Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Lap leader charts

During the GA review of 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, the reviewer Saskoiler suggested a caption to be added for the lap leader chart. I do not really consider this necessary and I also do not know if it is technically possible, so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, why would we need a caption? The "Lap Leader" title I think makes it clear enough, we'd just be repeating that surely? CDRL102 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tires brought for a Grand Prix.

Would it be beneficial to include the tires brought by Pirelli to each Grand Prix similar to this. Personally I think this would be an improvement so then the article can talk about seperate tyre compounds without having to constantly expalin the different drivers using different tires, however, I thought it would be constructive to discuss this first. SSSB (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea, I think with the terminology used in the weekend reports it would help those less knowledgeable/well-versed in Formula 1 understand the impact of the different tyre compounds. Do we know if there are icons for the new tyre compounds beyond the ones used in that article? Formulaonewiki (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It also appears in the corrosponding aticles in French, Spanish and Italian and it also appears in the other race reports in those languages (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Pr%C3%AAmio_de_M%C3%B4naco_de_2018). As i said earlier I think it would be beneficial. SSSB (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Or would it be more usefull to link each mention of tires to Formula One tyres#Tyre summary. SSSB (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

e.g. For the 2018 Monaco Grand Prix it would look something like this

Tires for this race

Compound name	Colour		Tread	Driving conditions	Grip	Durability
Hypersoft		Pink	Slick	Dry	3 – Most grip	1 – Least durable
Ultrasoft		Purple			2	2
Supersoft		Red			1 – Least grip	3 – Most durable
Intermediate		Green	Treaded	Wet (light standing water)	—	—
Wet		Dark Blue		Wet (heavy standing water)	—	—

I think this would be better than linking to Formula One tyres#Tyre summary as this gives a clear indicaation to the tires available for each race. SSSB (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Our race reports used to have a background section which mentioned which tyres Pirelli supplied during the weekend in question (e.g. here, here, here). I don't know why these aren't present anymore, but obviously they should be. I'm opposed to using a table with icons or colors as these don't really serve to improve the understanding of the article in question since the tyres are not visually present anywhere else in the articles. Moreover, there are readers who can only see some colors or even none at all.Tvx1 11:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the colors, that could be removed, however, I still think that the table is better as it shows it clearer than simlpy listing and as I said before it makes it clear that the implications of using different tires are. SSSB (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I still think that takes a lot of space for something than can be simply conveyed in two or three sentences.Tvx1 18:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the examples you provided is that there is no indication of the implication of the tire. A reader with no prior knowledge of F1 is not going to know how the hypersoft, ultrasoft and supersoft difer without an explanation, if you coveyed it in a sentence(s) it is likly to sound something like this

"Pirelli brought the hypersoft, ultrasoft and supersoft to this grand prix for dry driving conditions, the supersoft has the least grip and the most durabillity and the hypersoft has the most grip but is the least durable with the ultrasoft having the midddle ground both in terms of durabillity and grip, pirelli also brought the intermediate tire for light standing water conditions and the full wet for heavy standing water conditions."

Personally, I think this information could be conveyed a lot clearer in a table as seen above. SSSB (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Prose is always preferable to tables. This table adds nothing that prose cannot. It's also a very large table that conveys very little information. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys. A table takes lots of space for little added information. We don't need to re-explain what a tyre compound is in every race report. We have wikilinks for that. We can provide wikilinks to the article on formula one tyres and to the relevant part of the glossary of motorsports terms. Many of our race report have received Good Article or even Featured Article status with the information on the provided tyres being simply presented in prose.Tvx1 12:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I at least think we should include the table in the season report and then we can link back to that in race reports, the problem with linking directly to Formula One tyres#Tyre summary is that it only shows the tyre compounds for the current season meaning that if F1 returned to remove tyre compounds from its range Formula One tyres would not be as helpful as readers wouldn't know where the tyre fitted in the range. SSSB (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The championship article is not a suitable place for such a table, either. The whole idea of a table is unnecessary and the "grip" and "durability" entrirs should be expressed as a function—but even then, the grip and durability are often affected by the circuit surface, atmospheric conditions and car setup. It seems to be included for the sake of having it, which is the worst possible reason to have it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Tables should never be used as a substitution for straightforward well-written text. Tables should only be used where the topic is too complicated to be explained simply. --Falcadore (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Daniil Kvyat's importance?

