Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Good article reassessment for 2015 Australian Grand Prix

2015 Australian Grand Prix has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Assistance with the history of race directors

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

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

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

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

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

Race entry lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferrari as engine manufacturer

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

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

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

Esports results

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

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

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

Due?

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

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

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

Neutrality at Lewis Hamilton

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

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

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

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

Separate articles for same team?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mario Andretti GA concerns

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

The GA concerns have been resolved. Many thanks to @Mb2437 for their helpful comments on reorganizing the article and for alerting the WikiProject in the first place. Namelessposter (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant job! MB2437 05:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

John Hogan draft article

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

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

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

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

We’re live. The article’s available at John Hogan (motorsport executive). Namelessposter (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Reserve driver numbers?

On numerous articles infoboxes (Scuderia Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz in Formula One, Alpine F1 Team), reserve drivers who are ex-Formula One drivers have their last used number listed next to their name. Is there any precedent regarding this? While this is my opinion, I don't see why it should be included unless the driver actively competes in race as a reserve driver during the ongoing season. An example of this is Antonio Giovinazzi, who has not raced since 2021 (and therefore his number can be reused). Drivers who raced in 2024 (Bottas, Zhou, Colapinto) I am able to sort of understand, but I believe it can still cause confusion considering they are all reserve drivers for teams that weren't their 2024 team.

As previously stated, I am unsure if there is a precedent or opposition regarding this, so I just wanted to ask first before doing any bold edits. Thank you in advance. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Unless a driver actually enters an event, the number they would use seems irrelevant, so I'm not sure we should even be mentioning Zhou's number, as it is unlikely to be used at all during the course of the season. I am strongly opposed to listing the number for drivers like Giovinazzi who don't have a career number anymore. Because my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that teams are allocated numbers to use in the event than need to enter a last minute substitute or enter a free practice driver. Therefore, Giovinazzi would not be running #99 at all, so including this number in the infobox is at best WP:OR, (impling the FIA would allow him to use his old number) and at worst this is a downright lie. SSSB (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this - all we really have is the FIA entry list and the driver numbers listed there. That is the only evidence that is conclusive. I do note that Mercedes' website lists Bottas as No. 77 and Vesti as No. 42, and McLaren's website lists Pato O'Ward as No. 5. But I think that actually undermines the utility of team websites since Bortoleto is already the official No. 5, meaning that O'Ward will not be No. 5. Namelessposter (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The Mercedes website makes this tricky, but in this situation, I think it should be disregarded for consistency and per SSSB in regards to substitute/FP numbers. In regards to Pato O'Ward, #5 is his number in IndyCar, so I believe that is just an overlap. The McLaren (formula one, not indycar) article's infobox does not have his number, so I don't think there's anything to be concerned about there. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

F1 driver numbers are reserved for two seasons;[2] in the case of Giovinazzi, 99 is no longer his number, regardless of whether he is entered in free practice sessions under that number or not. With the example of Zhou: 24 is still his number, and he would be entered under that number should he step in for someone—per Button at the 2017 Monaco Grand Prix and Hülkenberg at the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix—where drivers like Giovinazzi and Vesti would be entered under the team’s reserve number. It is appropriate to number Zhou, Colapinto and Bottas, but not others. MB2437 00:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment Here is a full list of reserved driver numbers. MB2437 14:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Excellent catch. Namelessposter (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Where does it say that free practice doesn't reserve a number? List of Formula One driver numbers says so: "The FIA have also issued temporary numbers to drivers that are exceptions to the career numbers rule; for example, if a driver withdraws from a race and a reserve driver takes their place, they receive a team-allocated number. This is also the case for free-practice–only drivers." But the statement is uncited and the two sources @Mb2437 provided don't discuss FP's impact, if any. Namelessposter (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Per Motor Sport: [3] The rules are different for reserve drivers. Each team is allocated numbers to use in the event that one or both of their permanent drivers need to be replaced temporarily. In 2023, Liam Lawson used the number 40 when he stood in for the injured Daniel Ricciardo for AlphaTauri. Several further examples have verified this practice: Bearman's 38 (Ferrari) and 50 (Haas), de Vries's 45 (Williams), Giovinazzi's 36 (Sauber), Doohan's 61 (Alpine), Aitken's 89 (Williams), Fittipaldi's 51 (Haas), Hartley's 39 (Toro Rosso), di Resta's 40 (Williams), Rossi's 42 (Marussia), Stevens's 46 (Caterham), Lotterer's 45 (Caterham), etc. They are typically identifiable as being in the 35–55 range, however there have been exceptions. Notably, Mercedes were able to enter Antonelli under the number 12 last season, which appears to have been a request made to the FIA, although that is purely speculation. MB2437 16:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I support your position to number Zhou, Colapinto, and Bottas, but not others. Namelessposter (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this- if you still have a valid, full time number issued then it can be listed. If not, just have the flag by itself. Only outlier of this (to my knowledge) was Gio, so I don't think anything needs to be adjusted. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Demystifying infobox stats

