Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nikita Mazepin's Nationality

It has recently been confirmed that Mazepin will not be allowed to run under the Russian flag but under a Neutral Flag and be entered as a Neutral Athlete from Russia due to the CAS ruling. Neutral Flag hasn't ever been seen in F1, will the change be entered here? It won't though affect F2/F3 Russian drivers because of F1 being a World Championship and F2 being a Championship.

Source: Mazepin not allowed Russian Flag

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norgz7775 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

FIA must confirm it. Actually F1.com includes it. Island92 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: Wrong. Per this Autosport, "the Russian Automobile Federation has now announced that it received clarifications from the FIA concerning the CAS ruling this week, confirming it would impact drivers competing in world championship series". The FIA do not need to confirm it. They have already told the RAF that they ate affected. Besides, the FIA is a signatory to WADA and the CAS, so they are bound to follow a ruling. This isn't a case of the FIA saying "CAS have told us this and we're deciding on how to handle it", but rather "CAS have told us this, so it's going to happen". 1.144.109.57 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Russian Doping Ban: Nikita Mazepin

Would Nikita be listed under the Russian flag to the Neutral flag as Russia has been banned from all spots until 2022? WKiernan08 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he will be. @Tvx1: added it last night but @Island92: removed it. I disagree with Island92's reasoning, the FIA cannot overrule the decision. If the ban affects the Russian Automobile Association, Mazepin won't use the flag.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

F1.com still includes the Russian flag for Mazepin. It would be better if we waited the first entry list of the season, as Australia for 2020. In it we will read "RUS" or another thing. Island92 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what F1.com says. Per Autosport, the FIA have already told the Russian Automobile Federation that they will be affected by the ruling. This is not a question of whether Mazepin will have a Russian licence or something else, but rather of which nationality he will compete under as a Russian licence is not permitted. 1.144.109.57 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify I did not add anything. I merely removed the Russian flag because it was wrong to keep using it. I have not added a neutral flag yet because they tend to use a different one depending on the vent. At the Olympics the just used the olympic flag whereas at athletics championships they are Authorized Neutral Athletes. The exact flag his is to use has not been clarified. As for F1.com, they’re probably just slow in updating.Tvx1 01:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that it has been updated, the wording of the note should be changed. It currently reads like this:

"Nikita Mazepin is of Russian nationality, but he will race under a neutral flag after WADA extended the ban on athletes competing under a Russian flag to all FIA sanctioned World Championships."

However, it shoukd read like this:

"Nikita Mazepin is a Russian driver, but he will race under a neutral flag after the Court of Arbitration for Sport extended the World Anti-Doping Agency's ban on athletes competing under a Russian flag. The court also ruled that the ban applied to all FIA-sanctioned World Championships."

Firstly, the ban was imposed by WADA, but this development stems from the CAS ruling on it. That might seem like semantics, but the WADA ban came into effect in 2018. Sergey Sirotkin and Daniil Kvyat were free to race under Russian licences until this CAS ruling. Secondly, the original wording introduced WADA without any context; it's not clear who they are based on the wording alone. 1.144.109.57 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Island92 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

Please revert this edit. The statement that "the FIA must confirm it" is incorrect. As per this source, "the Russian Automobile Federation has now announced that it received clarifications from the FIA concerning the CAS ruling this week, confirming it would impact drivers competing in world championship series". The FIA do not need to confirm anything because a) they have already told the Russians that they will be affected and b) the FIA do not have any power over the nationality that appears on a racing licence provided that a driver registers with a national federation recognised by the FIA. 1.144.109.57 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Change has been made, see above for discussion.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese GP in COVID section

The addition of the Portuguese GP was not caused by COVID- it was caused by an empty slot left by the Vietnam GP. Shouldn't it be in the "Calendar expansion and changes from 2020 to 2021" section as a bullet point, rather than in the "Calendar changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic" section? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and boldly moved there.
SSSB (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The Emilia Romagna Grand Prix was added in place of the dropped Vietnamese Grand Prix from the calendar. The Portuguese Grand Prix is not affected by this decision, therefore it was added to fill the third round which had been left vacant after the introduction of the Imola race. Island92 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Driver moves

I'm probably missing something, but why is the driver moves section not just a simple table (Driver - 2020 Series - 2020 team - 2021 Series - 2021 team - 2021 role) so people can easily scan it rather than a bunch of verbose sentences? I understand they are all like that but why?145.8.180.219 (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Because that would be unnecessary. As MOS:NO-TABLES makes clear: prose is preferable to tables, and I fail to see how this information would be better suited to a table.
SSSB (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

First driver born in the 2000s

I fail to see how Yuki Tsunoda being the first driver born in the 2000s is relevant to the 2021 Formula One World Championship. I know it's mentioned in sources, (), but it isn't relevant to the running of the championship. It may be relevant in Tsunoda's biography article- although I'm unconvinced, as it seems like WP:FANCRUFT, but isn't needed in an article about the championship IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

2021 chassis names

This piqued my curiosity: how do you intend to present the 2021 cars? The pandemic means that the original design overhaul was pushed back to 2022 and the 2020 cars kept in service for a year with some limited development. To complicate things, Ferrari have announced that the SF1000 will be the SF21 while Red Bull have announced that the RBR16 will be the RBR16B. This raises the question of whether the 2021 cars should get their own articles, or if one article covering both years is best. And if one article is best, what name should that article have? 1.129.106.195 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Historically, when the same car has been used for multiple seasons/under different names, we have had a single article, using the original name, e.g. both the Ferrari F2001 (used in 2001) and the Ferrari F2001B (used at the start of 2002) are described in Ferrari F2001. Similarly, the Wolf–Williams FW05 (which was a rebranded version of the Hesketh 308C) is described at Hesketh 308C. DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Having seperate article from RB16 and RB16B is illogical. The name makes is obvious it is the same car (and it should be at Red Bull Racing RB16). The same applies to the Mclaren MCL35M.

Currently Ferrari SF21 redirects to the SF1000 article, but depending on the interpretation of secondry sources, it may well be considered as a new car (and therefore new article, saying that the Ferrari SF21 is the same as the Ferrari SF1000 may be original research).
SSSB (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the SF21 having a wildly different name to the SF1000 (as opposed to being called the SF1000B or SF10001) justifies giving it a separate article though, as shown in the Hesketh example DH85868993 gave. Given the chassis has to be reused and will be largely the same because of how Ferrari has allocated its tokens, I think it would be fair to call and treat the SF21 as a B-spec vehicle. I would be interested to see if there are any precedents for this though (where the chassis is mostly the same, new engine from supplier, noticeably different name), nothing really comes to mind.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It having an entirely different name or an identical one is irrelevant. But, if the media (i.e. secondary sources) consider it another car, then we must too (this is incredibly unlikely for Red Bull or Mclaren as their names directly tells us it's a B-spec (or M-spec, what happended to B-L?), that's why I specifically mention Ferrari).
SSSB (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Since we already know that the 2021 cars will be substantially similar to the 2020 cars in a large nyumber of key areas (with reliable sources consistently saying that "the 2020 chassis designs will be carried over for 2021" or something to that effect) it's in no way original research to say that the 2021 and 2020 cars are just different evolutions of the same car. The fact that the name might be different is irrelevant. The article on Mumbai doesn't pretend that the city magically came into existence in 1995; and there isn't a separate article on the city of Bombay. This may of course change as the season progresses, if for some reason it becomes clear that there is a pressing need to have a separate article on (some or all of) the 2021 car(s). However, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and we have no way of knowing whether that may be the case yet. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is why I am asking the question: assuming that everything goes according to plan, by this time next year the SF21 will have completed 23 races. The SF1000, on the other hand, only completed 17. There is an argument here - and to be clear, I am not in favour of it, just pointing it out - that because it is a racing car and was designed to compete in races, then "SF21" better represents the name of the car because it completed more races. 2001:8003:2312:E301:D1D3:D94C:AF1C:E76E (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

But Ferrari using the chassis under the SF21 name more than the SF1000 name doesn't change the fact that the former is a derivative of the latter. A comparable case is again the Hesketh 308C: although the FW05 version was used more, it's still a derivative version of the 308C, and the article should be orientated towards the original vehicle.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

New F1 Cars being a derivative of their predecessor is a much more common practice than most people seem to realize here. The SF1000 was just as much an evolution of the SF90. It's hard no to see how similar they are. Likewise the F399 was an evolution of the F300 and was in turn evolved into the F1-2000. It isn't very common for them to build a completely new car from a completely new design every season. They only tend to do so when there is a massive change in the technical regulations.Tvx1 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between "this car is a derivative because it follows the same overall design philosophy with many minor changes and a few major changes to improve overall performance and further refine the design" and "this car is a derivative because most of the chassis is identical except for this specific area we have been allowed to change"?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are making an overly simplified despriction of the potential situations. We're not even sure how accuarte that is for the 2021 cars. The SF21 might still fall under the former definition techinically. It hasn't been presented yet. In fact I can't even say for sure whether your definitions would in reality ensure a major technical difference. They can still make minor and major changes to the areas they are allowed to develop. I also genuinely believe that you do not understand how little difference the SF90 and the SF1000 had.Tvx1 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? Should the SF21 have its own article? Do you want the SF90 and the SF1000 merged?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should have a seperate article just like the SF90 and SF1000 have. Describing the SF21 as a b-spec of the SF1000 is an overly simplistic description of the situation.Tvx1 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's still to early to tell. We'll need to wait at least until testing, if not until the season itself has begun, to truly know how sources will regard the 2021 cars in relation to 2020 versions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What about the MCL35M and RB16B then? They are both subject to the same degree of change as the SF21 is.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

