Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Accessibility of results tables

Colors traditionally used in results tables should be slightly altered to follow Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. In particular, the contrast with links (very common) is often too low. I would like to propose the following adjustments:

Result	Samples
	Current	Proposed
Winner	ABC 1	ABC 1
Second place	ABC 2	ABC 2
Third place	ABC 3	ABC 3
Other points position	ABC 5	ABC 5
Finished	ABC 13	ABC 13
Did not qualify	ABC Ret	ABC Ret
Practiced only, or test driver	ABC PO	ABC PO
Disqualified	ABC DSQ	ABC DSQ

From a usability point of view, the color used for "disqualified" is tricky even for users with normal vision, as the link color is not the default blue, that's why I am proposing a new color. These changes can be directly applied to Formula One Templates, but some articles are not using these templates and would need manual adjustments (partially automatable). What do you think? Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ftrebien: A couple of points to note:

• Changing the colours in the templates won't change the colours in the vast majority of Formula One results tables - over 90% of the results tables have the background colours "hardcoded in". So those articles (of which there are about 1000?) would need to be updated manually or by bot.
• These colours aren't only used by the Formula One WikiProject - they're used for pretty much all the motorsport WikiProjects. If you're proposing the change be applied to all motorsport projects, there would need to be a wider discussion, i.e. at WP:MOTORSPORT, and of course it would mean thousands more articles to be updated.

Note that I'm not saying I think your suggestion is a bad idea; just pointing out that there are a lot of articles that would need to be updated and that a wider discussion may be required. DH85868993 (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean it's a nice idea. I would reject the suggested change to DSQ because it makes it look similar to a win. To echo DH85868993, I don't think this is within WP:F1's scope to change. It will require a wider discussion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to second 5225C on all counts. This needs to be discussed on WT:Motorsport. SSSB (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see a need for any change. WP:MOTOR made this scheme with great thought for all sorts of visual impairments and even consulted readers suffering from some sort of colorblindness. Decades of its usage without any complaint from any reader is more than enough evidence that there is no problem here. I have watched this table through all possible colorblindness filters and I have not encountered anything that was difficult to read. Remember that MOS:COLOR is merely a guideline that gives advice and examples. It's not a rule with a complete list of options. Tvx1 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If this was taken any further I would be inclined to agree with you. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix

At Talk:2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix we are discussing the meaning of cancellation in F1. You may be interested in the discussion. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Auto racing team categories

The "<country> auto racing teams" categories have recently been renamed to "Auto racing teams in <country>", e.g. Category:Australian auto racing teams has been renamed to Category:Auto racing teams in Australia. As a result, I think we may need to check the categories for some of the F1 team articles. For example, Red Bull Racing definitely belonged in Category:Austrian auto racing teams, but does it belong in Category:Auto racing teams in Austria? Is any part of the team actually located in Austria? Or do we think the fact that they are entered with an Austrian licence is sufficient to justify their inclusion in the category? DH85868993 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think these moves should be reverted. This wasn't discussed at all with the relevant WikiProjects and clearly has created inaccuracies. Teams are categorizes thought their licenses, not base locations. This was clearly something that wasn't [[WP:BROKEN]]. Also I do no think that them term auto racing is that commonly used. Auto(mobile) is mainly an American term to describe these vehicles. Car racing is what is most widely used around the world.Tvx1 15:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think 'motor racing' is more common but either way I'm afraid the cat is well and truly out of the bag. Halmyre (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Motor racing teams would refer to both two- and four-wheeled vehicles, whereas these categories are only intended to deal with the latter. Tvx1 10:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there hasn't been any proper discussion here with the relevant wikiprojects and calling Red Bull Racing an "auto racing team in Austria" is only even somewhat correct on the week of the Austrian Grand Prix. This seems to be one of those cases where a one-size-fits-all approach has been taken on the grounds that it does make sense to call the New York Yankees a "baseball team in the United States" or Manchester United a "soccer team in the United Kingdom" without any consideration for whether that makes sense for other sports which don't function in the same way. These moves should be reverted. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. The truth is that "Australian auto racing teams" and "Auto racing teams in Australia" mean two distinct things. One refers to nationality and the other location. SSSB (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in lead sentences of season articles

It's been brought to my attention by an IP that the lead sentences of season articles are inconsistent with one another, although they all seem to be technically correct.

In 2009 we have "The 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship was the 63rd season of FIA Formula One motor racing. It featured the 60th Formula One World Championship..."

In 2010 we have "The 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship was the 64th season of FIA Formula One motor racing."

In 2012 we have "The 2012 FIA Formula One World Championship was the 66th season of FIA Formula One motor racing. It featured the 63rd FIA Formula One World Championship..."

In 2013 we have "The 2013 FIA Formula One World Championship was the 64th Formula One World Championship..."

And so on. We need to say both the number of seasons and the number of Championships, or just stick to "this is the xxth World Championship", and stick to it, to avoid confusing newcomers and casual readers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The final option doesn't work for pre-1980 Formula One season. But other than that, I don't have a strong preference. SSSB (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Russell's result at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix

How should Russell's result at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix be displayed? Should it be:

• 8^{F 4}, i.e. with the 'F' before the '4' (which is what {{F1 race position}} currently produces), or
• 8^{4 F}, i.e. with the '4' and the 'F' in the chronological order in which they were achieved?

{{F1 Drivers Standings}} was changed from the former to the latter about 18 hours ago, and I recently updated {{F1R2023}} to match, but now I'm not so sure - perhaps it makes more sense to have the 'F' (which was achieved in the race) next to the race result (8). For comparison, Leclerc's result in the same race is currently displayed as 3^{P 2}, but of course, he achieved the pole position before finishing second in the sprint. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Although I see your point about grouping it all together, I think it's more logical when it's chronological, so that's my preference. If that's how we keep it, it would be good if the template could be updated to show the sprint race position after the P but before the F (although this would of course complicate 2021 results when pole came after the sprint). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Why do you think it is more logical? I don't think its more logical. And in any case, pole is who starts first, not who qualifies fastest, so you could argue that chronological is sprint position, pole, fastest lap.

    I think the most important issue is that the order is consistent across all the relevant pages. If we look at the current version of Red Bull Racing Grand Prix results (permalinked for archiving reasons) the 2021 British Grand Prix and 2022 Austrian Grand Prix are formatted differently, and unless you have an intimate knowledge how the weekend format has evolved over the years, or were involved in disussing/implementing the results and their formatting, you will think it a mistake or you will not understand why they are different. So I would argue against chronological and suggest we implement {{F1 race position}} across all the pages and make any changes to the order there (that is why the template exists). SSSB (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

    • We can’t go and generate every single cell in every large table in every article through a template. There’s only a limited amount of template a page can properly handle. This would break the arrticles with the largest tables. This is not correct template usage.Tvx1 21:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Formula One drivers article

Given what constitutes a 'Formula One driver' is a broad topic, this article should really contain multiple lists:

• Drivers who have started a World Championship Grand Prix in F1 machinery.
• Drivers who have started a World Championship Grand Prix in other cars (Indy 500, F2, Rodger Wards' USAC car in the 1959 US GP, etc.).
• Drivers who have competed in a World Championship Grand Prix, but haven't started a race (DNS, DNQ, PO, etc.).
• Drivers who have competed in non-championship Grands Prix run to F1 regulations.
• Drivers who have entered Grands Prix but not competed (WD, DNA, etc.)

The lists should remain restricted to Grands Prix (World Championship or non-championship) only, as a section for 'additional' circumstances could be a Pandora's box of who is considered to be a 'Formula One driver' (e.g. test drivers, historic racing, etc.). MSportWiki (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• In that case the article should be renamed 'List of World Championship drivers', but I think that horse bolted long ago. Halmyre (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why? The OP specifically mentioned non-championship F1 races as well.Tvx1 09:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Going to point out here that the Indy 500 was never a Grand Prix nor a formula one race. It was an AAA and later USAC Championship Car race at that time, for which the FISA simply awarded points for their World Championship. Also, I'm not sure every non-championship formula one race was a Grand Prix.Tvx1 09:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I've misread his post. But yes, not all F1 races were Grands Prix, but that would of course exclude a lot of notable F1 races e.g. International Trophy, Gold Cup, etc. Halmyre (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/To-do

There is no wider list of articles to write like pl:Wikipedia:Propozycje tematów/Formuła 1? Eurohunter (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Other potential articles for creation may be identified by looking for red links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Related Pages, in particular Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Related_Pages#People_without_articles_who_possibly_should_have_one and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Related_Pages#Cars_without_articles although it should be noted that some of those links are probably red because the subjects are not sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles (most of the draft articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Related_Pages#People_without_articles_who_possibly_should_have_one were created as mainspace articles, but then draftified due to notability concerns, and a car such as the AFM 2 probably isn't sufficiently notable to need its own article). DH85868993 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Gian Paolo Dallara

I'm proposing that Gian Paolo Dallara be moved to Giampaolo Dallara. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport

I notice that Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport was recently split from Mercedes-Benz in Formula One. If we're happy with the split (?), which elements of Mercedes-Benz in Formula One should be copied/transferred to Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport? e.g. the team/constructor infobox? the "Achievenments" successionn box? Some of the navboxes? DH85868993 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for the split, there's no reason the present iteration of the team can't be covered in the parent article, and it ought to be reverted back. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• When I read the section the first time, I would have thought that Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport would deal with all of Mercedes’ motorsport activities and thus be the parent article. It thought the F1’s team name was Mercedes-AMG Petronas Formula One Team and not Motorsport? So, I’m a bit puzzled why the “Motorsport” article redirected to the F1 activities in the first place.Tvx1 23:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Tvx1: because (according the article) the official name of the F1 team from 2017-2019 was Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport.

  Speaking more broadly, I agree that a split is unjustified, and even if we did want to split, a split to "Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport" would be inappropriate as this name only applied for a few years. The only appropriate title I can think of would be Mercedes-Benz in Formula One (2010-present). SSSB (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: the former contents of the Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport article have now been restored in Mercedes-Benz in Formula One#Mercedes-AMG Petronas Formula One Team (2010–present) and Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport now redirects there. DH85868993 (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

To be more specific, the orginal redirect has been moved to draftspace and a new redirect was created in mainspace. This caused the history to be cut. The editor behind all this is someone who has a track record of creating drafts and redirects on non-notable subjects and of disruptive editing.Tvx1 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential split of McLaren article

There's a discussion in progress regarding whether/how the McLaren article should be split. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Name of the 1982 Championship for F1 Constructors/Manufacturers

What was the official name of the championship for F1 constructors/manufacturers in 1982?

• List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions says "The Constructors' Championship was first awarded, as the International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers, in 1958 to Vanwall. In 1981 this name was officially changed to the World Constructors' Championship.", and
• 1981 Formula One World Championship says "The 1981 FIA Formula One World Championship ... featured the 1981 Formula One World Championship for Drivers and the 1981 Formula One World Championship for Constructors", but
• 1982 Formula One World Championship says "The 1982 FIA Formula One World Championship... comprised two competitions run concurrently over the course of the year, the 33rd Formula One World Championship for Drivers and the 25th Formula One World Championship for Manufacturers." (and also uses "Manufacturers" elsewhere in the article)
• (1983 Formula One World Championship says: "The 1983 FIA Formula One World Championship ... featured the 1983 Formula One World Championship for Drivers and the 1983 Formula One World Championship for Constructors")

I would suggest that 1982 should also say "World Championship for Constructors" instead of "World Championship for Manufacturers", but a similar change (not by me) was recently reverted, so I thought I would seek clarification. Note that I started the discussion here rather than at Talk:1982 Formula One World Championship for increased visibility. DH85868993 (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody provide a source for the alleged name change in 1981? There would probably have been something about it in Motor Sport magazine, but I do not have a subscription to their archive anymore. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy between scheduled race distance and raced laps

Following my issue in Talk:1971 French Grand Prix, I crawled all F1 races since 1971. According to [1] follwing races has discrepancy between scheduled distance and race laps completed:

Grand Prix	Track	Scheduled Laps (Distance)	Raced Laps (Distance, Time of race)
1971 French Grand Prix	Circuit Paul Ricard	54 (313.740 km)	55 (319.550 km, 1:46:41.68)
1980 Belgian Grand Prix	Circuit Zolder	70 (298.340 km)	72 (306.864 km, 1:38:46.51)
1985 French Grand Prix	Circuit Paul Ricard	54 (313.740 km)	53 (307.930 km, 1:31:46.266)
1985 British Grand Prix	Silverstone Circuit	66 (311.454 km)	65 (306.735 km, 1:18:10.436)
1988 Brazilian Grand Prix	Autódromo Internacional Nelson Piquet	61 (306.891 km)	60 (301.860 km, 1:36:06.857)

The lap count from 1985 Britisch GP is definitely a scoring error from race control, but for the rest, there is no explanation given. The Belgian Grands Prix in previous and subsequent years were only 70 laps, despite being less than 300km long. Although today's 305 km rule probably didn't exist back then. --Mark McWire (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) I've found other examples, but the reason given is "time limit" and the races lasted just under or over 2 hours. So these were deliberately shortened due to the time limit. --Mark McWire (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

With the exception of the 1985 British Grand Prix and 1988 Brazilian Grand Prix (see below), all the sources I've consulted (grandprix.com, Motor Sport and Mike Lang's Grand Prix! books) indicate that the other three races were run to their scheduled distance (i.e. they make no mention of them not being run to their scheduled distance). I think the people at racing-reference.info have just noticed that the number of laps in these particular years was different to other years and jumped to the (incorrect) conclusion that the scheduled distance was the same as other years. Specific comments:

Grand Prix	Track	"Usual" Laps (Distance)	Laps This Year (Distance, Time of race)	Comment
1971 French Grand Prix	Circuit Paul Ricard	54 (313.740 km)	55 (319.550 km, 1:46:41.68)	I believe the 1971 race (the first at Paul Ricard) was scheduled (and run) for 55 laps, but this was decreased to 54 laps for subsequent races at Paul Ricard due to the introduction of the warmup lap in 1973.
1980 Belgian Grand Prix	Circuit Zolder	70 (298.340 km)	72 (306.864 km, 1:38:46.51)	Maybe to make the race distance more than 300 km? The second paragraph of List of Formula One Grands Prix indicates that the 300km minimum distance was in effect as far back as 1950. So perhaps rather than asking why it was 72 laps in 1980, we should possibly be asking why the distance was only 70 laps in all the other years.
1985 French Grand Prix	Circuit Paul Ricard	54 (313.740 km)	53 (307.930 km, 1:31:46.266)	No idea why it was different in 1985.
1985 British Grand Prix	Silverstone Circuit	66 (311.454 km)	65 (306.735 km, 1:18:10.436)	Chequered flag was waved one lap early by mistake.
1988 Brazilian Grand Prix	Autódromo Internacional Nelson Piquet	61 (306.891 km)	60 (301.860 km, 1:36:06.857)	Senns's car jammed in gear on the parade lap so the first start was aborted. The cars did another parade lap, so the race distance was reduced by 1 lap as a consequence.