Formula One World Championship career
Nationality	Dutch
2025 team(s)	Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT
Car number	33 1 (2022–present)
Entries	215 (215 starts)
Championships	4 (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024)
Wins	64 (3rd all-time)
Podiums	115 (4th all-time)
Career points	3122.5
Pole positions	43 (5th all-time)
Fastest laps	33 (6th all-time)

Making a suggestion here regarding infobox statistics. For the average reader, a lot of these numbers and their value are relatively meaningless. To aid understandability for readers with little subject knowledge, it may be worth considering adding "nth all-time" next to the stats so it is clearer without having to navigate the respective lists.

In the example of Verstappen given, this would only apply to wins, podiums, poles and fastest laps. I have not included points as points systems have changed drastically over time—and continue to change—nor have I included entries and championships as to not overcrowd. This should only apply to the top ~20–25 drivers in each stat, although this is up for discussion; extending it further would make it subject to constant updating.

The inspiration for this came from golf and tennis articles, where career titles for top players are also given in terms of their all-time rankings (see Andy Murray and Tiger Woods). MB2437 12:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• I do like the thinking behind this suggestion but I don't think it really helps the reader understand a driver's achievements. A lot of very highly regarded drivers from the first few decades in the sport are quite low on the all-time lists, because, as I think everyone is aware, seasons have consistently grown in size as time has gone on. Most people talk about the significance of win rates or pole to win conversions, not absolute numbers of wins. I don't think these statistics are necessarily suitable for the infobox, and a ranking alone is potentially more misleading. Because of this I don't believe this would be a useful change. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Such value can be inferred from the relatively low entries number, but I do agree that is a concern. The ranking has an explanatory wikilink to the full tables, which could clarify these values. Only the polesitter and podium tables have entries/percentages tabulated, not sure why the others do not. It seems odd to have articles that expand upon the driver records lists, whilst containing less detail. MB2437 13:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would assume that this discrepency is due to the entries/percentages being added later to some lists. And nobody bothered to add it to the other lists SSSB (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• I would oppose such a change, primarily because it is misleading. I also think that golf/tennis are fundamentally different from Formula One. Firstly, in golf and tennis, all competitors are on an equal footing. Secondly, those infoboxes only list the ranking for titles and prize money. The Formula One equivilant would be wins and points respectively. This thread seems to have ruled out points because the points system has changed drastically over the years. The same is true for tennis and golf prize winnings (let me be clear, I think that this is an argument why tennis and golf shouldn't mention winnings, not a reason that we should). Secondly, tennis and golf are individual sports. Formula One is not. As an example, Bottas is 10th in podiums, tied 31st in wins, 16th in poles, tied 16th in fastest laps. But I don't think you would find any person (apart from those with extreme WP:RECENCY bias) who would put Bottas in the top 20 greatest drivers of all time, probably not even top 50 (for context, at time of writting, there have been 777 drivers and 34 world champions). Therefore to mention his ranking is misleading. It implies he is better than he is. Lets be honest, he only ranks so hughly because he did 101 races with a dominant constructor. The whole point of these stats is to provide a quick overview of their career, not to compare drivers to each other. The point of "list of Formula One winners" or similar is partially to compare drivers to each other, sure. But the difference with these is that we are actually comparing drivers to each other not blindly giving a contextless ranking (the first win, last win, % of wins etc. columns provide at least some of the context in the lists). The drivers articles (should) provide even more. SSSB (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  It is common knowledge that Formula One is not contested on equal-footing, but I agree that is a concern when ranking drivers by any metric. Factually, Bottas is amongst the top-20 most successful drivers of all time, regardless of how we perceive his greatness. His team history is mentioned earlier in the infobox, from which it can be inferred that he competed for Mercedes during their dominant run, which is expanded upon in the lead. I'll note that the rankings aren't contextless with the explanatory wikilinks, which should expand upon the ranking with those additional metrics. MB2437 15:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's only common knowledge amongst those who understand how F1 works. For those encountering F1 for the first time, it is not common knowledge. Nor can it be infered from the infobox that Bottas competed for a team who was dominant at the time unless you are aware of which team is dominant at the given time (i.e. I suspect very few non motorsport fans will remember that Ferrari were the dominant team in the early 2000s, and so will not recognise that Barrichello is ninth in the podium ranking because he drove for the dominant Ferrari and secured 61 of his 68 podiums in this time.) And I am of the opinion that having the context appear by clicking on a wikilink is not good enough. Most people will see the rankings for Bottas and assume that this makes his one of the best drivers in F1 history because of his success. I fully recognise that this is an issue with all statistics, but I believe that the rankings will worsen this effect not better it. And therefore this practice would be nothing other than misleading. SSSB (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, particularly the 'Career points' category, Halmyre (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with SSSB; these sorts of career ranking stats are horribly misleading, and by putting them in the infobox, we risk implying to readers unfamiliar with F1 that practically all the best drivers in F1 history are recent ones. Far from informing the average reader, we risk misleading them, as they (by definition) won't know how skewed the various stats are. Career points (as has been stated) is a particular cause for concern. Also, we need to refrain from using the lazy American "all time" term – all time includes future time, after all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna dual templates

