Talk:2020 Turkish Grand Prix

Lewis Hamilton quotes provide context about why the harder tyres are a problem on the smoother track surface

If you can find some better way of explaining this than the included quotes then revise the article to show that. The quotes from Lewis (who I think it is fair to assume can be considered an expert on the subject) explain the tyre temperature issue. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:183B:9A80:C175:A5D6 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The quote is unnecessary. We can simply put a sentence that drivers were struggling with tyre temperatures. We dont need a Hamilton quote.
SSSB (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That is actually a far neater and easier to understand wording, thank you. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:183B:9A80:C175:A5D6 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

'Entrants' section needs work

A reader without any existing background knowledge may read this section as it is currently worded and click through to the 2020 page and come to the conclusion that Racing Point have 3 cars entered for Pérez, Stroll, and Hülkenberg. Obviously it's not a major issue, but it stands out as presenting at least some potential to cause confusion. I don't know exactly how I would reword it, but it likely could be clearer, especially since qualifying and the race haven't yet taken place so a reader can't just scroll down to the results tables to get the information. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:183B:9A80:C175:A5D6 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, this article clearly identifies itself as round 14 and the entry table on 2020 Formula One World Championship clearly identifies that the only Racing Point drivers entered are Pérez and Stroll into round 14. So long as the readers reads carefully I don't see how there could be any confusion. And if they arent reading carefully, that's on them.
SSSB (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Latifi

Why did he start the race from the pit lane? Does anyone know the reason?--Island92 (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Because he was in the pit lane after the pit lane was closed. The question you want to ask is "Why was he in the pit lane when the pit exit closed"
SSSB (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that really pedantic but I thought it should be made clear after an editor put that Russell started from the pit lane because his wing broke which isn't directly accurate.
SSSB (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. But, which reason do we have to report for Latifi because of starting from the pit lane?--Island92 (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't have one. I daresay Latifi will tell us in post-race interviews.
SSSB (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find anything about it.--Island92 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Compiling potential sources for expanding this article

As the race in which Lewis Hamilton clinched his seventh World Drivers' Championship (let alone the dramatic circumstances of the race itself), it stands to reason that this article will likely remain one of the most important race report articles within the scope of WP:F1. Thus, I have decided that it may be pertinent to compile a list of potential references which could be cited in the expansion of this article.

These may also be relevant if the article is expanded greatly:

References

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Source for race distance?

The race distance is given to 6 significant figures, but I can't find a citation in the references which lists this. If the race distance is just being derived by multiplying the length of the circuit by the number of laps, then the number of significant figures should be maintained at 4. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added a source for race distance.
SSSB (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The source seems to be deriving the race distance by multiplying the length of the lap (given to 4 significant figures) by the number of laps. If so, we should probably maintain the number of significant figures from the lap length. Giving the race distance to 6 significant figures would be the equivalent of listing the length of the lap in centimetres. Also, since factors like starting position and going through the pitlane would bring the maximum variation in race distance between hypothetical cars which stick perfectly to the centreline of the track to several hundred metres anyway it's honestly misleading to list the race distance so precisely. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Race distance is the distance from pole to the finish. There is nothing misleading about listing 6 significant figures and there is no mathematical basis for not listing 6 significant figures. We are maintaing the accuracy by listing lengths to the nearest cm and I see no problem with doing that. Also note that the ref doesn't just multiple distance by number of laps as pole (de facto start line) and the finish line are off-set. By your argument the track length is misleading as cars don't take the precise center line around the track, nor do they take the same line every time. Also take a look at the official F1 site:[1] which lists to 6 sig fig.
SSSB (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, yes, the track length arguably is misleading. However it is at the very least verifiable. Scientific standards dictate that when measurements are made the number of significant figures the original measurement was made to should be maintained since after a sufficient number of calculations adding significant figures which weren't originally there can create inaccuracies. Again, measuring the track length in metres but then using that (and the offset, yes) to derive a total race length as if the track was measured in centimetres is unscientific. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is sceintific or not is irrelevant. However it is at the very least verifiable. - I don't know what your impling but all the sources which I have ever seen (including the race broadcast) use 6 sig fig making the race distance verifiable. I therefore see no reason why we shouldn't just because we don't like the degree of error. Also can I please have a source for this unscientific claim because I never heard it before and from a mathemtical point of view that arguement doesn't add up (no pun intended). Likewise the Giving the race distance to 6 significant figures would be the equivalent of listing the length of the lap in centimetres. doesn't make any sense given tnat three decimal place with km corrosponds to metres, not cm.
SSSB (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that 3 decimal places is fine, as all measurements are to the nearest metre. Also, 5.338 x 58 = 309.604, so they haven't just used multiplication to get the race length- they've clearly factored in that the finish line is at the back of the grid, and the start line at the front of the grid. So see no need to make the race length less precise than the source. Also, we publish what sources say- if the sources are wrong (which in this case they don't appear to be), that's the sources problem to fix, and not ours. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Decimal places are not the same thing as significant figures. Significant figures represent the total number of figures you count to before you stop counting (the actual length of the track and therefore the race is presumably a fractal). It doesn't really matter, but by scientific standards if the sources are giving the length of the race in metres then they would have to have measured the length of the track in centimetres. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I know what significant figures are but this: if the sources are giving the length of the race in metres then they would have to have measured the length of the track in centimetres isn't true completely accurate, it would be nearest 10.
SSSB (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait yeah, that's right. Sorry, I was getting confused with a time I had the same discussion about race distances at Le Mans where that would be the number of significant figures. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Pre-race section?

