Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Standardising all Formula One driver introductions

Hi all,

I am currently standardising all F1 driver introductions to keep a fairly consistent format and opening paragraphs, drawing on any championships (per Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen and Fernando Alonso), karting (only FIA World/European Championships) and junior career successes (per Charles Leclerc, Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Nyck de Vries), and making F1 career run-downs more concise with better points of notability, as well as including career statistics and contract status at the end of the intro. Currently keeping the intros neutral but may consider including referenced statements such as "Widely regarded as one of the greatest drivers of all time/of his generation" for drivers such as Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen, per corresponding association football articles. Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.

I have applied this formatting to the ledes of all World Champions, clearly underlining career span to the reader alongside notable achievements in motor racing (e.g. major championships and Triple Crown of endurance racing). Working on concise career rundowns (per Niki Lauda, James Hunt, Jim Clark and Graham Hill), many of these had a woeful lack of quality and clarity for their influence and relevance to the sport, hopefully it'll serve as a starting block for an increase in GAs/FAs in this project.

Drivers completed.

Update: All 2024 drivers completed by 9 September 2024, all World Champion ledes completed by 8 October 2024, currently working on all Grand Prix winners and drivers who competed up to 2015. Per other discussions, currently looking at adding Grand Prix wins to opening paragraphs and potentially removing nicknames.

Mb2437 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say as long as WP:LEAD is generally followed articles should naturally be fairly consistent, they don't all have to be identical in terms of structure, especially not when they are in varying states of quality with everything from GA's to articles that are in need of serious improvement. TylerBurden (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The structure of most introductions were an atrocious read prior to the changes made, not concisely breaking down careers with inconsistent detailing in many. Avoided major edits to Hamilton, Verstappen and Alonso, whose pages have been edited thousands of times to a fairly well-balanced form. Many other sports follow a similar structure on all pages. Mb2437 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about links of the form [[Formula One drivers from Foo|Fooian racing driver]], as in the lead of Valtteri Bottas. It feels like a bit of an "Easter egg" link to me. DH85868993 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the link needs mentioning at some point in the intro, that way it does so without making an added point of the history of their nationality in the sport, which isn’t really notable with the exception of Zhou. I think it’s clear that clicking on “Finnish racing driver” leads to a list of successful Finnish racing drivers, rather than no link at all. Mb2437 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree on all counts. A prime example is Antonelli, his article links to Italian Formula One drivers - he isn't a Formula One driver yet. It is an WP:EGG link. And the simple solution is to put "Fooian [former] Formula One driver" and then linking to the article makes perfect sense. For retired drivers and current drivers it is appropriate because it is almost always the most notable series they raced in. The only issue would be for former F1, but still active racers. But then I don't think it is a necessary link in any case, so missing it isn't a big deal. Additionally, in (for example Verstappens article) we can write, "the most successful Dutch Formula One driver, Verstappen has 3 world championships" and link to it in that way. SSSB (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Could perhaps add "currently competing in Formula One under the Fooian flag for Team" for all, seen on multi-nationality driver pages, but doesn't feel as elegant or concise. The use of "Formula One driver" as opposed to "racing driver, currently [or formerly] competing in Formula One" restricts their racing career to solely Formula One. F1 career should always be mentioned in the lead paragraph, but all have competed elsewhere. Keeping the link isn't that deep really, but many readers will surely be curious to read on about their compatriots, hence why I think the inclusion is important. Mb2437 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

"but many readers will surely be curious to read on about their compatriots," I'm not convinced that's true. When people go to (I don't know) Bottas' article, they want to read about Bottas. I would suggest that they would want to read about Finlands history in F1 is when the article talks about it (I.e. "Bottas is the most recent Finnish Grand Prix winner". This kind of sentence is more common at Grands Prix articles) SSSB (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with a "one size fits all" model for these articles, particularly if it's going to be rolled out across every F1 driver. It will suit some articles better than others, and I would be against changing articles which are already well-written. As a side point, there's a bit of overlinking here and there – coaching and management do not need to be linked, for example, and country names are never to be linked. I would also say that I personally don't think linking to a list of racing drivers of whatever nationality is useful. These drivers have practically nothing else in common. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I've predominantly been focusing on articles that are not well-written i.e. near enough every article besides the World Champions. The quality and lack of introductory detail made F1 articles far too difficult to navigate. Having a concise career rundown in the introduction should be the norm for F1 articles, a point which so many visit to get a grasp of.