Canvassing the WikiProject for a second opinion before initiating a merge request. Why do we have separate templates for the Ayrton Senna navbox (Template:Ayrton Senna) and sidebar box (Template:Ayrton Senna series)? Most of the material in the sidebar box is duplicative of the navbox. Also, I'm generally not a fan of sidebar boxes since they're obtrusive and mesh poorly with long infoboxes. However, if there was previously a question about this I'm happy to defer to prior decisions. Namelessposter (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Formula One racing

User:Pksois23 has questioned the title of the Formula One racing article. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Formula One racing#Requested move 19 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Formula One racing#Requested move 19 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Adrian Newey AMR25 involvement

Started a discussion here regarding whether or not we should consider Newey's involvement in the AMR25 in his career results. This should also have implications in the AMR25 infobox, where he has now been added as the technical director. MB2437 19:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Verstappen 2021 ADGP

There is a discussion at Max Verstappen about a WP:SPAs (F1WDC2021) edits regarding the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, re-writing several sections of the article—including the lead—and writing full essays on how he was 'only the champion' because of blah, without citing any independent commentary. Tried to take this to ANI as this user has also done so at Michael Masi, Mohammed Ben Sulayem, and Abu Dhabi—was told to take this to the talk page instead and now I'm fairly sure I'm arguing with GPT. Need a consensus! MB2437 00:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

British nationality changes

Over the past two weeks or so, there have been widespread edits to change various driver articles leads and/or infoboxes to say English/Scottish opposed to British. This can be primarily seen on Damon Hill (-> english), Graham Hill (-> english), and Jim Clark (-> Scottish).

The infobox issue is easily revertable as vandalism; it is the parameter for their racing license, not actual nationality. However, I have looked and am unable to find a convention for differentiating from Scottish/English and British in lead sections. I assume that this is an unwritten precedent, but I am bringing this up for two reasons: 1) Is there a specific MOS, policy, guideline, consensus or written precedent that deals with this, and if not, 2) what is the right way to approach this besides reverting for vandalism and citing unwritten precedents? Should we try to achieve consensus here?

If this was an isolated incident I wouldn't really care, but it's been happening more and more recently and is frankly somewhat hard to justify constant reversions besides for edit warring, in my opinion. I could be massively overthinking this, but I atleast wanted to bring this to the WikiProject talk page. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It is WP:F1 convention to say British in the leads and infoboxes, followed by "from England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland" in the lead. Generally, I have not included "from England" when writing leads as it sacrifices concision for something that is not contentious; just a lone IP being disruptive on the Hill articles. The precedent otherwise is a good one, as each of these drivers are notable for being British athletes. Clark has been a recurring issue. Semi-protection for articles such as Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart may be in order. The only exception to this has been Eddie Irvine, where the consensus—albeit an old one—is to omit British from the lead. MB2437 23:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, missed this somehow. Pretty much clears this up. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's make something very clear. Changing infoboxes to English/Scottish is not vandalism. Because they are English/Scottish. In the first instance it is a good faith edit. If they continue to do it it becomes disruptive. But at no point would it be vandalism. Claiming it is vandalism is both WP:BITING, and a failure to assume good faith. And when you do request protection, the admin may subconsciously not assume as mych good faith as they should. SSSB (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

You are right, I was using the wrong term. I meant it more so in a way that can be easily justifiable to revert, as there has been a written precedent for infobox to represent sporting nationality. Saying that it was vandalism was just a misphrasing on my part. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Note The convention only applies to drivers. Whilst I'd argue "British" is preferable for Ron Dennis, it isn't worth edit warring over. MB2437 23:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

