Jump to content

Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo choice

[edit]
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) [1]. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, C. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Option B with different McLaren photo
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with your perspective Mb2437. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced the aspect ratio of option B here, slightly less dramatic whilst still remaining a headshot. Mb2437 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albon

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Valvs: It appears as "BEL" to me. DH85868993 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Not done Looks fine to me. MSalmon (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Race director

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I honestly cannot understand how you make that out from their words… Tvx1 20:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand what WP:ROUTINE is. SSSB (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Highlighting Sprint Races on the standings table

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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). 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
If it's unsourced it shouldn't be in the article. There is nothing unclear about the content in this article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're just ignoring everything I said in my last comment? SSSB (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only authoritative source is the entry list, which you don't have. So it shouldn't be in the article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
I was exceptionally clear that the number shouldn't be there at all if it's ambiguous. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=1266694466"