Removed over-linking on the Jos Verstappen page (Netherlands, coached and managed) apart from the Netherlands A1 team, which needs a link there. As far as linking to a list of drivers from various nationalities, it has been the standard on F1 pages for a while, I've been adding it to pages who don't use it for consistency. Mb2437 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Providing it is concise, yes. The introduction is basically to establish notability and give the basics in a nutshell. It probably doesn't mean that a driver's entire career be summarised, and shouldn't include anything that would fail to make him/her notable if that was the peak of what they achieved. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel as though notability has been followed fairly well on the introductions I've completed thus far; only including FIA Karting Championships, junior career championships/vice-championships, F1 career milestones (teams moved to, maiden wins/poles/podiums, championships), and other major series raced in full-time or won. Full F1 careers have generally been summarised in one paragraph, with two covering drivers with more extensive careers. Mb2437 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the second link in the lead paragraph of Jos Verstappen to the list of Dutch racing drivers – one is tolerable, but not two. There just seems like a lot of blue in some of these, which can be a bit distracting for some readers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Jos Verstappen, we have "Dutch former racing driver" all as part of a link. Really, none of that needs linking as all are very common terms. I see we've even got "gearbox" and "bankruptcy" linked (gearbox linked in the lead and the next paragraph) – that's overkill. If we must link to a list of racing drivers from Country X, let's do it in the infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Updated post

Currently standardising all F1 driver introductions to keep to a fairly consistent format, per goal 3 of this WP, with:

• Notable career achievements clearly laid out in the opening paragraph with no excessive details,
• Early life, karting and junior career successes touched upon briefly (more widely discussed for younger drivers),
• Concise F1 career analyses (mention of every season),
• Current drivers: career statistics and contract status; former drivers: other notable ventures.

Currently keeping the intros NPOV, with small exceptions where F1 success doesn't strictly translate to the subject's importance. Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.

I have applied this formatting to the ledes of all World Champions, clearly underlining career span to the reader alongside notable achievements in motor racing (i.e. major championships or endurance wins). Also working on concise career rundowns (per Niki Lauda, James Hunt, Jim Clark, Stirling Moss and Dan Gurney), many of these had a woeful lack of quality and clarity relative to their influence and relevance to the sport; hopefully it'll serve as a starting block for an increase in GAs/FAs in this project.

Drivers completed. All leads on this list marked N.I. are in serious need of improvement, feel free to contribute!

Update: All 2024 drivers completed by 9 September 2024, all World Champion ledes completed by 8 October 2024, all Grand Prix winners completed by 13 October 2024; currently working on drivers who competed up to 2015. Per other discussions, currently iterating with Grand Prix wins in lede, moved nationality wikilinks, cleaned infoboxes, and corrected career span nomenclature: "between x and y" for discontinuous careers barring one-year hiatuses. Mb2437 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Standardisation redux

I'd just like to bring this up again here, because Mb2437 is working hard on lead sections for all F1 drivers, and I'm just concerned there wasn't really any consensus for some of what is being done.

I voiced opposition earlier to the concept of linking nationality in the lede to a list of drivers from that country. I still oppose it and I didn't honestly see any support for it, yet it's happening everywhere. I just don't think that's a helpful link in this context.

I'm also not keen on linking the span of years that a driver spent in F1 to a couple of season articles, i.e. his first season and his last. I don't really see how they're helpful or particularly relevant links in this context. On occasions, saying that Driver X competed in F1 from (for example) 1981 to 1985 is not really accurate when he might have done a couple of races in 1981, nothing in 1982, and sporadically until 1985.

I feel that the rather full-on rigidity of this standardisation is restrictive and unnecessary, and isn't suitable for drivers with radically different careers.