IFEMA and Spanish Grand Prix

As pointed out by @Asqueladd on Talk:IFEMA Palacio Municipal - the future Madring circuit will be at Recinto Ferial de IFEMA (a large fair complex in Campo de las Naciones), and therefore the IFEMA or IFEMA Palacio Municipal should not be used. I've pointed the Madring circuit pipe to the Recinto Ferial de IFEMA location for the moment. Turini2 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Red Bull Racing test and reserve drivers

Who are Red Bull Racing's current test and reserve drivers? The infobox at Red Bull Racing says "Test drivers: Yuki Tsunoda" but {{Formula One reserve drivers}} lists Sebastien Buemi and Jake Dennis. (I'm mindful of the fact that the situation may change before the Japanese GP, but I'd like to get the article and navbox consistent). DH85868993 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe Buemi and Dennis are the test drivers and Tsunoda is the reserve—at least to my knowledge. The "test drivers" parameter in the constructor infobox should probably be renamed to "reserve drivers"—or separate parameters for both—as that is all it is used for. MB2437 19:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

At Template_talk:Infobox_F1_team#Test_drivers_vs_reserve_drivers, I've proposed changing the label to "Test and reserve drivers" and listing both test and reserve drivers in the field. DH85868993 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure that the template covers all reserve/test/development, and not just reserve drivers (despite the name). If we remove Buemi and Dennis, we would have to remove Vandoorne, Juncadella, Yelloy, Fuoco, Rigon, Arthur Leclerc, Stevens, and Turvey. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The template should probably be updated to note which drivers are what, as there is a clear distinction between a test and reserve driver. MB2437 15:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, however not sure how this could be done without substantially redoing the template (assuming footnotes/asterisks aren't used). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Footnotes would probably be the smartest way about it, rather than expanding the template to 2–3 sections. Could place (T), (D), (R), (TR), etc. next to drivers to signify their role. MB2437 16:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, I may as well bring this up here, should we be classing Daniel Ricciardo as a "reserve driver" for Red Bull in 2023? Their chosen branding of "third driver" was both sensationalist and confusing, whilst being no different to a standard reserve role, which is the widely accepted term. It was only really used in the initial reports, which parroted Red Bull's press release, after which he was widely referred to as the "Red Bull reserve driver".[4][5][6][7][8] MB2437 16:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

If we take precedent from Valtteri Bottas this season (Mercedes is labeling him as their "third driver"), then yeah, Riccardo would be classified as reserve for 2023. As you said, it's pretty much just a glorified title for the team's primary reserve driver. Pretty interesting that both Bottas and Riccardo were both 2nd drivers (kinda( who left their team on bad terms before coming back a few seasons later, and both received third driver branding.

Going back to the footnotes, I think that could work, but we should wait for additional consensus. The only issue that I could possibly foresee is that it's not always clear what the exact title is for some drivers. (ex: besides a team themselves, what's the difference between development and test?) GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can scrap Tsunoda as a Red Bull reserve driver… Tvx1 09:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Engines in infoboxes

Just wondering if we could get a consensus for what we should do regarding the engines parameter in infobox F1 driver. This has been used inconsistently across the board and oftentimes serves little value as a WP:DIB. For me, the parameter should only be used when the engine suppliers are noteworthy to their career e.g. a factory-backed driver such as Takuma Sato, or the driver only used 1–2 across their career. Interested to see what people think. MB2437 16:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This has already been discussed previously. The engine manufacturers do always have a direct and significant impact on drivers' performance and results (see e.g. this source), and otherwise have notable effects on drivers' careers even when they are not factory backed (see e.g. this source). Carfan568 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Where has this been discussed? The point is that having a comprehensive list of engine manufacturers does not always add to the reader's understanding of their career: it is often overdetail that is given in their results list anyway. The performance of the engine impacts the team as a whole, which is already listed directly above. If engines are important to a driver's career, they belong in the lead where relevant. It is hardly one of the most important points of Ayrton Senna's career that he once raced with Hart engines, for example. It convolutes his infobox without adding any reading value to his list of teams. MB2437 17:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It does more or less always help the reader's understanding of their career. E.g. Senna having raced with Hart engines implies that he did not have the most competitive engine at one point. The above source even says that a team insider tended to think of Senna "as a Honda driver with a McLaren chassis". This was previously discussed here. Carfan568 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

So what? It's trivia. MB2437 18:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the sources, it clearly is not. Carfan568 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Those are very specific examples that do not justify a comprehensive list of engines. As I said above, if they are that noteworthy, they belong in the lead anyway. MB2437 18:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

