Talk:Kimi Räikkönen

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kimi Räikkönen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930043310/http://www.sportinglife.com/formula1/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=formula1%2F06%2F05%2F19%2Fmanual_140547.html to http://www.sportinglife.com/formula1/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=formula1%2F06%2F05%2F19%2Fmanual_140547.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140816054221/http://www.seiska.fi/_content/Kimi-R%C3%A4ikk%C3%B6nen-and-Jenni-Dahlman-R%C3%A4ikk%C3%B6nen-confirm%3A-%22Separation-is-a-sad-fact%22/550458 to http://www.seiska.fi/_content/Kimi-R%25C3%25A4ikk%25C3%25B6nen-and-Jenni-Dahlman-R%25C3%25A4ikk%25C3%25B6nen-confirm%253A-%2522Separation-is-a-sad-fact%2522/550458

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk page archived

Yeap, that's it.--CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Records and achievements

Is there a reason why this section is bulleted and other former World Champions have a table. I have also noticed some trivia in that section like most fastest laps at a particular circuit, winning on his Ferrari debut and getting a landmark Ferrari manufacturer podium. Mobile mundo (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reason why this section is bulleted rather than being a table. I would have no objection to you converting it to a table and/or removing some of the trivia. DH85868993 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Former racing driver?

@TylerBurden: your edit summary says: "This is more or less a BLP violation, without any source saying he has retired from racing as a whole,". I have the exact opposite opinion. Removing the word former means he is a current racing driver, which is an unsourced claim. As far am I am concerned, if someone is not actively racing, then they are a former racing driver. Because Raikkonen doesn't have to officially announce a retirement from racing, this stance of yours effectiely leads to a situation where we imply that Raikkonen is still active in his 70s. SSSB (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we can apply common sense here, Kimi is not in his 70's and he retired from Formula One just a few months ago. I don't see why we need to rush in calling him ″former″ implying he has completely retired from motorsport when we have no indiciation that is the case. Say we write former and he participates in a race event, rally in Finland just as an example, should we just alternate between removing and adding former until he like you said, is in his 70's and clearly retired? Just wait until it's clear, there's isn't any rush. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Former doesn't mean he has retired. It just means he was racing and isn't any more. Which is true. That being said, I see your point, and agree that maybe we should wait a couple of years before declaring him as a former driver. SSSB (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that is sensible, it would of course be a different situation if he had gone years without any racing. But as of now his exit from Formula One is still fresh and I think it's fair to take some time given he has a family and such as well after an intense racing schedule for years. I think it's best to leave out until either it comes out he has no plans to continue racing at all or more time passes. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Paula Räikkönen" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paula Räikkönen and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 5 § Paula Räikkönen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking of Sebastian Vettel

Why is Sebastian Vettel linked so much in this article? I've counted up to thrice in a single paragraph and I don't think any of them are useful at helping the reader's understanding of certain parts of the text as it normally is quite obvious who he is, even to someone that doesn't watch the sport after not long reading. If anyone can tell me whether these are actually needed or not, I would appreciate it. I just don't understand why it's linked so much. Thanks. TVKR (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@TVKR Probably just editorial oversight, quite a few editors seem to not check if there are other links before adding new ones, or they are just not aware of the manual of style. Though MOS:LINKING was recently altered to be more lenient with the amount of links on articles, the amount of Vettel links are probably overkill here. I will remove some. TylerBurden (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden thanks, appreciated TVKR (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Length

@TylerBurden: Please do not edit-war to remove tags without addressing the issues they identify. As noted, this article is too long and would benefit from being condensed or split. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is it too long? How come you are the only one who seems to think so? Should we split each Formula One season into seperate articles? The article is detailed, since clearly people have put in a lot of work into it, but it still appears well structured enough to be easily navigable. Something that isn't improved by adding a drive-by tag to the top of it. TylerBurden (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It is too long because it is over 15 thousand words of readable prose and is extremely detailed; see WP:AS and WP:SS. Removing the tag simply makes that problem harder to address - it obscures it without solving it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

