. Also, some of the logos are likely copyrighted, and so this also violates WP:Image policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Fails MOS:NOICONS and is a total non-starter for that reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I agree, clear MOS violation. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

World Constructors Championship Error

On the Mercedes part of the grid, it's mixed up where it says Lewis won in Austria instead of Russell, the top part is Lewis as he won in Great Britain and Belgium, and Russell won in Austria 209.216.190.30 (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not one row per driver. The best result at each round always goes on the top row, regardless of whose result it is. (This is explained in the text under the table.) Therefore the table is correct. SSSB (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Source needed for number

@Island92: Regarding this edit, don't remove sources because a source "will" be added in the future. That is an unacceptable reason to remove a valid citation and leave uncited material on the page. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• @RxxingAddict: pinging since they have also removed the citation and left the number uncited. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  This source, being added next to Sources: into the entries table is enough, rather than having it close to a driver name or his race number. Island92 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ferrari HP footnote

Rather than edit warring, can we have a discussion (pinging the editors involved, not necessarily saying you are all actively edit warring: @5225C, Island92, Pyrope, and Joseph2302:) SSSB (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing for this claim was inadequate, as the source says they became title sponsor, but didn't say anything about car entry names, so is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR unless a source is added which mentions car names. Also seems rather trivial to me, as this doesn't affect the F1 season. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

On Ferrari.com you read Scuderia Ferrari HP. Only for an entry list in F1 they enter without HP. Hence why the footnote must be there to distinguish this fact. Despite being known worldwide as Scuderia Ferrari HP, Ferrari in F1 compete without HP. The footnote must be there. Island92 (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the agreement, HP is a title sponsor. HP is visible on the chassis and drivers uniform. HP is not used as title sponsor only for the entry list entrant name. Why? Make it clear with a footnote. Island92 (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of situation WP:10Y was written for. What name Ferrari uses in their press releases is of no consequence. We basically never report on sponsorship arrangements for this precise reason. In fact, generally the only time we mention sponsors in a season article is when teams enter with a sponsored name – which is exactly what Ferrari isn't doing. An announcement does not in itself make something significant, and just because something is verifiable (that is, that Ferrari announced they would change their name) does not mean it is of encyclopaedic significance. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, and so why are we keeping Scuderia Ferrari HP in 2025 and 2026 entries? Island92 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have argued repeatedly that we should not. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's remove them. Island92 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This situation is different from 2025 and 2026. In this article, we have the source saying that HP should be on the entry lists, but none of the entry lists actually contain them. For 2025 and 2026 there are sources which say that Ferrari will enter under that name, and there are no entry lists for 2025 and 2026 to directly contradict this source (we only have the OR arguement that the 2024 entry lists not showing HP means that the 2025 and 2026 entry lists won't either). When we see that Ferrari are not entering under HP, I will support removing them under WP:10Y. However, as WP:10Y does not override WP:OR, it only supports removing the info from here and not the 2025 and 2026 articles. SSSB (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree on the 2025 and 2026 articles. However, it does sound like we all agree there is no need to discuss the press release in this article, and we will only add HP to this article if a future entry list includes the change. Is that correct? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It is an explanatory footnote, not a full discussion of the topic. You are making it sound as though there is a whole section of the main prose devoted to the ins and outs of this issue, but there isn't. This is a service to readers who may be confused as to why Ferrari's public identity is "Scuderia Ferrari HP", yet we don't reflect that here. That is a right and proper way for an encyclopedia to conduct itself. Pyrope 15:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Public identity"? Where, precisely? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Their website, for example : "Scuderia Ferrari HP" at the top left, the Prancing Horse / HP logo in the middle. Their press releases also use that identity , as well as all their socials. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The question then is do we reflect what is in the official documents and on TV, or what's on the social media pages? It's a pretty obvious decision. The substance of any proposed note is only "Ferrari had a sponsorship arrangement". All teams have prominent sponsors and branding in their public identities (of course not necessarily in their name). Again, any note would fail the 10Y test abysmally. Ferrari's social media will change, their 2024 entry will not. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification

