Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Assistance with the history of race directors

Hi, I am currently working on a draft about race directors in motorsport. Race directors play a large role in F1, and I am unable to find anything online about race directors prior to 1988. If you know anything, even if it is unsourced, please let me know. The one lead I have is based on this source ([1]), which implies that the position did not exist under the FIA prior to 1988, but I cannot find anything backing it up.

Expansion of the draft would also be greatly appreciated, in addition to reformatting the table (it doesn't look right to me, but I don't know how else to improve it). Thanks in advance! GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I join this group? I really want to, and I'm an F1 nerd.

Hello. Can I please join this group? I really want to participate in this F1 project. Thanks. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Anyone is welcome to join. You don't need to apply SSSB (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Race entry lists

Sossimon has been adding entry list to some of the 1950s F1 race reports, e.g. 1955 Argentine Grand Prix#Entries. Are we in favour of this? If so, I'll make some corrections (e.g. "Tire"-->"Tyre"). But I didn't want to invest the effort if they're just going to be deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the consensus is that the articles should all just link to the respective season articles where the list of entries can be found there. As a general rule the list of entries can just be deduced from the classification tables anyway so it's largely redundant. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s correct for modern seasons and the discussion that achieved the consenus you refer to only really dealt with that. In the earlier decades of the sport though, entries actually happened on a race-by-race basis and drives that had entered never even arriving at the track were rather common occurences. So the consensus can’t be applied in the same way for the earlier seasons. Tvx1 23:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this in 2019, which was a firm consensus against. But (from memory), the rational was that the entries stayed the same throughout the calendar year (ie the same driver enter all the rounds) this wasn't the case as much in the 50s. So we might want to have a broader discussion that in 2019 (which was specifically about 2019 rounds) SSSB (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I say remove them. They appear to be OR additions and aren’t sourced at all. The example you linked to has drivers in the results table that are missing in the entry list. Tvx1 23:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb here and say that we should be adding these entry lists to all seasons up until season-long entries became dominant (which would be the '80s?). Readers shouldn't have to cross-reference the race report with the season article, and a classification table is not necessarily a complete representation of the entry list and has important limitations (e.g. not specifying equipment used). Entries were very fluid and informal for the first few decades of F1 and we should be making this as easy and explicit for readers as we can. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that well sourced entry lists should be added for eras where season-long entries were not dominant. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ferrari as engine manufacturer

Has Ferrari (or Scuderia Ferrari?) their own and named engine manufacturer unit or company like Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains owned by Mercedes-Benz? I have never seen the name of it. Eurohunter (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• That might be known internally as a matter of corporate structure but I don't believe they maintain a separate business for the engine and chassis/sporting team like the other engine constructors. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Don’t think so. Ferrari has always been in the sport with their own team and supplying engines to other teams has never been more than a side-activity. Mercedes’ power unit business however strems from the period engine supplyiing was their sole activity in the sport. Tvx1 15:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

John Hogan draft article

All - I've drafted an article on John Hogan, the head of Marlboro's motorsport sponsorship program from 1973 to 2002. The draft is available for your consideration at Draft:John Hogan (motorsport executive). There is a rather long disambiguation page for John Hogan, so the parenthetical is necessary.

Hogan is on WP:F1's list of article requests for good reason: he was heavily involved in the rise of McLaren and the Schumacher era at Ferrari, and played a central role in the rise of tobacco sponsorship in Formula One. I haven't submitted this draft for review yet. I realize I am technically not required to submit a formal AfC request, but given that this is my first draft article, I would welcome any comments and questions from the members of this WikiProject before publication. I am also cross-posting this draft to WP:American Open Wheel Racing.

I would particularly appreciate comments on (1) did Hogan have a middle name (surprisingly hard to figure out?), (2) did he go to university (all I found was that he planned to apply to Cambridge) (the only source I found for him attending university (Cambridge) is Italian, albeit a reliable Italian source), (3) did he play a similarly involved role with Team Penske's IndyCar team as he did with McLaren, (4) how relevant are Marlboro's minor F1 sponsorships, like Alfa Romeo, Arrows, and Scuderia Italia? Namelessposter (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Gaelicbow in particular, since they originally put Hogan on the article request list back in 2023 (diff). Namelessposter (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality at Lewis Hamilton

Hi all, writing here as I think we need more editorial oversight on the Lewis Hamilton article, as a GA of top-importance to this WP. There has been a WP:SPA re-writing just about every section of the article since September—many parts of which did not need changing—which has consistently plastered the article with neutrality issues and finger-pointing, at least to my eyes. It's starting to read as promotional in places, with opinions stated as encyclopaedic fact in several places, often given as "x led to y" or similar. The user does act in good faith, with respect for the MOS and general guidelines, but a lot of the framing feels like advocacy. MB2437 01:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised that that article on such a high-profile active sportsperson got GA status to begin with. Such an article changes so drastically so frequently that the GA certified version never lasts long. This particular article has changed so much since its GA version that I believe the GA certification no longer applies to its current state. A GA review is called for.