I don't want to dismiss what this editor is doing at all, because some lead sections were in dire need of work, but I want to see a more consensus-based approach, and more flexibility within the lead section structure. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Started a discussion on nationality linking at "Formula One drivers from x". Career span could easily be fixed with "between x and y" for those who didn't compete in each of said years. Mb2437 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that occupations and roles held by the subject that don't contribute to his/her notability shouldn't be in the opening paragraph, per MOS:ROLEBIO. That would probably include most uses of "engineer", and "motorsport executive". The latter linking to "business executive" is an unhelpful link as it doesn't tell the reader anything at all about the role held by the subject. If a driver became a notable team owner then better just to use that term. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A motorsport business article could be justified in that case, or simply linking to motorsport. It has proven tough drawing the line with some articles regarding their notability as engineers and executives, I'd argue any driver who has managed/directed a Formula One team certainly qualifies for such a title, but with lower categories it's tricky e.g. Peter Gethin (can see why this one should be removed though). As for engineering, having a professional career as an engineer and subsequently having major developmental roles within their teams could be argued as notable but, again, a marginal call. Mb2437 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say try to imagine these guys without their driving careers, and consider whether or not their other activities would merit an article on Wikipedia. Definitely anyone who managed an F1 team or designed an F1 car would count, but I would describe them as team boss or racing car designer, just as they would be described in reliable sources, and aim for specificity rather than a generic "executive" or "engineer" term. Try to avoid linking to really broad scope articles which aren't going to explain anything to the reader about that driver. Having a professional career as an engineer, or studying as an engineer at college is not inherently notable but being an automotive engineer at an F1 team probably is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll be going back over every article with the changes discussed (moving nationality links from lede, adding Grand Prix wins, re-wording discontinuous career spans), as well as cleaning up infoboxes and whatnot, and will look closer at their further professional notabilities with that. Mb2437 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I also find the standardization work problematic. The edits being made affect the work of other WPs, including those for LeMans 24H/Sportscars, and Indy car. Contents related to the work of these WPs has been removed at times or de-emphasized. These edits are sometimes done under the guise of "clean-up," or because the information has been deemed "trivial." I have not seen that @Mb2437 has initiated discussions with the relevant WPs or at WP:Motorsport.

I find it doubtful that the various careers of so many drivers can, or should, be forced into a one-size fits all approach to their leads. Perhaps the Formula One specific sections of their articles can successfully be standardized, but this should be in an area outside of the lead. RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Which non-trivial information has been removed? "Clean-ups" have simply been re-working infoboxes and syntax. All notable achievements in sportscars and American open-wheelers have been addressed clearly in leads and infoboxes. Mb2437 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You have removed sections from infoboxes when you deem the information trivial, such as this edit.

If such information is deemed trivial, will you eventually be removing infoboxes for drivers who only have one or two F1 starts?

And again, why do you feel leads need to be standardized? Is this not a very large initiative that has impacts outside of WP:F1? Why not go to WP:Motorsport to propose such changes? RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The "titles" section was unnecessary when his only title is addressed in his F1 infobox, as was having two single-event Champ Car entries and being disqualified from Le Mans once. We don't need dozens of infoboxes for every event contested by every driver where their careers were not notable.

The standardisation of leads is for reading clarity that previously did not exist across this WP; bringing this to WP:Motorsport is the next move once they have reached a certain quality so it's smoothed out across the board. Mb2437 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not hot it works. The conventions of those WPs are that drivers competing in those series/races have an infobox, regardless of their results. People working through those WPs will decide what is notable. This same convention exists for WP:F1. This is why every single driver who has competed in an F1 event, regardless of where they finished or if the bulk of their career was spent elsewhere, has their F1 results summarized in their infobox.