@Cerebral726: Can you please explain to me why table result needs a failed verification just because results are not sourced? I've never seen something like that before. Do not add failed verification. Provide a source instead. Otherwise keep things as they are. Island92 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It is totally acceptable to add Template:Failed verification in places where the sources do not back up the content. Saying I've never seen something like that before. is an invalid reason to remove something. Feel free to add sources that directly support the results listed in the table. Until such a time, the template is valid and should not be removed. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Source you added could have been added before adding failed verification had you looked for it carefully on the internet. Island92 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It could have. However, there is nothing wrong with adding failed verification, and it is considered helpful on Wikipedia to add maintenance templates where they are appropriate. Feel free to continue fulfilling them when I add them if they bother you so much. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but I suggest you not be too much addicted to adding failed verification almost everywhere. Island92 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I will politely reject your suggestion, as it is considered helpful on Wikipedia, whether or not you are a fan of it. I also have added many sources to Wikipedia, and I will continue to do a mix of both. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but first I think better to look for the source that matches the info given. You add failed verification, then you find the source, you add it by removing failed verification. Is not it a double job? Island92 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, you always add failed verification for drivers in penalty when the other driver involved is not reported in the first source. Why don't you go first to FIA official documents section to get a list of all penalties? You find the right one (as I do) and add it. Island92 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This takes time, even when sources are easy to find (I don't even know where to find the official documents) Ideally, Cerebral would find a source but they is under no obligation to do so, they may not have even have the time (I frequently browse wiki, and add maintenance tags on the go). Adding the tag is the next best thing, and certainly a whole lot better than leaving it. SSSB (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Wikipedia. And taking time to make constructive edits is just part of it. Tvx1 09:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Mid season changes.

can people stop changing it from mid season changes to in season changes because one of the changes was in round 2. the 2016 formula one world championship article had a change in round 2 and the title of that section is mid season driver changes. FerrariFan77 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if some other article has a mistake. There a reasonable reasons to use "In-" over "Mid-" and I see no reason to use "Mid-" other than precedent, which is no argument at all. It probably would be best to change the 2016 article as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

that isn't a mistake, that is the way it has been done so just stick to the fucking way it has been done before FerrariFan77 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No. And it was explained to you that the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix cannot be a race in the mid. The case is different for this season compared to previous. Previous have to be fixed. Island92 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

stop with that bullshit. it has been done in a certain way and no one else has cared apart from you. grow up man and accept that it is fine being done that way. FerrariFan77 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything it has been done so far that way and hence should it be kept like that. Please stop with these personal attacks. Island92 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

FerrariFan77 has been blocked for being a WP:SOCKPUPPET.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it correct to list Magnussen as "excluded" from the Azerbaijan Grand Prix?

Glossary of motorsport terms gives the following definition for a result of "excluded":

Removed from competition before the race has started, generally due to an infringement during practice or qualifying.

In other words, a driver entered the event, but was prevented from starting the race. This obviously has not happened in Magnussen's case, since he will not be allowed to enter race. On the other hand, perhaps this is an appropriate exception per the "generally" bit. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to leave his box empty. His entry will be taken over by another driver, presumably Bearman, so technically Magnussen will not have been entered at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the current consensus. We recently had this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Excluded in Formula 3 SSSB (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

We would need to wait for the official FIA documents to get the answer, however, I've been able to find a previous case in 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_European_Grand_Prix, the drive participated in practice and qualifying for the team, but was excluded from the race. My position is that the cell is left blank, until an FIA document says otherwise. 151.224.2.69 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Official document already published at the Italian Grand Prix states clearly that he is suspended, not excluded. Tvx1 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tvx1- I agree that he isn't excluded, as he's suspended, so just leave the value as blank for this race. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

When can the practice be changed?

Suggested to include second and third place, but that is "not the practice". So when can the "practice" be changed? Wikipedia has undergone many changes, so why not this one? Eivindgh (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Because there is an existing consensus against it that needs to be overturned with a new consensus in favour. SSSB (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the Toyota partnership a "team change"?

Been a lot of back and forth on this subject. The answer to me is pretty clear: no, it's not. It's a technical arrangement, it doesn't change the operation of the team as a competitor. Would be interested to hear some justification from those who think it does. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not a team change and I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. TGR will start off as a sponsor, and then eventually offer some technical assistance in areas where leaning on Ferrari is not ideal (such as wind tunnel testing). But the essense of the Haas team will continue as it is for the time being. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant to be reported. Island92 (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on why? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The prose was sufficient to explain it but you removed it not thinking twice. Island92 (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No, the prose did not explain how anything about the team has changed, especially not in the context of its entry in the 2024 season. We clearly have thought twice since we came here to discuss it – but perhaps you need some more time to think of an explanation? If none is forthcoming then I take it we agree the section is irrelevant. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Next time discuss it with user @Stewikiaman1: then who normally adds this information without considering it a team changes or not. Island92 (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