Is there enough information about what happened before the start of the race to warrant a separate pre-race section. Covering Russell and Giovinazzi's offs may be more appropriate in such a section, as may information about the weather conditions and the championship permutations. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Championship permutations belongs in background section. I think the best way to approach it is to write it and then make a judgement call on whether the section is sufficiently long to warrant it's own subheading.
SSSB (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Necessity of using images from the Grand Prix itself?

It's somewhat doubtful that any free images will become available from the Grand Prix itself as it was held behind closed doors. Would general images taken elsewhere in time and space be acceptable to illustrate this article? Obviously if freely licenced images of an acceptable quality do become available that would be great. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

How would an image not taken at the event be relevant to the event's article?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Does a photograph of Lewis Hamilton with the caption "Lewis Hamilton (pictured) won the Grand Prix and the World Drivers' Championship" need to be one from the event? Similarly for a picture illustrating the car he drove. Obviously only a few basic illustrative images (at most a photo of Lance Stroll in the qualifying report (and possibly a picture of the Racing Point RP20) and a picture of Lewis Hamilton in the race report (or at the top of the article) and a picture of the Mercedes W11) could be justified if they weren't images taken at the event. A photograph illustrating the Istanbul Park circuit also probably wouldn't need to be from the event itself. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't strictly necessary to have images to illustrate an article, so the usefulness of generic images purely for the sake of illustration is questionable.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible is part of the good article criteria. You could add an image of Stroll from 2018 (with caption:Lance Stroll got his first pole position) and it would be perfectly acceptable. Any images need only be relevant, they do not need to be from the event or even from this year.
SSSB (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't worry me either way, but I do not see the purpose in using images not from an event to illustrate those involved in the event. Simply because there are images that could be used doesn't make those images useful.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