DH85868993 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've contacted the webmaster of racing-reference to add / correct the comments on the site. The 300 km rule has / had some exception. Maybe applies only to road courses, since Monaco and some other street course races with slower average speeds had shorter distances due to the 2h time limit. --Mark McWire (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same impression I had when checking their source. They merely assumed what the scheduled distance should have been. Tvx1 10:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Calendar locations showing more info for American races?

Why on Earth are we showing "Miami International Autodrome, Miami Gardens, Florida" and "Las Vegas Strip Circuit, Las Vegas, Nevada" for the American races, but the track and city suffices for literally everywhere else in the world? I get that Americans don't get F1, but we're not THAT US-centric of a website, surely. Seems pretty pants-on-head levels of moronic. - J man708 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree it's excessive and a bit stupid. I'm under the impression that the US being quite large in comparison to other nations means that the state is more relevant. I agree, but I think it is very clear that the city is unnecessary here since the city name is the GP name. Either we should be consistent and include/exclude region for all races, or we should be efficient and remove the cities from the two secondary US races. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 19:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's not excessive or stupid and your reply proves that.

  "I think it is very clear that [specifing] the city [of Miami and Las Vegas] is unnecessary here since the city name is the GP name." - this is not correct. The Miami Grand Prix does not take place in the city of Miami, but in the neighbouring city of Miami Gardens. Although they share a metropolitian area, our articles always list location by town/city, see the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, based in the town of Montmeló, in the Barcelona metorpolitian area, yet we do not claim that the Spanish GP takes place in Barelona.

  Secondly, specifing the state is necessary because of Las Vegas, New Mexico, and 12 Austins (in addition to the city where COTA is) and (if we go with Metro area, as you alluded too) there are seven other Miamis in the USA - so the state is necessary for disambiguation.

  Finally, we have the fact that American place names almost always include the state by convention. See the article title Miami Gardens, Florida, despite the Florida not being necessary for disambiguation. If this were the case for other countries, I would support doing it for their venues too, but it isn't, so I won't.

  I will strongly oppose using one rule for Maimi and other for everywhere else, (Metro area for Miami , but city/town for everywhere else), just becuase you can't differentiate between the cities of "Miami" and "Miami Gardens". And I will strongly oppose having one rule for Las Vegas, and another for everywhere else just because the GP happens to be named after the city (and as Miami proves, just becuase it is named after a city, doesn't mean it is in that city, making it necessary for more reasons than just consistency) SSSB (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not exactly helpful for the reader though, is it? I literally changed it because I thought it was an error or something that had been left over from edits... There's a simple way about this. Either include the "Track, City" combo, or a "Track, City, State/Province". Disambiguates pretty well, if you ask me. - J man708 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

As SSSB just explained Track, City doesn’t work with US cities because there are more the one places with those names. That’s why we include states for US locations. Tvx1 22:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There's only one other Las Vegas in the USA (in New Mexico with 13k population), not sure anyone would make the mistake of mixing those two up... Boothy m (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

We don’t only have this practice for Las Vegas you know. And not everyone is American, let alone acquainted with every place in it.Tvx1 22:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Silverstone has a population of 2,000. Spa, Belgium has a population of 10.5k. So population isn't relevant. SSSB (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The Francorchamps circuit is actually located in Stavelot, which has a population of just 7k.Tvx1 10:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's not pretend the system on Wikipedia is consistent. Looking at some examples from 2023 Formula One World Championship, we have: "Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne" in spite of Albert Park being neither in the suburb or City of Melbourne, only the Melbourne metropolitan area; "Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi" where the circuit is in the Emirate (effectively equivalent to state) of Abu Dhabi but not the city; "Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" when the circuit is not actually in Silverstone (according to their website [2], it is Towcester), or at least straddles multiple places. So I think a bit of common sense/case by case consideration is fine here (especially given different countries have different importance placed on different things, ie in Australia it is very uncommon to refer to the actual city somewhere is in, instead referring to the metropolitan area, with the opposite being the case in the US). In the examples given for the US, I don't see any issue with what is currently there. A7V2 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You might not see an issue with it, but to someone who lives in one of those places where it is referred to like that, it comes across as incredibly weird. I promise you, nobody is confused by which Las Vegas the race is taking place in, but there (evidently) is at least one person out there, who doesn't understand why it's listed in two locales, but everywhere else is listed with one and THAT is why it needs to be cleared up. - J man708 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

we have: "Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne" in spite of Albert Park being neither in the suburb or City of Melbourne, only the Melbourne metropolitan area;

Not really sure how relevant this is - if we had a central London GP that wasn't actually in the 3km² City of London then we would still say it is in London...

"Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone" when the circuit is not actually in Silverstone (according to their website [1], it is Towcester), or at least straddles multiple places.

Technically their website is missing "Silverstone" as the second line of the address, Towcester is just the larger post town. The circuit is obviously not actually "in" the village of Silverstone, but that is the nearest place.

Funnily enough however, articles on UK championships such as the 2023 British Touring Car Championship are much less specific than the F1 calendar about circuit locations. Races are listed with their UK county (i.e. Northamptonshire for Silverstone), which seems much more sensible IMO especially when circuits are often located away from populated places that people would recognise. You wouldn't for example say Brands Hatch, West Kingsdown because most people wouldn't know where that is. Which is probably why the 1976 season article uses Brands Hatch, Kent.

Also, the 1961 season article lists the British GP as "Aintree Motor Racing Circuit, Merseyside" - which does beg the question as to why we list the location as Silverstone instead of Northamptonshire... Boothy m (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"You might not see an issue with it, but to someone who lives in one of those places where it is referred to like that, it comes across as incredibly weird." - your but is misplaced. Something being "incredibly weird" (which it isn't, US place names are regualry refered to by "city name, state name", as I pointed out earlier) doesn't make it an issue.

With respect, the only "issue" you have come up with is that it looks wrong, and that's not any issue at all - it is little more than personal taste. Now, I don't mind looking at alternate/better ways to present this info, but there is no need to inflate the scale of the issue.

The fact remains that there is scope for ambiguity - however unlikely - and including the state name isn't in any way harmful, so why remove it?

Your point on using counties is also unconvincing, as I'm not convinced that using counties is anymore helpful than listing the twon (unless you happen to be in the area) I can tell you that the Suzuka circuit is in the Mie Prefecture - but I doubt you can point to that area on a map. In my opinion, listing the county/prefecture/whatever else you had in mind in less accurate without adding much more clarity about its location - so I don't see the benefit of that change. SSSB (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Silverstone circuit actually runs through two counties… Tvx1 22:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting inaccuracies. But I do wonder where the Yas Marina circuit is situated then? All wikipedia articles claim that Yas Island lies in the city of Abu Dhabi. As for Silverstone, the website probably refers to the address of the operating company. The circuit actually does lie in Silverstone. We established that in previous discussions and its location is easy verifiable. Towcester is actually further up north. Tvx1 00:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: (pining due to my delay in replying) - I hadn't meant that these inconsistencies were necessarily a problem. For Silverstone I will defer to others, I know British location names and postal addresses can be quite strange and inconsistent, especially away from larger cities. For Yas Island, Yas Marina Circuit states that it is "near Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates", so I think the place should in fact be Yas Island (if we want to use "city/locality" rather than state/region). For Albert Park, frankly I'm amazed no-one reverted your edits changing it from Melbourne to Port Phillip. It is highly unusual to refer to somewhere as being in its LGA in Australia, unless it happens to coincide with the place name. It would be given as "Melbourne" (ie Greater Melbourne, which while of little administrative significance is still a well defined place) or Albert Park, Victoria, which, I'll note, as with all/most suburbs of Melbourne, the article describes it as a suburb of Melbourne. I don't have a strong preference for Melbourne or Albert Park, but either way it should not be Port Phillip. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You really should not use Wikipedia content alone as a source of information. I rather believe that the article on Yas Marina Circuit is in accurate because the article on Yas Island has sourced information that it is territory of the city of Abu Dhabi.

As for Australia, our convention is to list the lowest legal government area (typically a city or town with a major and local government) with no exceptions for any country. Neither Melbourne nor Albert Park fit that description, since the former is not the actual city were the circuit lies and the latter is merely a suburb. Tvx1 01:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

So, after all this, your response is “I can see that it looks stupid, but what else have we got?” - Let’s not go off topic and maybe find a way to change this, so it causes less issues? And for the record? Nobody is mistaking that a Las Vegas and Miami race aren’t being held in the world renowned cities. If we need to disambiguate Miami Gardens and Miami, then surely we should disambiguate Montreal from the Montreal River and Greater Melbourne from the individual suburb of Melbourne CBD? Seems stupid to change the whole system to benefit the way one country refers to itself. Why not go the whole hog and count their races as 190 miles, while we’re at it? - J man708 (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You haven't WP:INDENTed your reply properly, so it isn't clear who you are replying to. However, I am not aware of anyone making that argument. I don't agree it looks "stupid" (or "weird") and those who do (in this discussion) are not advocating we leave it as it is (unless I have missed something from my memory). You also keep arguing this is an issue, but you haven't explained what the issue is, and it isn't obvious (which is exactly why I don't see the need for change). Let's be very clear, you thinking it looks stupid is not an issue. What is the issue exactly?

Nobody is mistaking that a Las Vegas and Miami race aren’t being held in the world renowned cities. - so you speak for everyone now, do you? And this sentece doesn't even make sense because, as has been explained to you more than once, the Miami Grand Prix doesn't even take place in Miami (the city), only its wider metopolitian area.

If this ("If we need to disambiguate [...] surely we should disambiguate Montreal from the Montreal River"; again Miami and Miami Gardens is not diambiguation, they are seperate cities, so this sentencce doesn't even make sense) is the best argument you've got, you haven't really got an argument at all, and I can't see any benefit in contining to go around in circles. SSSB (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, how about I simplify this. F1 refers to the Bahrain race as Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir, Saudi Arabia race as Jeddah Corniche Circuit, Jeddah, Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne... Miami as Miami International Autodrome, Miami... Las Vegas as Las Vegas, Las Vegas. Why not go with what their direct website says, rather than confusingly listing some races taking place in local government areas, states, districts and other random assortments. Why not simplify it and go with what the F1 website itself says?
- J man708 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Because, we’re not a copy of the F1 website. We’re an encyclopaedia which desires accuracy and disambiguation. Tvx1 12:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

And it’s accurate to show the track in Melbourne being in “Port Philip” rather than Melbourne, but not “Ile de Notre Dame” over Montreal? There’s no consistancy. The only way I can see us maintaining both consistancy AND being user-friendly/unambiguous to your average reader is to show the basic city/greater area the race actually takes place in. Budapest, Melbourne, Miami, Austin, Barcelona, etc. Anything else is just causing needless bullshit by being finicky. - J man708 (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There is very much consistency. Lowest autonomous legal subdivision. The Albert Park circuit actually does not lie in the city of Melbourne, but in the neighbouring one of Port Philip. Your comparison with Ile de Notre Dame is completely wrong because that’s a geographical feature, not a legal subdivision and thus not in any way the same as Port Philip.

Your proposal simply cannot work because many circuits aren’t situated in a basic city/greater area.Tvx1 17:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Lowest autonomous legal subdivision" - How the hell is that helpful to the average reader? Why is it so hard to have Track, City. No state, no local government area or whatever the hell... Just Track, City. - J man708 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Because the closest actual city to Silverstone Circuit is Milton Keynes some 25 minutes drive away. So "Lowest autonomous legal subdivision" is therefore the only way to be consistent.

Do I really have to explain, for at least the fourth time, why "Track, City. No state" doesn't work for all locations? We have pointed out very patiently that there are muliple place called Las Vegas in the USA (and even more Paradise, which would be the lowest autonomous legal subdivision necessary for consistency).

Using "basic city/greater area the race actually takes place in" might be more "user-friendly" and unambigous (if we include the state where necessary) but it can never be consistent. As Tvx1 alluded to, places like [[Silverstone Circuit" don't belong to a "basic city". The greated area would be Northamptonshire, but the Hungaring equivilant (as you claimed it would be consistent) would be Pest county, which would not be the greater Budapest (as you suggested it would be).

Therefore, the only plausible way to be more "user-frienndly" and consider using "Greater Miami" instead of "Miami Gardens" (the "greater" is required as people would reasonable assume we mean the city of) would be if we abandened complete consistency and looked at each circuit on a more of a case-by-case basis to determine if "greater [city]" of nearest town, or lowest autonomous legal subdivision would be most appropriate. For the record, I would prefer a case-by-case basis. I have never understood why some editors insist on absolute consistency. SSSB (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Do I really have to state this for seemingly the fourth time, what I asked in my first reply? Apparently so... AGAIN, rather than constantly telling me why this is the way it is, what can we do to disambiguate this for an average reader? The way I see it, we can give a reason on the page as to why we need seemingly arbitrarily list that these American races are shown with their states, or alternatively come up with options as to changing this? All this filibustering is getting nowhere. - J man708 (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You didn't ask anything in your first reply. All you did is complain that it didn't make sense to you. If this is the "issue" you have, I don't really see a practical way to rectify it. Specifying why we disambiguate is redundant and listing states for all locations is also redundant and does not work anyway as most countries do not have an equivalent. SSSB (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Because if you’re going to apply a different criterion for every single venue, you‘re opening a massive can of worms and everyone is going to start doing what they want. That would just create a nonsensical mess. Can you imagine us having to go through consensus discussions for 24 locations?? It’s not so much about having absolute consistency, but about having a basic system that works for all cases. And if any location doesn’t ring a bell immediately to a random reader, that’s why this site invented wikilinks. Click and learn. That’s what I have done many times throughout the years even on the F1 pages of Wikipedia. And that allowed me to learn a lot on different places around the world. We really should not change a system that has worked just fine because on person raises such a stink. Tvx1 14:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"We really should not change a system that has worked just fine because one person raises such a stink." - There's so many things wrong with this sentence, I don't even know where to begin...