We have rated Kvyat to be of high importance (seeTalk:Daniil Kvyat) is this because it has not been updated since he stopped as a regular F1 driver because if not I would have to argue against this as I would rate him to be low importance as defined by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Assessment or mid importance due to him being Ferrari development driver. If it is genuine could someone please explain why.SSSB (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly low importance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Changed by User:Falcadore. SSSB (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Other drivers who scored podiums in F1 are mid-importance. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Assessment#Importance scale:

Article type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Drivers	Multiple world championships	World champions or 10+ wins or Current driver	2+ wins or 10+ podiums	Others

indicates his article should be rated low importance. DH85868993 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Standardisation of season report importance

Currently on the Importance scale there is no giudelines of how to rate the importance this causes a problem where the seasons importnace is currently as follows:

• Top - 1994, 2015
• High - 1950-1952, 1983, 1989, 2006-2010
• Mid - 1982, 1991, 2003-2005, 2011
• Low - The rest.

Personally, I can't see a system in use here and I think it important that we find one.

If we put any possible suggestions below and then we can see which we prefer

SSSB's suggestion

This is my suggestion but feel free to add your own

SSSB's suggestion

top	high	mid	low
1950 and current season	First win for constructor or driver	other	next season

SSSB (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Corvus tristis's suggestion

top	high	mid	low
1950 and current season	Seasons with major sporting and technical regulation changes (2009, 2010, 2014, etc)	other	next season

Corvus tristis (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So your suggestion is that the importance of the sporting events during the season should have no influence on the importance of season articles? Seasons like 1970, 1993 and 1982 which featured the deaths of major title protagonists, or 1980 and again 82 which saw peak events in the conflict between FISA and FOCA, or 1991, 1976, 1995, 1958, 2008 or 2010 where we saw high profile conflicts between drivers for the title or 1955 where a major upheaval in the sport - the Le Mans disaster - saw the cancellation of several Grands Prix?

Wikipedia is driven by notability, and sporting conflicts have been given greater notability in the public sphere rather than changes to technical regulations. For further example, 1966 the return to power, saw the major teams perform in an underwhelming fashion and they were embarrassed by a smaller team who intelligently but unspectularly won the title through efficiency while incompetance and inability to build quality cars blighted others. 1966 is primarily remembered for trivia - the champion winning the title in his own car rather than someone elses. 1967 is better remembered for the first Cosworth - again trivia - 1968 the death of Clark it would not be until the 1970s that the return to power finally delivered on the major technical change it had promised in '66 with a competitive season between several teams and drivers. --Falcadore (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the point of the whole discussion is that we need a clear criteria for high-level importance articles, as now we have a disorder with the season report importance. Maybe your proposal is better (my proposal contains only one criterion, which is not enough, ideally it should be a few criteria and if the article meet at least two of them than it should have a high importance status), but it should be summarised to become a criteria. Because "high profile conflicts" is very subjective. Why you have omitted 2007 which had three drivers, competing for the title till the last race, change to the monotyre supplier which reshuffled the constructors' standings and the Spygate? P.S. 1994 season featured the death of major title protagonist, not 1993.Corvus tristis (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: and @Falcadore:, you both have very good points which should be considered but the problem is that both of your suggestions are quite subjective (when does a minor technical regulation change become a major one), furthermore having read the discussion thus far I think that a combination of the discussed would be the best way to go about it, but untill you both remove the high levels of subjectiveness from your proposals I fear that we may be unable to reach a difinitive consensus and if you are unable to remove the subjectivness I fear that we may need to go through and discuss the importance of each season independently, (should be done here to avoid clogging this up).