A team with a front-running engine is a very different proposition to a team with an uncompetitive engine. This universally applies to all drivers. Carfan568 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The teams are already stated in the parameter above. MB2437 18:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but that's hardly obvious from the infobox. How is the reader meant to know if a driver was using a competitive engine or not? From the name of the engine alone? Is there something inherent about them that indicates how successful they were? Maybe you can say the reader should know them by reputation, but no supplier has consistently been at the back or the front – Ferrari, Honda, and Renault are all immediately obvious examples of engine suppliers that were either very very competitive or not depending on the time period. That's a shaky argument and doesn't plausibly hold up. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The same thing applies to the list of chassis makes as well; the point of these fields is more to provide a quick snapshot of which chassis and engine makes influenced the driver's results. And the infobox does also mention the years in which the driver competed, which allows the reader to deduce the reputation of the manufacturers at the time the driver competed. Carfan568 (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The teams parameter isn’t there to indicate whether or not they raced for a competitive one, it just runs through their career path. The list of teams a driver raced for is of interest to a lot of readers, the list of engines is not. Google Trends shows over 12-times more interest in Michael Schumacher’s teams than his engines.[9]

Again, I believe we should only be using it where the engines are noteworthy to their career itself e.g. Takuma Sato, Jules Bianchi, Mick Schumacher, and Kazuki Nakajima. Current drivers with noteworthy engine paths include Charles Leclerc, George Russell, Lewis Hamilton, Oliver Bearman, and Jack Doohan. MB2437 16:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any convincing argument why engines should be listed seperately in any drivers' infobox. Someone like Leclerc is notable for driving for Ferrari. He used that engine throughout his career because Ferrari has always used their own engines. The engines are thus not seperately notable at all in that case. All that has been brought here so far is personal sentiment of importance. Tvx1 17:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Leclerc also used a Ferrari engine at Sauber, where he was funded by Ferrari in his status as a Ferrari junior. I disagree that Mick Schumacher's engine is not noteworthy, as he was also at Haas as a Ferrari junior, who facilitated his move—his entire F1 career revolved around his place in Ferrari. Takuma Sato is certainly not personal sentiment: he was a Honda factory driver from kart racing and has never left. Forgot to add Yuki Tsunoda to the examples of current drivers.

That's my view anyway, I can also see a case for deprecating the parameter altogether, but certainly not for universally applying it. MB2437 17:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the engines are certainly noteworthy in the above cases per Mb2437. Roughly half of the current grid have notable engine manufacturer connections besides being impacted by their performance. And a big reason why the chassis makes are there is because they affect performance, as evidenced by the chassis being listed instead of the team in cases where a driver drove for a non-works entry. Google Trends also shows that there is more interest in Michael Schumacher's engines than e.g. his fastest laps. Carfan568 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Fastest laps fall under general stats, which are of far more public interest than his engines.[10] (Michael) Schumacher's engines are not particularly noteworthy and just clutter his infobox. A big reason why the chassis makes are there is because they affect performance is not true; it is simply of interest to a lot of readers which teams a driver raced for. It is a poor indicator of performance for Fernando Alonso and McLaren, for example. We don't have years at specific teams included (unlike French Wikipedia) so using it as a performance indicator is irrelevant.

I'll note here that I have typically replaced chassis makes with actual teams for non-works entries, as it directly links to the team itself rather than a general unrelated article and the parameter is "teams" not "chassis"; I have retained "non-works" and "privateer" for teams who do not have their own article. If users are interested in their performance during these time periods—which will include engine information—then they can head to those articles, which is the purpose of an explanatory wikilink. MB2437 18:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

A lot more than fastest laps fall under general stats, so that is not a fair comparison. Overall Google Trends shows that there is a reasonable amount of interest in engines, even if not as much as teams. If you are concerned that including engines might somewhat clutter the infobox, we can always rectify that by using a template like collapsible list. Carfan568 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If they aren't noteworthy enough to be shown in full then they should be removed altogether. MB2437 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

They are noteworthy, as evidenced by the sources and them receiving more interest than e.g. fastest laps. And you should not have replaced chassis makes with actual teams for non-works entries before gaining consensus, as this was against WP:F1 convention. Carfan568 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Your sources are very specific and do not prove that a comprehensive list of engines is noteworthy.

I was unaware this was convention until recently. It seemed pointless to maintain links to unrelated articles, especially when it is not a "chassis" parameter. This has been uncontested for six months. Why—in the example of Stirling Moss—would we put "non-works Cooper, non-works Lotus, non-works Ferguson", when we can simply put "Walker", which is a far more detailed, concise, and relevant wikilink? It becomes a WP:DIB, as it also would if we had his full list of engines. MB2437 19:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You cannot ignore that they receive more interest than e.g. fastest laps after using this as the metric for inclusion. The first source is also not specific because it shows the importance of engines in general.