Look, doesn't the whole "click the link and learn" approach defeat the need to state that the race is held in a specific Las Vegas, if the link sends you to the right one? By the logic held currently, we should also list things like IMSA races at Road Atlanta in Georgia, USA to disambiguate it with a country? But we don't. You stated earlier that we "desire(s) accuracy and disambiguation", but we don't disambiguate Melbourne, Victoria from Melbourne, Florida? Why disambiguate if there are other place names in the same country, but showing the 1982 Swiss GP in Dijon, not Dijon, France is totally acceptable? Screw disambiguating the international races, right?..
And to retort to the earlier comment "we desire accuracy over being a copy of the F1 website". Seems like borderline WP:OR to override the F1's own website to me.

There's so many inconsistencies here. Why not either disambiguate OR choose to be factual? My argument is that we choose one or the other, but currently it seems like we're chopping and changing at random. - J man708 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have explained clearly to you explain what the “one or other” choice is we’ve made. We have a consistent system. I’m not going to continue to repeat myself. Your proposals just cannot work.Tvx1 17:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, you clearly do not understand what WP:OR is. Next, there is no Dijon outside of France and you can disambiguate from Melbourne, Florida with the presence of the Australian flag, not to mention common sense - the Australian Grand Prix in Florida, seriously? Your Las Vegas point doesn't make any sense, we are talking about disambiguation. Being needless vague does not help learning. Your IMSA argument is irrelevant as we aren't IMSA and there is no reason for us to follow their practice - in fact there is a stronger case for not following their practice as IMSA is a national series. Finally, did your edit summary really attempt to compare yourself with Rosa Parks, the civil rights activist? Grown up. SSSB (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the edit summary was stating that changing broken systems on account of one person's actions is a never thing, but that got cut off by the edit summary that only listed part of that. WP:OR shows clearly that the F1's website is clearly a primary source - quite possibly THE primary source - If they list that an F1 race takes place in say, Budapest, not specifically the Pest part of the city, we should show that. Additionally, the current "system" shows Montreal, when Ville-Marie would be more accurate - And IF we were to show the full name of "Ville-Marie, Montreal", then the naming convention would show "Borough, City", when the American races show "Borough/County, State". Does this mean that the correct way of showing this is "Ville-Marie, Quebec"? Because if so, that itself could mean Ville-Marie, Quebec, which is a different place.

Also, it's "common sense" as you claim that Melbourne, Vic doesn't need disambiguation from Melbourne, FL, but it's completely different Las Vegas, NV to Las Vegas, NM? "Australian Grand Prix in Florida, seriously?" - Again, Swiss GP in Dijon, San Marino in Imola, Luxembourg in Nurburg... - J man708 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Ville-Marie is not more accurate according to our system. That is just a borough. It’s not a legal subdivision with an autonomous government like a city or municipality (which is what we use for the US races, not boroughs or counties). For some reason our article just repeats people governing levels above Ville-Marie, like the mayor of Montreal, in the borough’s infobox.Tvx1 10:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, Swiss GP in Dijon, San Marino in Imola, Luxembourg in Nurburg at least they were geographically close. Secondly, common sense is secondary to the precence of the flag. i.e the flag disambiguates, but if you don't reconise the flag, common sense can prevail. And this doesn't apply to Las Vegas, because of the Australian flag by the circuit location info for ALbert Park. Both Las Vegas, NV and Las Vegas NM are in the USA. So you can not disambigaute between the two without specifying the state. SSSB (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"At least they were geographically close." - How is that accurate? Where do we draw the line? The 1982 Swiss GP was hosted by the Automobile Club de Suisse and the 1997 Luxembourg GP was not only held by the Luxembourgish, but their dignitaries gave out awards and the cars ran tobacco sponsorship, which was banned in the Germany. Legally it was held under Luxembourgish laws.

This is why it's better to go with the F1's website, as they are literally THE major source! - J man708 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is your first paragrapgh relevent to this discussion? You are treating my common sense point (which isn't actually relevant at all, I don't know why I brought it up) as the primary argument, which it isn't. And F1's website isn't "the" major source. There is no "the major" source. And even if there was, it would probably be the official websites of the circuits. The official website of the Miami Grand Prix lists tehe location as "Hard Rock Stadium, 347 Don Shula Drive, 'Miami Gardens, Florida 33056" for example. SSSB (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My first paragraph written in response to you - It would be nice to have a response back about it, too.

The current system we have seems to ignore the F1's website's listings (a primary source) in favour of something that seems to be more arbitrary than it is insightful to readers. - J man708 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I did respond, by telling you it isn't relevant. The organisation and/or legal intricacies of the Swiss or Luxembourg Grand Prix is not relevant. If it is relevant, please explain how, but I am not going to discuss something if I don't see the relevance to the subject under discussion.

The current system is not arbitary. It has been discussed at length before. In fact, the only critism you have made - or that I can think of (excluding the ones that have been rebutted because they don't make sense, or ignore issues beyond our control) is that they are too specific to be useful. And give one good reason why we should ignore perfectly reliable secondary and other primary sources in favour of absolutly following F1's website (which does specify Miami Gardens, not Miami and the state of Nevada) SSSB (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not a response, it's avoiding answering. It's also relevant as evidence as to yet another flaw in this "system". I'm yet to see evidence of the system you seem willing to die by as having been discussed in the past. In fact, I see if anything evidence of the opposite. - J man708 (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"The current system is not arbitary." - Are you kidding me? So, you're saying that Monte Carlo is suddenly some form of self-governing "lowest legal subdivision" in Monaco and that Central Area/Central Region is something completely different to Monte Carlo, how exactly? Also, who cares about disambiguating Buenos Aires races to show if they were held in Buenos Aires autonomous city or Buenos Aires Province. Not that important, huh? Oh also, Fuji Speedway in Oyama, but who cares which Oyama, huh?... But fuck me, right? "The current system is not arbitary" - Sure, okay mate... - J man708 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide the reason that we just ignore these, @SSSB:? - J man708 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, I just haven't got around to responding - I have got a life outside of Wikipedia.

This was last discussed here (as far as I can tell).

I'm avoiding awnsering because I don't see the relevance - I would rather not get drawn into tangents and I'm not sure what awnser to give because I don't understnad the point you are trying to make. Instead of attacking me for not awnsering your point, why don't you clarify it. What exactly is the flaw that the Luxembourg, San Marino and Swiss Grands Prix exposes? If anything those races are a tidy rebuttal to the initial response made by 5225C at the beginning of this thread (Special:Diff/1163063060) - the San Marino Grand Prix didn't take place in San Marino, so why can't the Las Vegas Grand Prix take place at a track in Mercury, Nevada.

No, the current system is not arbitary - because there is a rule. Unfortuantly, we are not experts so it is unavoidable that we make errors, this is true of your Monaco, Singapore and Oyama examples .

I care about dismabiguating between the city and the province - the province covers a significantly larger area. Saying it happens in the city or the province mean two very different things. SSSB (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, my point is that the current system IS indeed arbitrary. - by definition, in fact.

You've made mention to there being a "rule", but have shown no proof of this. There is no evidence that there are a pre-existing set of guidelines on the way that the location table should be written. In fact, I have proven several points where whatever "rule" is in place isn't in fact utilised. So yes, by definition, this "system" is arbitrary. If it weren't arbitrary, then there would be reasoning for the following...

Season article	Race	Circuit listing on article	Problem caused	Disambiguation shown in article
1982	Caesars Palace Grand Prix	Caesars Palace Grand Prix Circuit, Las Vegas	Ambiguity between Las Vegas, Nevada / Las Vegas, New Mexico	N
1996	Argentine Grand Prix	Autódromo Oscar Alfredo Gálvez, Buenos Aires	Ambiguity between Buenos Aires Autonomous City / Buenos Aires Province	N
2008	Japanese Grand Prix	Fuji Speedway, Oyama	Ambiguity between Oyama, Shizuoka / Ōyama, Ōita / Oyama, Shizuoka	N
2023	Miami Grand Prix	Miami International Autodrome, Miami Gardens, Florida	Ambiguity between Miami / Miami Gardens, Florida and other places named Miami	Y
2023	Las Vegas Grand Prix	Las Vegas Strip Circuit, Paradise, Nevada	Ambiguity between Las Vegas, Nevada / Las Vegas, New Mexico	Y

Additionally...

Season article	Race	Circuit listing on article	Subdivision	Subdivision shown in article
1982	Caesars Palace Grand Prix	Caesars Palace Grand Prix Circuit, Las Vegas	Paradise, Nevada	N
2023	Las Vegas Grand Prix	Las Vegas Strip Circuit, Paradise, Nevada	Paradise, Nevada	Y
2015	Monaco Grand Prix	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	Municipality of Monaco	N
2023	Monaco Grand Prix	Circuit de Monaco, Monaco	Municipality of Monaco	Y
2015	Singapore Grand Prix	Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore	Central Region, Singapore	N
2023	Singapore Grand Prix	Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore	Central Region, Singapore	N

If it is so important to disambiguate, you would've thought they would've disambiguated the 1982 season article. They've only had 18 years to do it so far!

So, as I asked much earlier can we have either consistancy OR accuracy.

Please do not make me explain this again. It is not physically possible to misunderstand at this point. - J man708 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The current system is not arbitrary. The only thing that is arbitrary is it's enforcement - that is two separate issues. If you find somewhere where this rule is not implemented correctly, please change it. Then it will be both accurate and (more) consistent. SSSB (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting in such a lecturing, condescending manner? Why is it so difficult for you to communicate in a respectful and adult manner? Sure, there are some cases in our articles that are not up to the standard yet and you are very welcome to help us out. I honestly hope though that you didn't expect two editors to have all the contents of 70 years worth of articles in the back of their mind? You can use AWB for these that require editing a large number of articles.

For what it's worth, I do agree with most of your examples. Oyama should have visible disambiguation. Monte Carlo should be replaced because it neither follows the system (it's only a ward) nor accurate (only half of the circuit actually runs through that ward). I actually mentioned Singapore in a previous discussion, but for some reason that has been ignored, though the correct subdivision is actually the Central Singapore Area.

I don't agree with you with regards to Buenos Aires though. It's examples like that why we have applied the municipality/city rule and we should make exceptions by using greater areas like provinces our counties for some races. The fact that all other races in those calendars list (or at least should) cities or municipalities and the correct wikilink should be more than enough to make clear that the same applies to Buenos Aires. There is no difference here with for instance São Paulo.Tvx1 10:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Tvx1, I'm frustrated because for over two weeks I've been asking for proof or a template as to how this table should look, and have failed to recieve anything. I've not been provided any written guidelines as to how this should be approached - despite my having asked numerous times at this point - not to mention any point I bring up gets completely ignored by SSSB, who seems incapable of responding with anything other than "The current system is not arbitrary". - J man708 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Tvx1, I get your point about Buenos Aires, but I don't think I agree. São Paulo is in São Paulo state. Buenos Aires Autonomous City (and the track itself being within the Autonomous City) is not within Buenos Aires Province. If you're suggesting listing the greater Buenos Aires metro area covering it all, then that could work - This would also mean calling Albert Park in Melbourne (or possibly even Victoria) and not Port Philip, and dropping Paradise in favour of Las Vegas, right? Do you suggest we refer to the areas by their city or state/providence/county (highest national subdivision)? - J man708 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought I had made myself abundantly clear here. The system is and should remain city/municapility (i.e. lowest autonomous subdivision). Using this like state or province would be far too vague for a number of the events concerned. I still don't agree that there is fix requiring problem with Buenos Aires. The fact that all the other entries on those calendars use city or municipality combined with the wikilink should be more than enough to address any potential confusion. The only cases were made exceptions and do visually list a state or province is in cases where there are more the one places with the same name within the same country at the same legal level (city/municipality), which is not the case for the city and province of Buenos Aries (which are on different levels).Tvx1 18:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I get your point again, but I think Buenos Aires causes ambiguity still by virtue of there being a City and a State, with that State not containing the City - being a semi-enclave, I believe? So listing further that it is within the city and not the state would be factually correct.

Working on finding other places that need to be disambiguated, are there others that we can think of? There's a Suzuka in Mie and another in Nagano - There's also two Le Castellets in France. This is all coming around to the point I had initially. If we have several cases where the city/municipality needs further disambiguation within the listing, then wouldn't it be better off if we listed ALL municipalities within their states/provinces? That way, everything is both factual, disambiguous AND easy to follow? - J man708 (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, given that all other circuits use city/municipality and there is a wikilink I don’t think there is a scope of ambiguity for Buenos Aires that needs resolving. As for your second point, I don’t think the number of cases where we’d have to list a state/province is high enough to warrant changing them all. That would just be overkill. Tvx1 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Then by that logic, you can argue that with a Wikilink there's no ambiguity for anyone thinking that the Las Vegas race would be held anywhere but Nevada. I think by holding the main article space of Las Vegas, rather than that directly leading to a disambiguation page shows that there's no ambiguity for it, either. For the second point, I'm happy to change Le Castellet and Suzuka (surely SSSB doesn't see a problem with that) to show their provinces, too, but I think once we get past a point of multiple entries showing City, State, there needs to be a point where they all just become City, State in order to keep it uniform. I'm just wondering where that point would be. - J man708 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't plausible see that point being before 50% need to be City, State. Also, Tvx1's Buenos Aires argument doesn't apply to Las Vegas. In the Buenos Aires case, the lack of ambiguity comes from the fact that one is city and the other is province. If all the other locations are city, there is no reason to think that Buenos Aires would refer to the province. However, both Las Vegas are cities, so the same logic does not apply. SSSB (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet, the logic applies to show their states, despite as you listed in your second last reply that they contain Wikilinks that take you to the correct “Las Vegas” article. If it’s good enough to be considered unambiguous enough to have the main article space of Las Vegas, then it’s surely logical to list it too as just the city.

How can you argue that Buenos Aires city and Buenos Aires state provide “no reason to think that it would refer to the province”, but that there would be reason to believe a Las Vegas race could take place in some random town that happens to share its name? - J man708 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you not read??? Because all the other entries in the calendar list cities or municipalities? Why on earth would anyone being to think that a one entry would refer to a province when literally none of the others do? Tvx1 10:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way. You are wrong with regards to Suzuka. There is only one such place in Japan and the place in Nagano is called Suzaka.Tvx1 10:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, I can’t read. Just as you’ve not read my asking time and time again for the guideline stating that municipalities should be shown over cities wherever possible.