And while the SPA might be operating in good faith, I see a worrying trend of them showing little tolerance to other peoples' edits to the article.Tvx1 14:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the biggest concern is the brevity with which his Formula One career is discussed, which has resulted in season summaries being opinionated and necessitated the finger-pointing in places, rather than addressing facts/events/results neutrally and chronologically. A lot of the contentious claims are also poorly sourced. Undue weight is all over the place; we have a longer prose on his 2007 rivalry with Alonso than his four consecutive titles, for example, with some seasons having under 100-word analyses. This was the original good article nomination, not sure when the consensus changed to cut out all of the content. MB2437 19:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Esports results

An editor has recently been adding esports results to articles. So far, I have deleted all the ones I have come across for being unsourced. Putting this aside (as I am sure sources can be provided), is this appropriate? What is the affiliation between the real life Formula One team and "their" esports team/results (if any). Because unless (for example) Sauber Motorsport are themselves officially credited with the the results of the esports drivers competing in the Sauber cars, it is inappropiate for us to list those results as it implies Sauber are officially credited with those results (i.e. do these results belong to Sauber, or a seperate entity of Sauber esports?) SSSB (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we would need proper sim racing championship articles to justify this. MB2437 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think esports is really worthy of coverage, but assuming it passes the GNG, I think it's reasonable to include those results on a team's article somewhere under a separate section. After all, it is an activity undertaken by the team, and if the esports team isn't independently notable, then putting it on the parent organisation's article is the next best thing. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Due?

Now that my inital question of "is the real team actually the parent of the virtual team?" has been answered as yes, time for a follow up:

How WP:DUE are these results. Because I think a complete matrix of results, similar to the results of real life Grand Prix, is completely undue. This feels a lot like an activity that Formula One teams are contractually obliged to deal in. And to be completely frank, does anyone care that the 2023–24 Formula One Sim Racing World Championship constructors champions were Ferrari, or that the drivers champion was in a Red Bull. Espically as the cars are given identical perfomance (its not a case of Ferrari virtually out developing or out designing their cars). I think that these results should stay with the drivers, with a sentence or two on the contructor pages that they have won x number of virtual championship. Entire tables detailing an a completely breakdown of results feels completely WP:UNDUE to me. SSSB (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Mario Andretti GA concerns

Notifying the WP that a user has brought up concerns with the WP:GA status of Mario Andretti. MB2437 01:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Separate articles for same team?

Scuderia Toro Rosso, Scuderia AlphaTauri and Racing Bulls/RB in 2024 season are all the same team, they just chose to rename the team between seasons. Why do we have 3 separate articles instead of one for the whole team history? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Because officially they are different constructors, and therefore their results are officially distinct and it wouldn't make sense to bundle them in the same article. It is the same reason why Red Bull and Jaguar F1 have seperate articles. Personally, I think it is still debatable that RB and Racing Bulls have the same article as I am not convinced that they wont be considered as separate constructors this year. SSSB (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

What if we had different infoboxes in the same article for every constructor? Namelessposter (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

That would be at odds with reality. Tvx1 23:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I am somewhat conflicted on whether Red Bull's marketing department is a reliable arbiter of reality. Namelessposter (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"Team" is not really a meaningful term as far as a competitor's status goes, it's really casual shorthand for a constructor's overall operation. What is significant is the entity that is the constructor, and STR/SAT/RB/RBs are different constructors. As SSSB mentioned we may well have to split the RB/Racing Bulls article if they are treated as distinct, but I personally do not think that will be the case. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