But McLaren and Red Bull have given their cars a b-spec name, so ths SF21 is not comparible to the RB16B and the MCL35M in the "is it a b-spec?" discussion
SSSB (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SSSB. Also we have to wait until the cars actually come into existence and how the sources deal with them before we can make a proper decission on this.Tvx1 15:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Are the b-spec names proof that those versions will be treated by sources as being any more or less the same as the versions used in 2020 than cars which don't receive b-spec names in 2021? For now, based off of how sources have talked about the 2021 cars, I would say we should assume that they will be treated as being the same as the 2020 cars, and if that changes then we should deal with that when it happens. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No, but it is evidence that those versions are considered b-spec by the teams, and that's good enough for us to do the same. We don't need secondry sources if primary ones say the same. It would be nice, but it isn't necessary.
SSSB (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

After Alpine's announcement I think it would be wholly proper to split chassis names accordingly. Teams that indicate 2021 will be B-spec of 2020 should use the same page per COMMONNAME and those who don't should have their own page. Ferrari SF21 included. Admanny (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't disagree, this seems intuitive for Alpine/Aston Martin and it's not a stretch to apply it to Ferrari etc. as well.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's too early to be making these calls. A change in name does not mean that the car will be fundamentally different enough to warrant a new article, and the name staying largely the same does not mean the car will be fundamentally similar enough to warrant keeping the coverage within the same article. There is no need to rush here; once testing and the races themselves are underway we'll have a far clearer picture than just chassis names. With the Silverstone and Enstone teams there is probably a stronger argument for separate articles since the constructor name is changing, but it's still not definitive. Ultimately splitting one article if it becomes clear that a second one is needed is easier than merging two articles together if it becomes clear that the second article was unnecessary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree we can wait for Ferrari, but looking at coverage now of the A521 it is clear that it will be treated as distinct from the R.S.20. I imagine the same will happen for Aston Martin. But, like you've said, there's no rush, but I believe this will end up being the course of action we take.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So where are we three weeks later? I really think that we should create articles at least for those cars that a completely distinct name to those used in 2020. Moreover, in examples like the Ferrari one I really don't see the sources treating the SF21 vs the SF1000 in too different manner than how they treated the SF1000 vs the SF90.Tvx1 18:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think the name is the largest determinant of how sources are treating the cars.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the precedent already exists on this one. The derivate factor is name, rather than matter-of-fact here, isn't it? I've read (though can't really be bothered to find a source for it right this minute) that Adrian Newey claims the McLaren MP4-18 and McLaren MP4-19A are the same car, and separate articles exist for that. So in the case of 2020-21, McLaren, Red Bull, and Williams don't need new articles, but the others (Haas and Aston Martin notwithstanding) do. I don't see why this is all that complicated, frankly. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither do I. I really don't understand what we're waiting for? What do we expect to happen once testing gets underway? Compare the new cars to the old one ourselves to determine wether the quantity of difference justifies separate articles? We can't do that you know because that's synthesis. At this point the sources already treat those cars with new names as equally different than their predecessors, so I really don't understand what we're waiting for.Tvx1 18:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Aston Martin Cognizant Formula One Team Chassis Name

Please change Chassis of Aston Martin Cognizant Formula One Team from TBC to AMR21. Ritam R (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Your request has been fufilled by Island92 — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 15:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

First driver born in 2000s

@HumanBodyPiloter5: I'm sorry, but I cannot see how this is anything other than WP:FANCRUFT. You are claiming that something that is inevitable is something notable. This was inevitablly going to happen in the period of 2018-2025, which year it happens in, and which driver is, to me, an example of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What next, Jenson Button was the first F1 driver born in the 1980's? I don't see how an inevitability can be seen as noteworthy.
SSSB (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB:, @Joseph2302:: It's half a sentence of information. It provides context for the age range of drivers who compete in the championship at any given time. I don't understand why this would be contentious? How is it fancruft? What on earth is fancruft anyway? Yes, some information is excessive, but that's usually when people try to add entire paragraphs about how Vettel painted his helmet a different colour at every race and use a press-release as a source; not saying "Yuki Tsunoda is the first driver born in the 2000s" which is concise, objective, verifiable, clearly treated as notable by independent sources, and actually informative to the reader. Again, not everyone who is reading will know that the youngest driver on the grid is typically between 18 and 25 years old. In the 1950s drivers tended to be far older, so context about how younger drivers have become more and more prevalent over time is also relevant. And yes, I would say that "Jenson Button was the first F1 driver born in the 1980s" is noteworthy as half a sentence worth of information, particularly if given additional context ie. "Button became the youngest driver to score points up to that point". Half the time people on here just seem to wave the "ooh no this is Fancruft" card as a form of gatekeeping as well. No explanation of "we don't need to go into this much detail about Vettel's helmet designs", no attempt to find compromise (maybe a section already exists in Vettel's article about his helmet designs where it's more relevant), just edit summaries which read "WP:FANCRUFT". And while yes, it is frustrating when people add large paragraphs of tangential information, taking that to the point of "don't add half a sentence of objective, verifiable information that multiple independent reliable sources have made note of because that's fancruft" it just starts to look ridiculous. I see far too many edit summaries which are clearly violations of WP:BITE where rather than saying "hey can you provide a source to show why this is relevant" instead it's just "WP:FANCRUFT". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If you read WP:FANCRUFT, you would know that it imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Incidently, both your sources cater such an audience. It provides context for the age range of drivers who compete in the championship at any given time. - it doesn't. If you wanted to do that you would say "Tsunoda is the youngest driver in the field at 20, and Raikkonen the oldest at 41, this also doesn't provide such context without providing addtional information about if this range is normal. I don't understand why this would be contentious? - because I don't think there is any value in the statement. clearly treated as notable by independent sources - that's not clear at all, it being mentioned in passing doesn't make it noteworthy. In the 1950s drivers tended to be far older, so context about how younger drivers have become more and more prevalent over time is also relevant. - the proposed information gives no context on that at all, the article doesn't mention the age of the youngest driver from the 50's (who was also younger than Tsunoda will be in March). Button being the youngest driver to score points is not relevant to him being the first driver born in the 80's, the record could one day be held by someone born in December 2009. Next you'll want to mention that Alonso is the first driver from '81? My attempt to find a compromise was not removing "Tsunoda is the first Japanese driver since 2014" (or whatever it says) because I think it falls in the same category, being only 7 years ago. Can you show why this is relevant? Because I still don't see it.
SSSB (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This is trivial information and does not belong in the season article, no matter how briefly it is mentioned. It is contentious because its addition is unjustified (see SSSB's reasoning). Information doesn't become relevant solely because it's correct and verifiable.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I will agree that saying something like "Räikkönen (born in 1979) is due to be the oldest driver competing while Tsunoda (born in 2000) is due to be the youngest" would actually be a better way to present that information. I don't understand where the rush to remove passing mentions of statistics comes from though. It often seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.

Okay, saying "this was the first time Coulthard had scored points in three races" is usually irrelevant (unless Coulthard is in the middle of a close championship battle); but a lot of the time these arguments seem to be over information like "this was the first time the team had scored a podium for three years" or the like, which to me seems like perfectly relevant information to include.

And again, with a lot of these arguments over what to include or not I think both extremes forget that Wikipedia is being written for a general audience. Yes, someone who wants to know extremely precise details about obscure statistics is probably better off looking at one of the various stats databases which exist online, but at the other end of the spectrum there seems to be this belief that because those databases exist it isn't necessary to place any of the information presented in any sort of context.

I always try to assume that the audience for a Wikipedia article is an author who lacks background knowledge but wants to incorporate the subject into the novel they're writing in some way, and try to make decisions based off of that. That's why "first driver born in [x] decade" seems like relevant information to me, because if I was writing a novel where a sport I didn't know much about came up for some reason I could conceive of wanting to know that fact.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I could equally argue that your entire argument is WP:ILIKEIT, also see WP:OTHERCONTENT. I don't follow your arguement at all, if someone was writting a novel surronding F1, why would they need to incorparate that Tsunoda is the first person born in the 2000's? With regards to your third paragrapgh, this is the crux of the issue. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, but I don't see how this is noteworthy for a general audience. I consider this to be an obscure stat. We are saying that this is the first person in a given time period, but this time period is arbitarrly defined as being within a certain number of years after an event.
SSSB (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not even remotely encyclopedic. If Tsunoda was the youngest ever, that would be important; however, the fact that he is the first to be born in the new millennium is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

In any case this isn't even relevant to the 2021 championship article. This relates to the driver.Tvx1 22:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Extent of Russian athlete ban

Reading this article, the ban on Russian athlete affects more than Mazepin's licence, and so some detail in the article is probably warranted. I would suggest including it as a subsection to the sporting regulations. The wording could go like this:

"In 2017, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) banned Russian athletes from taking part in international competition while they investigated claims of systemic, state-sponsored doping in Russia. The decision saw Russian athletes who tested negative to banned substances granted permission to compete under a neutral flag at the 2018 Winter Olympics. The WADA investigation continued into 2019, and Russia was given a four-year ban from international competition. In December 2020, the Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the ban to two years, but issued a ruling that that the ban applied to all Russian athletes competing in World Championships. As the FIA is a signatory to WADA statutes, the ban applied to Russian racing drivers as well. Under the court's ruling, Russian drivers are not permitted to identify themselves as Russian, and nor are they permitted to display the flag of Russia or incorporate national symbols of Russia into their helmet, overalls or livery designs. The Russian flag cannot be displayed in any official capacity at Grands Prix—although spectators are permittes to use it—and the national anthem of Russia cannot be played in pre-race ceremonies or podium celebrations." 1.144.109.76 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally clarification could be helpful along with finding a way to link to Doping in Russia and clarifying that it applies to world Championships in all sports, but I find the proposed level of detail absurd. I don't see how an list of all the things Mazepin can/can't do is necessary and I don't see why we need to explain the entire background of the situation beyond clarifying that it was a state sponsored doping program, which is why Mazepin can't compete as a Russian.
SSSB (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say the detail in the current note is fine, this additional detail can go on Mazepin's article.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think additional detail is warranted there either. Simply Mazepin is Russian but will compete as a neutral after a ban on Russia competing at World Championships was implemented following the systematic doping of Russian athletes. Details of who proposed the ban, who upheld the ban and the details of what is/isn't banned is best left for the Doping in Russia article (which is the article linked previously). I think this wording is sufficent for all the F1 articles where an explaniation may be needed.
SSSB (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, agreed.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Details of who imposed the ban should be addressed in some form for two reasons:

1) It is not an FIA ban. It is not the product of an FIA rule.