I apologise there - I got my Japanese GPs confused. I meant to say Oyama, not Suzuka - Of which again, there are multiple Oyamas within Japan. - J man708 (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You know not everything on Wikipedia needs a formal site-wide guideline. Most things are just based on consensus and conventions achieved through discussions on article talk pages and WikiProjects.

For the record, the Oyama issue has already been dealt with in the meantime.Tvx1 13:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Then how are people to know how these things are done. So far, all you've offered is "trust me, it's done this way". I would like to see WHERE this has been written. If it's a guideline to abide by, then it will have been written. Currently, I suspect it hasn't at all and you're seeing the current status quo as confirmation that it's a guideline to be abided by. - J man708 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a guideline (why do you keep claiming it is), it is a rule established in an attempt to maintain consistency and avoid the need to come to a consensus for each location individually. The link to the most recent discussion on this topic (where this rule is mentioned and the consensus that is should be used is reinforced) has been provided in this discussion previously. I am not going to spend time tracking it down again. SSSB (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't. There was a link to an archived talk page. Nothing more specific, unfortunately.

If it's an established rule, wouldn't you agree it's ridiculous to think it could be easily abided by for the average editor, when it's briefly mentioned at best in a talk page discussion from years ago?

My biggest question to you is, why do you believe that municipalities should be shown over population centers? Do you really believe an average reader wants to know/is even interested in what local government runs the neighbourhood? It's so incredibly random to me to not choose something smaller like a suburb, or something larger like a city/town. To me, your argument is like arguing for the mass usage of deciliters over liters or milliliters. I mean, it's an option, but it's an option nobody would find helpful.

You seem to forget that we're making an encyclopedia for the masses here. - J man708 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think it is silly to expect an average editor to abide by the rule when passing through. Writing the rule down somewhere within the wikiproject Formula One pages won't change that as most editors passing through will edit as they see fit without digging to see if there is a guideline/rule/policy. Editors who know this rule can then fix any instances where it has not been properly applied.

Who said I believe that municipalities should be shown. I don't. As far as I am aware the only municipality is Port Phillip. That is being discussed below and I have not stated I ssupport using Port Phillip. I have simply pointed out that several of your proposed changes to the rule or individual locations do not work. And I have actually said on two occasions (once in this thread and once below) that I don't believe we should be employing a hard and fast rule to all scenarios. SSSB (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sad news

Hello, I am very sorry to report that Eagleash has passed away. Since this talk page was one of his most edited pages in the Wikipedia talk namespace, I thought I should write a message here. Graham87 12:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Graham87: Sad news indeed. Thank you for letting us know. DH85868993 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the Australian Grand Prix?

Tvx1, Dian Ågesson, 5225C and I (among others I'm sure) have been discussing what the location of the Australian Grand Prix should be listed as in the calendar and elsewhere. Tvx1 maintains it should list "City of Port Phillip". I contend that Melbourne is the best choice. From the Melbourne article, "Its name generally refers to a 9,993 km2 (3,858 sq mi) metropolitan area known as Greater Melbourne, comprising an urban agglomeration of 31 local municipalities, although the name is also used specifically for the local municipality of City of Melbourne based around its central business area." Most importantly, sources state that it is in Melbourne, full stop. We don't need to do any more analysis than looking at the most reliable sources and seeing how they refer to it's location. [3][4][5][6]. I will have Tvx1 state their argument if they wish for the City of Port Phillip. It's clear a consensus needs to be reach before any more edit wars break out for this change. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing it to Port Philip is an absolutely brainless idea. Listing it as Port Philip is a seemingly knee-jerk reaction at best to listing the Las Vegas race in Paradise. Expect this conversation to be caught up in litigation for the next month and for it to go nowhere. Port Philip is surely confusing for anyone who watches the F1 broadcast and never once hears it referred to as Port Philip. Change them all to their proper cities and quit screwing with the system. - J man708 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I am in complete agreeance with the two of you. Before this discussion I had contacted Tvx1 directly on his user page where he stated that Local governement area is what we use of for all the races, be it city, municipality or town. We can’t start making expections for every country. By my count there is at the very least six exceptions to this rule in the 2023 article alone. It's very clear to anyone who has watched or even heard of the Grand Prix that it is in Melbourne. Nobody, Australian or otherwise, would refer to a place by the Australian LGA it falls into. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@5225C: Would like to know your thoughts on the conversation about 2 or 3 sections up where I’ve been calling the “system” that’s utilised completely crap (which doesn’t contain any guidelines written about it outside of within the minds of those who swear by it being a good system). I think people forget we’re writing an encyclopaedia for the masses and want their own personal view points to be what is written in stone. - J man708 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

At risk of being a bit blunt, I think it's total bullshit. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I participated in the above discussion, and while I don't necessarily agree with you on everything, I definitely agree these should be done with common sense and reader-friendliness in mind first. "Consistency" should come a distant second to better serving our readers. A7V2 (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If we follow WP:COMMONNAME then Melbourne is the only answer. City of Port Phillip is the name of the LGA, but nobody uses it as a general term. The city is Melbourne. Port Phillip is used either in specific reference to the port facilities or to Port Phillip Bay. It may be technically correct but it is not in common usage and gets in the way of understanding.

One of those instances where the detail gets in the way of understanding. A rigidly uniform approach is not always, or even often, the best method. --Falcadore (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I must confess to partial responsibility for this change (though not intentionally...). In an above discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Calendar locations showing more info for American races?) I noted that the supposed rule of referring to the lowest level of government was not being used, and I explicitly stated that common sense should prevail on a case-by-case basis. I strongly disagree with it being Port Melbourne as that is not really a place name at all, and it not in line with the norms of place names in Australia and is therefore not helpful to readers. I didn't bother adding much else to that above discussion since it was going nowhere and I was not editing very often. I did not revert the changes at the time for the same reason, figuring someone else would probably do it. I think the changes should be reverted back to Melbourne until this is discussed, per WP:BRD. (Note that I'm indifferent between listing the location as Melbourne or Albert Park, but definitely oppose "Port Phillip"). A7V2 (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the season articles to have Melbourne as this was the status quo ante (ie what was there before) as this should remain until and unless a consensus evolves to change it. Also pinging Island92 who may be wish to give a view on this as I saw a revert by them as well. A7V2 (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the Albert Park circuit, not the Australian Grand Prix. Location for track in the table, not for the GP itself. Island92 (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair point but I didn't choose the name of this section! A7V2 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't affect any of our arguments. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

No matter what you decide. Just kept what Tvx1 brought to the table for his vast related-experience when do these things happen. Island92 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Tvx1 is an experienced and knowledgeable editor but he is not infallible and he isn't the final authority on these matters. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Christ, I hope you're joking, Island92. - It could be Jimmy Wales who changed it to Port Phillip, doesn't mean it can't be flatly incorrect to do. - J man708 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

No one is disputing here where the Albert Park Circuit is located as we all agree that it’s in the greater Melbourne area but also in the specific city of Port Phillip. No one is trying to controvert the truth. We’re just applying a simple system of which relevant location we list in the calendar of our season articles. And the system we’ve chosen years ago is lowest independent government area (i.e. city or municipality) and the truth, which a bunch of Australians just don’t seem to like, is that for the Albert Park Circuit that’s Port Phillip and not the city of Melbourne. Putting Melbourne here would be either inaccurate (if linking to the city) or inconsistent with the other entries in the calendars. Regardless, the full picture of the circuit’s location is still in the its article, has not been changed and no one is suggesting. You’re just overreacting to what is really a simple system for the calendars only. The discussion demonstrates clearly why we should NOT make exceptions for individual races and should not use system’s like “what locals refer to among them”. Also WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant here, since we’re not discussing the title or name of anything. Lastly, someone mentioned 5 or 6 exceptions to the system in the 2023 calendar, can they elaborate?Tvx1 09:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Australians aren't complaining because they "don't like it", they are telling you that you don't understand the way that local government areas work in Australia and that they aren't used as geographic identifiers. The "City of Port Phillip" is not, as you seem to think, a city. The city of Melbourne is not the same as the City of Melbourne. LGA's merge, are renamed, redrawn, etc; they are constituent parts of Melbourne. Linking to Melbourne, as the articles were/are, was not inaccurate.

I mainly edit OpenStreetMap which has to deal with these matters frequently. It's accepted practice that sub-national administrative boundaries cannot be directly compared to each other. To stubbornly insist that the lowest government area is the relevant location is willfully ignoring these differences.

Dian Ågesson (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As I told you before you're overreacting. No one is disputing where the circuit is located. You can find the full undisputed and and unchanged story in its article. This is just about what to refer to in the calendar in season articles. The season articles are meant to be nothing but a report of the championships and a hub to the race reports, drivers' and teams' articles and circuit articles. The entire breakdown of the location pyramid of venue is irrelevant there. Our convention is to list the lowest independent government structure for the circuit within its country and in the case of Australia that is quite simply Port Phillip. Listing that is both accurate and consistent with the other entries in the calendar. I never claimed our old link to greater Melbourne was inaccurate, rather that it was inconsistent. I claimed that linking to the city of Melbourne would be inaccurate. Your making a fuss about something that is not an issue at all. Tvx1 10:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Tvx1,

If it's not an issue at all then it surely shouldn't matter either location is listed. ;)

The fundamental issue is that this convention is logically consistent, yes, but doesn't actually produce consistent results. It's counterintuitive to how most (if not all) readers would expect consistency to be applied (ie, the place where what the racing is happening). I'm not a wiki editor, I was correcting what I believed to be a mistake; it's highly likely other new, well-intentioned users will make similar corrections to that end.

As an aside, where was this convention agreed to, or codified? Why is a specific convention necessary here when other articles with places seem to manage ok?

Sure a more consistent convention would be to use the nearest population centre? Dian Ågesson (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, the issue I referred to was the listing of Port Phillip, nothing else. Secondly, if you see something being consistently being applied to 30ish articles it should tell you that that was not a mistake, but is there for a reason. Your first reflex should have been to discuss then and not blindly edit 30ish articles. Thirdly, conventions do not all need to be codified in guidelines or policies. Most things on Wikipedia are actually achieved through edit consensus or failing that discussion consensus. Lastly, the other ways to deal with this you propose cannot be consistently applied due to different natures of circuit locations (rural passing by/through multiple towns vs in the middle of big cities) and by how different countries treat these types of locations. In many countries towns, like mine, have actually little meaningful value in their existence and workings. Tvx1 13:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1 To clarify, you're saying that the consensus was established through editing.

But the consensus was started on 4 July. The "status quo" from 4 July trumps the years beforehand where it was unchanged?

And the reversion the day after, 5 July, that wasn't a sign that there wasn't a consensus?

"Lastly, the other ways to deal with this you propose cannot be consistently applied due to different natures of circuit locations (rural passing by/through multiple towns vs in the middle of big cities) and by how different countries treat these types of locations. In many countries towns, like mine, have actually little meaningful value in their existence and workings" (emphasis mine)

Why do the differences between countries with respect to "towns" invalidate using the nearest population centre, but the Australian (or American, or British) experience not invalidate using the lowest administrative level, no matter what that may be? Dian Ågesson (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As I have explained to you before, we don’t use a seperate consensus for every single calendar entry because that would be an unworkable system to the detriment of our readers. And the system you propose because many rural circuits don’t have a nearest population centre, but actually multiple equal ones, and often such population centres don’t even have much meaning other than being geographical features like an island or a small mountain range. Tvx1 11:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry @Tvx1, but I really don't understand how you can claim that this system was established as the consensus through editing, but that the actual edits on the page don't matter for individual entries. In any case, it's clear there is no consensus now, anyway? How many more people on this page need to express their dissatisfaction?

How many circuits, genuinely, are exactly equidistant to multiple population centres, of the same size and relative prominence? The List_of_Formula_One_circuits doesn't seem to have problems. Dian Ågesson (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This "simple system" you speak of has at least six exceptions. Why not make it a seventh? As I said on your user page, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Qatar, Mexico, Brazil, and Las Vegas all have their Grand Prixs listed with locations that are not LGAs. I'm not sure what further elaboration you need other than that the link in the article does not lead to an article about an LGA or local equivalent. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC), expanded 01:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Qatar, Mexico, Brazil and Las Vegas all do use the lowest level of independent government, be that a city, municipality, town or even unincorporated territory. We never claimed that every concept is identical. If there are cases that do not follow the convention you are very welcome to change them. Tvx1 10:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Existing inconsistencies with the supposed "lowest level of independent government" rule

Current entry in table	Supposed LGA	Actual LGA	Explanation
Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	Sakhir	Southern Governorate	Sakhir is a region under the administration of the Southern Governate.
Baku City Circuit, Baku	Baku	Possibly an undetermined rayonlar	Although Baku is a rayon, it's not described as the lowest level of administration. I can't identify the exact rayonlar the circuit falls into, but a rayonlar appears to be the lowest level of government in Azerbaijan.
Lusail International Circuit, Lusail	Lusail	Al Daayen	Lusail is a city within Zone 69, but the lowest level of government is the Al Daayen municipality.
Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City	Mexico City	Iztacalco	Mexico City comprises boroughs, each of which has "significant autonomy". Thus Iztacalaco is the lowest level of government the circuit is located in.
Interlagos Circuit, São Paulo	São Paulo	Subprefecture of Capela do Socorro	Similar to Baku and Mexico, the city is made up of LGAs.
Las Vegas Strip Circuit, Paradise, Nevada	Paradise, Nevada	Clark County, Nevada	Paradise is an unincorporated city and thus not the "lowest level of independent government", in fact, it has no government at all. As such, it is governed by the Clark County Commission.

I won't be changing any of these because (a) this supposed rule is clearly not actually in force, and (b) it is patently idiotic for us to list, for example, "Interlagos Circuit, Subprefecture of Capela do Socorro". It should be immediately and clearly obvious to everyone that this is a ridiculous and arbitrary rule that is utterly useless to our readers. I can't even figure out the lowest level of government for Baku because our coverage of Azerbaijan's administrative units is so poor and inconsistent across articles. Nobody cares what the lowest level of independent government a circuit falls into. We want to know where the circuit is geographically, and there is unlikely to be a single standard that will provide a satisfying answer for every track. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You missed Marina Bay Street Circuit, which is either within Central Region or Central Area.

Thank you for being the voice of reason here, 5225c. - J man708 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: - Then where is the evidence that this "system" is what we need to abide by? You've shown no proof in a solid month of it and frankly, it's a completely fucking shit system that only causes problems for the average reader.