You have shown a lot of good intention by come on here proactively to discuss your changes. However, the pattern of your edits - the initiative to standardize - has an affect on more than just F1-specific content. Thus this should be brought to WP:Motorsport to ensure that all affected WPs have the opportunity to weigh in on your initiative. RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I've re-worked over 100 infoboxes over the last few weeks and those conventions didn't seem clear or consistent, apologies if there was confusion there. Amongst them I've had to add several Le Mans infoboxes for drivers with extensive careers at the race, some of whom were not only class winners, but overall winners (Mauro Baldi, Maurice Trintignant). Either way, stating that a World Drivers' Champion also entered Le Mans once and was disqualified doesn't add much to what the reader should be seeing straight away, nor does adding his two Vanderbilt Cup starts, neither of which he particularly succeeded in or is notable for; this driver is not really relevant to other WPs. I wholly stand by my edit summary that the infoboxes were trivial. As the user below explained, it's a case of WP:DIB.

Perhaps the only exception to this would be Fernando Alonso, whose Indianapolis 500 entries were subject to widespread media coverage for his attempt at the Triple Crown of Motorsport. If there are a significant number of secondary sources covering Farina's careers in those series then, by all means, add them. Notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mb2437 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that Mb2437 has the right approach to infoboxes. The correct approach here is to remove F1 infoboxes if those are trivial careers in the context of the driver's other achievements. I would recommend consulting WP:NMOTORSPORT to assess whether or not results are trivial: this guideline was endorsed by WikiProject Motorsport so should be a good starting point to decide what's important enough for an infobox. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note I do agree there is a point where this concern does stretch to WP:Motorsport, and will be bringing the matter there in due course, per the OP: "Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge." Mb2437 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If a driver has meaningful results for a series or was notable for their participation in it, then it should be in the infobox. In the case of one DSQ at Le Mans, having that in the infobox is much more a case of WP:DIB. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I recently made a correction to the page for Ludovico Scarfiotti and noted the expanded lede, which lead me to stumbling on this wiki project discussion. I'm glad someone is taking a critical look at how F1 driver articles are written, as they vary widely in quality and do benefit from re-working. I have a special interests in older drivers (1950's through 1970's) and checked out a few. While I applaud the effort and intention, in some cases these expanded ledes are now filled with unnecessary specifics that make the content in the body redundant. Which, in my mind, is a fault with attempting to standardized them. In the Scarfiotti piece, for example, the edit that added where he was born and his family heritage now makes the "Early Life" section--which is where this information more naturally belongs--pointlessly repetitive. This is the same problem with the Graham Hill entry, which now has a lede padded out with many details for which he is not notable, e.g. having served in the Navy. His notability has nothing to do with that. So it belongs in the body, not the lede. To me it feels like standardizing these things become an exercise for the sake of it rather than improving the overall article. The intros are now less concise, which should be the goal of the lede. Mind you, I don't want this criticism to discourage improving the poorly written intros where they exist. But some were fine just the way they were. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ll have a look through some of the older ones as I was thinking of trimming/revisiting a few, including Graham Hill, which sat atop that list. Some older drivers have brief mentions of wider careers as it explains the gap between their early life and racing career, and typically goes on for no longer than a short sentence. The lead should summarise the body and cover each section proportionally; avoiding their early life entirely because it’s not notable is more of an argument for removing the section entirely than its mention in the lead (per WP:LEADBIO, the lead should reflect the entirety of the article). I agree the detail of Hill’s being an engine room artificer can go as trivia. Scarfiotti’s family is noted in the lead because it’s absolutely notable enough to be mentioned there, and wholly relevant to his career. Mb2437 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the editors saying that there is no need to have standardised wording in the lead sections. I think especially many of the changes that have been made to the first paragraphs have not been improvements. For example, Satoru Nakajima is probably most notable for being the first full-time Japanese F1 driver and is often introduced as such by reliable sources, but the first paragraph of the article now merely mentions the years in which he competed in the series. In cases like Juan Pablo Montoya and Mario Andretti, it seems overly F1 biased to only mention the years in which they competed in F1 in the first sentence, given that they also had notable lengthy careers in other categories. These are just some examples where I think the standardisation is a problem. Carfan568 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Nakajima's being the first Japanese driver is addressed clearly in the second paragraph; it is no more notable than anyone else being the first competitor from their nation, someone has to be the first, it's almost trivia. All drivers who are the only to compete from their country have it stated in their lead paragraph: Alex Yoong, Zhou Guanyu, Robert La Caze, Rikky von Opel, etc. There is no added weight to F1 achievements at Andretti and Montoya, all major championships and victories are addressed clearly in the opening paragraph. I agree IndyCar career spans should be addressed in the opening sentences for both and have added them, as well as Montoya's Cup Series span. Mb2437 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just because it is mentioned in the second paragraph doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't also be mentioned in the first; championship titles and other major successes, for example, are usually mentioned again in the lead after first being mentioned in the first paragraph. Most sources introduce Nakajima as being the first full-time Japanese F1 driver (some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]), which shows that it is a notable position. Also, stating that Montoya competed in "IndyCar between 1999 and 2022" and "NASCAR Cup Series between 2006 and 2024" does not make much sense in my opinion since there were large gaps where he didn't compete at all in those series. At this point, I think you have not gained consensus for the standardisation. Carfan568 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