2) The CAS ruling is on a ban that was first imposed in 2017 and upheld in 2019. What is important is that motorsport was exempt from this ban until the CAS ruling.

Also "systemic" is a better word to use than "systematic". WADA and the CAS found that there was a culture encouraging doping and that RUSADA was used to subvert doping rules rather than enforce them. However, it was not "systematic" because that implies there was a formal process of doping. Russian athletes could still compete if they passed a more stringent battery of doping tests than usual, and while the team of "Olympic Athletes from Russia" at the Pyeongchang Games was smaller than the teams that Russia had previously sent, it was nevertheless a fairly large team. 1.144.109.66 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree, systematic is consistunetly used by sources, both primary and secondary. Sebastian Coe (president of the IAAF) said The institutionalised and systematic doping in Russian athletics is the reason the IAAF suspended.... The word systematic implies a formal process of doping because there was one. Doping in Russia extends well beyond "systemic". You might want to read this. The use of the word systematic, meanwhile, does not imply that it affected everyone, as you claim (diff). Us limiting ourselves to the word "systemic" is therefore unacceptable to me and to suggest that doping in Russia was limited to "systemic" would simply be a lie:

However, a compromise could be reached. How about Mazepin is Russian but will compete as a neutral after a ban on Russia competing at World Championships proposed by the World Anti Doping Agency was unheld and extended into Formula One by the Court of Arbitration for Sport following a state sponsered doping program of Russian athletes?
SSSB (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this the same Sebastian Coe who went out of his way to pretend that he knew nothing about Russian doping? Pardon me if I'm disinclined to put much stock in his words.

As for your proposal, it is okay, but could be tweaked for accuracy. Something like this:

Nikita Mazepin is Russian but will compete under a neutral flag as the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld a ban on Russia competing at World Championships. The ban was implemented by the World Anti-Doping Agency in response to state-sponsered doping program of Russian athletes.

First of all, WADA did not propose the ban - they enforced it. Your wording implied that the ban had only come into effect but it has been in place for a while now. Secondly, the CAS was asked to rule on it as the Russians appealed; they reduced the ban from four years to two, but expanded its scope. Finally, I removed the "extended into Formula One" because while true, the ban was extended into all World Championships, and this wording suggested that it was only extended into Formula One. 1.144.109.66 (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That wording is acceptable to me, I just wanted to make sure we were accurate in our description of the doping. I'll implement it now.
SSSB (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This violates WP:NPOV rule. If he defines himself Russian then Russian flag should be used, no matter what third parties could think and imply. The case is completely politicized and not based on doping at all. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not about how he defines himself, it is about how the sport defines him. And I don't see how neutrality is violated, we are representing the facts, he will not compete under the Russian flag.
SSSB (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SSSB. The nationality of sports people is their sporting nationality, not their citizenship. Mazepin's sporting nationality for this season is the country he will represent, which is neutral athletes, and cannot be Russia, due to the CAS ban. Adding a Russian flag would be inconsistent with every other article about sportspeople on Wikipedia. Elk Salmon if you have a problem with this, complain to CAS, as they were the ones that banned Russia. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Circuit sorting

Why are we sorting the French circuit as P for Paul Ricard, rather than L for Le Castellet? Ditto for Canada being sorted as G, Austria as R, Abu Dhabi as Y. Wouldn't it make more sense to sort by the place names (Le Castellet, Montreal, Speilburg) rather than one of the letters of the circuit name? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I just changed it (before I noticed this thread) so we consistently sort by circuit name, I disagree that we should sort by place names. The heading of the column is clearly "circuit", therefore we should sort by circuit name (and ignoring "Autodromo" or "Circuit" is frankly confusing, if we want to sort by a common name we should use that common name in the table, otherwise we are causing confusion as to why it sorts the way it does)
SSSB (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We should simply sort by the first letter that appears in a cell. That's what sorting is all about. Don't overthink it.Tvx1 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I would argue sorting itself is overthinking. I can't really see the point of offering sorting on that particular table. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Racing C41 power unit

We know that the team uses Ferrari power unit even for 2021, but how do we have to call the Ferrari specification? Ferrari 066 (Ferrari 065 in 2020) or 2021 Ferrari Hybrid?--Island92 (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To say it is the Ferrari 066 is WP:OR. At the same time, the Alfa call the engine the "2021 Ferrari hybrid" in much the same way we could say that Mercedes are using a "2021 Mercedes hybrid" (as I understand it). That page doesn't contain information about what the Ferrari engine specification is called.
SSSB (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. We need to wait in order to get much information, perhaps once the new Ferrari SF21 is lanched (March, 10th).--Island92 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

F1.com makes brief mention of Ferrari 066 here but even they say "if [it's] on the money...". Best we wait. Admanny (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

After Ferrari's own reveal that their engine is the 065/6, I think it is safe to assume based on Alfa Romeo's source here where they state their power unit is a "2021 Ferrari Hybrid" that they will also be using the 065/6, given... that's the power unit Ferrari's using for 2021. I have went ahead and made the change now. Admanny (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok.--Island92 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite web template

Scjessey, I'm not sure why you think this - can you elaborate please. According to the template doc, the "title" field is for Title of source page on website and the "website" field for Name of the work containing the source. When I open that webpage I see the title as Discover the SF21 and the work name as just the Ferrari logo - hence Ferrari. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The title of the page comes from the title meta tag of the page, which is what appears in your browser tab/window heading. The "Discover the SF21" is not actually a title, but rather a subheading, and it has already changed from what was first there when the page was originally published. I'm not that bothered about the website attribute, because usage seems to vary considerably throughout Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Scjessey, is what you say about the 'title' tag being used documented in a guideline somewhere, or is it your personal assumption? It seems weird to use something that's awkward to copy & paste like that, and something you need to be technically savvy to be able to do. Often it includes the publication name too, not something that's needed in the title as that belongs in the 'work', 'website' or 'publisher' parameter of the cite, or the website homepage url, which just adds unnecessary clutter. It surely makes more sense to use the title of the page as it is displayed in the webpage itself, and that readers can see and confirm. Sure the displayed title can change, but then so can the content of the 'title' tag. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason it is normal to use the title meta tag is because that is literally what the title is, otherwise there would be no point in having the tag! Automatic citing applications typically use the meta tag, as do "page scrapers" deployed by link sharing services. Usually, the title meta tag is echoed by a web page's h1 element and there is no confusion. In this particular case, the h1 element is not the same and its content is actually split into separate span elements to be even more confusing. It is extremely rare for the title meta tag to be changed of an already published page, but on a dynamically-delivered site it is quite common for visible content to change, as in the case of this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Scjessey, is your insistence on its use documented in a guideline somewhere, or is it just your personal preference? I still favour using the visible (and easily copy & pasteable) page content for the title rather than digging about for this hidden stuff which often includes the unnecessary clutter of the publication name and the website's homepage url. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto here. As far as I'm aware, the use of the metadata as the default title is just for convenience. The actual user-facing title is, in most cases, the headline at the top of the page and doesn't include the advertising junk you usually find in the webpage title.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

But in this case, there is no "headline at the top of the page" to speak of. There is a transient heading that has changed twice since the page has published, whereas the title meta tag has not changed at all. At Template:Cite_web/doc#Title is says title: Title of source page on website which is rather vague; however, the title meta tag is the only part of a webpage that is semantically defined as the actual title, so in the case of ambiguity that should be the default source of the title. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Russian Grand Prix

Here the Russian flag has been hidden. Should we add a new Note for the Russian Grand Prix into the calendar table explaining that this Grand Prix will be run under a neutral flag?--Island92 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless we use the neutral flag it would be confusing to have that note (in my opinion). I see no reason why we would use no flag as we use the flag of the host country, not the flag of the namesake. And the host country is in Russia. Though I do think it would be worth mentioning it in 2021 Russian Grand Prix.
SSSB (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The Russian flag reported into the table is next to the sentence "Sochi Autodrom, Sochi" where the circuit is located. Therefore, the Russian flag can be showed anyway in my opinion. The fact, needless to say, will be mentioned into 2021 Russian Grand Prix.--Island92 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The calendar isn't the only place we use that flag though. It will also be used in the results tables combined with Russia or RUS. What will do there?Tvx1 21:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the same. The Russian flag will be left because it is considered the country where the race takes place, not the official Grand Prix denomination. For instance, the "EMI" which stands for Emilia Romagna Grand Prix will include the Italian flag, not the Emilia Romagna region flag that is quite different. All the three letters for tables results belong to the country, not the Grand Prix denomination. Island92 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should follow what F1 does, like we do for Imola—blindlynx (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The flag is for the circuit, and the circuit is still in Russia. So flag is appropriate. Any information about the race not being run under a Russian flag can be added to the 2021 Russian Grand Prix article once created. Doesn't need a note on this page, as we're not displaying flags for the GPs. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Similarly is San Marino GP which uses the Italian flag. Admanny (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Historically it's used the San Marinase flag and that's reflected here for old races, The F1 website doesn't have a flag for the russian grand prix we should probably follow—blindlynx (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the San Marino Grand Prix doesn't use the San Marino flag anywhere on the English Wikipedia (that I am aware of) and previous consensus' are that they shouldn't. We are not the F1 website and there are plenty of websites which still use the Russian flag (for example StatsF1). So I don't understand why we should blindly follow one source.
SSSB (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

sorry wasn't aware that got changed. F1 it self is still the main source though—blindlynx (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

F1 is using the flag of the Grand Prix, whereas we are using the flag of the circuit location. So we shouldn't be just blindly copying them. The Sochi race track hasnt stopped being in Russia. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that the Russia's ban also extends to the Grand Prix itself (i.e. it needs to have a neutral name like for example Sochi Grand Prix). However, until there is confirmation by the FIA regarding the GP held in Russia, the name of the event should remain Russian Grand Prix. Ivaneurope (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case we will indeed list it as Sochi but hyperlink to the Russian GP wiki, similarly to Sao Paulo and Mexico City. I doubt the flag will change though. Admanny (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. The precendent being used here can be traced back to the Malaysian Grand Prix when the offiicial name changed to Malaysia Grand Prix (without the "n"). It was done because the 2011 Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix was considered an edition of the Malaysian Grand Prix (as were subsequent Petronas Malaysia Grands Prix).