And, for the record, "inconsistent with the other entries in the calendars" - You have no issue with OTHER inconsistencies already shown by our current system, but keep bringing up reasons to avoid changing it. - J man708 (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever said I have no issues with other inconsistencies, quite on the contrary. We were actually identifying them in the above discussion and arriving at an agreement to execute the changes, but you were actually the one stalling with regards to Buenos Aires. And you honestly think I can spend every second of my life editing Wikipedia 24/7? Some of these inconsistencies, like Monaco, require the entire history of season article to be edited, which requires time. Time I just didn't have to spend on Wikipedia the last two weeks, because while it might be winter now down under it's actually summertime here in central Europe and was trying to enjoy a summer vacation but instead I find myself being reproached on Wikipedia the whole time. Besides we told you can help tackling these inconsistencies as well, but I havent' seen you doing anything either.Tvx1 10:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I did suggest something though? I suggested using the logical method of listing Track, City and being done with it. The current system of listing whoever picks up the garbage bins around the circuit is pretty useless to the standard, garden variety reader.
- J man708 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Define city. Because based on the definitions I have seen of "city", Silverstone Circuit (among others) does not have one. I see all these claims from you that you want a consistent system (see #Calendar locations showing more info for American races?, but the current system is "crap" or "fucking shit", but you fail to come up with a solution that you find works, and can be consistently applied. So it looks lie you are going to have to choose between location descripters you like, and consistency - unless you've had a break-through?

For what it is worth I agree with one of the comments above (I don't remeber who said it), absolute consistency should not be the priority. SSSB (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I said the system is “fucking shit” and I double down on it. We have no guidelines that it should be this way written or that, but are expected to abide by it, something that doesn’t exist anywhere. 15 year long status quos are being reverted back to the knee-jerk changes of a month ago…

Okay, for the record, I should’ve said something closer to Track, City (if it’s rural, call it the nearest town). Nothing to do with muncipalities or administrative areas - Just general places people live… You know, what 99% of readers actually want to know and not who picks up the garbage bins in the area.

The Silverstone Circuit’s article lists it in Silverstone - Sounds logical enough for me. I can see the argument for Towcester, but I’d say Silverstone itself… More importantly though, I’d take on the recommendations of those who know UK locales better than I do as to what’s appropriate. Ergo, Melbourne and 100% not Port Phillip. - J man708 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I really don't see why you are complaining in this section here. The Australian Grand Prix entry does list exactly what you want. The track and city it's located in, the city of Port Phillip. Your problem is that you just can't cope with the Albert Park Circuit not being located in the city of Melbourne. You might hate it it, but it's the truth.Tvx1 13:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Australian Grand Prix entry does list exactly what you want." - I... I... I don't even...

By the same logic you've provided, you're stating that the London Olympics should be listed in the London Borough of Newham, because it's not in the City of London... This COMPLETELY ignores that both are within London, which is, you know... How EVERYONE in the world refers to it.. - J man708 (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up WP:COMMONNAME. Commonname is something to consider when naming an article - we aren't naming an article, we are discussing how a location should be presented within a table, within an article whose name is not disputed.And if commanname were relevant, your argument would be (at least) nullified by arguing WP:CONSISTENT (lowest legal subdivision) and WP:PRECISION (Port Phillip is more precise than Melbourne). But commonname isn't relevant, and neither are precision, ot consistent, so I'll strike this. SSSB (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought my last reply were to TVX. SSSB, that guideline might be for the usage of the name of an article, but it still applies here. We're using it for a list, which in turn should use these same principals of disambiguation. For instance, we refer to the common name of countries on the listing, too - Mexico City wasn't shown as Mexico, despite that being the name of the city. Hà Nội would most likely be the correct way of showing the locale of Vietnam's race, but we use the simpler, common English spelling of Hanoi. The "Republic of Singapore" is the correct name of the listing, but instead, we use the common name of Singapore. Common names definitely extend outside the scope of title naming, even if the article doesn't necessary proclaim that. - J man708 (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You were repling to Tvx1, that doesn't mean I can't give my thoughts on the issue. The guideline does not apply here just because we have used the common names in the other entries. And common name of Port Phillip isn't Melbourne - as they are different places. It is just that when people talk about places within Port Phillip they commonly refer to them as being within Melbourne. That is an entirely separate issue and falls completely out of the scope of common name, even by your broad interpretation of its relevance. SSSB (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No the commonname policy does not apply here at all because we’re neither discussing an article title nor which of a set of names for the same place we should use. We’re dealing with which of set of places within a legal ladder to list.

Secondly, your Olympics example doesn’t hold water because a)WP:OLYPMICS have their own conventions b)I’m pretty sure the articles on the individual events do include more precise information on the venue and c)the Olympics were not entirely held in one of the municipailities of London but throughout Greater London and even Wimbledon. Tvx1 11:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

SSSB, trust me when I say this, as an Australian, the only way we talk about Port Phillip is in mention of the bay itself, ie. the body of water. Not the lands along the coast, not the Port Phillip council area, but the bay itself. This is another reason why calling it Port Phillip is so incredibly incorrect.

SSSB, please enlighten me on what your viewpoint actually is. You seem to be arguing for the current system, but also dislike the change to Port Phillip?

Tvx1, can you please tell us how showing a local area council (municipality) is better than showing something smaller, like a suburb name and is alternatively better than using something larger, like the city name? As I stated in the above discussion, your argument is like arguing for the mass usage of deciliters over liters or milliliters. I mean, it's an option, but it's an option nobody would find helpful. - J man708 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

And there lies your problem. You’re only looking at this from you own view. You only care for what an Australian thinks. We’re writing for a worldwide audience here, not only Australians.Tvx1 23:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The question we should be considering is what would actually be useful to the readers (ie, what is the point of putting a location at all). The "City of Port Phillip", in spite of its name, is not a city but an LGA. It is not really a place, just an administrative body. As Melbourne tells you, Melbourne is very large, much larger than the area administered by the "City of Melbourne". This mis-match goes the other way outside of the large cities in Australia, as multiple towns or even cities can be within one LGA. We must be sensible here, and give something which is meaningful to readers, and that means using the common-sense conventions of place names in whatever the place is. A7V2 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

---

This seems like myself, Cerebral726, 5225C, Falcadore and Dian Ågesson agree that the name should state Melbourne and not Port Phillip. A7V2 is impartial to using Melbourne or Albert Park, but is strongly against Port Phillip. SSSB has stated (forgive me if I'm not putting this correctly) that the system has flaws, but isn't in favour of showing Port Phillip over Melbourne - not counting his vote either way, just providing additional info. The only person with an issue against this is Tvx1. Seems like a consensus to me. I'm taking the initiative and changing it back. - J man708 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Melbourne, as it has always been, the FIA uses it. All the Australian GP articles (from 1996, obviously) use Melbourne. These articles, these tables, should not differ. Marbe166 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you at least have waited for anyone you pinged to reply whether they agreed with your assessment. As I explained to you, we don’t make a seperate consensus for every single calendar entry. You’re opening a can of worms here.Tvx1 23:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You can agree or disagree with the consensus forming here, but you don't get to say what we can or cannot have consensus for. If there is consensus to consider these case-by-case then so be it. I think it's unlikely that most existing places would be changed as most are sensible as they are. A7V2 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Could you at least have waited..." - They replied earlier in the topic, calling Port Phillip incorrect. The consensus is Melbourne. "You might hate it it, but it's the truth" - J man708 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Calling Port Phillip is not incorrect. It is in Port Phillip, it is just that there is a consensus that we should not use Port Phillip as the location identifer. These are two very different things - please do not confuse them. To cover Tvx1's point. I don't see a can of worms here at all. This Port Phillip situation is very unique, all of other circuits use town/City (Port Phillip is neither. I don't see this discussion as meaning we can dicuss things on a case by case basis, but rather as meaning that we should only use town/cities and not LGAs and their equivalents. SSSB (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect as in "It's incorrect for us to list it like this", not incorrect factually - It's not incorrect to state races take place in the Milky Way, but it is incorrect to list it this way. - J man708 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• My own view on this subject is that the column in the calendar table is labelled "circuit" and not "location", so its purpose should primarily be to help readers understand at a glance what the circuit hosting the race is. In this regard "Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne", "Algarve International Circuit, Portimão", "Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City", "Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir", "Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal", "Circuit of the Americas, Austin", "Circuit Paul Ricard, Le Castellet", and "Red Bull Ring, Spielberg" are helpful because they include both of the commonly-used English-language names of the venue. The circuit which has hosted the Australian Grand Prix since 1996 is almost never referred to as "the Port Phillip circuit", so that isn't a very helpful way to list its location, even if it is more precise than listing "Melbourne" (but then again, "Albert Park Circuit, 37°50′59″S 144°58′6″E" would also be more precise than either). In this context listing the location of many other circuits beyond just listing the country has less utility, although "Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Montmeló" does help distinguish that venue from Montjuïc, which is also in Barcelona. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yep, absolutely. I'll also mention that I agree with HumanBodyPiloter5, they make quite a sensible assessment of the situation and what our goals ought to be here. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• 1,000,000% this. I'd like to add that the F1's own website shows on their 2022 results pages exactly what HumanBodyPiloter5 has suggested. Albert Park, Melbourne, Autódromo Internacional do Algarve, Portimão (2021), Circuit Paul Ricard, Le Castellet, Circuit of The Americas, Austin, etc - This is what we should use. - J man708 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Major Events

I have been trying on a few occasions now to trim the bloating of data in text boxes. Most recently on articles relating to circuits I have been trying to remove support categories from the lists of Major Events. This section is being used to list every race occurring over a weekend instead of the headline event. A "Major Event" surely only refers to the headline category and to none of the support categories. If a support category was a major event, it would be it's own event and not piggybacking with Formula One, or WEC etc. My attempts to action this has been reverted by User:Island92 whose only justification was to say other articles have them, in defiance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and suggested I should bring it up here. -- Falcadore (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Or we uniform each F1 circuit article or we just simply leave things as they currently appear in the infobox. As things stand now it looks fine to me. Island92 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Uniformity isn't relevant to the issue and has never been an acceptable defence on it's own. I would very much like to know why it is now. If your opinion is that every race category on a program is a "Major Event" then let's read that instead of this uniformity arguement which has no place. --Falcadore (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I‘m going to agree with Falcadore here. It looks like most of these infoboxes simply include all events. Though I wouldn’t quite brand things like F2 an F3 as non-major. That these are paired with F1 is more a question of marketing and practicality for the venues’ calendars and for logistics than of status. Also given the vast amount of articles we’re dealing with here, you should give some leeway with regards to uniformity. It takes time to roll out such a change to all of them. Tvx1 14:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely F2 and F3 are not major. They would not exist without F1 and are dependent on it. They do not headline their own events and by design they feed Formula One. Being the biggest feeder series does not change their function is something to support F1 rather than being independently important. -- Falcadore (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I am also going to agree with Falcadore. I think that when we decide what series to mention in infoboxes, we should err on the side of minimalistic - less is more in these situations. I also think that we should probably focus on the top 2-3 events at each venue, trying where possible to include a variety of racing. We probably want to look at just including the top category that races therefor each type of racing (open-wheel, endurance, for bikes and cars) - namely because F2 is not more major that WEC, just because it has more viewers. WEC is the top tier of endurance racing, F2 is the second tier of open-wheel. For Silverstone, I would advocate that we include F1, MotoGp and WEC and leave it at that. For COTA we can include NASCAR, but without specifiying the sub-categories that specifally race there. BTCC might not be major for Silverstone, but it is for Knockhill Circuit - so it would only be included for one not the another. As for the uniformity argument, that is not a compelling argument because this is a volunteer project, so I doubt anyone has time to go through all the dozens or hundreds of circuit articles updating this. If uniformity bothers you, you can fix it. Reverting people for n reason other than not maintaing uniformity (which is not a requirement or even recommened by this degree) does nothing other than slow down the constant progress of improving Wikipedia (WP:NOTFINISHED). SSSB (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The BTCC example is one I was planning to use.

It should be headline categories only and from events significant to the circuits history, not every headline event. -- Falcadore (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What may be makes it confusing is simply to read "Major events" in the infobox. Reading just "Events", followed next to by Current, Future and Former makes it more sensible.--Island92 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not a good idea. The infobox is not an appropraite place for a comprohensive list of the circuit's events. Those should be listed (if they are listed at all) in a dedictaed section. The purpose of the WP:INFOBOX is to "[summarize] key features of the page's subject." A concise list of the top 2-4 events a circuit hosts could be consider a "key feature" - but not a long list of a dozen events or more. SSSB (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but that is not our fault if the circuit, since its inception has hosted many events so far.--Island92 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, circuits want to host as many events as possible. But it is neither practical nor appropriate to list more than 5 in an infobox (not the 22 I just counted at Silverstone Circuit). Any thing else should go in a section like this SSSB (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous to argue that writing concisely has no place because we can write exhaustively. Have a read of WP:NOTSTATS. There is a place for writing everything that can be written, but it isn't wikipedia. Considering Island92 you felt the need to edit war on that point and cite uniformity is a defence, maybe you need to spend some time reading about wikipedia's aims and policies. There is for example a Wikia for Formula One where you could write exhaustively. Look here.