As the MOS articulates better than me, are the images "significant and relevant in the topic's context", or are they "primarily decorative"? There isn't any reader value added by having a picture of, for example, a W11 simply because Hamilton drove a W11 in this race.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Going to have to question that claim. To a reader who watches F1 in 2020 there may not be any obvious benefit to having a picture of a W11 in the article, but to a reader who has never seen an F1 race before a picture of the car which was driven to the race victory could provide them with far more context than they would otherwise be able to get about what kind of race this was. A picture says a thousand words and all that. Similarly a reader with no background knowledge of F1 may not recognise Lewis Hamilton by name, but may immediately recognise who he is from news reports or whatever by seeing his picture in the article. Obviously after a point adding pictures just becomes either decorative or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but having a picture which illustrates what sort of car was used to win the race or who the bloke that one the world championship is would not constitute that. Like it or not, this is a very significant race in F1 history, as Hamilton matched Schumacher's title record here. It will likely see significantly more page views than other contemporaneous articles for some time to come. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Race reports aren't about cars or drivers, they're about the race. In those contexts, it would be quite important to understand what the car/driver looks like, that's essential to understanding the subject no matter your background. However, there aren't any images depicting this race. So what's the relevance of generic images, and more importantly, how is the reader's understanding of the race report frustrated by not knowing what drivers and cars look like? Unless they are adding some tangible value to the article, they are nothing more than decorative.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with HumanBodyPiloter5 here. The image doesn't have to be race specific to add value and I think that adding some images here would add value. We have a picture of Hamilton at 2020 Formula One World Championship. Take a look at 2014 Japanese Grand Prix a featured article. There is only one picture there that is event specific (the crashed car of Hamilton). Although the rest maybe from the event there is no way to verify this fact and the fact doesn't change the relevance of said images.
SSSB (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Some people are visual learners and take in information more easily when it is illustrated. Some people are dyslexic and may find the text easier to read if it has relevant illustrations. I could go on. There's a reason why illustrative images are considered a necessity for good or featured articles. As SSSB also just mentioned, a quick look at featured articles on Grands Prix reveals that most of them use images which are not from the event themselves if free images of a high enough quality from that event are not available. Please also remember that we are not writing an article for existing F1 fans who know what an F1 car looks like, or even what an F1 car is. Even if there aren't freely available images we can use to illustrate specific events from the race itself, we can still illustrate things like "what an F1 car is", "what Istanbul Park looks like, "what Lewis Hamilton looks like", etc. with images which were not taken at the event itself. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, there are three directly relevant pictures in 2014 Japanese Grand Prix article- Hamilton's crashed car, and the pictures of Hamilton's and Hulkenberg's cars in the race section. But I agree that generic pictures- such as our stock photos of Hamilton and Stroll- would be fine for this article. And way preferable to trying to use a fair use image of a specific car/person at this race. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but had those car pictures been taken at the 2014 Brazilian Grand Prix then those images would carry equal value, that's my point.
SSSB (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a picture book. Yes, background and contextualisation are important, I'm not disputing that. But as I have said, this is an article on a race, not a driver or a car. Knowing what those things look like is completely irrelevant to understanding the information the article is communicating, which is the events of the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix. I do not believe any value is being added and no justification has been provided for the usage of generic pictures in race reports. If you want to add generic pictures, I won't and can't stop you. Given it is only me dissenting, it is up to you what you add to the article and I won't involve myself further in this discussion.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Please remember that we are writing this article for a general audience

We have to assume that whoever is reading this article has little to no background knowledge. Thus, we have to explain things which may seem incredibly simple and basic to someone who is a fan of the sport with existing knowledge of it, such as the fact that Pirelli have the exclusive rights to supply Formula One tyres, because I can guarantee most people's immediate question upon reading that there was an issue with the Pirelli tyres would be to question why the teams didn't just use tyres from another manufacturer. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content about them being a sole supplier fails WP:VERIFY. And the linked article Formula One tyres makes it clear that they're a sole supplier, it's not directly relevant for this race. The point of see also is link(s) to articles with further information, so it doesn't need to be in this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The tyre supplier section already implies they are the sole supplier. "Tyre supplier pirelli..." I also disagree that people will ask that question. I think it is obvious that switching tyres with one day notice is inpractical/impossible and I don't think you need to know anything about F1 to come to that conclusion.
SSSB (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not just make the entire article consist of the words "the race was in Turkey and Lewis Hamilton won" then? If you can just link to other articles to explain stuff anyway? Or since we're dealing with links, why not just make the article a big list of sources? If you don't like the fact that I didn't immediately add a source to say "Pirelli are the sole tyre supplier" (which we both presumably know to be a fact), then why don't you go find one yourself rather than deleting content which makes the rest of the article make sense to a general audience? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just writing a thread on this, so I'll copy/paste it into here.
To start with, I believe the entire "Event format" section is completely useless. It doesn't matter what the sporting regulations for race distance are, it doesn't matter what days sessions were held on. This is information that should not be on a race report per established WikiProject practice. The fact Pirelli is the exclusive tyre manufacturer for F1 is not content a reader needs to see on a race report article. Even if one were to be reading about F1 for the first time, it is still relatively intuitive that if "Brand XXX supplied tyres W, Y, and Z for use" then those were the options available. If you believe a reader is clever enough to question why teams didn't switch tyre supplier, it stands to reason that they can under the implied exclusivity of the manufacturer. The number of drivers and teams is redundant, we have classification lists in the article (two, in fact!).
Yes, Wikipedia needs to be written for a broad audience, but not every article needs to contain all the information relevant to a subject. That's why we have wikilinks to other pages where the information is located. We are also not meant to assume readers are stupid, the average reader has the ability to interpret information and can most certainly click through to other pages to fill in the blanks.
To come to some sort of conclusion, I think we need to acknowledge that there is a reasonable limit to how much background content an article should contain, and in some cases on this page you are overdoing the level to which you break down background information.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, have to dispute the idea that "it is obvious that switching tyres with one day notice is impractical" since someone without background knowledge may just as likely think "well surely they can just go down to the local car repair centre and get some different tyres there". When hearing about this situation that's what my mother asked, and to me that's a pretty good litmus test of "this needs to be explained for a general audience". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussing exclusive tyre contracts in a race report is akin to explaining the theory of atomic structure in an article on hydrogen. It's unnecessary. Sure, not everyone will understand it, but articles refer to other articles for information. Look at a print encyclopedia and that's exactly what you'll see.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