I had my doubts that the same would apply to the Mexico City GP, even more so with the Sao Paulo GP. But if this does happen it would not be legal for F1 to consider the Sochi GP an edition of the Russian GP. We need a source which consider them the same before we take such an action.

The Sao Paulo GP and Sochi GP should follow the precedent set by the San Marino/Emilia Romagna GP as that is what those situations is most similar too, regardless of the reasons involved.
SSSB (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

جدول ورودی ویکی پدیا فارسی

یه نگاه به اینجا بیندازید.بهتر است

Most of the information is redundant and unneccessary. Admanny (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think the Persian's wiki's table is better? Also, it's quite difficult for use to really judge that as it is in a language that uses a completely different writing system. Therefore I think we simply cannot adopt that. Also, please communicate in English on the talk pages of the English language wikipedia.Tvx1 20:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For those of you who dont speak Persian, putting this through google translate suggests that this editor thinks the entry table in Persian wiki is better.
SSSB (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see on that table, it uses way too many flags, includes all test drivers (which we have a consensus against doing), and uses colours for styling which isn't needed, and the contrasts of some look to violate our MOS:COLOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

در اینجا نام مخفف را اضافه کردم.Mohammad.darg (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

همچنین نسخه ویکی فا کامل از ویکی اسپانیایی کپی شده است.Mohammad.darg (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Translation of above:

I added the acronym here.Mohammad.darg (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
     The full WikiFa version is also copied from the Spanish wiki.Mohammad.darg (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the driver abbreviations are just the first three letters of their last name, that column is redundant. The only other significant differences are the colouration of the table, which, while it isn't a terrible idea if done in the same style as political parties, has been implemented in a way that possibly breaks MOS:COLOR as Joseph2302 points out. Other than that, the only other difference is the inclusion of test and reserve drivers which we discontinued.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The driver code column is helpful on Persian wiki where the alphabet is different. However, when an English (or Dutch, French etc.) sees these codes it is obvious who it refers to as they are the first three letters of the drivers name (with the exception of Schumacher where they have been needlessly nostalgic at the risk of confusing viewers from the post Michael era, but that one is still fairly obvious and does not justify an extra column).
SSSB (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just putting this out there, drivers afaik can pick. When Vergne left F1 Verstappen chose to change his VES to VER. Not saying there’s a need for three-letter codes to be shown but it is somewhat notable but not enough that I’d think warrants to be shown on our English wiki. Admanny (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think drivers could pick post-Liberty takeover. Assuming the TLAs follow the same rule as driver numbers (2 year grace period) then VER would only have become available in 2017 anyway and he allegedly was asked in 2017, but not before. I've fallen out with a lot of people over this in the past (I strongly feel he shouldn't have been allowed to pick and CERTAINLY shouldn't have been allowed to change). In any case it's excessive trivia in 95% of cases. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, he didn't really pick. He simply submitted a formal request to whichever party is responsible (not sure whether it's FIA or FOM) whether it could be changed and they accepted.Tvx1 22:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Technically, it is a pick then since he requested ;) Games of the world (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion limits reached?

It might just be my browser but after the WDC table templates are displayed as links rather than transcluded. Has the article hit its transclusion limit?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: Yup, the limit has reached. If you go into edit mode, you get this error Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. at the top. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

If we stopped using Template:F1R2021 to transclude the points for the drivers, that would fix it, as that contributes a ridiculous number of transclusions (over 400). We had same problem on 2020 Formula 2 Championship a couple of months back, and that solved it. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I have removed all of it. The table should now function the same as F1 2019 article, reason why the {{F1R2020}} works in F1 2020 is because there is only 17 races versus 23 races in 2021.

@5225C:  Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The easiest solution is to use the templates {{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}} (like we have done for years). Then, at the end of the year, before we subst: those templates here, we subst: F1R2021 into that those results tables. {{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}} exist for a reason, they are there so we can protect the results, but not the whole page, following a contraversial result, such as CAN 19.
SSSB (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Strange, that worked last year. In any case we should continue to use {{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}}
SSSB (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

From reading WP:Template limits it seems the size of the template is also a factor in the limit. While it would be nice to use these templates, the fact remains that they aren't working.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: But doing so, prevented {{F1 Constructors Standings}}, {{notelist}} and super important {{reflist}} and all the navboxes from loading. Are you sure this is the correct approach by having a broken article? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll:, Im subst:F1R2021, so it won't be broken at all. This is the correct approach. We have {{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}} for a reason. This is what we did in 2019, which is exactly what you asked for above.
SSSB (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB and Paper9oll: (edit conflict) I didn't have any luck with rendering this as a preview, but any chance of using {{flagg}} as a workaround as describd here?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: Ah now I understand, using the magic word. Hopefully it will work. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: This is a possibility as well, the F1 2020 article uses that template as suppose to flagicon template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, this is now the "2019 way". Sorry, if I was a little rude earlier, I'm just pissed that I had to remove the template that took me ages to put in.
SSSB (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped debug. I manually constructed the Grands Prix table as one didn't exist and got confused when references started showing in the notes for WDC table. Admanny (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of this all, using that many templates claerly is far from ideal. I strongly believe that we really should consider adopting modules instead.Tvx1 15:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine by me.
SSSB (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Safety cars

Content on a change of safety cars to use two different cars is not relevant to the running of the championship. It's already covered in Safety car#Chronology of Formula One safety cars, which is an appropriate place for it. Games of the world please stop re-adding it, unless you get a clear consensus here to do so. It's just WP:FANCRUFT and way too much detail- why would a casual reader of this article ever care that one safety cars is being used for 12 races, and another one for the rest? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Joseph2302. It has no impact on the running of the Championship and therefore has no place in the article. I doubt most people would even notice any difference other than the colour. I couldn't even tell what last years safety car was and I don't care because (other than it being present and not breaking down) it isn't remotely relevant to this article.
SSSB (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this is just trivia.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

SSSB and Joseph you two are making wild assumptions of what peoples intelligence levels are for a causal reader. A causal reader is more likely to want to know about it as they can see it and easily understand, rather than say a section detailing reduction of rear downforce or the light panel flags now being mandatory at all venues (which is why I think they kept throwing red flags in testing). Just because you do not pay attention or think it is relevant doesn't mean that no one else who follows the championship is not paying attention as to what the safety car is. I can't tell ordinarily what the different models of each car are, but I can bloody well tell that it ain't the same make - which is the whole point of the reference in the article as it has a baring on the championship although indirectly, hence someone will ask and it should be included just like the helmet comment from 2020 season. Secondly fancruft is not a policy and I will continue to ignore any argument based off this. Finally if you want a no place in the article argument SSSB then who is supporting the championship should be removed as it has no direct correlation on this years championship (as they are stand alone championships) and is overkill for a casual reader (and we have seen stand ins plucked from outside of the bubble), but continues to be kept, unlike the safety car which is a lot more relevant as it has an indirect impact on the 2021 season. Games of the world (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:FANCRUFT is an essay. It exists because it provides a good explanation of why certain content (content [which] is important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question) should not be included in a general purpose encylopedia, if you prefer I can continue to give the same argument without refering to the essay.

With regards to the helmet comment and support series, I have no objection to those being removed. But this is also irrelevant, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.

In your first sentence you accuse us of making assumptions (which, admittidly, is true) but then proceed to do exactly that in your second sentence. Firstly, I want to stress that I disagree with the assumption. And secondly, even if it were true, the fact remains is that those regulation changes are directly related to the championship, which the model of the safety car is not.

the safety car which is a lot more relevant as it has an indirect impact on the 2021 season - it has no impact. Regardless of whether they use an Aston Martin, Mercedes, Ferrari, Lambourghini, or a different make of car at every race, it has literally no impact on those individual races and, by extension, the season as a whole.
SSSB (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a compromise to be made here. We don't need to include a substantial amount of information, but we can mention it in passing. I don't think anything more than "Aston Martin will join Mercedes in supplying safety and medical cars for races" or something similarly brief would be justified however. We certainly don't need lengthy explanations about how the cars are painted a different colour or whatever though. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"It has no impact on the running of the Championship and therefore has no place in the article." We have plenty of stuff in the article that has no impact on the running of the Championship. For example, we talk about support races. I see no reason why we couldn't have a brief mention about this Formula 1-specific change. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This though is simply not important. It's pure a commercial change. Anything about this belongs in the article on the Safety Car.Tvx1 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What model of car is used doesn't affect the running of the championship or how the safety car performs its role. The change is purely visual for, as Tvx1 mentioned, a commercial cause. It is a form of sponsorship, and sponsorship is not significant enough to be included in the championship article or most other articles. It could be argued that this is a very visible form of sponsorship, and while that is true we ultimately see F1 sponsors (e.g. Amazon Web, Saudi Aramco, etc.) a lot more than we do the safety car. We don't have a section discussing them because whose logo the track is adorned in doesn't affect what happens on the track. At the same time, what car is the safety car doesn't affect why it's there, how long it runs for, or what happens behind it. I oppose any inclusion of this information. It's trivia at the very best and carries no notability in this context.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with 5225C- the make, model and colour of the car don't have a direct impact on how the championship races are run, it's just the FIA choosing to play around with sponsorship. To address a previous point, changes to the rear wing and other technical rule changes have a direct impact on the running of the championship, as they directly contribute to how a car is built, and directly impact a car's performance. Safety car information should be in the Safety car article, which is an appropriate place for more details about its use. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note