Put more simply, your argument is based on concepts wikipedia does not believe in. --Falcadore (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Island92 is continuing to edit war my edits, even after asking me to come here and discuss the article. example --Falcadore (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not an edit war. There is a standard for ALL tracks. Why should Circuit de Monaco be an exception? Just because is your favourite track?--Island92 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A: It's still not a valid reason as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

B: I can only do one circuit at a time and I'm wasting many peoples time if you are just going to keep reverting for your own "like" reasons before I can do another one. That is why I did not do any more after Monaco, which by the way is not the first circuit I have made this edit. For example here -- Falcadore (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That's good whether you uniform ALL tracks. It will be a new standard, like the standard used before which included F2, F3 and 1950, 1955–2019, 2021–present, for example.--Island92 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want it uniform across all tracks, you can change all the other tracks. As uniformity among articles is optional, if you want uniformity the onus is on you, not us to mantain it. I don't care about uniformity, so I am only going to apply the consensus of this discussion when I come across articles where it is an issue (either as part of some other clean-up or general browsing). And to make a final, blunt point: contining to revert edits on these grounds may see you flagged up for WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. SSSB (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know User:Island92 there is no requirement for uniformity in wikipedia. There never has been and likely there never will be. I also know there is no possible way you will take that the right way as you have insisted constantly that I intend to do only Monaco despite my edit history on numerous other circuits which you have not investigated. I would appreciate, going forward, that you not make assumptions of bad faith without making even the most cursory effort to check if your assumption has any merit. -- Falcadore (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hang on, now I'm getting confused here. I thought this thread dealt with whether or not to include some categories in the infoboxes of circuits. Yet, the latest string of linked edits shows Falcadore edit-warring over how the period the listed events took place should be formatted in the infoboxes. That's something I don't think we discussed here and thus we haven't any consensus for.Tvx1 15:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The substance is always the same in this context (F1 tracks). I don't get it why we can't use the same standard for all of them.--Island92 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree @Island92 about this situation, the substance is always the same even also on all of the motorsport tracks. Maybe, I can agree into the point of not showing some former support events as the former event in the infobox area, but I do not understand elimination of the support events or some GT series from the current event section in the infobox. Apeiro94 (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Who says we couldn’t? It just takes time to enroll a change so many articles. That might actually go quicker if you’d help instead of blanket reverting because not every article was changed yet. Tvx1 01:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not actually see the irony in not accepting edits to articles until they are all done? You surely understand that preventing something from happening until it has already happened is a feat that can only be achieved with time travel? -- Falcadore (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

At the time of your reply Tvx1 I had not done that yet. I have only done that just now. The entire point of linked articles is that you follow the links to find precise details. I am attempting to simplify information which is presented three times in the articles already in sections like "Events Hosted" and template bars detailing the histories of circuits used by various categories. See it is not just the list abuse, it's also the repetition where the same data is presented in infobox, chart and template. -- Falcadore (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Falcadore's argument (the one I am repling to). Seems sound and I agree with it all. I do however have issues with this edit summary: specifically, I do think it is reasonable for a person to assume that the event took place in all those years (which is why I added "intermittedly" when I attempted this sort of tidy up in the past. See Special:Permalink/1164330951 as an example.

Additionally, the formatting in the infobox in this case is misleading. Although it is true that the Formula One Monaco Grand Prix, the Monaco Grand Prix is older (and the more significant part of the event - it says major events, not major series).

Finally, we have this disagreement (disagreement in the tamest possible sense) between DH85868993 and Apeiro94. DH argues that although it doesn't happen in 2023, it should be considered a current event as it is scheduled every other year, and this is just the off-year (Special:Diff/1166077435). Aperio argiues that this makes it a future event (Special:Diff/1166096526). Both argument have merit - and an argument could be made that it should be classified as a "former" event (not a classification used there, but in other places, again see the permalink above).

Really, the most pertinent info is the name of the event (not the series), anything else is supplementary. Therefore, I sugget that the event name takes precednece (unless it does not have a unique name, in which case series will suffice), the series can be used to justify why the choosen event is "major" and should be secondary (i.e. the opposite of what is happening here). Years should be limited to the article body (not relevant to an events "majorness"). I also don't think a future event can be realistically classed as "major", unless it is is one of the 4-5 major championships. SSSB (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no possible way a series like 24H could be considered a "major" series. It is strictly an amateur series. No factory teams. Those professional drivers in it are hired by amateurs. Grid numbers struggle. It is at best a third tier GT Series held at a circuit like Monza which has seen the entire history of GT racing. If asked to list in the history of important races at Monza would 24H make the top 100? There are Italian national championship events much more important. This is the problem with "uniformity". What is an important race at Monza is vastly different to an important race at a venue like Autodromo Riccardo Paletti. -- Falcadore (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As a slightly seperate point, if the years an event is held are listed it becomes obvious which are current events and which are former. Future events is crystal balling and can wait until they are held. A championship or event which has been held in the past and is scheduled to appear again in the future should never be called a future event, that is misleading. Listing events as Current/Existing/Future is entirely superfluous. -- Falcadore (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You know, the word event can easily be changed to series in the infobox template if that’s more logical. I don’t however agree that an event that is actively running on a biennial contract and just having an off year are either former or future.

As for others’ arguments brough here, I think that stating Italian F3 and Italian GT are major in the circuit article of one article is at odds with the blanket statement that international F3 and certainly F2 is not major at all on any circuit. Also I don’t agree that 24H races aren’t major anywhere. The one at Le Mans certainly is, but a a circuit like Spa-Francorchamps the 24H races is most certainly one of its most important events. Tvx1 09:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Again 24H is a third tier GT championship. Spa is what approximately 100 years old? Are you really going to suggest that 24H is important to the 100 year history of Spa?

FIA F2 and FIA F3 have no reason to exist without Formula One. They are a support event in every possible way. So comparing to them serves no purpose. Italian F3 ran for 48 years and a lot of those years would have been the premier Italian open wheel championship and most of those years it would have run at Monza. Is the history of Italian motor racing history without merit compared to a Pan-European series composed entirely of amateurs?

I believe that Major Events applies to events in the history of the circuit itself. Not of European championship history. Just the circuit, and the age and history of the circuit is important. Is the Bathurst 1000 - a domestic event with a 60 year history - more important than the Bathurst 12 Hour which in only half of it's intermittent and much shorter history has aligned with the Global Intercontinental Challenge? Spa's 24H event is important to Spa in 2023, but not in the century of Spa's history. So it's a Major Event possibly for an article called 2023 in Motorsport or 2023 in European sport, but not in the context of the history of Spa. This keeps it on topic. An additional point if 24H is so important to Spa's history, why is it's only mention in the listing of events which occur? Not a single sentence anywhere in the article's prose stating that 24H is important to Spa. --Falcadore (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’d say the 24H race of Spa is most certainly a major race to that circuit and it’s history. Could you please leave out this lecturing tone and actually check the subject’s history. We’re trying to collaborate here and find a consensus. The Spa-Francorchamps circuit, in its original layout, was indeed first used 100 years. The 24h race was first run 99 years. It’s one of two events, along with the Belgian Grand Prix, that has been run nearly continuously throughout the circuit’s history on its various layouts. It’s one of the circuit’s premier events and that’s why, contrary to your claim, it is acknowledged in the article’s lead and prose. While the current car category of that 24h race might be “third tier GT”, that has not always been the case at all in this event’s nearly 100 year history. Your problem is that you’re making personal judgements on importance rather then what we should do: reflect the coverage in the sources. Tvx1 20:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Which would be heavily skewed to recentism? -- Falcadore (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary. As a pointed out the 24h of Spa race is nearly 100 years old and one of the two premier events through the circuit’s entire history. Labelling it as a “third-tier-event” is what’s truly recentism. Tvx1 12:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahh I see the source of the confusion. 24H Series is not related to the 24 Hours of Spa. 24H is it's own series and does not include the 24 Hours of Spa. The 24 Hours of Spa-Francorchamps, is as you say, a century old event with a history as part of many series and is presently a round of the Intercontinental GT Challenge and the GT World Challenge Europe. The 24H Series race held at Spa-Francorchamps is the Hankook 12H Spa-Francorchamps, which does not have a wikipedia page and has a history that only goes back as far as 2017 where it started as a twin five hour race and has only been held five times. -- Falcadore (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

And just to reply specifically to User:Island92, that is exactly what Edit Warring is. Having a reason to does not change what an edit war is. You have repeatedly used definitions of how wikipedia works in a manner you have made up yourself. Despite pointing to to wikipedia policy you continue to use your own definitions. It's hard to debate you when you refuse to correctly use the terms everybody else uses. --Falcadore (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Actually for me it is very hard to discuss about this when you attempt to change the event section of circuits with your own rules, after improving the circuit pages of all the world from Europe to Far East, from Australia to North America, from Middle East to South America, in which I made most of my efforts in my Wikipedia editing time.
• I can understand and compromise about your arguments about the support series or some other minor series for not putting them into the major events section of the infobox. Even I can understand your opinion about not indicating future events separately into the infobox.
• But I still don't agree and understand for your logic of removing Current // Former section for the major events and your efforts for writing the years as combined, and your efforts for trying to change the years of events:
  • Firstly, by looking at your edits on the Mount Panorama Circuit, when you wrote Australian Grand Prix (1938–1958), it can be understood as the Australian Grand Prix was held at there from 1938 to 1958 every years, however it was actually held at there four times in 1938, 1947, 1952, 1958.
  • Secondly, if I give another sample for the current event instead of former event, Bathurst 12 Hour (since 1991) is understood as the race is held at there every year since 1991, however it was not held at there in 1995–2006, or in 2021 due to the pandemic, that's why all the years should be written for indicating the exact years of events. So, the years should be written as (1991–1994, 2007–2020, 2022–present). Also, why are you writing (since xxxx) instead of (xxxx—present)
  • Lastly, your logic to remove TCR World Tour from the circuit infobox is not understandable. It will be another international event of the circuit, and it should be more important than some national events, such as Bathurst 24 Hour.

Apeiro94 (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that maybe you actually do not understand that listing the years specifically that you do not understand it explains whether an event is current or former. I mean if someone is described as being (1939-1999) it's pretty obvious it means some died 24 years ago at the age of 60 where as describing someone as (b. 1969) suggest they are still alive. It does not need to be labelled "Alive" or "Deceased" as well, the years do that for you. Are you really saying you do not understand that? You've said it several times and I simply do not believe you don't understand it.

Firstly and Secondly; "it can be understood". Fortunately there is a link which explains it. So you use the link. That's how hyperlinks work. It is simply a level of detail not needed.

Lastly; Of course it is understandable, you even said it yourself. "Will be". Pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. Assuming facts not source-able. Facts that are not in evidence. Wikipedia deals in what has happened, not what might happen in the future.

Now I removed for example the "Intercontinental GT Challenge" because that is a not what is important to Mount Panorama. It's the Bathurst 12 Hour race that is important, not the championship the 12 hour has belonged to in recent years.

Also, correct me if I am wrong aren't all the specific individual years listed further down the article in these tables and lists of the history of events? I am trying to simplifiy and reduce the infobox. The specifics are already in these articles and other articles as well.

-- Falcadore (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m with the others here. To elaborate with your example, if a person is labelled as having lived from (1939-1999) a reader will understand that the person lived continuously for 60 years, not as having lived intermittently during that period (which you’ll certainly agree isn’t possible). Likewise one will likely assume that Australian Grand Prix (1938–1958) means the event took place continuously throughout that period. Listing the information this way is unnecessarily vague and potentially confusing. Tvx1 12:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• For the years issue, @Tvx1 has already agreed my opinions by writing in more better and clear words. Writing the event years continuously instead of intermittently seems much more confusing. Yes, also the history/listing of events are written further down on the article for listing the exact years/times of the all major and recognized support series events. I also did this before you deleted support series from the infoboxes on the circuits before, and I can agree that FIA Formula 2 Championship and Porsche Supercup info will not be needed in the infobox, since they come together with Formula 1 except some specific races, like the 2017 Jerez Formula 2 round.
• If you think TCR World Tour issue is WP:CRYSTALBALL, maybe look at the other international events in Mount Panorama Circuit. The other international events hosted in Mount Panorama Circuit are the Intercontinental GT Challenge in 2016–2020, 2022–2023, and World Touring Car Championship in 1987. So, why should not TCR World Tour be written alongside the Bathurst 1000 (I know that it is very popular national event) and Bathurst 12 Hour (which was actually national event before). Unlike the other European circuits (even if due to its remote location), Mount Panorama Circuit has not hosted diverse types of international events/rounds.
• I have preferred to write Current and Former in the infoboxes for separating the current and former events in more clear way. But if you think the year info is enough for distinguishing the current and former events along with their importance, maybe current events should be written in bold and above of the former events. Maybe, we should have the idea of other contributors for this.

Apeiro94 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• I really don’t think we should make a judgement of importance simply based on whether or not an event is paired with others calenderwise. I mean Formula Regional for instance has it seperate schedule of races, yet is an even lower level on the pyramid. Being paired with other events is mostly a matter of convenience rather than importance. We should look at the extent of coverage.
• I would keep the current and former distinctions, but we just should list events as former when they are in an off-year of an active non-annual contract.

Tvx1 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You don't actually know what Crystal Ball is do you? The status of the TCR World Tour and the Bathurst 1000 is irrelevant. How about you try to understand what you are talking about before you try to inaccurately argue your point. Read up then try again.

Before you try to argue that TCR World Tour and Bathurst 1000 are relevant Apeiro94, WP:CRYSTALBALL refers to how events in the future are treated very differently. So don't attempt to compare TCR World Tour to other events, that isn't the issue. Read it and learn. -- Falcadore (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, can we lose the "Current"/"Former"/"Future" describers? If we are listing every year an event is held then it becomes obvious which is current. If an event says "(Since" or "-present" then it is Current. If it is "(1986-2007)" then it is obviously Former. And Future is crystal balling. The Vietnam Grand Prix is an obvious example of something that is not a Major Event because it never took place. --Falcadore (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• I believe this was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_24#Infobox_bloat?. My view is simply that we should remove the parameter from the infobox template. It invariably attracts bloat and the content is better handled by prose. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. If the section of the infobox were removed altogether it could be replaced with a section of the article which I think would be more useful, and could be more nuanced (ie when there's a separate article for the event, or just put a paragraph there, etc. The infobox entry on Amaroo Park (I know not an F1 circuit), for example, doesn't really add anything to the article. A7V2 (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think a "major events" parameter can have value when used appropriately - to give a broad outline of the type of events the circuit hosts. But I wouldn't be outright opposed to removing it. SSSB (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Given the above discussion, if the parameter is to be kept then I prefer with the "SSSB/Tvx1 version" (apologies if I'm misreading...) of only listing the most important events/series, and including precise years. And on rethinking I don't have a very strong preference re keeping or getting rid of it altogether, but I do slightly lean towards removal. A7V2 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  If I can make a minor correction: precise years where practical. For the Spa-Francorshamps listing the precise years for the Belgian Grand Prix would be impractical (due to the number of missing years before it became a regular fixture) in which case "intermittently 1925–1970, 1983–present" is sufficient. SSSB (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes that's fair. I was thinking more along the lines of the Bathurst example above for the Australian GP where it's not even intermittent. A7V2 (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Most Grand Prix wins per season by driver