Teams are not included in those cases because they do not directly impact results and performance like chassis and engines. Carfan568 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Fastest laps is one of the primary statistics underpinning a racing driver's career, thus very much falls under "stats". Teams are not included in those cases because they do not directly impact results and performance like chassis and engines—what? The team's field chassis and engines, which are clearly explained on the wikilinks...

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the parameters. They are not there to indicate performance. MB2437 19:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I already explained to you above why that is not a fair comparison. Seems like you just WP:DONTLIKEIT. "They are not there to indicate performance" is only your opinion. Carfan568 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Two other users above have also disagreed. Seems like you just WP:LIKEIT. MB2437 20:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Except that I have provided data and sources to support their inclusion while you have not. It also received support in the previous discussion and others have added it to articles. Carfan568 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I literally provided data. Which previous discussion? MB2437 20:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did the work for you. Both this discussion and this discussion were primarily people disagreeing with you and do not support your argument. I'm counting two for inclusion—including you as the OC—and six against. MB2437 20:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You did not apply consistent logic to your data by ignoring that they receive more interest than e.g. fastest laps. And the general stats thing does not explain it away because a lot more than fastest laps fall under general stats. I also already previously stated that the discussion was held here at WT:F1. Carfan568 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

They are one of the eight base "stats" of main concern, that we also use consistently throughout F1 articles. Either way, the data—which is limited—does not support your statement that engines are of wider concern.[11]

The discussion you are citing did not support inclusion... MB2437 21:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Also see WP:Consensus is not a vote. Carfan568 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, but when there are three-times more people going against something, that generally means there is a pretty clear consensus amongst them. All three other users in this discussion do not believe a list of engines is crucial to state in the infobox, and two have disagreed with your notion that they should be used for the reader's understanding of performance. MB2437 21:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

In the first discussion one editor was neutral, one argued they "don't seem" relevant but did not offer a disapproval after their relevance was explained, one opposed including *both* chassis and engine, and two supported it. Especially considering that others started adding it to articles, I think there was some consensus to include it. In this discussion, Tvx1 based his argument on incorrect information by ignoring Sauber, and I think your logic for ignoring that engines receive more interest than e.g. fastest laps is questionable. Carfan568 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Tvx1 expressed concern with the parameter universally, not just for Leclerc. Your argument was fundamentally flawed given it was built on an incorrect usage of data.[12]

This conversation isn't going anywhere, let's leave it to other users; I have explained thoroughly why I disagree, and you are the OC of the parameter. MB2437 21:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If you do the same search with Lewis Hamilton and use the widest time period, you can see that there is clearly significantly more interest for engines than fastest laps. I will also note that lists of engine makes can easily be verified by sources like this. Carfan568 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If you look back, Lewis Hamilton is one of the few examples I listed that could be worth noting. The Google Trends shows there isn't enough data to be considered statistically significant; there is no data between 2017 and 2020.[13] It is also inappropriate to use such data for an active driver, as engines are typically of discussion during seasons—note the spike around the 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix and the 2021 São Paulo Grand Prix. They are unlikely to be searches for the list of engines he has competed with. MB2437 23:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Doing the search with the terms "Senna engines" and "Senna podiums" again indicates generally more interest for engines. I think it is clear now that your claim that there is no interest for a list of engines is not backed up by data. Carfan568 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

You're using data that clearly does not have enough entries to be remotely significant. The data I used above does. Why the change to podiums and not fastest laps or poles? MB2437 00:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to show that engines not only receive more interest than fastest laps, but doing it with fastest laps or "senna engine" and "senna pole" also shows that engines often receive more interest. Carfan568 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I literally just showed that this is not the case in the previous comment. MB2437 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The site appears to display different graphs depending on what kind of device is used to access it. Carfan568 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

So your argument is that Google randomises its data? MB2437 01:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1 and support the removal of the field entirely. The argument that some drivers are notable for their association with an engine supplier has some merit, but the nuance of "Mick Schumacher was associated with Ferrari throughout his career and drove for their customer team Haas as part of this arrangement" (for instance) is never going to be adequately communicated in a statement that says nothing more than "Engine: Ferrari". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