As has been touched upon above, WP:FANCRUFT carries no weight whatsoever. Accusing other editors of indulging in it is derogatory, disrespectful and borderline uncivil. Stop using it as a tool to attempt to lay down the law. In any case, this may or may not be trivia, or excess detail, but "fancruft" it is not. Fancruft is writing articles about every song a band ever recorded, or every character in a comic book series. If people want to look less amateurishly officious, find a guideline or policy and explain it properly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Fancruft is, as per the guidance "The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." I make no comment on the editor adding it, but the intricate level of detail on it is too much for this article, and not what a casual reader would be looking for in a season article. This was not intended as any comment on the editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out above I could easily argue it is fancruft without using the word or linking to the page, but I do so because they explain it better than I could. No, it's not a policy in and of itself, but it explains that it is not appropriate to fill an encyclopedia with detail which does not improve a general reader's understanding. When I use I am commenting on the content not the editor so I really don't see what the problem is.
SSSB (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Fancruft is, as per the guidance..." It is not guidance. Your words carry no weight when you use an essay to back them up. Neither of you understand what fancruft is anyway. What you're talking about is excess detail, or possibly trivia. It is not fan-derived fluff. You've both said you're not commenting on the editor, but you both are. Describing someone's edit as fancruft is pejorative and it says more about you than the other editor when you cite this essay incorrectly. You're perilously close to calling this editor some kind of F1 fanboy. Go and find a guideline to back up your point of view. If you can't, then your point of view holds no weight. No wonder the arguments you guys have are so long-winded and frustrating to read. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bretonbanquet. Calling something "fancruft" usually isn't an argument, it's just an insult. It's always far less antagonistic to say "we don't need this much detail" or "this information is better suited elsewhere" or something like that. Calling reliably sourced additions "fancruft" is little more than an attack on the character of the editor who added them. Usually when these good-faith additions do need to be removed there's something far more useful at WP:NOT than in the WP:FANCRUFT essay anyway. I would also like to note that the essay itself notes that "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It also says that "The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." Which is exactly my point on the safety car content being added to this article. If people find the phrase WP:FANCRUFT offensive, then just ignore it from my comments and focus on the rest of it, which explains why I don't believe it's appropriate. But this sub-thread seems like making a mountain out of a molehill to me, especially when it's already been clarified above that no malice was intended. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that it does have a direct impact on the season, to be honest. One sentence of it isn't unreasonable, and it's no different (and arguably MORE notable) than the safety car being red in Tuscany last year, which was noted on here. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You would argue it, but you don't give any explanation how it does? I really don't see it. Also, I have read through the 2020 article thoroughly and I can't find any mention of the red safety car at Mugello last year.Tvx1 15:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as it has a direct impact, potentially, on the Championship by allowing cars to run quicker behind it and build up better temperature. It's noted at 2020 Tuscan Grand Prix, so even just "this race saw the introduction of a new safety car" at 2021 Bahrain Grand Prix would do. In any case, I cannot believe the energy going into one line of Wikipedia here. It's a mountain out of a molehill. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

But how do you think the difference in safety cars actually impacts the outcome of the championship? I really don’t see it. The discussion dealt with including the information in this particulat article. Mentioning it somewhere else was noted straight away, but I think Safety car is actually the better place.Tvx1 02:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment/Side note: This information on having two manufacturer of safety car is already included inside Formula One#Race abeit without the green and red livery which isn't really necessary, interested readers and attendees/viewers could easily differentiate AMG-GT from Vantage anyway by looking at the infamous gigantic three-pointed star logo on the grill. However, I don't think it should be included inside the championship articles. SL to SLS AMG to AMG GT wasn't included in previous championships article anyway hence I don't see why this year should be special other than having two different models and livery, if you're talking about the viewers/readers pov, then it wouldn't make sense also like are they not interested in the models change. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That reasoning (allowing cars to run quicker behind it and build up better temperature) is 100% WP:OR as you don't know that this would allow for that. The reason you can't believe the engery going into one line is because Games of the World gave us a paragraph. The Tuscan GP is also not compariable because it is mentioned in the wider context of Ferrari celebrating thier 1000th GP, something covered in secondry sources, unlike this new model of safety car.
SSSB (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That's borderline insulting me again, for no reason as well (lack of ping kind of nails it as you don't want a fight). May I suggest you would be better of trying to compromise instead of owning topics and attempting to insult others. Games of the world (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

But, as I pointed out already, the Tuscan GP thing is most importantly not comparable because that deals with a one of thing being mentioned in the article on that one of race, while the discussion here deals with adding a paragraph in the 2021 championship article. The red safety cat isn't mentioned in the 2020 championship article for the same reason we should have this paragraph on the Aston Martin. There was never an intention though to ban this information from Wikipedia altogether. Multiple contributors have explained that there are better places where it can be included. And presently with Safety car, Aston Martin Vantage (2018) and, as mentioned by Paper9oll, Formula One#Race we already mention in three places. That's more than enough weight.Tvx1 17:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. You and I both know that as soon as someone else supplies or one of these two stop supplying it will disappear from Safety car and F1 Race sections, so a pretty poor argument if you ask me, as Wikipedia certainly does not have rations or quotas on how many articles can contain a single topic. The red SC from 2020 was not mentioned on the championship page as it blatantly ONLY was RELAVENT to a SINGLE event - not the championship in it's WHOLE (like this situation is this time), so not a valid comparison I'm afraid. Games of the world (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would it disappear? The list on Safety car has been there for quite a while, at least last year. And while Wikipedia certainly does not have rations or quotas on how many articles can contain a single topic, that does not mean it is relevant. Just because you can cite something doesn't mean it's of encyclopaedic value. As I said above,

What model of car is used doesn't affect the running of the championship or how the safety car performs its role. The change is purely visual for, as Tvx1 mentioned, a commercial cause. It is a form of sponsorship, and sponsorship is not significant enough to be included in the championship article or most other articles. It could be argued that this is a very visible form of sponsorship, and while that is true we ultimately see F1 sponsors (e.g. Amazon Web, Saudi Aramco, etc.) a lot more than we do the safety car. We don't have a section discussing them because whose logo the track is adorned in doesn't affect what happens on the track. At the same time, what car is the safety car doesn't affect why it's there, how long it runs for, or what happens behind it. I oppose any inclusion of this information. It's trivia at the very best and carries no notability in this context.

Do you have any reason why this information is impactful or meaningful to the championship?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And more specific to the 2021 edition of the championship. After all this a general change for the sport, not an exclusive one for the 2021 championship.Tvx1 02:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The safety car page is a disgrace and most of it needs to be deleted. Nothing involving individual series needs to be there. There is only two versions of the SC format (which is the line up in track order or in race order) with minor changes involving speeds to catch the train and the VSC and that is all that needs mentioning. The information is relevant to this year as the change happened this year. What part of that concept are you struggling with - since we have the race format for red flags now being limited 3 hours. Not relevant to the year, but relevant to the championship. By your logic shouldn't be there but still is. You haven't come up with a single valid/logical reason. Games of the world (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Games of the world: I would really appreciate a direct response to my message. The issue at hand is not that it isn't related to the championship, but that it isn't relevant to an encyclopedic article on the season. It simply is not meaningful and is no more impactful than other forms of sponsorship.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You haven't come up with a single valid/logical reason. - we have, I'll repeat it for you. The model of the safety car (and the colour) has no impact on the Championship. The red flag rule being reduced to 3 hours is something that could plausibly be implemeted, it's a rule change, and rule changes have a direct impact on the championship. But I see no plausible situation where the model and/or colour of the safety car will impact the Championship, in any way.
SSSB (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand where the desire to keep things concise and avoid going into excessive detail comes from. I don't understand where the desire to exclude information entirely comes from. This is information which has been reported on in detail by multiple independent reliable sources. It can be summarised in a small number of words. If this much of an argument was being had over whether something should go in the lead it would be a lot more understandable. To me it seems like editorialising to try and make a decision on whether or not what type of car the safety car is is important. This isn't like testing where you'll find countless sources saying "testing is largely meaningless to outside observers". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We are a general purpose encyclopedia. So, if you find a general purpose source (not a media outlet targeted at F1/motorsport fans, then I might agree that this warrants a sentence.
SSSB (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that that logic would exclude a significant amount of the information we regularly include uncontroversially in these articles, a quick google search for "F1 safety car Aston Martin" brings up articles whose headlines suggest they may be relevant from the Telegraph and the Financial Times, although both are behind a paywall. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, no-one claims that it should be excluded from Wikipedia. It’s just that there are better articles, at least three of which already include it, to include this information.Tvx1 14:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Mazepin's flag