F1 Sprint Winners need to be added to Results & Standings Chart

F1 Sprint Winners need to be added to Results & Standings Chart

Thanks 2601:18B:302:2960:1850:FA23:C178:E681 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they don't "need" to be added. And they won't (at least wothout a discussion) because there is an existing consensus against doing this. SSSB (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Not needed. Sprints are not stand alone events. Island92 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In the IPs defense, I think they meant that sprints should be added as a column, not as a stand alone row. SSSB (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Island92 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the starting grid is no longer determined by the result of the sprint race, it is actually a separate event in itself, even with its own qualifying practice. There will definitely be a situation in the future where, due to external factors such as weather, the sprint race takes place but the main race has to be cancelled. At that point, the question arises whether the sprint results should be entered as a separate column or not. I can live with the current presentation at the moment. But I think it would be better to show the sprint results as a separate column in the results table. In most other racing series, the sprint and feature races are also shown as separate columns. --Mark McWire (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In most other series a sprint win and a Grand Prix win have equal weight (I.e. in F2 a sprint win is considered a win in the stats book, as is a feature race win; even though they are worth a different amount of points) this is not the case in F1. As for the main race being cancelled, but the sprint race having been held, I doubt this will happen. The only race that has come close to be cancelled in the last 10 years (200 Grand Prix) was Bel 2021 (0.5%). A sprint race happens 6 times a year (25%). So both happening in a weekend is once every 40 years. SSSB (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

"In most other racing series, the sprint and feature races are also shown as separate columns" just because the sprint takes place alongside each Grand Prix. Here the condition is different, and we have the Note explaining where the sprints take place (at the moment just in six Grands Prix). In 2024 MotoGP World Championship, the most common example in comparison to Formula One, there is no sprint separate columns despite it being on the schedule for each Grand Prix. Island92 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Good example of a very confusing table. --Mark McWire (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with having a seperate column is that it places too much emphasis on the sprint. A sprint win and GP win are not equal. Having a seperate column would imply that they are equal, it would imply Piastri's first F1 win was at the 2023 Qatar Grand Prix, but no F1 site (that I'm aware of) would make this claim - they all list Hungary 2024 as the first. Although this solution does make the table a little harder to intepret, I do think it is the best option. SSSB (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

grand prix links

Hello, why does clicking of a specific Grand Prix in the lists send me, not to the 24 GP page itself, but rather the general GP page? Example: I click Australian GP, and I get redirected to the general page about it... When I just want to access the specific page for the '24 Australian GP, obviously? Can we not change that? Cheers. 2A02:A03F:C10E:CB00:5619:5F64:88B9:919B (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is obvious at all. I would say it is 50-50 at best. The text you are clicking is "Australian Grand Prix". The least astonishing destination (as recommened by WP:EGG) is Australian Grand Prix, not 2024 Australian Grand Prix. SSSB (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Bearman

@5225C: Magnussen is only missing Friday running in São Paulo which consists of FP1 and Sprint qualifying. Haas will give an update on him further notice. This is what F1.com source says. Island92 (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So if you'd bothered to read either of the two sources which I cited, you'd see they both contain a clear explanation that the regulations prohibit Magnussen from participating in the sprint, and would require Haas to field Bearman. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are some other sources for you to consider: 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