Untill then are we in agreement that 1950 should be top importance and 2019 should be low? SSSB (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and as you said in the first place the current one also should be have the top importance. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Importance is a subjective word. Clear criteria will always be impossible. --Falcadore (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Drivers for example had quite clear criteria. The season reports also can have clear criteria. Of course, there is always some level of subjectivity, but the goal is to reduce it with the criteria, which is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative Suggestion

top	high	mid	low
1950 and current season	Last race title decider (1994, 2010, 2014, etc)	other	next season

It would mean the criteria would be defined and not subjective. The red link was deleted a few years ago so I put my suggestion here. (Mobile mundo (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC))

Points distribution tables removes

During the last few hours Mark McWire has been unilaterally removing the points distribution tables from the F1 season articles. I raise this here because I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. I'm under the impression that it always has been our goal to create self-explanatory independent articles which do not force our readers to have to go to another article to understand a part of it. Any thought?Tvx1 22:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple points scoring systems that have been used throughout the sport's history. Putting the table in the championship article presents the most relevant system to the reader. Without the inclusion of the table in the article, the results matricies may be indecipherable to the casual reader because it is unclear how the points tally is calculated given that the matrix only shows the results for each race, not the points scored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s exactly what I was thinking as well.Tvx1 23:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I also think the changes should be reverted. It makes more sense to me to have the tables easily accessible in the season summary articles rather than directing the reader off to a separate article. DH85868993 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, they should be reverted to avoid confusion and stop people from having to go on to separate articles. SSSB (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the removals.Tvx1 18:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to race report templates

For several years now, WP:F1 has followed a policy of assigning flagicons to venues rather than Grands Prix in championship articles. They look like this:

Round	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix	Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne	25 March

Rather than this:

Round	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix	Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne	25 March

The justification for this has always been that some races do not take place in "countries"—the European Grand Prix and Caesars Palace spring to mind. However, Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report continues this practice despite the policy being different elsewhere. For example:

2018 French Grand Prix
Race 8 of 21 in the 2018 Formula One World Championship ← Previous race Next race →
Layout of the Circuit Paul Ricard
Race details
Date	{{{Full_date}}}

So I think we should make some changes to this infobox, based on some of the parameters in Template:Infobox rally. The infobox would now look like this:

2018 French Grand Prix Pirelli Formula 1 Grand Prix de France 2018
Round 8 of 21 in the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship ← Previous event Next event →
Layout of the Circuit Paul Ricard

In terms of the detail, it's really just the blue-grey box at the top of the rally report infobox that I'm looking to insert into the Grand Prix race report; everything else would remain the same. I think it's a neater solution than the current layout and one that is consistent with other WP:F1 policies. I have asked @DH85868993 and he seems to think that a few tweaks to the markup will make the changes without needing to manually overhaul the infoboxes in the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection about flagicon removal, but i'm not sure if there is a proper reason for the use of the the blue-grey box at the top. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It gives equal weight to the common name and the formal title (some of the primary references that we include, such as qualifying and race results, use the full title) and addresses formatting issues. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: To clarify: Are you proposing that the "Official name" field should be moved from the body of the infobox to the blue-grey box at the top? DH85868993 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing. That and removing the flagicons. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I support removing the flagicons since they are often confusing (e.g. European Grand Prix using only one flagicon even though race has taken place in five different countries) and removing the caption above the infobox. I'm not in favor of squeezing the official name of the race in the infobox header. It looks very cluttered and is just not necessary. The infobox already has a suitable place for the official name. The header should be just that. A header explaining what the infobox deals with and not a place to squeeze the most commonly used names into.Tvx1 12:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Except they are the most commonly-used names. We already use them in the opening sentence of the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — I think there is enough support here to justify some of the changes. We can definitely remove the flagicons, and the blue-grey box would correct some of the display issues. I still think there is merit in the dual titles, although that may require further discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Formula One circuits