HumanBodyPiloter5, but your mother didn't start by reading the tyres section on this page did she. The information already provided implies, rather heavily, that there is one tyre supplier and that those are the compunds available. Additionally, putting "Pirrelli are the sole tyre suppllier" doesn't awnser your mother's questions as the local car repair shop is quite likly to have Pirelli tyres. HumanBodyPiloter5, I have to agree that you are, in some places, inserting excessive detail, but, 5225C, I feel you are going too far in the other direction.
SSSB (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond the whole WP:NOTPAPER thing, this isn't a discussion of whether or not we should have a whole paragraph dedicated to the history of Pirelli's Formula One tyre supply contract, this is about having half a sentence which may make the rest of the article substantially easier to understand for general audiences without them having to dig through various links elsewhere to find that information. It doesn't even have to be half a sentence. It can literally just be the word "sole". I'd rather go for maximum clarity by using the half-sentence version, but I just want to make it clear to people why they couldn't just switch to using a different make of tyre. And how do you know my mother didn't? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER is not relevant to the point I am making. WP:DETAIL would be more useful in this case.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The addition fo the word "sole" is fine. In event that your contribution gets undone, we need to avoid edit warring a just open a thread here where we can work to some sort of compromise.
SSSB (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Session lengths

I much prefer the format you [SSSB] have implemented where the session is described in each individual section rather than one heading, but I still disagree that such excruciating detail is necessary for a reader to understand the race report. For example, is the length of each session important? Is it notable? I don't think so.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

excruciating detail - you and I have very different ideas of excruciating. For quali this detail is necessary. The Q1, Q2, Q3 notations aren't remotly intuitive. I see no reason not to mention session lengths.
SSSB (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Because the length of the session has no bearing on the understanding of the article.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say the length of the sessions is relevant. There's a very big difference between having ten hours of practice and having ten minutes of practice. We saw this at the 2020 Eifel Grand Prix when Nico Hulkenberg jumped in for qualifying without any practice. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's reported in reliable sources consistently. It's inherently notable by any definition which isn't just "I don't like it being in the article". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If I say to you (and any given reader) that "Nico Hulkenberg missed 4 hours of practice and then replaced Lance Stroll in a 45 minute qualifying round and subsequent race" then the exact same substance can be conveyed by saying "Nico Hulkenberg replaced Lance Stroll after the completion of practice and before qualifying". The length of his participation is irrelevant to the reader's understanding that he was disadvantaged by missing free practice. Articles are written for a general audience, not idiots, and the average person is not going to be confounded because the length of free practice wasn't explained in the race report. Ok, having a line about qualifying being broken into three sections is a reasonable inclusion, but why are the lengths of the sessions important? That's just being pedantic.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: in the article hierarchy on Formula One, where does event format go in the pyramid? It's general information, it goes at the top in the article on the series format. A race report is at the bottom, it's the the most specific sort of article we produce, and it does not need to include every bit of background information a reader might need to understand (all per WP:DETAIL).
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you're vastly overestimating the amount of detail people want to include. On this occasion free practice was unusually notable due to the unexpectedly slippery track conditions, and even then it still only warrants a paragraph. I will concede that the length of the free practice sessions may work better if just included as a footnote, but I still believe it's relevant information for understanding the event, especially as a reader with no background knowledge who read through the race reports for the last three race reports where practice was in all cases in some way modified (Friday running cancelled at Eifel, tyre testing in Portugal, two day schedule at Imola) may not necessarily know what to expect when they get to this one. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I find a footnote acceptable, but while I may overestimate the detail you want to include I think you overestimate the amount of detail readers need. This is an article on a race and should only contain content pertaining to the race, where possible readers should be referred to other articles for further detail and prerequisite knowledge.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Qualifying report