What is that table about? It's Verstappen's eight season in which he has at least one victory. Eurohunter (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: It's a list of how many times each driver has won the most races in the season, i.e. a list of how many times each driver appears in the preceding "Most wins per season" table. Consistent with the tables at List of Formula One driver records, it's limited to the top ten(ish) entries. Verstappen is not in the table because he's only won the most races in the season twice (2021 and 2022). He'll join the table if he wins the most races this year (thereby increasing his count to 3). DH85868993 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that table is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Where is the reliable source attesting the notability of this achievement? Tvx1 22:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. It's not listed on List of Formula One driver records (nor should it be), and to be frank seems like a non-achievement when there are years such as 1959, 1961 and 1982 where several drivers had the most wins for the season with just two. Searching online I wasn't able to find anyone else listing this stat. A7V2 (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI that a similar table exists at List of Formula One polesitters. SSSB (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that should also be removed. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have renamed this discussion as it was impossible to link to due to due the # in the title (which was List of Formula One Grand Prix winners#Most Grand Prix wins per season by driver). As no-one has objected I will shortly remove the above mentioned sections. A7V2 (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It might have been that I made a typo in my edit summary linking here, but as the edit summary I ended up using links to the new section title I don't think it would be a good idea to change this back now. A7V2 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional opinions requested at Talk:2023 Dutch Grand Prix

I am looking for additional opinions at Talk:2023 Dutch Grand Prix#The Lead regarding a discussion involving me and Island92. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

2023-09 appreciation from reddit

Excerpt from https://np.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/16gn5b0/since_everyones_talking_wikipedia_stats_heres/ «The people we really need to thank for all this are Wikipedia editors @Engr. Smitty and Corvus tristis: - as well as the 2,535 other people who've edited the article at some point too!» Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Usage of for hatnotes

I already had a discussion with Island92 whether it's fine to add for hatnotes linking to MotoGP articles. I'm willing to let this go but I'm curious what others think. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 22:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Adding hatnotes seems completely reasonable in any case where there might be confusion (ie. 2023 British Grand Prix and 2023 British motorcycle Grand Prix). In some cases they're not really necessary (ie. 2023 Dutch Grand Prix and 2023 Dutch TT) but this seems like fairly standard Wikipedia disambiguation practice to me. I will notify the motorcycle racing Wikiproject if they haven't been already. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  As all the MotoGP rounds with the exception of the Dutch TT follow the "2023 [...] motorcycle Grand Prix" formula it seems perfectly reasonable that someone who doesn't know the official name might look for the article on the Dutch TT the same way they would any other MotoGP event. Therefore, this hat note is not inappropriate, even if it may not be as necessary. SSSB (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is something I've thought about myself in the past, definitely this can and should be added to all previous articles. The purpose of hatnotes is to resolve ambiguity, and clearly there is an ambiguity in this case, even if it is clear which topic is primary for the search-term. A7V2 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Color Code for rankings in race results overview

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Color_Code_for_ranking --Mark McWire (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Helmut Marko/1971 German Grand Prix

We have some internal inconsistency regarding Helmut Marko's result at the 1971 German Grand Prix:

• Helmut Marko says "DNQ"
• McLaren Grand Prix results, McLaren M7A and 1971 Formula One season say "DNS"
• 1971 German Grand Prix says "DNQ" in the Qualifying table and "WD" in the Race table

Here's what external sources have to say:

• Mike Lang's Grand Prix Vol 2, lists him as "Also practised: H. Marko (McLaren-Ford) No time." and offers the additional information: "During the afternoon the Austrian sports car driver Dr. Helmut Marko set off in Bonnier's McLaren but almost immediately ran out of fuel and gave up in disgust."
• grandprix.com lists him as "nq" (i.e. "not qualified")
• FORIX lists him as "Not qualified"
• ChicaneF1 lists him as "dnq" (i.e. did not qualify)
• formula1.com doesn't list him at all (but they typically don't list non-starters)

So what do we think his result should be? I lean towards "DNQ". DH85868993 (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

As most sources state DSQ/NQ, I think that's what we should write. He entered the Grand Prix weekend, attempted to qualify and failed to do so. Formula 1.com is not usable for us in this case as far as I'm concerned, since they don't even have the full qualifying result for that race. Motorsportsstats on the other hand does and includes him. By the way, I though we had a discussion recently and agreed not to include DNQ drivers in the race result in grand prix articles?Tvx1 11:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

DNQ sounds right. Motor Sport reports him as having run out of petrol during practice, so he at least participated to some extent. MS gives his car number as '27T' and Bonnier's as '27' but it appears to have been the same car. Halmyre (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If he indeed ran with a T-car, then his time would not have counted even if he set one. That in turn would make DNQ the wrong listing, since he never attempted to qualify. I guess in that case he should be scrapped from the results all together. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not right. That was just an alternate number back then, not necessarily it reguloratory T-car. A similar example is Graham Hill, who's car had the number 1T during the 1969 Dutch Grand Prix weekend (certainly through qualifying). Lap times set with a car with T in its number were very much valid and one could qualify that way. Besides pictures I can find of Marko that weekend show his number to be simply 27, not 27T.Tvx1 11:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Other examples

Another one here where WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CONSISTENCY seem to clash - @Zwerg Nase:'s comment above highlights a degree of inconsistency between drivers in situations where they practised but withdrew and/or didn't attempt to qualify. A few examples:

1. Giancarlo Fisichella at 2002 French Grand Prix

Incident: crashed in practice, was ruled out of the weekend. Jordan attempted to find a replacement but could not in time.

All of our pages (driver, team results, car, season, race) list him as DNQ, which would appear to be inconsistent with the below.

2. Karl Wendlinger (and Sauber more generally) at 1994 Monaco Grand Prix

Incident: crashed in Thursday practice and put in a coma. Sauber withdrew from the event outright, including teammate Frentzen, and made no attempt to qualify.

Listed as DNS on Karl Wendlinger, 1994 Formula One World Championship, Sauber C13, and Sauber Grand Prix results; WD on 1994 Monaco Grand Prix in Qualifying and DNS in the Race table. Frentzen is listed as WD everywhere.

This one is tricky: the 1994 sporting regulations provided that the fastest 26 would qualify for the race, and 28 cars entered most races in 1994, thus two cars (usually the two Pacifics) would not qualify. However, Williams and Simtek only entered one car each at Monaco 1994, thus bringing the number of entries down to 26 (which would reduce to 24 after Sauber withdrew), which is possibly why they are considered by us (and some sources) as having qualified. Article 92 of the 1994 sporting regulations states "no driver may start in the race without taking part in a qualifying practice session" - but they withdrew prior to the start of Thursday Qualifying. Therefore either DNQ or WD would be appropriate but I do not think DNS would be accurate here.

3. Valtteri Bottas at 2015 Australian Grand Prix

Incident: qualified but withdrew overnight due to a back spasm.

Listed as WD on 2015 Australian Grand Prix, DNS on Valtteri Bottas, 2015 Formula One World Championship, Williams Grand Prix results, and Williams FW37.

DNS would appear to be more consistent with instances such as Hakkinen at Australia 1995 or Minardi at Spain 2002, which list DNS on all pages.

4. Sauber at 2000 Brazilian Grand Prix (good article)

Incident: withdrew during qualifying (during the second of three red flag periods) on safety grounds after suffering rear wing failures on both cars. Both cars would end up 20th and 22nd in the classification but well within the 107% time.

Listed as DNS on 2000 Brazilian Grand Prix (good article), 2000 Formula One World Championship, Pedro Diniz, Mika Salo, and Sauber Grand Prix results; WD on Sauber C19.

See Bottas; all I want is consistency!

Spa-Franks (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks: Thank you for the research! I agree that consistency is key here. One note though: Marko's case appears different from the more modern examples listed above, since in that time, the original T-cars (which were used in practice for testing purposes but the times did not count, hence the T) were still in use. In the 90s and 2000s, the term T-car became used for the spare car, which was allowed to record times and race. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

From memory, the agreement reached in the past is that DNS is where you are physically unable to start (not cleared by medical team, car not in drivable condition etc.) WD is where you could have made the start but a non-enforcable decision (i.e. a decision by the driver or the team) meant they didn't. However, DNS doesn't make a great deal of sense if you didn't meet the conditions for starting ) i.e. you haven't qualified and there were either more entries than starters or the 107% rule is enforce. We can speculate that they would have been given permission to race, but that would be WP:SPECULATION. Finally, DNQ usually means that someone attempted to qualify, but didn't meet the conditions.

I would suggest that Fissichella should be WD. DNQ is misleading because he never attempted to qualify. DNS doesn't make sense because he wouldn't be allowed to start (because he didn;t qualify. In fissichella's case, the FIA forced him to withdraw. Even if said that fissichella was DNQ or DNS, you could argue that the second car should be WD becuase Jordan could have run another driver, but couldn't find one and so had ti withdraw the entry.

If I can make a suggestion to change consensus on when to use DNS/WD/DNQ: I suggest that DNS is where you attempt to start, but can't for some reason (typically car failure before race start). DNQ is where you haven't met the qualifying conditions (but attempted to) and WD is where you were unable to attempt to start (unless covered by DNQ) i.e. withdrawing on safety grounds, driver illness. What do we think? SSSB (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

DNS should also include cases where there is not an attempt to start but no effort is made to officially withdraw. E.g. 2005 US. A WD should only be recorded when the entrant communicates to the organiser that they want to be removed from the entry list (like Stroll has done today). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we're all agreeing in a roundabout way here. WD should indicate formal notice of withdrawal and did not leave the pit lane on race day. US 2005 is clearly DNS for the Michelin runners and WD for Ralf Schumacher. DNS should cover broke down/crashed in/on the garage/recon laps/formation lap (delete as applicable!). I agree with having Stroll as WD today in line with Mick Schumacher at KSA 2022 (the last such instance of qualified-but-injured). However we clearly changed practice at some point as in addition to the Bottas inconsistency above, I've seen Timo Glock at Europe 2012 is another one we need to look at. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a couple of remarks here. Firstly, regulations tend to change throughout the years, so we should always reflect contemporary sources on events. We should not apply a 2023 regulation to an event of say 1993 to determine what the outcome of an event was. Heck, whe shouldn't synthesise events ourselves, we should reflect the sources. Secondly, we should not synthesise our own definitions, we should reflect what actually happened and is credited. And that is where we get to the Bottas example. In the Stroll and Schumacher situations of the last two seasons we have official documentation stating that they were voluntarily withdrawn despite being medically cleared. In the Bottas case however, we only have a statement that he was barred from started on medical reasons. He wasn't withdrawn, he just didn't start. That's why we list DNS there. We didn't change our practice (which actually is to reflect the sources), they were just different situations. And just one more thing, 2015 Australian Grand Prix used to actually have Bottas as DNS until an IP inaccurately changed it. These are the issues that come to with an openly editable encyclopedia.Tvx1 13:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are possibly misinterpreting and I have to say I don't particularly appreciate your rather incendiary tone. I am talking about instances where we - i.e. Wikipedia - appear to be listing things inconsistently within our own articles; whilst Fisichella is an arguable case, we do need to find consensus on the others, especially Monaco 1994 re Wendlinger and Sauber. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changed to Template:F1 Drivers Standings and Template:F1 Constructors Standings

Please see Template talk:F1 Drivers Standings#World Champion border for a proposed changes relevant to this WikiProject. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report

An editor has proposed a change to Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have split the discussions to allow them to remain focused: Template_talk:Infobox_Grand_Prix_race_report#Next_Edition_proposal Cerebral726 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see a proposal for a change to the template to deal with the next edition issue. Thanks. SSSB (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sponsor Links

@Island92 and SSSB: Currently, I think we have a bit of an WP:UNDERLINK issue in the race report articles, as the title sponsors are not linked anywhere in the article. It would make sense to link them in the official title, which is presented in the infobox and the lead sentence. The lead sentence is obviously unacceptable since it would violate WP:BOLDLINK. Linking in the infobox is the least of 3 evils in my opinion, even though it leads to a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue, as mentioned by Island92 and attributed to SSSB. SEAOFBLUE has the softest phrasing saying "When possible, do not place links next to each other..." I believe this is a scenario where it isn't possible without adding an unnecessary sentence stating "The title sponsor of the event was [[___]]." Cerebral726 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinking the title sponsor in a place into the article Grand Prix you're focusing on marketing, which is not needed. Also reporting "The title sponsor of the event was [[___]]." is just marketing. I used to add the link for the title sponsor at least in the infobox, but SSSB stopped me because of WP:SEAOFBLUE. Not wikilinking title sponsors at all is the best solution, as it stands.--Island92 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not marketing to link the article of a brand name, and not linking them leaves the terms (that not everyone is familiar with) ambiguous. What does "Formula 1 STC..." mean, for example. WP:UNDERLINKing is a larger concern for me than two links next to each other. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is usually pretty clear from context that STC (to use your example) is the title sponser, and therefore it is pretty clear from context that who sponsers the event is largely irrelevant. To quote from WP:OVERLINK: "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.", with regards to linking to title sponsers, the awnser to the question is usually "no".

Note, I am not explitily arguing for or against linking these, I am simply pointing out that a minimilist would argue that these links include nothing that would increase the readers understanding of the event, and therefore the title sponser should not be linked. SSSB (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It may be clear to you, but I would argue that is an over assumption. We have no reason to assume that the reader has heard of Saudi Telecom Company or any other of the various companies that sponsor F1. I would also disagree that where the money for the event is an unimportant aspect of it. Money and sponsors are a huge part of F1 that seems to be under covered by Wikipedia at the moment, and a simple link to the title sponsor helps bring that slightly more into context. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's "marketing" to link to a sponsor. By that token, we wouldn't be allowed to mention commercial companies at all and their articles wouldn't exist. Does linking them add a huge amount? Probably not, but it does at least shed light on the kind of organisations and companies that sponsor Grands Prix. That alone makes it worthwhile. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDAVOID is a factor in why we wouldn't link to the title sponsors in the lead. Elsewhere I'm ambivalent but think it should be avoided if it creates a MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Between the two, Underlinking seems a far worse problem, given the importance of wikilinking on Wikipedia. Many readers will be unfamiliar with the company names, and it seems a small sacrifice that SEAOFBLUE, which states "when possible..." will be violated. Also, not to complicate things, but the discussion linked below regarding infobox changes may affect some of this as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If the sponsor is important enough, the relevant information will appear in the linked article. [ [Sponsor Racing Team] ] should appear as such, not [ [Sponsor] ] [ [Racing Team] ]. That type of linking is specifically mentioned in SEAOFBLUE. There is no ambiguity here. --Falcadore (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

StatsF1.com

I don't know about y'all but is the statsf1 website working for you guys? Cause for me it isn't, so it's kinda hard to update every F1 record articles. ^{Dieter Lloyd Wexler} 23:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Works for me SSSB (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Formula 1: The Official History

Why there is no article about book Formula 1: The Official History by Maurice Hamilton? Isn't it notable enough? Eurohunter (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: It's probably no more or less notable than any of the other books included in Category:Formula One mass media; my guess is that nobody has been sufficiently enthused to write an article yet. DH85868993 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

List of all Formula One Grand Prix in order

I notice the recent creation of List of all Formula One Grand Prix in order. Is this something we want/need? DH85868993 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Pablonaattori, who created the article, to make them aware of this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

There was a rough consensus to remove a list like this (all be it, a less detailed version) from List of Formula One Grands Prix. See the relevant discussion at Talk:List of Formula One Grands Prix#Races by season. All the arguments presented there (for either side) apply to this article too. SSSB (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That article seems to meet WP:NLIST. The full set of every Formula One race, and the order they have taken place in, is mentioned often. Notable milestones (500th, 1000th, 1100th, etc.) are often mentioned, for example. However, the current state (ref errors, almost completely un-manageable, only at 280/1100 races), and legitimate concerns about its notability makes me want to WP:DRAFTIFY it for now though. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment. The page will almost certainly run into node limits using the current format. JohnMcButts (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced many of the flags with manual formatting to help that, as it had already started to encounter that issue. Thanks for the heads up. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This should just be deleted. This is beyond riduculous. No practically use at all. Nothing but a combined content fork of the results tables in season articles. We have season articles for this data.Tvx1 20:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I have proposed that Ferrari F2001-B be merged into Ferrari F2001 (which already covers the "B" variant). Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the merge discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen

The list of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen (Q111507070) should be unblocked and red linked. The list was previously removed, but it was over a year go and conditions changed. Eurohunter (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No, conditions haven’t changed. It still need to satisfy the same Wikipedia policies and it doesn’t.Tvx1 13:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rename Sauber Motorsport to Stake F1 Team?