An editor has questioned whether it would be worth splitting Category:Formula One circuits into sub-categories for current circuits and former circuits. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Article nominated for speedy deletion

FYI, Fantasy F1 has been nominated for speedy deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Max Verstappen's nationality

Hi,

Britmax and an IP address 82.217.164.86 user have decided that Max Verstappen is only Dutch and not Belgian-Dutch without discussion of any kind while it's referenced that he has two nationality. I would like to know your opinion on this one and what we should do about it and if we should request for comment.RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear-cut in my view. He's Dutch-Belgian (or Belgian-Dutch, whatever your preference is). The article contains a reliable source that quotes Jos Verstappen saying that he is Dutch-Belgian/Belgian-Dutch. The reason he is solely listed as Dutch in the championship and race articles is because his racing licence was issued by the Dutch motorsport body. It's no different to Nico Rosberg being German-Finnish and racing under a German licence. If you want a more extreme version, look at 2018 FIA Formula 3 European Championship, where half a dozen drivers compete under licences issued by sporting bodies other than their native one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Formula 3 and Formula 1 are not comparable. Formula One is a World Championship and the FIA has a specific rule for their World Championships stating that drivers must use a nationality matching (one of) their passport nationalit(y)(ies). That's what happened with Verstappen and Rosberg. They are dual nationals and were so when they first entered F1 and as a result where requested to choose one nationality to represent. The exact same thing currently applies to Romain Grosjean who is Franco-Swiss.Tvx1 13:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's clear-cut for me too, and the reference to him being Belgian-Dutch should be left as it stands right now. RafaelS1979 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Formula 3 and Formula 1 are not comparable. Formula One is a World Championship and the FIA has a specific rule for their World Championships stating that drivers must use a nationality matching (one of) their passport nationalit(y)(ies)."

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not unheard-of for there to be a discrepancy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

New image

I think a new image of the Red Bull Ring is needed. The image of the 9-turn RBR is still used, even if the 10-turn "configuration" has been used for quite a long time now. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

2014 and 2015 teams and drivers tables

Why we have entirely different tables for just two seasons? The format of the tables haven't proved by the time as it was dropped after 2015. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — those two tables contain the sortable function. When the new numbering system was introduced in 2014, there was extensive debate as to how best to organise the table. Ultimately we opted to arrange the table alphabetically by constructor and then numerically by driver (except in the case of a mid-season driver change). The sortable function was added to give readers flexibility, but because some cells (like drivers) are one cell high and others (like the entrant) are two cells high, the sortable function was not working. The format of those tables is a result of trying to find a solution to the problem.

As for why it was discontinued, I think it's down to the markup. It's some of the most complex markup I have seen on Wikipedia (outside templates) and very easy to break. It's also a real deterrent to new editors taking part (it's one thing to use complex markup to dissuade vandalism, but those tables took it too far). With no apparent tangible benefit to it, it was easier to go back to the old style than to retain it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder whether you really know anything about the markup. It’s not complex at all. The only difference is that it contains class=“wikitable sortable” instead of class=“wikitable”. The rest of those tables use the same basic markup elements as the others, albeit much less of them. There is only one row per constructor and there are no “rowspan”’s in them.Tvx1 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm on the Prisonermonkeys' side on this. The sortable format is messier (it has nothing common with the knowledge of the markup) and harder for editing unlike the format that we use in the most of the seasons. I guess that we can at least do a survey, about do we still need the sortable format for the tables or not. I agree that for the time when it was a transition for the new number system it was a good solution. But is the situation is the same for now? Corvus tristis (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"The only difference is that it contains class=“wikitable sortable” instead of class=“wikitable”"

There's a multitude of additional markup, such as "data-sort-value". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — I'm not sure a vote is necessary. I think we can chalk it up to an edit-consensus and remove the sortable function from the 2014 and 2015 tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)