I'm wondering whether it might be better to trim the part in the prose regarding Albon and Ricciardo's qualifying positions out since it doesn't really add anything which isn't already in the results table. The other results which are mentioned are all given context whereas these two are just presented without any additional information. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, there is no point in having text needlessly repeat what is already in the tables
SSSB (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The Red Bull drivers' qualifying positions can definitely be expanded upon, as various sources note that being beaten by the Racing Points was an unexpected disappointment for the team. However I'm not sure whether commenting on Albon's qualifying position on top of commenting on Verstappen's would be fully necessary there. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Change to list defined references

Should the article be changed to use WP:LDR? It would probably make the text in the editor a lot less cluttered. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me...
SSSB (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sporting regulations are not relevant to the race report

@HumanBodyPiloter5: The reason for why a race was held over a certain number of laps is irrelevant to the reader's understanding of the article and does not relate to the content which this article is meant to convey. Simply because you have cited something does not mean it should be included.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's definetly relevant. The question you are looking at ask is: "Is it necessary to the reader's understanding of the article". I'm on the fence with this second question.
SSSB (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If you read any of the race report articles which have become featured articles or many of those which are listed as good articles you will find that they are generally very thorough in explaining many elements of Formula One because they are not written exclusively for people who have an existing knowledge of the subject. While it is important to convey information clearly and concisely, that is very different to not conveying information at all. Please try to read the article from the perspective of someone with no knowledge of Formula One before you start removing information. While in many cases it may be feasible to link elsewhere, after a point doing that would require a reader to read through countless different pages looking for the relevant information, likely overwhelming them; when that information can often be concisely articulated within the article in only a sentence, or sometimes even a word. It may seem obvious to you where to find information on a subject you already know about elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it almost certainly wont be to someone who does not have that knowledge. As a general rule I would say that if something needs at least a paragraph to explain a link elsewhere is almost certainly needed. But if only a sentence or two is needed then it can be incorporated into the article.