(This is still original research at this point) but if I intepret article 37.1 of the sporting regs correctly, Magnussen will not be allowed to participate in the Grand Prix either, hacing not particpated in at least one practice session. SSSB (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not the case, because qualifying is a practice session. Any session before the Grand Prix is a practice session, the term isn't synonymous with free practice sessions. I recall this being the source of the confusion around the "DNP" (Did Not Practice) confusion a few years back. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Check 37.4, it refers to "any free practice session, qualifying session or the sprint qualifying session" as being a practice session. It's confusing because we usually use "practice" as shorthand for free practice, but it's a distinct term in the regulations. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It is up to Haas to give a further update on Magnussen (likely tomorrow). I am not totally convinced he has to miss the sprint in any case just because his car will attend sprint qualifying in someoneelse hands. Island92 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The regulation states "driver" not "car". Simple as that. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just pointed out article 37.1 which is explictly clear on the matter. Anyway, with all due respect, we don't need to convince you, we only have to provide reliable sources which state this, which we have. SSSB (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Original research I suppose, but Article 32.2 of the Sporting Regulations states that driver changes can be made "At each Competition where a sprint session is scheduled, at any time before the start of the sprint qualifying session for a driver who will participate in the sprint session, or at any time before the start of the qualifying session for a driver who will participate in the race." The clear implication is that you can't change drivers between sprint qualifying and the sprint. Jestal50 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I am watching Sky Sports F1 and they have said that he will take part in FP1, Sprint Qualifying and the Sprint Race on Saturday. Haas will decide if Magnussen will compete in the Grand Prix later. MSalmon (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@5225C and Island92: have either of you got the official document confirming Bearman replacing Magnussen? I'm just wondering what exactly it says. Thanks. SSSB (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the same generic form, you can read it here. It was released 15 minutes after the race entry form, which suggests to me that Haas want the option of switching back to Magnussen (otherwise, why not just enter Bearman as the regular race driver?). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. However I trusted F1.com which said Bearman running on Friday (FP1 and sprint qualifying in case of a sprint weekend). This is not the case per sporting regulations. Island92 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Bearman out for the remainder of the weekend. Revised entry list. Island92 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In, you mean? Marbe166 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes my fault. Island92 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@5225C: you are wrong according to the prose. Why sprint sessions? Bearman replaced Magnussen for FP1 and sprint qualifying (Friday running). This was later expanded to the rest of weekend means sprint, qualifying and race. Island92 (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

He was always going to replace Magnussen for the sprint. We went over this yesterday. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I know that but is still incorrect to say This was later expanded to the rest of weekend following sprint qualifying if you write sprint sessions above. Sprint qualifying takes place on Friday, sprint on Saturday. Per what happened, "he replaced Magnussen for the Friday sessions" which did not include the sprint. Island92 (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

One source says he was only replacing Magnussen for Friday. Other sources say for Friday and the sprint on Saturday morning. I am more inclined to believe the source which actually quotes the regulation and explains that he will be unable to compete in the sprint. Whereas the F1.com source simply takes Haas' statement at face value. SSSB (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

And F1.com have now corrected themselves, with their latest article stating Prior to Friday’s action getting under way at the Autodromo Jose Carlos Pace, the news came that Magnussen would not participate in the day’s running after reporting feeling unwell, with Bearman stepping in for free practice, Sprint Qualifying and Saturday’s Sprint. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not pointing out what sources say. The actual prose according to what happened and grammar tense is wrong. Why reporting sprint sessions above (Bearman replaced Magnussen for FP1 and sprint sessions, sprint qualifying and sprint) if only after sprint qualifying it was confirmed that Bearman would replace Magnussen for the whole weekend? Island92 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Per what happened Bearman replaced Magnussen in FP1 and sprint qualifying (friday). After sprint qualifying the confirmation he would stand for the whole weekend, rather than he was going the replace him in sprint qualifying and sprint too in any case. Island92 (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Albon

@SSSB:, @5225C: Stroll was entered in SGP 2023 but later withdrew due to a crash in qualifying. Efn note used for this. Why that cannot be the case for Albon in Brazil? Williams confirmed his withdrawal due to too damage on the car. Island92 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• You could just check the FIA documents and see that Stroll was withdrawn and did not appear on the starting grid or race classification, while Albon appeared on the grid and is explicitly labelled as DNS in the race classification. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ok clear. Island92 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. A withdrawn driver does not appear on the starting grid and their spot isn't left vacant at the start.Tvx1 00:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In drivers and constructors standings the Belgian Grand Prix is shortened to Beautiful

Is there a reason why in both standings for the Belgian Grand Prix it says Beatiful and not Bel? I dont know how to change it as I cant find the word in the text code when in editor... Valvs (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Valvs: It appears as "BEL" to me. DH85868993 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks normal to me too. Do you have an auto-translator browser extension that is getting confused? Jestal50 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Looks fine to me. MSalmon (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Race director