All of those sources are discussing other Japanese drivers, so it is natural to introduce him as such... It is notable enough for the lead, which is why it is mentioned by the relevant point in his career with a wikilink expanding upon it, but doesn't need to go straight into the opening paragraph; his competing in F1 is addressed and expanded upon across the lead, it's simply a natural flow to address the fact when he makes his debut. The same is applied to drivers such as Lewis Hamilton (first black driver), Max Verstappen (first Dutch World Champion), etc. His competing in F1 establishes his notability, and is expanded upon across the lead with that fact very prominently laid out.

I agree with your concerns on non-linear career spans: "IndyCar between 1999 and 2022" and "NASCAR Cup Series between 2006 and 2024" is factually correct, but a suggestion could be to include efn's with exact years competed, as has been done in infoboxes such as Kazuki Nakajima. I've added them to Juan Pablo Montoya as an example. Mb2437 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Formula One drivers who finished at podium

There is no list of Formula One drivers who finished at podium (Q2976110). What do you think about to create this list? Also, what would be an appropriate name for such a list? Eurohunter (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I created such an article in 2018 (I named it List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish) but it was deleted through AfD shortly afterwards (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish). If it were recreated WP:CSD#G4 would apply. SSSB (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB: This AfD looks kinda poor. I'm not really sure why it was deleted with such discussion. I don't see there consensus for deletion. @Spartaz:. I don't think it's less notable than list of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap or list of Formula One polesitters. If we look at it, it's the fastest lap vs podium finish. Eurohunter (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

3 delete votes, the creator voting to keep 3 times (including as an ip) and a random other stuff exists argument, dunno, I don’t see a compelling argument to counter the policy based anticruft argument. If you feel that this list has a notable nexus then there must be sources that discuss drivers who finished on the podium as a subject and not just mentioning that driver x finished on the podium. The afd was 6 years ago and I don’t remember it. Given the age of the afd, if you find the sources discussing the notability of drivers finishing on the podium then policy doesn’t prevent you starting again. Obviously if it comes back without the sourcing then g4 applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB: What do you think about it? Eurohunter (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm annoyed that it was deleted, because I put a lot of time into it (not that that's relevant). Otherwise I'm largely indifferent. I still think that it is boderline vis-a-vis WP:NLIST. But I also realise that this opinion is (or at least was) a minoirty one. SSSB (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB: I think it's worth to try to ask admin to restore the list, check sources and maybe add something more if possible. I would look at such list and try to search some more sources if needed and if it's possible but I need to see the list first - what is done. Eurohunter (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and ask them to restore in the draft space. SSSB (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Eurohunter, that’s not how it works. There was a clear consensus to delete the list, so you need a clear consensus in favor of it before it can be restored. Tvx1 09:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tvx1: First, I need to see what we are talking about, then I can look at it and try to improve it if possible. I don't think it needs any new consensus - it was removed because consensus was reached, but it refers to old list - new list would be something else and anyone can nominate any list to AfD. Eurohunter (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I wouldn't say that consensus was even clear, let alone clear enough. I would say it was random consensus at it best. "Winners okay but podium finishers? Noooo" by @Clarityfiend:, yours "Just Trivia" (what do you mean?) and "Delete per nomination" by @Sabbatino: so we have just two (whole two) votes against and one vote too keep @Deathlibrarian: but also without any arguments. Summarising, it was quite random AfD with random votes without arguments - just one yes and two times no. I think it's lacking discussion and arguments. For whole "Winners okay but podium finishers" I could just say look at list of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap (just fastest lap). Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not the venue for debating how strong the consensus was, or if the closer correctly interpreted the consensus. The location for that is Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you think you can add something to the article to show that WP:NOSTAT isn't applicable, or that WP:NLIST is satisified, go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