As SSSB says. Toro Rosso and AlphaTauri are treated as separate constructors with each officially credited with one win. It's also obvious through the chassis names, with AlphaTauri restarting the numbering at 1. Tvx1 14:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because they changed the entrant name between season, that doesn't make them separate constructors. What actual sources support this? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does, that has always been the case. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, shat sources actually say that is the way? Wikipedia uses sources not people demanding outright that is the case. I see no evidence that any of the Toro Rosso --> Racing Bulls are actually different constructors and not just a rename of same constructor. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

That's because no evidence has been presented in this thread, for either side. I can find and present secondary sources that support both sides of this debate. And I'm not sure where it is officially defined when we get a new constructor vs. when a constructor is renamed (or can be renamed) without it being considered a unique constructor. SSSB (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The FIA does. Tvx1 23:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

As I alluded to in the prior discussion about moving RB to Racing Bulls, I would support merging the STR/AT/RB articles in a vacuum, as the teams all have the same corporate registration, ownership history, and senior leadership. (Surely Jaguar-Red Bull is apples and oranges? That involved a very high-profile, and very embarrassing, ownership change, and RB largely cleaned house.) Although we have created new pages in the past for every new constructor, the RB-Racing Bulls change suggests that consensus may be emerging to prioritize substance over form. That said, I agree with @SSSB that it is premature to make that decision right now. We don't really know anything about the constructor legalese except the entry list. Namelessposter (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You want a different example of where a new constructor name means new article? Minardi -> Toro Rosso, Racing Point Force India -> Racing Point -> Aston Martin. Toleman -> Benneton -> Renault -> Lotus -> Renault -> Alpine (noting that between 1981 and 1985 Toleman and Renault both competed, before Renault left in 85. Renault rejoined in 2002 taking over Benetton, formerly Toleman, who Renault used to compete against. The so called Team Enstone). Yes, all these "changes" had varying amounts of change. But results are not awarded to the owner, or the team, but the constructor. I see no evidence that how much the organisation actully changed has any relevance. Now, I have no objection to the creation of "Team Faeza" (where STR/AT/RB were/are based, together with Minardi), nor an article discussing all the Red Bull owned team together. But I would strongly object to a complete merge. Even more so when we consider that there is no mention of a merge for Racing Point Force India, Racing Point and Aston Martin. Or Alpine and Renault. SSSB (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

People should also think about the sheer length of a merged article when you're talking about three, four, five different identities in one article. Higher-ups would very soon mark it for splitting off. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I rewrote the Team Enstone article, so I am quite aware of its history. But there were actual corporate changes of control involved every step of the way except Renault --> Alpine. I think we can draw a perfectly clear line between Minardi and Toro Rosso because of the change of control. I am agnostic about Force India/RPFI/RP/AMR because while we can draw a line between Force India and Racing Point, Racing Point --> Aston Martin is trickier because AMR has competed in F1 before and therefore falls into one of those auto manufacturer-related "Alfa Romeo in Formula One" / "Renault in Formula One" / "Mercedes in Formula One" snarls. (That said, I do think it is very weird that we have a separate article for RPFI...)

STR/AT/RB/Racing Bulls is just one company repeatedly rebranding the same team to sell merchandise, get clicks, or drive engagement. Do we have separate names for Iso-Marlboro and Frank Williams Racing Cars and Wolf-Williams Racing? I don't even know what the constructor rules were back then, and it probably has something to do with the fact that customer chassis were allowed back then, but we do have to acknowledge that F1 history is much more complicated than we're making it seem, and prioritizing form over substance sometimes makes things worse. Namelessposter (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I should remind you that I took your side in the RB-Racing Bulls move discussion, and we lost. I'm not saying it's time to give up just now, that wasn't an especially well-attended colloquy, but at some point if consensus emerges we have to move in the direction of consensus. Namelessposter (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

We first and foremost move in direction of facts reported by sources. If facts would surface that contradicts this consensus, it will be invalidated. And the consenus only applies to the RB/Racing Bulls situation, nothing else.Tvx1 23:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet how do we really know whether the RB-Racing Bulls situation is any different from the AlphaTauri-RB situation? For consistency's sake, it would be best if you would promptly act to split out the RB and Racing Bulls pages in the event any reliable evidence emerges that Racing Bulls will be treated as a separate constructor - which also raises the question of what constitutes reliable evidence that a new constructor has come into being, since we never actually answered that question during the RB-Racing Bulls dispute. Namelessposter (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It's difficult to expect such evidence to exist since Racing Bulls has yet to start collecting results since the constructor name change. We will know once the season starts.Tvx1 01:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)