And please try to remember, just because you don't find information useful doesn't mean that other people wont find it useful. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it is irrelevant to the reader's understanding of the article. The race was held to 58 laps. Is that relevant? Yes. This distance was required because that is the minimum distance that exceeds 305 km. Is that relevant? No. It is not relevant. It is related, yes, but information being related does not mean it is relevant. And is it necessary for a reader's understanding of the article? Absolutely not. That is beyond question.
I can imagine very clearly being someone who does not know much about F1, having been in that position myself only a few years ago, and I can personally attest to never having being confused by why a race was run to a particular distance because it is explained right here on the season article. Readers are not idiots. They are not instantly confused because they haven't had a particular rule or contract or historical tidbit explained to them. There is a reasonable limit to how much information is required for a race report, and this level of background information is unnecessary and inappropriate for this type of article.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not implying that readers are idiots, but I also don't think readers are psychic. In the case of the why the race distance is a particular length I will agree that it can probably be relegated to a footnote, but I still believe that it is relevant information that a reader shouldn't be sent on a wild goose chase looking for. In the case of your removal of the alt-text from the aerial photograph shot however, I believe you removed extremely relevant information. There's no reason to expect that a reader should know that the race takes place on a paved course, for example, and a photo can convey that to sighted readers far more concisely than listing off large amounts of information about the race in the prose would. The alt-text should describe what the image shows, not just what the image is. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider any modern F1 car or engine. Their dimensions or configurations/displacements are largely determined by the technical regulations. On the respective articles, do you believe it is necessary to say that the car is X mm long because of Y regulation? The answer (for me, at least, and hopefully you as well) is no, because even though the information is related, it isn't necessary to discuss in the article because that isn't the subject. The same principles apply here.
In regards to the alt text, I accept that I removed too much in the case of the aerial photo and I apologise for that. My summary did not convey the meaning the photo was intended to and the alt text as you have it now is far better. In general however, I think we both have an understanding of what alt text is for, which is to convey meaning rather than appearance.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would expect the article on the Cosworth DFV to explain that it was introduced in response to a regulation change which saw the size of F1 engines increase from 1.5 litres to 3 litres, as an example. One could have a link to an article titled "History of Formula One engine regulations" or something to explain that instead, but it's far easier to present the small amount of information which is directly relevant to the subject of the article in the article itself than to send readers on a wild goose chase looking for the relevant information in another, broader article. Similarly with the race distance example, there's no reason to expect that a reader will know to go and look in the calendar section of the season article to find that information, and it's far easier to present that information as a few words in a footnote than to expect them to find it elsewhere. Again, there is a very big difference between presenting information concisely and not presenting information at all, or presenting it in a manner which is technically more "concise" within the article itself but more convoluted from an outsiders perspective. The point of Wikipedia is to share knowledge with the world. The article on hydrogen may not go into detail about everything one could possibly need to know about atomic structure, but it does at the very least say that a hydrogen atom has a proton and an electron which are held together by the electromagnetic force. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to note with the race length thing that in the grand scheme of things Formula One is quite unusual amongst motor racing series in that all the races (except Monaco) are the same length. For example in NASCAR, which in the Anglosphere is probably the second most popular car racing series, the race distances vary quite substantially, and an American reader may have no reason to not expect that to be the case. Having a short note about why the race is the length it is would seem appropriate in that context. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@HumanBodyPiloter5 and 5225C:, why a car is a certain length and the hydrogen having a proton and electron are both False equivalences
SSSB (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. They're both analogous situations to what is going on in this article. For example, it's assumed knowledge that if you're reading about hydrogen then you already understand the theory of atomic structure. Likewise, we should assume that if someone is reading a race report, they have a certain degree of background knowledge of the event format, the exclusivity of Pirelli, the number of entrants, and so on. The comparison with car lengths is an even better example, because dimensions and race distance are determined by the respective regulations. If it is possible to understand a car's article (and not the example provided by HumanBodyPiloter5, because that falls outside of the example I was making) without knowledge of the regulations behind it, it stands to reason one can understand a race report without understanding the regulations behind the race. If they are false equivalences, where is the fallacious reasoning here?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to go through all of the various articles that provide a more general overview of Formula One and reorganise them into something which is easier for readers to understand and doesn't have a bunch of random out of date information mixed in so that it's possible to link readers elsewhere easily without potentially confusing or overwhelming them, then feel free. Right now, while it is possible to link to some more obvious things like the season article to show what the entry list is for the race, someone who just wants to know about a specific race would have to read through multiple entire articles just in the hope of finding small amounts of background information which would make the article make more sense.

Splitting Formula One racing into an article which exclusively covers contemporary F1 and an article which covers the History of Formula One racing or something may be a good start, as at present most of that article confusingly mixes information about how F1 used to be with information about how F1 currently is often without making a clear delineation of what information is contemporary and what information is outdated.

And again, it is not actually more concise to provide people with a link to an entire article worth of information just to explain a concept which only needs five words to describe, even if it looks that way on the monitor of someone who already understands the concept. If something needs a whole paragraph to explain then it may be worth linking elsewhere, but most of this stuff warrants nowhere near that level of information.

There is a very big difference between saying "sole F1 tyre supplier Pirelli" and saying "since 2007 F1 has by regulation only had one tyre supplier, which until 2010 was Bridgestone but since 2011 has been Pirelli", and even that latter example is still actually pretty concise, even if the stuff about Bridgestone is irrelevant to a race in 2020 and should be removed. Whereas a more general article about Formula One tyres will include that information which is irrelevant to a race in 2020 because it is relevant to the more general subject of Formula One tyres. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That's actually a really good idea: rewrite Formula One racing to be more clear on current regulations and the event format, completely eliminating the need for them to be discussed in race reports because there will be a central source. I will begin that process next week and hopefully have it finished relatively quickly. After that, as you've said yourself, there will be no need to discuss sporting regulations or event formats or session lengths in the race report because we can simply have "See also: Formula One racing" at the top of the background section.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there would still be some need, just less of a pressing one. And again, even if the articles in question do wind up presenting information more clearly, that doesn't mean linking is always the best option.