Could this flag work properly in place of the Russian flag?--Island92 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: that works fine pending the FIA informing us what flag they are using.
SSSB (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been added, even for 2022 article.--Island92 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, it's a temporary flag in place of the Russian flag. FIA will tell us which flag we should add as soon as they've decided the flag for this Russian driver.--Island92 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Initially I supported this as a generic flag for neutral athletes, but now I'm wondering if using it is a violation of WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: I thought it could work correctly, that's why I started this new talk. Despite being a provisional flag, whether you consider it being a violation we could leave . @DeFacto: It wouldn't have been an edit war if you had looked at this new talk in time. When I added the ANA flag, my description consisted in writing "per talk".--Island92 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Island92, I don't see a consensus here to use the ANA flag, so please revert until there is one, and comply with the spirit of WP:BRD rather than edit warring. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Restored both articles per no consensus reached.--Island92 (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Island92, thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would personally support using the ANA flag as a temporary solution and then using whatever flag the FIA decide is correct when we have that information. The alternative is using the "mystery" flag which makes it look like we don't know what country he's from, when in reality we do know that he's being affected by the current sanctions on Russia in sport, and the ANA flag communicates that information better. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The ANA designation only applies to competitors in athletics. It’s WP:OR through WP:SYNTH to apply that here. We have no information whatsoever that he intends to use that one.Tvx1 17:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, you can only apply for a licence from a national sporting federation that has been recognised by the FIA. If you're from Transnistria in eastern Moldova, you can only get a licence from Moldova because although Transnistria is a self-declared independent state (but not one recognised by the international community), it does not have its owm federation. Since there is currently no neutral federation, the ANA flag is about as meaningful as the Transnistrian flag. The FIA will need to rule on it. 1.144.109.76 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Erm, as far as I know, the 2018 Formula 2 Championship, 2019 Formula 2 Championship and 2020 Formula 2 Championship uses . So why is F1 article having a big issue even though I do know that Russian athletics were banned from competing in international competitions using flag. Shouldn't there be consistency between articles, be it F1 or F2 or F3, they are all FIA series after all even though not within the same WikiProject. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Because Formula 2 is not a world championship, Formula One is. Lower formulae are not affected by the ruling.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@5225C:, So by your logic, I believe I didn't misinterpret incorrect, is that F2/F3 is not World Championship while F1 is World Championship. Currently there are total of 6 World Championships as of 2020, of which FIA World Rallycross Championship is also 1 of them since 2014. So, in 2020 FIA World Rallycross Championship (Timur raced under Russian flag) and in 2019 FIA World Rallycross Championship (Timur and Matvey raced under Russian flag). I believe the ban only in comes in from 2017 onwards since in 2018 Winter Olympics, Russian atheletics are only allowed to complete as Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics under certain conditions if they meet the conditions set by the IOC. In addition, the official website for World Rallycross Championship also put for Timur [[1]]. Hence, I believe this shouldn't even be an big issue/topic to being with. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 05:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not "my logic". Formula One is an FIA World Championship. Formula 2, 3 etc. are not world championships, they are FIA sanctioned series. The ban now applies to motorsport as well as from 2021 to 2023, per the recent CAS ruling. What is confusing about this for you?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: I don't want to argue with you but please read my entire comment instead of just the 1st sentence. As I mentioned that there're total of 6 World Championships, of which FIA World Rallycross Championship is one of them, and in 2019 and 2020 there're Russian drivers using flag.

However, please provide link next time in regards to CAS ruling decision. Here it is, [2].

Furthermore, there's nothing confusing because prior to my comment/reply to this thread "Mazepin's flag" from this thread heading to your latest reply doesn't mentioned there's such ruling yet (It only implies that it will affect athetics, not motorsport). If there's article (references) to support it then I wouldn't even leave any comment here or even participate in this discussion thread because there's clear reference. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 06:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything you linked is a series that took place before 2021, so there was no need for me to address them directly. There are multiple sources on this talk page and in the article which informed the change to Mazepin's flag. Here is the main one, which clearly states that the CAS ruling applies to FIA World Championships in 2021 and 2022. The reference has been in the article and on this page since before your first comment. With respect, please make yourself familiar with the topic at hand before commenting on the practices of F1 editors.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: As I have said, I don't wish to argue with you. I also did said because prior to my comment/reply to this thread "Mazepin's flag" from this thread heading to your latest reply doesn't mentioned there's such ruling yet. I was clearly referring to this thread which have heading of "Mazepin's flag" which obviously means I'm replying in context to to discussion within this thread only. In addition, I'm fully aware of what I'm commenting on which is clearly this discussion only and not anything else. Btw, I didn't said (my apologies if I didn't get what you meant) that I don't respect other F1 editors practices.

Anyway, I don't wish to carry on with it anymore. Peace and happy editing. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 10:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is quite clearly on what flag we are going to display now we can't use the Russian flag, but none of your replies actually mentioned that. If you were aware of the situation I don't understand why you brought up irrelevant championships. Anyway...
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: OMG! 🤦‍♂️ All the while, I was talking about no issues using flag in related series. Until you pointed to me that there's new ruling starting from 2021 onwards till 2023 that cannot be used, which I kindly provided the source in regards to that. Not sure, why and how you think I don't understand the situation other than not knowing there's new ruling which probably was released just today only (in regards to motorsport standing) ... other than that I'm pretty sure, I'm been talking about no issues using . Anyway ... this is real final reply to this discussion thread to you — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 11:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is it possible to have the "?" flag for Mazepin link to an article about neutral competitors? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  @HumanBodyPiloter5: yes, use {{flagicon image|flag of none.svg|link=Neutral competitor}} which links the flag to Neutral competitor
  SSSB (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. Why can’t you bureaucrats just place in the Russian flag and be done with it? Yes, he’s technically competing under a neutral licence, but really... The average reader doesn’t come here for info and expect to see the national racing association’s flag of which the driver is registered. They just want to see their nationality! Come on guys, this doesn’t require a damn team of experts to filibuster around. By the way, can someone explain to me why Ragunathan, a geographically Indian driver uses the Dutch flag due to admin purposes. Then we have something like the 1997 Luxembourg GP, which while being a geographically German race, which should use the Luxembourgish flag (as it was ran under the Lux name, Lux Tobacco sponsorship laws and had trophies presented by Lux dignitaries), yet that shows a German flag? Come on guys. This is meant to be easy for your standard reader to make sense of! Mazepin is Russian by nationality. If his licence issuer is neutral, then surely it should revert to nationality. I’m sure drivers in the 1950s like Prince Bira are listed by nationality and not by licence issuer. There’s no consistency in the rules which only adds to the standard reader’s confusion. - J man708 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

J man708 because he's not competing under the Russian flag. The flags denote the countries that people race under, not their nationalities. That's the case for all sports, not just F1 e.g. Authorised Neutral Athletes at the 2019 World Athletics Championships. Trying to "use nationality" is just wrong and inconsistent with the rest of sports articles on Wikipedia- we won't change it just because one person doesn't like it. If you have an issue, go complain to CAS, as they're the ones that implemented the rule. Adding a Russian flag would be wrong when it's 100% clear that he won't compete under a Russian flag- if he were to get a podium, a Russian flag would not be flown, so readers would be hugely confused as to why we were showing a flag he wasn't using. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302 - Appreciate the timely response. I get what you’re saying and appreciate what you’re saying, but surely we should be thinking of disambiguation towards the reader. I mean, if Wikipedia does one thing, it prides itself on a lack of censorship. Inevitably we have a Russian driver, but his licence is deemed the way to go. I get that, but I don’t feel as though that has been implemented for all seasons going back to the 1950s, surely? - J man708 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@J man708: As far as I am aware we show the flag drivers raced under across all the seasons, if you find a case where it hasn't, please change it. We even have Robert Doornbos whose flag is either Dutch or Monaco depending on which season you look at, because he raced under the Monaco flag for one season and the Dutch for another.
SSSB (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure that has been implemented. I can't think of an example where it wasn't. Take Jochen Rindt for instance. A German racing driver who we list as Austrian because he represented Austria and had an Austrian licence. But we should not forget that rules changes over the years and we shouldn't be applying the exact rules say of the 1954 season to Mazepin in 2021 or vice versa. There is no censorship here, however.Tvx1 15:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

An interesting take: The 2021 24h Le Mans entry list was released here, an event sponsored by the FIA, which uses the country code "RAF" to denote a competitor from Russia (G-Drive Racing, LMP2, #25 and #26, as well as one of its drivers Roman Rusinov) which I believe stands for Athletes from Russia(?). Not sure if this would suggest anything but just putting a piece of evidence here. Admanny (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I would presume RAF is Russian Athletics Federation, although I'm not sure if they qualify as part of an athletic association. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The359 I believe RAF=Russian Automobile Federation. They're mentioned in a recent article [3] which says that the Russian Automobile Federation says that racers can use their acronym RAF. Although probably best to wait for the FIA F1 list and see how they're entered there. And I doubt we'll have a freely licenced flag for the Russian Automobile Association. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes more sense. However, as the WEC is a world championship of equal stature to F1, I'd presume that this entry list is following the same standard the FIA would use. I'd argue that the RAF has no flag, and therefore we should consider using none. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The only thing we should consider is to use what is used in real life. If they use some flag in official ceremonies and such (e.g. podium) we simply use that one, if they use no flag, we don't use any either.Tvx1 14:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

In the ACO's video of the entries, every team name is shown next to a flag, except for G-Drive who had no flag of any kind. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a flag or not?

In the timetable towards the end of F1's highlights of day 1 of testing here it can be clearly shown that a white flag is used in place for Mazepin, so combining with other evidence as pointed out above it can be reasonably inferred that either:

a) a flag exists, and it's white - what F1 appears to say

b) a flag doesn't exist - what the FIA/ACO appears to say in 24h Le Mans entry list as noted by The359 (talk · contribs)

therefore, the current flag of none flagicon we're using has enough evidence that I'd think we're better off using ()({{flagicon image|White flag of surrender.svg}}) or something similar for a) and ()({{noflag}}) for b).

Personally, I believe we should stick with b) as that is the definition of a neutral competitor - they don't have a country associated with them. I've went ahead and made the change to {{noflag}} for now. Admanny (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with (b) given how they are displaying his nationality on F1.com ("Undefined", no flag) and on his overalls (no flag).
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Did the same for 2022 article. Island92 (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with b, too. I think that the reason that the testing highlights show a white flag isn't becuase they want it to be a white flag but because whatever template they have for these videos doesn't allow for there to be no flag, not because he will be racing under the white flag.
SSSB (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - At this point they're showing a white flag. We can speculate on why, but without further information, displaying anything other than the white flag in the article is WP:OR. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree. F1.com and his overalls both use no flag. SSSB's interpretation is quite rational and fits quite well with how his lack of flag is shown elsewhere.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to show what you mean by this? Again, if the information changes then what we should do should change, but on the official F1 side of things I struggle to find anything which doesn't seem to use a white flag (except for this page which still uses a Russian flag). However since the official F1 website is quite confusingly laid out and a lot of the links on it don't seem to work properly I may be missing something. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is Mazepin's page with no flag to be seen and no white box, compared to his teammate Schumacher who has a German flag (next to the driver number under the portrait). In this picture from Haas (not the best but it's got both drivers for easy comparison) you can see Schumacher's overalls have a German flag as is conventional for F1 drivers, while Mazepin has nothing.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

On my end the page you linked to shows a white flag for Mazepin, and right clicking on it shows a link through to this image, while doing the same thing on Schumacher's page produces a link to this image. This could be down to browser differences or even differences in how FOM are displaying content regionally. With the overall image it's impossible to tell whether Mazepin's overalls are supposed to be displaying no flag, or displaying a white flag against a white background (the ambiguity is possibly intentional). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the FOM graphic showed yesterday after testing 1, Mazepin's using a white flag.--Island92 (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

White or blank flag? It isn't really clear and I feel we're venturing into synthesis here. We have to beware not to jump the gun here. The world championship hasn't started yet, the might still have the finalise and acquire approval for the actual they want. I will also note that these testing graphics aren't quite reliable. Back in 2015 when Verstappen took part in pre season testing for the first time, he was initially incorrectly displayed with a Belgian flag.Tvx1 15:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The official FIA Classification of day 1 testing here clearly shows Mazepin having no flag rather than a white flag, given his row is grey. I believe that’s enough evidence that b) is the only correct answer. Admanny (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the blank/white image is simply a placeholder to ensure the webpage is working as intended. Removing it, would likely need to some changes to the backend (to the HTML5 code by creating another template) which is likely why the frontend developer (CMS editor) simply uses blank/white image. You would know what I mean if you are web developer.