I don't know where Tvx1's claim of "you need a clear consensus in favor of it before it can be restored." comes from. As far as I can tell that is not a requirement of Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

Once you have re-created the article in the main space, Tvx1 can nominate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4, at which point you can argue G4 doesn't apply (either on the talk page, or at Wikipedia:Deletion review). If the page is kept after moving to the mainspace (i.e. it was successfully argued that WP:CSD#G4 does not apply) Tvx1 can start a new AfD. SSSB (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You really need to do a proper reading of Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It literally states that that process is NOT intended for the undeletion of content that was deleted through discussion. It exists to undo uncontroversial deletions.Tvx1 23:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Undoing uncontroversial deletions is one reason for requests for undeletion. But then it says: "this page [WP:Requests for undeletion] is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be "userfied", i.e., restored as a draft or emailed to you; this way, the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace,". I.e. then Eurohunter can improve the article in the draft space to show that the deletion rational no longer applies. This rational basically allows the restoration of an article so that it can be improved to meet the inclusion criteria. That's what Eurohunter is trying to do. SSSB (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is already List of Formula One driver records#Podium finishes, where there are not just total career podiums but also so many, many, many variations. That's quite enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If this article is unable to be reinstated, we could expand List of Formula One driver records#Podium finishes to include the top 20/25/30, although it would look out of place. Mb2437 (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it would be inappropriate. SSSB (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support its undeletion, although it is up for debate whether or not it satisfies WP:NLIST. It depends where we're to draw the line; I'm sure I'm not alone in believing it is no less notable than fastest laps, but we're certainly not going to go as far as a List of Formula One drivers who scored a point. It is one of the five main metrics of success in Formula One alongside championships, wins, poles and fastest laps, the value of which have all remained relatively unchanged since the World Championship was conceived. Some of the arguments in the deletion discussion were nonsense, nor did there appear to be a clear consensus. Mb2437 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No policy or guideline based argument in favor of keeping the articles was posted in the discussion. The closer made a summary that is as accurate as could have been. Tvx1 19:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Cadillac / GM in Formula One

Created a draft for the Cadillac / GM Formula One article here, whether it should be "Cadillac in Formula One" or "General Motors in Formula One" may need a discussion. Mb2437 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Its name is something we shouldn't discuss until we have enough sources and/or details to determine an accurate or commonname. SSSB (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I'll leave it as Cadillac for now. Mb2437 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, GM have confirmed its name as "Cadillac Formula 1 Team". Mb2437 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

2027 Formula One World Championship

What's the purpose to have it just yet? Too early in my opinion. Island92 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That said, information just copied at great lenghts from the 2026 page. Island92 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a disruptive IP. MB2437 18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Restored. Island92 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Racing Bulls move discussion

Started a move discussion for Racing Bulls Formula One Team to Racing Bulls. Also may be worth discussing whether we should retroactively refer to the team as "Racing Bulls", when its previous name was simply an initialism of it, to reduce reader confusion. MB2437 19:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

On that second point, depends on the context. I would suggest, where an article is clearly 2024 oriented, why bother? There is no confusion if we are consistently using "RB" within an article. The only confusion is where we switch between the two (within an artice) without clarify they are equivilant. SSSB (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant, I agree "RB" should be retained for all 2024 season articles. MB2437 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)