And I’d say that Mick is more associated with the Scuderia Ferrari F1 team than with the Ferrari engine blocks. He was a Scuderia Ferrari junior driver and THAT is what helped him get that seat with Haas. The coöperation between Haas and the Scuderia is also much more comprehensive than just an engine supply. Haas buys every car part they are legally allowed to from Scuderia Ferrari. The situation with Hamilton is very similar. He is mainly notable for driving for the Mercedes F1 Team rather than merely for using their engine blocks. He’s literally in his first season not associated with Mercedes in any way. There just is no meaningful separate notability for the engines drivers use.Tvx1 09:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources like this and this indicate otherwise. Carfan568 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hamilton was (emphasis on the past tense) very unusual for having a long, successful career with a single engine manufacturer, which was the product of a set of historical coincidences (being backed by the Mercedes works team, which became their customer team, and then switching to their factory team). Even setting aside what Tvx1 has already explained, "Engines: Mercedes, Ferrari" does absolutely fuck all to explain Hamilton's history and connection with Mercedes. Likewise, Alonso's disputes with Honda and the consequences (which also affected McLaren's later entry into IndyCar) cannot possibly be expressed by "Engines: Cosworth, Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda". It's completely implausible to imagine that that is helping the reader. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The same arguments apply to the list of chassis makes as well. Listing "Teams: McLaren, Mercedes, Ferrari" does not explain Hamilton's history and connection with the teams because it does not differentiate between a single race or numerous seasons. Carfan568 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Correct, and I said that four years ago. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

But chassis are different. Drivers are signed and drive for the chassis constructor. A direct relationship exists there. There is no direct relationship between engine and driver (the only counter-examples are drivers who are sponsered and/or supported by engine suppliers who were not also constructors). That is why I would argue that engine manufactors should not be in infoboxes, but chassis constructors should be - there is a direct relationship between drivers and construcors, but not between drivers and engines. SSSB (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree up to the point where drivers do have a direct relationship with the engine manufacturer e.g. Takuma Sato. MB2437 17:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sato is the exception rather than the rule, and my comment makes it clear that I am aware these exceptions exist. So I can only guess that you disagree about a removal for these drivers. Listing engine providers in infoboxes only for drivers like Sato would just be confusing as the infobox wouldn't explain this relationship. Not to mention that Sato's relationship with Honda is very different to a driver's relationship with a constructor. This sort of relationship should be limited to the prose, in the same way that a drivers link to a constructor via a driver academy is solely explained via prose. Because let's face it, Sato's relationship with Honda is more similar to a relationship with a driver academy than a constructor. Sato drove for the Constructors and was supported by Honda. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It would explain that he was always associated with the company during his F1 career via the engines. Carfan568 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it was via the Honda motorsports company. He even drove for two of their works teams in F1. Tvx1 18:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

That is not correct as Honda Racing Corporation was solely involved in motorcycle racing at the time. Carfan568 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Not my point. Tvx1 20:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sato’s case is actually very similar to the others named here. His relationship was with the Honda Racing Organisation, not just their engine department. Honda does more than building engines, they most importantly build cars. And their motorsports division enters cars and bikes in a myriad of competitions while indeed also supplying engines to some. In function of this they also have a funding programme for young drivers, Sato being one of them. After passages with others he actually ended up with the works team in F1 and later with their de facto junior team Super Aguri. That’s what he was notable for. Tvx1 18:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with the proviso that this logic is more applicable to the modern era where teams must be constructors, and that MB2437 is probably right to include privateer racing teams in lieu of chassis constructors for older entries. Namelessposter (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is another relevant source. Carfan568 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Nobody’s arguing that engines don’t impact performance, rather that the reader cannot reasonably deduce that from the infobox and the information isn’t critical to the driver’s career path in the way a team/constructor is. In many cases, it is overdetail that sacrifices readability. MB2437 15:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

If we follow this logic I don't see why we should include the chassis makes in the infobox. If Hamilton's infobox states "Teams: McLaren, Mercedes, Ferrari", the reader cannot meaningfully deduce how they affected his career. For example, he may have only driven a single race for McLaren, or he may have only driven one season for McLaren and later rejoined them. The rest of the article does a better job of providing this information. Carfan568 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

As shown above, teams competed for are of significant public interest,[14][15][16][17] and are listed universally in athlete infoboxes. Drivers also compete for teams/constructors/chassis, not engine manufacturers. You are still misunderstanding that these are not listed so the reader can meaningfully deduce how they affected [their] career, it is simply informational.

The infobox lists the career span and teams, which should all be expanded upon in the lead and body. If engine performance/reliability is noteworthy enough at certain points, it will also be mentioned. I don't see any solid basis for including a comprehensive list of engines in the infobox. MB2437 17:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

We should include constructors because the drivers compete for constructors. They don't compete for engine manufacturers. Stop comparing apples and oranges. SSSB (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The above comment applies even if we ignore the engine manufacturers. The rest of the article is better suited to providing the information. Drivers are also not employed by chassis constructors in cases where they drove for a non-works entry. Carfan568 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

By your logic, the rest of the article is better suited to explain all of their career stats as well. It is a quick career summary; it is not there to give a comprehensive guide to the reader, just note down key facts and metrics i.e. they competed in x years, for y teams, and achieved z. Drivers are also not employed by chassis constructors in cases where they drove for a non-works entry. Which is part of why I changed non-works entries in infoboxes to link to privateer teams where possible. MB2437 17:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing vague about the career stats, so your comparison does not apply.