@Island92 and Stewikiaman1: can you please justify mentioning there is a new race director (either here or at 2024 Las Vegas Grand Prix)? It shouldn't change the management of the event, and is therefore WP:ROUTINE, non-notable news. Wikipedia does not report on routine WP:news. And before you mention that we did similar things with the Whiting/Masi and Masi/Wittich switches: neither of these were routine. Whiting died hours before the event was due to start and Masi was replaced following major controversy. This, however, is not routine, and is therefore not notable for an encylopedia. SSSB (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What are you missing is a change in the routine worth mentioning, as was the case in 2022. So why in 2022 the introduction of Wittich was mentioned and now it cannot be the case for Rui Marques? Island92 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I just explained how this is different to the Masi/Wittich switch in 2022. Masi was replaced because of his involvement in several controversies in 2021 - this is what made it worth mentioning. This is not the case for Wittich leaving. So comparing 2022 and now is like comparing applies and oranges. And this "change in the routine" is not worth mentioning - partly because there is no change in routine. Only in personnel. This is why it is routine news. Wikipedia does not report routine news. SSSB (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, was it our fault for Masi several controversies in 2021 and replaced? Reported. Secondly, was it our fault that Wittich decided to leave with immediate effect and replaced? Reported. Today Alpine new deal with Mercedes for power units in 2026. According to you, we should not report that as Alpine routine was to run Renault engines, right? It doesn't make any sense. Island92 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I honestly cannot understand how you make that out from their words… Tvx1 20:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what WP:ROUTINE is. SSSB (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I second SSSB. This is not the place to mention this. It should be mentioned in the articles of the people involved. This change is not a consequence of a 2024 WC event. It‘s only tagentially related. And why on earth you kept framing it as a regulation change is beyond me. Tvx1 20:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Photo choice

Option A

Option B

Option C

Between the options presented, which is best for the lead. My preference would be Option C, which best displays both the Red Bull logo and his face, the two important elements of the image that's purpose is to represent the WDC leader. Starting this discussion after Tvx1 re-instated their edit (Option B) after I restored the original image (Option A) . Cerebral726 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed, C. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option B - with McLaren being the leader of the constructors, there's absolutely no reason to include the Red Bull branding in the image of the leader of the drivers. I would've thought this was obvious. I also think Option B is more aesthetically pleasing (apart from having to see Verstappen's face 🤣). I'd also eliminate the text of who Verstappen is driving for, as that is redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I find that Option B with different McLaren photo is even better. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option B. The image is for the Drivers' Championship leader. The logo on his race suit is not relevant. Which team he drives for isn't relevant. The only thing that's relevant is that he is leading the championship. All other information (whether it is presented in the image, or the caption) is not relevant, and should not be mentioned. Also, why have we moved from this image? This image is better. SSSB (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • If everyone thinks B is better, so B it, but strong disagree that that fossilised picture is better than the new one. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. There are two images, one each for the leaders of each championship. Just like we don‘t give attention to the driver of the car in the WCC leader picture, we don‘t need draw attention to the constructior in the WDC leader picture. As for a direct reply to SSSB questioning the switch of picture, I actually think the new one is better. The background is better, not black, it‘s more recent by a whole seven years and we should actually embrace having a good quality picture from the season in question. Tvx1 00:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option B has the best picture for Verstappen in my opinion (not necessary to show the rest of him!). I think it's a very good photo to use as well (especially as it's more recent). I do however think that the photo of the McLaren isn't ideal, something closer to a 3 quarter angle would look better but I haven't looked at what other photos are available. A7V2 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• This better?Tvx1 07:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Option B with different McLaren photo

• Yes that's much better I think. I would definitely support changing the McLaren image to that one. A7V2 (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe the ideal choice would be cropping the photo slightly less with a more suitable aspect ratio (1:1 just doesn't look right). The current one looks odd. Strong disagree that we should revert to the 2017 photo, can hardly tell it's him now, the new photo is of fantastic quality and clarity. Mb2437 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You are free to make a new cropping of the original picture and place your propsed version of the pair of images here.Tvx1 18:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking back on it, Option C is by far the best option. As there is no clear precedent favouring a single style, both aesthetic and clarity should be considered. The proportions simply look wonky with B—his head is actually larger than the McLaren—and doesn't serve to increase the clarity of C by a whole lot, his face is clear to see in both. Mb2437 (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that argument is nonsense. I think it is very obvious that the two images are not to scale. The only proporions worth worrying about are the proportions within each individual image. Neither images has been stretched or manipulated in any way (besides cropping) and therefore the proportions not only look fine, but are perfectly accurate. SSSB (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean the size of the focal point of image A to image B is almost comical with option B, I find it to be an aesthetic clash as a graphic designer but that seems to be just me. Option B draws considerably more attention to Verstappen than it does to the McLaren, where it should be balanced. Mb2437 (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your perspective Mb2437. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Reduced the aspect ratio of option B here, slightly less dramatic whilst still remaining a headshot. Mb2437 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Highlighting Sprint Races on the standings table

I've noticed, as a casual user, that when reading the season page, it's hard to tell which races will have sprints without either scrolling to the top of the page or hovering over a note which can be easy to miss. I wonder if it would make sense to highlight the cells of sprint weekends in blue (possibly along with a dagger) so readers could tell at a glance which weekends had/will have sprints. If there's something I missed that would make this an inefficient, clunky, or unnecessary solution, please let me know. Vinnie927 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The sprint events are listed before the table in the calendar section. The only place where it is relevant is the results matrixs - but it is only relevent there after the sprint has taken place and then the superscript numbers make it pretty obvious. SSSB (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Jack Doohan: Car number for Abu Dhabi 7 or 61?