Of course, currently we still in pre-testing, maybe wait until 1st race then make the relevant changes. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 15:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Consider Mazepin on the podium. Behind him, a flag must be showed anyway. I don't see other solutions unless they adopt a white flag for the podium celebration, which hides the Russian flag, as showed into FOM graphic results and presentation.--Island92 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But let's be honest here - he drives for Haas so barring a bizarre race we won't see what gets shown or played, so we can't really wait for this. If we still had grid girls it would be interesting to see what the board with #9 on it was coloured in, but I think - I think - the boards were withdrawn with the girls, so we can't see what they show either. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As an addition to these discussions, the FIA/ACO released a new entry list which includes G-Drive. Not only is the nationality listed as "RAF" for the Russian Automobile Federation, but the flag icon also just says RAF instead of having a blank or any other icon. To me this sets the standard of there being no flag. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, that sets the standard for using an icon showing RAF on a white background, just like we do with ANA for athletics.Tvx1 20:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Only way to find out is one of the classifications for any of the sessions (practice, qualifying, race). Those will include a flag and not just a three-letter code seen on the entry list. Admanny (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

So we should have our answer next week.Tvx1 14:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

But as I said earlier there's this classification from testing already here. Given his row is grey there's clearly not a flag. Admanny (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Pre-season testing. A classification that was generated when they were clearly still fixing the specifics for this situation. The more recent WEC entry list and the first in-season F1 classification clearly include an RAF "flag". And that's how we should present it too. Just like we do with ANA in athletics.Tvx1 15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Convience break

@Alexzeus: rather than edit warring please read the above discussion and continue the discussion here if you disagree. Continuing to edit war on the main page may result in you being blocked. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

Please change the first sentence from "The 2021 FIA Formula One World Championship is a planned motor racing championship for Formula One cars which will be the 72nd running of the Formula One World Championship." to "The 2021 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is the 72nd running of the Formula One World Championship." The championship has now started. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D8:E329:11F6:319B (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Other proposed changes

Separately from the edit request, i.e. not a "please change X to Y", the "Team changes" and "Driver changes" sections need to be updated to bring them into the present tense. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D8:E329:11F6:319B (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Tenses updated. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Free practice driver rule

In 2019 it was mentioned that each team must use a driver with less than two Grands Prix of experience for two free practices. However, I don't find such rule in 2021 Formula One Sporting Regulations. However there is a mention of that in 2022 Formula One Sporting Regulations. Those are available to download here: [4] Can we take this as a confirmation that the rule was postponed by one year just like major technical regulation changes? BleuDXXXIV (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Supporting race on calendar?

Is it necessary to to add supporting race on the calendar?-FungTzeLong (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No. I don't see how the support race would be relevant to the event. I think it would make the table unnecessarily wide, espically if we consider that some races have several events running in support. We are not an event program.
SSSB (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with no- that information can be round on the relevant support race's own season article. If people want to know when F2, F3 or W Series events are, they should consult those season articles. And it will probably cause issues with tables being too wide as well, which is why we include only the pertinent, important information about the F1 race weekend. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

Results need to be updated.

Lance stroll was demoted to 8th after penalty. Raikonnen demoted to 15th after penalty. Alonso promoted to get 1 point.

Source - https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12279770/lance-stroll-demoted-to-eighth-at-imola-kimi-raikkonen-penalty-gives-fernando-alonso-f1-point Aim 89 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done Driver results have been updated. I don't understand the templates used in the constructors standings to do that update. (Why are we using two different formats for results anyways?). JohnMcButts (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We originally intended to use the F1R2021 template for both driver and constructor standings, however we ran into template limit issues on the page so we cut out the template from the drivers' standings. Admanny (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The templates are at {{F1R2021}}
SSSB (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@JohnMcButts, Saschaporsche, and Bretonbanquet: the template ({{F1R2021}} is there to save time (becuase these go on dozens of pages). However, if you get here and they haven't updated, just get rid of the template in the cell you are working on and do it the normal way. This is such a high profile page that (in the event we need to change the results) it will get done anyway.
SSSB (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Safety Car brands table / column

Would it be possible to have a table with the Safety Car provider for each race? For the 23021 season and beyond, Aston Martin and Mercedes have shared responsibility with AM providing cars for Bahrain and Mercedes providing for Imola. https://media.astonmartin.com/aston-martin-takes-pole-position-as-an-official-safety-car-of-formula-1/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.77.171 (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As discussed quite extensively earlier, what model of car is used as the safety car is completely irrelevant to the championship article. This information (which I do not believe is encyclopedic, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE) were to be included, it should be at the safety car article rather than here. As I've argued before, changing the model of the safety car is done only for commercial reasons and has no more and no less impact than the sponsors we see on the barriers, information we don't include here because it is unnecessary.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion linked shows a very clear consensus against including that information here. Nothing more needs to be said.
SSSB (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, we discussed this before, and the answer was no. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sprint qualifying shown in drivers' and constructors' championship tables

As it is sprint qualifying would be possible to avoid having two columns for both the sprint qualifying and the grand prix of the Silverstone race weekend in the Drivers' championship table? It seems unnecessary and out of place. I think it would benefit from a ¹²³ or ₁₂₃ sort of notation system to indicate pole position for the grand prix, second and third place on the grid respectively, as is used in the IndyCar and Formula E standings. As it is sprint qualifying, as termed by F1 management, the sprint qualifying result should be treated as if it were just qualifying and remain on the page for each individual Grand Prix as had always occurred, beneath the qualifying for the sprint qualifying. Sprint qualifying wins are pole positions and not race wins and this should be reflected. I think graphically as well this would be better as it doesn't give the illusion that drivers have more wins/podiums than they do in a season just because they have put themselves in the top 3 for the grid. The sprint qualifying results should not be given a row in the 'Grand Prix' section as it is not a full length Grand Prix, and only sprint qualifying, and does not count as a full race win.Walkingsense (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Walkingsense: I am going to move your comment to WT:F1 where there is a more centralised discussion.
SSSB (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

F1 Team Base

Would it be worth including the team base information as a column in the 'Teams and drivers that compete in the 2021 World Championship' table - it's easy to wrongly assume from the entrant flag that is also the location of the team.

6 of the 10 teams competing this season are based in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't relevant to the season. Is this a potential source of confusion, yes. But the way to deal with that would be with a footnote for teams where the flag doesn't match where the team is based (or a note clarifing that that isn't what the flag represents). Adding a column which has no relevance is not the awnser.
SSSB (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that adding another column wouldn't be helpful. It might help to add a note in the paragraph before the table stating that the flags represent the the country that the teams and drivers are licensed under.JohnMcButts (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thats fair, cheers both. 2.99.136.141 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Just another quick thought on this, yesterday during Emilia Romagna GP qualifying Silverstone was referenced as being the 'spiritual home' of F1 for the reason of some many teams past and present being based at or around the track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That's little more than an opinion. I would argue that Monza or Monaco could rival Silverstone for that title.
SSSB (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Where the teams are based geographically (which was the basis for the argument) is fact, but I take your point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My point is that where teams are based doesn't determine where the "spiritual home" is. They are based there because there is a long standing race at Silverstone and they are (or were) British teams.
SSSB (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Nikita Mazepin on results

RAF flag for him. Source. Island92 (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No denying that. Looks like "RAF" in the F1 font centred on a white flag. I can do one up now if that's what we're going to do?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Uhm... I'd rather wait or leave what is being reported for him into the entries table anyway. Island92 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. Of the sources in the entry table, one doesn't list nationality, the other lists his nationality as "RAF" but with no flag, and the most recent FIA document shows a flag. So unless I'm missing something (@Island92:), I don't understand what we are waiting for. Surely, the most recent official document should take precedence.
SSSB (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think this is a matter of preference, the FIA are the ultimate authority on this and our entry list must reflect theirs.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, but their entry list doesn't show a flag (at least not the ones cited in the entry table) and show his nationality as RAF, not the ambigous "neutral" that we currently use.
SSSB (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This last official document (first practice session results) shows a white flag with RAF into it. It looks like a flag needless to say, but actually it isn't. They didn't want to leave that part empty for that room, therefore they added a "flag" (if we can call it flag) anyway, so as to follow the document style in which in those lines a flag is forced to be put. Island92 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I still don't follow. We had the same discussion at #Is there a flag or not?. Simply put, your reasoning here is WP:OR. This is still the best indication that we have of a "flag", or otherwise.
SSSB (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Not true. If you look at the FIA's social media posts from testing, they have left Mazepin's flag column completely blank. Document style is clearly not a factor here (ignoring the OR as SSSB has pointed out).
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe there can be any serious opposition to updating the entry list to match the official stance, and as such I'm putting the flag in now.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The way the FIA handles this is as good as identical as how the IAAF does with ANA in athletics. I don't understand thus why we should not take the same approach here as the athletics articles do with regards to matching the IAAF's usage of ANA. Honestly, I believe that sometimes we tend to just overthink matters.Tvx1 15:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree to change Mazepin to RAF. Best source we have at the moment. Admanny (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The RAF flag is consistent with the advice given by the federation, and also how it has been applied in WRC. Gryazin and his co-driver ran under the same flag (white with the text RAF) at Arctic Rally Finland on the car windows and on TV graphics a few weeks ago. I would suggest that instead of the current flag that’s been done in the F1 font, one with a generic font is made that can be used for all relevant drivers in all relevant series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDjjjyR2P94?t=70 - Variant used in WRC.