Which is part of why I changed non-works entries in infoboxes to link to privateer teams where possible. Again, you should have sought consensus before doing this, as it was against WP:F1 convention. Carfan568 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing vague about a list of teams.

Actually, there is no written convention against it and—as explained above—it is more detailed, concise, and relevant. MB2437 18:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It is vague without specifying the seasons and number of races. It is like saying Hamilton won races without specifying how many. And looks like the convention was recently changed to reflect your edits, but it still would have been appropriate to discuss it first before making the changes. Carfan568 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing vagueness with contextlessness (is that a word?). There is nothing vague about saying Hamilton drove for McLaren, Mercedes and Ferrari. Meanwhile career stats are as contextless as listing teams. Sure we can say that Hamilton won 105 Grand Prix, but that doesn't tell us how we won them. We can say that Hamilton drove for McLaren, all that tells us is that he was employed by McLaren. We can say he used Mercedes engines, all that tells us is that his employer choose to use Mercedes engines. All of these lack context on some level. Frankly, arguing that we should include/exclude information based on context is a dead end and will lead to one exteme or the other. We should be making judgements on relevance to a drivers career. In the absense of context, listing constructors is effectively listing employers - a direct link to the driver, the subject of the article. Listing engine manufactors is listing who that employer outsourced parts to (or didn't outsource parts to) and has an indirect and frankly fringe relevance to the driver. Some relevance yes, but very little without addition context. SSSB (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1 with respect to Mick Schumacher and echo that the reasoning applies to a lot of academy drivers who get placed with engine customers, like Charles Leclerc and George Russell. Very few drivers (Senna and Hamilton) have had relationships with engine manufacturers that go beyond the ties incidental to membership in a driver academy. But even then, I do not know why Senna's relationship with Honda or Hamilton's relationship with Brixworth should go in the infobox specifically when they can be addressed in proper depth elsewhere in the article. In Senna's case, having an engine section in the infobox might actually create more ambiguity on the Honda point because he also had a very good relationship with Renault, which powered him at Lotus, helped broker his move to Williams in 1994 by paying Prost to retire, and has been dining out on that relationship in Brazil ever since. Namelessposter (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with removing per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Makes sense for teams yea, less so for drivers. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Failed verification

Can someone explain to me why we must have failed verification in Template:F1 Drivers Standings and Template:F1 Constructors Standings. Failed verification of what exactly? What better source other than that? Island92 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it does not include sprint points/positions, although this can be inferred from the total points for the weekend. Also doesn't include poles and fastest laps. MB2437 17:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. A better source to replace failed verification, definitely? Island92 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

We could just recite the sources from the other tables in addition. Tvx1 17:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's do it. Island92 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I stated the reason in the template I added that you removed without fulfilling. "Does not list finishing positions of those who DNF, does not mention DNS, does not mention drivers' countries, does not mention pole position or fastest lap". Cerebral726 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't list finishing postions of those who DNF and are unclassified. They DNF'd, they DON'T HAVE finishing positions. There is no case of DNS mentioned in those tables, so that issue is moot. Driver nationalities are already sourced earlier in the articles, so I don't see why that should be repeated here. It's easily verifiable. Likewise for the poles and fastest laps, which are already sourced in the article. All it would need is a source for the sprint results.Tvx1 15:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources being available somewhere in the article is not adequate to verify the table. The table should be directly cited, which should be easy enough if they're already in the article. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I thought the DNS was in there earlier (when I originally added the template) cause of Hadjar's DNS which there seems to be some ambiguity around. That seems fine now to me. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No. You need to read Wikipedia:VERIFY. There is no requirement whatsoever for the same information that is repeated to be repeated with the same supporting source each time. Information needs to be verifiable, not verified. Sections within an article are also not completely independent. Tvx1 00:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see an issue with repeating refs if we can’t find one comprehensive source for this. MB2437 02:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no issue, but there is no obligation as Cerebral suggests either. The information is properly sourced sowhere in the article. Tvx1 08:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

What I don't understand is: wouldn't it be a better use of @Cerebral726:'s time be finding and inserting sources, rather than debate whether it is a requirement or optional bonus? SSSB (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Sourced. Can we all move on now, or would you like to debate this for a few more days? SSSB (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Andrea Kimi Antonelli move discussion

Notifying the WP of a move discussion to move Andrea Kimi Antonelli to Kimi Antonelli. MB2437 17:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)