For example with the tyres situation, knowing that Pirelli are the only makers of Formula One tyres and that Formula One cars use some sort of specialised tyres which are different to those used on road cars is all that someone needs to know for a race report to understand the more race specific details about tyres; and that's all conveyed by "sole Formula One tyre manufacturer Pirelli". Whereas if someone wants to know the how and why of Pirelli being the sole Formula One tyre manufacturer they can go to the article on Formula One tyres. "Pirelli bought these tyres" brings up a lot of questions which "sole Formula One tyre manufacturer Pirelli bought these tyres" doesn't. So it's about achieving a balance. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

My current concern is more over the inclusion of the session days/lengths, sporting regulations for distances, and qualifying mechanism, all of which could be removed from this report with a basic understanding of the Formula One format. But then again, I would expect Formula One racing to include a discussion of F1 tyres and how the allocation works, so that could also be cut back.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read the race report articles which have reached featured article status (or even some which are just good articles) before you get too overzealous cutting stuff back. This article should try to communicate everything someone needs to know to understand what happened at this race. While the exact length of the practice sessions may fall outside of that (since practice isn't very important anyway), the fact that the practice sessions took place on Friday and Saturday morning, qualifying on Saturday afternoon, and the race on Sunday afternoon is definitely relevant information a reader should not have to go to another article to find.

Again, most people do not already know this, and as Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia the assumption should be that this article is being written for most people. A common complaint I see people have about Wikipedia is that too often they're expected to read through entire separate articles just to find small amounts of relevant information which are necessary to properly understand something in the article about the thing they actually want to know about. The length of sessions and the regulation on race distance may be better served elsewhere (except in obvious odd cases like Imola this year), but for something which is essential to understanding the rest of the content (the qualifying format) or something which changes from race to race (tyre allocation) the information should quite obviously be in the article.

Again, it is far more concise from an uninformed reader's perspective to say "qualifying is split into three subsessions and after each subsession the slowest five cars had their qualifying positions set and were prevented from taking part in the next session" in the article itself than to link them to another article which goes into far greater detail which, while appropriate to that article, may be irrelevant to understanding what happened during the actual event. I will concede that the exact length of the subsessions likely is too much detail, but not a very concise description of what qualifying actually is.

To be clear, I am not arguing in favour of just indiscriminately adding information to the article. I removed the stuff about the Australian Grand Prix being cancelled from this article because that is actually completely tangential to the contents of this article. This article needs to provide reasonably comprehensive coverage of everything somebody might want to know about its subject in a fairly concise manner. Not just everything a Formula One fan might want to know. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've probably gotten more heated here than is necessary. To clarify, one of my biggest concerns with relying too heavily on links elsewhere is that unless done very carefully a large web of race reports and more general pages which need to be constantly updated (whenever regulations or the numbers of teams competing etc. changes) will wind up being created. With the entry list it's possible to link to the 2020 page because that solely covers the current season, however more general articles like Formula One racing or Formula One tyres are intended to cover the entire history of Formula One and therefore contain a large amount of information which is at best tangential to a given race report and likely wholly irrelevant.

While there are possible solutions to this, such as splitting up said articles into short subsections describing each relevant period of F1 history; such an action may reduce the utility of those pages in their own separate right and simply make them beholden to serving the needs of explanatory links from race reports.

This is why I ultimately find it impossible to come to the conclusion that it's not just easier to explain relevant information laconically in any given race report article. The 1985 South African Grand Prix taking place on a Saturday or FP1 and FP2 at the Monaco Grand Prix taking place on a Thursday are irrelevant to most race reports, but are relevant to the more general subject of when different sessions take place.

That being said, many of those broader articles do generally need to be updated and restructured, and if that can be done in a way in which it is possible to link readers to them from race reports without forcing readers to sort through tangential or irrelevant information then that would be very useful. I just think it's likely to wind up proving a Sisyphean task. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)