2A00:23C6:8980:4C01:D435:F15A:14B5:57A3 (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

What graphic WRC editors choose to display is for them to decide. This is a Formula One article and I will personally be sticking to the flag as it is displayed in Formula One graphics and Formula One documents. That's the most accurate representation we can have.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: Just curious, is the flag wikilink correct? Currently it's linking to a non-existance article, just wondering if it should be linked to Russia instead ... making it consistent with the other flags for other drivers. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: It currently links to Russian Automobile Federation because that's Mazepin's declared nationality, but that article doesn't yet exist. I don't think linking to Russia would be appropriate because Russian athletes are explicitly barred from saying they represent Russia and that's not the nationality he is competing under.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: Ah I see, thanks for the heads up. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

My argument regarding WRC (where it is used on the cars as well, not just TV graphics!) was with regards to consistency across Wikipedia. Clearly a white flag with RAF seems to be the standard that is used. The World Endurance Championship is also using that flag - see their official entry list here.

I don't see it beneficial for us to have a bunch of RAF flags with different fonts across articles. There should be a single flag image that can be used anywhere, and is not using the font of one particular sport.

My proposal is that the font on the flag image is simply changed so that it is generic, rather than using a font that is specific to F1. Obviously, any future RAF article will also need such a flag.2A00:23C6:8980:4C01:A0CD:F4B1:C214:F34D (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@2A00:23C6:8980:4C01:A0CD:F4B1:C214:F34D I don't see any differences from the current flag icon used in 2021 F1 and 2022 F1 articles when compared to YouTube footage, other than italics and non-italics which then again isn't really a big deal. In regards to the PDF you have linked, that column for the Russian drivers is not an image but rather text, how do tell because the image is not selectable on double click whereas the text is selectable on double click. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont follow this argument at all. If WRC and F1 use different flags, then shouldnt the F1 articles use the F1 flag and the WRC articles use the WRC flag. I dont see why the two flags need to be the same on Wikipedia if they arent the same on the FIA documents.
SSSB (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not quite, the difference might just be because of a simple difference in fonts in the exact documents. The RAF designation is a FIA one and not a formula one and we really should be consistent in its application.Tvx1 17:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The RAF designation is consistent, but the graphic is not.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

But the graphic is simply different because of the different general styling used in the different documents. The other flags also have slight differences in appearance in the different documents for the different world championships. I really don’t understand why then there is this obession of copying the exact aesthetics of each world championships document for only this one flag. We should not treat it differently than we do the other flags in that respect.Tvx1 18:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not. It's not particularly difficult to do and it is the most accurate method of representation. I for one don't understand the obsession with consistency when they are not consistent.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it is not a conscious difference between these racing classes at all. It’s just the styles uses in the documents. Every flag appears different in those different document. Yet, we only obsessively copy that difference for the RAF flag for some inexplicable reason.Tvx1 10:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Tvx1. Compare the Japanese flags across these documents. One of them uses a circle, where as the other looks like an oval. This is most likley a rendering/scanning/computing issue, not different flags.
SSSB (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a completely different font and it's clear it's been done pretty deliberately. The FIA have used the F1 font in the F1 documents to match the branding present on the broadcast. There is a difference between distortion and conscious differentiation. I can argue against consistency with exactly the same reasoning and weight Tvx1 can argue for it, but if you are both insistent on using consistent design when consistent design does not actually exist then I can't stop you.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

For our purposes I think it's fair to assume that the flag being used is just a white field with "RAF" spelled out in black capital letters. We have no reason to try and copy the FIA's exact formatting from all of their documents, and if we were then we would be getting into possible WP:COPYVIO territory. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Can't be a copyright violation since it's below the threshold of originality. While we don't have copy the FIA's formatting (just like we don't have to do anything), we currently are, and I see no valid reason to change it.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Besides the plenty of valid reasons we have provided you? You have no evidence whatsoever that difference between the RAF flags is in any way more deliberate than the difference between the other flags, which also persist in on-screen graphics. It’s only your personal assumption. We are the only ones giving the RAF flags a special treatment over the other ones and we really shouldn’t do that.Tvx1 11:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it uses the Formula One font in the Formula One docs and a different font in the remaining docs? Are you telling me that's coincidence? Do what you like, I don't seem to be having much of an impact here.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course that’s not coincidence. But it’s nothing more than the fonts of the documents either. There’s nothing that indicates that the sport actually consciously uses different flags. They don’t treat any flag differently to the RAF one with regards to styling so we shouldn’t do so either.Tvx1 14:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

For reference, Sky have not used flags at all for Mazepin or Shwartzmann, but have used a flag for Sochi and the Russian Grand Prix. Spa-Franks (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, for starters, Schwartzman is still allowed to compete as Russian as F2 isnt a world Championship.
SSSB (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

So, where are we with this issue? I thought there was an agreement to tweak the image to one using a more neutral font. Yet it still hasn't been changed. I really think we should change it because the letters aren't very clear on the 24px size. In fact that font used in our image didn't even match the Formula 1 version to begin with. I would change it myself by I seem to be utterly incapable of creating a proper svg file.Tvx1 21:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

RAF page

A draft has been started over at Draft:Russian Automobile Federation. Ideally it would be preferred to get the page published at some point to eliminate red hyperlinks found on Mazepin's page, list of F1 drivers, etc. Edits to the page to bring it to satisfactory level are welcome. Admanny (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it notable enough? How many other countries' automobile federations have their own articles? Redlinks could be removed by delinking them altogether. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

On investigation, around 20 similar pages exist for automobile federations of other countries. Most though are poorly sourced and very thin on content. This one ought to be better if it is to be accepted, with particular regard to reliable sourcing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's being driven by the red linkynesses on Mazepin more than anything else. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Which could be solved by removing the link or by linking to another page which mentions the federation.Tvx1 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we can simply create the RAF article as a redirect to List of FIA member organisations for the time being, and then work on producing an article of acceptable quality rather than filling in a redlink.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've done since it solves the problem for now. If the RAF draft eventually looks like a decent article, it's easy enough to move it over the redirect, but in the meantime the redlinks are gone.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated that redirect for deletion
SSSB (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand where the obsession comes from that redlinks are a "problem" that needs to be "solved".Tvx1 22:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What obsession?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The obsession by some editors, not necessarily you, who create substandard articles, or simply remove red links for no other reason than they are red, in contradiction to WP:REDLINK.
SSSB (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My reply is more targeted at Tvx1 who said, in this thread, Which could be solved by removing the link or by linking to another page which mentions the federation. To me, that sounds like a very abrupt change of direction.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"That's exactly what I've done since it solves the problem for now." That's where you appeared to claim that the red links were a problem that needed to be solved. They weren't really. And I really don't understand why you present my comment as "an abrupt change of direction". It really isn't. In fact it just follows WP:REDLINK, which says in its lead: "Articles should not contain red links to files, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article". I think that applies here.Tvx1 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems we have different interpretations of each other's comments then. I was not implying redlinks as a whole are problems, but that the RAF link is problematic (which it is). Since you recommended "linking to another page which mentions the federation" that is what I've done with a redirect, since RAF is a viable search term and potentially worthy of its own article as discussed above. To me, that does not appear to be an obsession or an unreasonable course of action.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think the sidestep over a redirect was necessary. You could have durectly linked that text to that section using a piped link. Nevertheless, I don’t think that even the RAF redlink was a problem. The text is really self-explanatory and thus I think it didn’t even need a link at all.Tvx1 13:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkish GP cancelled

Don't know why people are listing Turkish GP as postponed, it's listed as cancelled on Autosport, as well as other sources e.g. BBC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The official F1 website's story says that the promoter has asked for it to be postponed, rather than cancelled, but it doesn't say whether F1 has granted this request.[5]
SSSB (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Improve info detail 2A02:C7F:FC54:C400:4461:54DD:9E36:EB23 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
SSSB (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Engine V10R (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Update 2021 Constructor Standings after Monaco GP 2021 Pedro.martins98 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 16:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: please remember to close the request. Thank you! --Ferien (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ferien: I tend to leave edit requests open if they require reliable sources, but if this against the policy then I'll close them. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 16:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Oh, in my opinion, it is better to close them and then ask to reopen if they have reliable sources. I don't think that's against policy or that there's any problem with doing it, I just think it's best to close requests :) --Ferien (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ferien: Okay, I'll (try to) close those kinds of edit requests. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Pedro.martins98, Wikipedia is a free to edit encyclopedia and so you can really make the update yourself. The relevant template isn’t protected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Leclerc Footnote

Having had my edit to remove it reverted, I believe strongly remove a footnote. Karun Chandhok even cited 2001 Monaco Grand Prix on Sky this weekend, and we do not have a footnote at 2001 Formula One World Championship for Coulthard, nor for Montoya at Spa that year, who both stalled on the dummy grid from pole. WP:10YEARTEST would be example enough of that. To avoid edit warring, a hidden note may be the answer here but not a footnote. It's important that consistency is maintained throughout WP:F1. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I can understand your view but personally I'd be happier to see a note added to all these situations. A reader looking at the Grands Prix summary table would logically assume that the driver who's listed on pole started first, but this isn't true in these situations. A note doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I see no issue with adding explanatory footnotes in these situations. Really that's the whole point of explanatory footnotes; they explain things which may be confusing to certain readers without placing undue weight on those details or clogging up the main prose with excessive information. I would support adding footnotes to results tables explaining statistical anomalies like this. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Imo, the footnote should be keep. There isn't any harm in doing so as it explains the content of which we also need to assume that not all visitors to the article are well-versed with F1 events/races. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)