As it was done to Dragon Racing in Formula E, their page is now called DS Penske. 2A01:36D:1200:44AE:45CD:FB9C:A8A7:FB38 (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Not the same thing. That comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. Please see a similar discussion over at Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship for a centralised discussion. SSSB (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Stake F1 Team results - who gets credit?

I've just updated {{F1cstat}} for the new season (i.e. adding RB Formula One Team and Stake). However, does anyone know if Stake's results will get credited to Sauber (and added to their pre-exisitng results from 1993-2018) or get credited to a seperate entity. As I am no expert I have created a fresh entry for Stake at this time (as I feel it would be easier to recify it this way rather than the other way around), but if anyone has a definte source confirming either way.... SSSB (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we won‘t know until the FIA starts crediting actual results. Tvx1 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Tvx1, but given they've gone with Kick Sauber as their constructor title I suspect the results will go to Sauber. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I was just double checking. I have likewise added Stake as a seperate entry on List of Formula One constructors#Constructors for the 2024 season (again, on the basis that it will be easier to merge than split). Yes, this is WP:OR, but is WP:OR either way. SSSB (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. 2006-2010 BMW Sauber results weren’t credited to them either. Tvx1 15:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Surtees#Requested move 4 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Surtees#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

1973 Brazilian Grand Prix

I have just uploaded to Commons this old newsreel (starts at 1:10) from the Brazilian government, with a segment on the 1973 Brazilian Grand Prix. I'd like to invite anyone to crop any interesting image for use at Wikipedia! Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Cropped video at File:1973 Brazilian Grand Prix (Brasil Hoje n. 24).webm. Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing the visibility of the (key) for F1 races.

I noticed that many F1 pages use a template for the key of races for example {{F1 driver results legend 8}}. The way it's often used is a simple link to the template page, requiring the reader to navigate away from the page to understand the key. Would there be some consensus to change these to a collapsible table like I have done here: special:diff/1220858948? Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Naming format for power unit articles

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Honda V6 hybrid Formula One power unit regarding the naming of the Renault E-Tech Series (Formula One engine), Ferrari turbocharged V6 F1 engine (2014-present), Honda V6 hybrid Formula One power unit, and Mercedes V6 Hybrid Formula One engine articles. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Carfan568 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

External links

@Personal CR: is adding external links involving Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and so on on Grands Prix articles (see his contributions). Is that something proper? Island92 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No, as outlined in WP:NOSOCIAL. As a now mooted side pointed, the instance of this I looked at (Special:Diff/1227795568) is further inappropriate as the links in this specific edit are for the circuit, not the actual Grand Prix as is claimed. SSSB (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Island92 (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton

The above discussion may be of interest to members of this project — Iadmc♫^talk  15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen

Why list of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen still require administrator access? Eurohunter (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Because people kept creating the article in spite of the deletion discussion, so it was WP:SALTed indefinitely. SSSB (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB: There is no reason to not create it now. Eurohunter (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes there is. There is nothing to suggest that the previous deletion discussion (and WP:CSD#G4) wouldn't apply to a re-created article. SSSB (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB: Of course there is. From what I see, list was unfinished at the time of deletion and Verstappen was then 16th with 21 wins, now he is 3rd with 58 wins ahead of Vettel, Prost and Senna. There is only Schumacher and Hamilton above him. Eurohunter (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant - the article wasn't deleted because Verstappen didn't have enough wins. SSSB (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

consider this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton 159.242.125.170 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes there is. The subject still doesn’t meer our notability guidelines.Tvx1 01:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tvx1: So what about Vettel, Prost, Senna or Manuel Fangio? Eurohunter (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged but I will contribute an answer regardless. Firstly, This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement. I could also easily spin this around - a consensus was made to delete the list of Verstappen's list (and many others), this consensus can be extended to the similar lists for Vettel, Prost, Senna, Fangio and Hamilton. They should be deleted too. Since my WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement is based on actual consensus amoungst editor, not an editor creating lists by themselves, my position is much stronger. Secondly, I would say that the lists for Vettel, Prost, Senna, Fangio and Hamilton don't meet the notability criteria either, I just can't be bothered to nominate for deletion and have a long, strung out debate. SSSB (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Most of the lists of wins don't even link to anywhere except back to the main subject. Someone (not me, I'm not that daft) nominate the lot for deletion, but good luck to anyone digging themselves into those holes. Halmyre (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I was able to get this nominated, feel free to discuss there. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Consider Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton 159.242.125.170 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the other ones. These should actually be deleted. We actually did end up nomating a bunch of this type of articles a while ago and they were deleted. Tvx1 15:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton 159.242.125.170 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Andretti F1 bid article?

Thought I'd put this out there for discussion: does the project believe a standalone article on the Andretti Formula One bid is worthwhile? Happy to start this but want some perspective on if it is due weight or could end up merged back to Andretti Global. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done a proper check, but I would suggest that WP:GNG is defenitly satisified. The only question then becomes, is there enough content to justify a split from Andretti Global? Andretti Global#Formula One could be expanded, but I don't think there is enough content that I would split, but at the same time if it were split, I'm not convinced that a deletion/merge discussion would be successful - it is in that grey area. SSSB (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

My thinking is that every point discussed on the Andretti Global article could almost be its own section in a standalone article. There are also other relevant events, such as the US Congress's involvement ([7]) and Andretti's investment in European infrastructure, which aren't discussed at all. If I was 100% confident that it would survive an AfD I would've already started – I'll wait for some others to comment, if there's isn't a rough consensus it's worthwhile I'll focus on expanding the Andretti section. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

So that everyone is aware, I have created a draft with sources from a preliminary search at Draft:Andretti Formula One bid. I would appreciate assistance in creating an article from the sources, although this may be a longer-term project. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Bearman's number at List of Formula One driver numbers

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Formula One driver numbers#Bearman's preferred number about if we should included Bearman's preffered number at List of Formula One driver numbers. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. SSSB (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Kick Sauber C44

FYI, Kick Sauber C44 was recently deleted as a copyright violation of https://allglobal.net/info/Kick-Sauber-C44 I have asked the editor who deleted the article to restore it, on the basis that allglobal.net copies information from Wikipedia, not the other way around. DH85868993 (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems surprising that anyone would think a site like allglobal.net wasn't a mirror of Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The article (and Sauber C44 redirect) have now been restored. DH85868993 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom > United Kingdom in Formula One

Why to not extend Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom to the United Kingdom in Formula One? It could include British teams, grand prix and other. Eurohunter (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the resultant article would be so big it would have to be split. SSSB (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Because that was never intended to be the scope of these articles. Tvx1 10:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about maps being used

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2025 Formula One World Championship about types of map being used there. It would be good to get the views of some more regular F1 editors, as the outcome of any discussion there could affect other future season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Andrea Kimi Antonelli#Requested move 3 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Andrea Kimi Antonelli#Requested move 3 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification in Template:F1 Drivers Standings

@Cerebral726: I do not think it is the case to add failed verification here. Come on. Island92 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Is all the material contained in the table available in the source provided? Cerebral726 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No, and there is no source that can provide all that. I have been cheking carefully. This is a system (and the respective Legend in the table) used on Wikipedia, only. Island92 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:V. Then add more sources? It's a complex table, multiple sources is entirely reasonable. If your "system" involves unsourced material on Wikipedia, then it needs to be fixed. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

More sources? How many? Ten? Each that provides a thing, another a different thing, and so on? I do not think should be the case. However, my opinion was given, no way to keep failed verification for it. Waiting for other user takes. Island92 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess we'll continue to disagree as long as you fully disregard WP:V. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This templating has not been productive or useful, but that's besides the point. The resolution to this situation will be to add refs which include (a) all individual race classifications for situations where a DNS/WD has occurred (b) all qualifying classifications and (c) all sprint results. Rather than continuing discussion on the matter, a more speedy resolution would be achieved by adding these sources to the tables. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous, the templates have alerted users that there is room for improvement on a seemingly well sourced tables/statements, and has resulted in better sourcing overall. Nothing unproductive or useless about that. Do you think the failed verification template should be removed or that I am misusing it somehow? I add plenty of sources to justify my behavior as more than just drive-by templating. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should be removed. This has been completely unproductive. If there was genuine concern about a systematic issue in sourcing for season articles it really should have been brought up here where the editors responsible for said systematic issue could have decided on an appropriate course of action. Instead a bunch of articles got templated which ultimately has only diminished their credibility to readers despite their accuracy never being in question. Maybe it complies with the letter of the law in whatever policy or documentation but hardly a common sense way to resolve the issue. I generally agree with your judgement when these sort of things crop up but this hasn't really been the most effective path to resolution. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 17:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I'm not sure who is putting in those sources for all those results tables, they've been around for years and I don't think it makes sense to try and go back to tell someone to fix their work they did years ago. Why not have the community of editors who care about this stuff see that someone has tagged something as needing improvement, and do so if they feel so inclined. There is no deadline to these things and "diminishing credibility" is something we as editors shouldn't worry about when we are trying to alert the community there is an area to be addressed. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it has increased Wikipedia's credibility. It highlights that Wikipedians are dedicated to making sure that Wikipedia's content is properly sourced, and to improving articles more generally. What has been completely unproductive is this discussion in which some editors seem to believe that some content does not need to be sourced, flying completely in the face of one of the core policies: WP:V. SSSB (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Both entirely fair and reasonable perspectives. I do not intend to suggest that the issue should not be rectified, only that this was not the most efficient way to go about it. I will make a start on it tonight, probably while watching free practice. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. Now, if you want, I can provide sources that are needed for the table throughout the race weekend and after it. For example, when the "Final Starting Grid" is published (normally two hours before the race start), I can add it. Island92 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That said, I think "Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile" can only be wikilinked once, per section, as we do for the all entry lists in the Entries table. Basically, the same can be done for stewards names. Vitantonio Liuzzi, Derek Warwick and so on are wikilinked more than once. Island92 (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Use of team colours

Just starting a discussion about the potential use of team colours in both the Entries section of individual seasons and current F1 driver infobox headers (per NFL players). Could be nice aesthetic detail, even if not wholly necessary. F1 teams have used official colours, listed on the F1 website, for at least a decade now. Mb2437 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, NFL and F1 colours are like apples and oranges. F1 "official" colours are based on liveries. They are a colour which matches the livery so that viewers can easily make the connection. Liveries are based on sponsers (with some exceptions) and can change from year to year. NFL colours are permenant (for the most part) and do not change. For example, the Cincinnati Bengals are black and orange because it matches the logo, which matches the name (Bengal tiger). McLaren are orange for marketing reasons, and less than 10 years ago they were dark grey. Using colours for historical purposes is therefore a big no-no, because the colours have no historical significance, and I would even go as far as to suggest that it would imply the McLaren of 10 years ago and the McLaren of today are seperate entities (which is, of course, nonsense).

As for using the colours for current purposes, for example in driver infoboxes. Firstly, how would this look? Because in NFL infoboxes (e.g. Bengals player Joe Burrow), where he is identified as a Bengals player operates as a header, for our infoboxes it doesn't. So in our infoboxes the aesthetic would not be an improvement, it would be messy. Secondly, what is the point? It would serve zero purpose. And it would require complicated superflusous code which would deter editors from updating it (becuase they don't understand the code), so it would be a net negative (and before you hit me with "NFL articles do not have this problem", {{Infobox NFL biography}} has team colours embeded in it, so they don't have this problem. As F1 team colours are not consistent across a team history (with a couple of exceptions), this would not be possible for F1 articles).

All in all, strong oppostion on all counts. SSSB (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Further to SSSB's comments, while I don't have a strong view on this, introducing coloured templates opens up accessibility issues outlined in MOS:COLOR. A7V2 (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"Formula One drivers from x"

As this has come up a few times with different users, I'm bringing this here for a consensus. For a while, the lead paragraph of driver pages has opened with "John Smith is an Xish racing driver [...]", with a wikilink to relevant (Formula One) racing drivers from said country. I've applied this across the board as the majority of F1 driver GAs had this link. There is an argument for this being an MOS:EASTEREGG violation, although I don't believe its a huge leap. I have weak support in keeping them on the basis of giving the reader a further reading opportunity and keeping these pages from redundancy. Mb2437 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah sorry, we each started a new discussion at the same time. For my part, I'm not a fan of these links, and I prefer to see nationality unlinked in the lede. The lists can be linked elsewhere in an article, placed perhaps in better context, but I don't think they're very helpful as the first link in the whole article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It is WP:EASTEREGG linking.

"Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link"

If I am a reader and click on a link that says "British racing driver" I would not expect to end up on an article for only one category of racing drivers. If the link can't be incorporated naturally into article text, it could still be present on the article in a "see also" section or the like, but tricking readers just for the sake of having it in the immediate lead is unnecessary. TylerBurden (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving it to See also is a good shout, could also link it in the infobox with their nationality. Mb2437 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Life F190/L190

I've started a discussion regarding which name should be used for this vehicle. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. DH85868993 (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)