I've noticed that Jack Doohan's car number for 2024 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to be 61 on the page despite him choosing car number 7 for 2025. It has been 3 seasons since the last holder of car number 7 (Kimi Räikkönen) retired from F1 therefore the number becomes available for 2024 under the current rules. Pikachu3408 (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, but you need to apply for a number. And Doohan's application for 7 was for 2025. So I'm not sure that its as simple as going "he has number 7 for next year, so he will use 7 now". For starters, that is WP:OR. Secondly, if my expirence with Bureaucracy has taught me anything, it won't translate over so smoothly. Personally, I think a footnote is required here: Alpine has stated that Doohan will race with Alpine's reserve number of 61.[source] Doohan is due to race with a career number of 7 in the 2025 season.[source] Or something of that ilk. SSSB (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would you need to attach that sort of explanation? The entry list will state the number he enters with and that's the number we will list. There's no internal inconsistency on this article, any sort of note would only need to be included on Doohan's article (probably in the infobox). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the entry list hasn't come out yet, has it. So currently there is ambiguity about which number he will race with because Alpine say 61, but he previously confirmed that he has a career number of 7. Ergo, a note is required at this stage to clarify the situation. Notes are not for inconsistency within articles. They are to provide clarity. SSSB (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's unsourced it shouldn't be in the article. There is nothing unclear about the content in this article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So, you're just ignoring everything I said in my last comment? SSSB (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The only authoritative source is the entry list, which you don't have. So it shouldn't be in the article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, in that case let's get rid of the 61, because that doesn't appear in an entry list. And all the content in the entry table at 2025 Formula One World Championship and 2026 Formula One World Championship, because there is no entry list for those seasons at all. SSSB (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't help but feel you're being deliberately disingenuous. There's a TBC for the round (because there's no entry list), even though that's significantly less ambiguous than his number. Seems like there's a pretty straightforward solution to this ambiguity which doesn't require any sort of speculative note-making. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about why the table looks the way it does. That TBC has nothing to do with ambiguity. It based on the fact that intending to enter a driver is not the same as actually entering them. There is also nothing speculative about "Alpine have stated that Doohan will race with number 61. Doohan has previously said he will race with a career number of 7." Both those sentnces are sourced. If you think either of those sentences are speculative, you had better go and remove the respective number from those articles. SSSB (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You want it both ways. intending to enter a driver is not the same as actually entering them, and, believe it or not, intending to enter with a number is not the same as actually entering with a number. The way you handle this situation is you remove the ambiguous information until the point where a definitive answer is provided, which is obviously not expected to be indefinite. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"intending to enter with a number is not the same as actually entering with a number." then why are you supported a revision which shows Doohan definitively entering with #61? Not accepting that they could enter with #7. SSSB (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I was exceptionally clear that the number shouldn't be there at all if it's ambiguous. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you haven't. This is the first time you have expressed this opinion. Meanwhile, the ambiguity is between two numbers, so it is perfectly reasonable for us to mention that in the article via a note. The same way we do with all other ambiguities (like when the fastest qualifier gets a grid penalty). SSSB (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand the problem here. Alpine is more than authoritive enough as source for him using the number 61 this weekend. His contract as a full time driver only starts in 2025 and thus his right to use number 7 as well. Nothing ambiguous here. And if the argument is that there is not enough guarantee pf him entering, Doohan shouldn't be listed at all. As long as he's listed, so should number 61 be. Tvx1 19:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes I did, multiple times: If it's unsourced it shouldn't be in the article, There's a TBC for the round (because there's no entry list), even though that's significantly less ambiguous than his number. Seems like there's a pretty straightforward solution to this ambiguity which doesn't require any sort of speculative note-making, The way you handle this situation is you remove the ambiguous information until the point where a definitive answer is provided. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Contemporary Moral Issues

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2025 and 18 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aryan Thakrar (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Maduromuller.a, Ntran1613.

— Assignment last updated by Ntran1613 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)