So it is your personal opinion that it is too long, and you think drive-by tagging it will solve it? Sorry but I disagree, both with the length and your solution. If you can't identify any specific issues other than a vague "it is too long because this generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply guideline says so" then I don't think cluttering the article with a tag is productive. TylerBurden (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion it is not too long. The difference is that the applicable guidelines support the assessment that it is too long, and additionally as a GA it is expected to adhere to the GA criteria which include those guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Although given the amount of unsourced content present its GA status probably merits reassessment either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And you still haven't identified any specific issues, or offered any solutions on how to solve them other than add a tag that makes it even more "difficult to navigate" for readers. A 20+ year career in notable high level motorsports means the article needs to be a certain length in order to cover the subject. This isn't the only article you have tagged either, you have tagged numerous countries and even History of Europe (the latter in which you actually did work to solve the alleged problem at least). Isn't it pretty common sense that the bigger the topic, the more article length is needed? Perhaps sometimes blindly following style guidelines isn't the best solution for every article. As for GA, I couldn't really care less about it, reassess all you want. That would probably end up in some actual improvement rather than a drive-by tag. TylerBurden (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

the bigger the topic, the more article length is needed might be a convincing argument for something like History of Europe - not an article like this. The length here results not from need but from exceedingly detailed descriptions of individual races. Converting those to a high-level summary would be a great place to start, and would also help to cut down on the massive amount of unsourced material here. But if you're unwilling or unable to help with that, then leave the tag so someone who is can find it, rather than simply seeking to paper over the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

So it seems clear you have some minimalist approach to Wikipedia content, that's how you feel and I have a right to disagree with you. I see no reason to "leave a tag" that ironically clutters the article more while complaining about the article being hard to read, that no one is going to actually deal with, probably because they don't agree. One editor's strong feelings on cutting content on articles shouldn't mean readers across numerous articles are greeted by an obstructive tag, which does exactly what it is complaining about. It is not an urgent issue, if it is an issue at all, unlike for example bigger issues that might warrant such tags. This whole thing is petty and unnecessary. TylerBurden (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nikkimaria here. Overly long, excessively detailed articles which do not suit our broad audience are a common problem among WP:WikiProject Motorsport. This is an issue which has also come up at Talk:McLaren recently. I believe it is time to take this discussion beyond article-level, possibly at WP:Village pump. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Could be, anyway I appreciate @Nikkimaria recognizing a specific issue and doing some work to reduce the overly detailed and sometimes unsourced race details, rather than simply leaving the tag. TylerBurden (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Lede

The lead paragraph of this article is too long. It should simply tell the reader who he is and what he's notable for, per WP:LEAD. Information such as a full list of teams raced for (given throughout rest of introduction and in infobox), finishing third in the championship (or second, given he has won a championship), being the "most successful Finnish F1 driver by several metrics" (there have only been 6 other full-time drivers, we don't say Charles Leclerc "is the most successful Monégasque driver", it is not notable), niche statistics such as "seventh-most podium finishes", and the point on his reserved personality, do not establish his notability. It should simply state his occupation, career span in Formula One, and the fact he won a world championship, anything else isn't adding to what the reader should be taking in immediately. Mb2437 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I will say, however, it may be worth noting that he competed in the World Rally Championship, given it is a top-level motorsport discipline. "Kimi Räikkönen is a Finnish racing and rally driver, who competed in Formula One from x to y and in the World Rally Championship from z to k", per John Surtees. Mb2437 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand what a "lede" is? I'm curious as to how you interpret it, because to me claiming the lead is "too long" and simultaneously making it longer by splitting content into a fifth paragraph is bizarre. TylerBurden (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede is the opening paragraph. I simple moved the statements to avoid debate, a lot of those points should not be mentioned at all, let alone in the first paragraph. "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." All of the points listed are too specific and do not make him notable. Mb2437 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't, the lead is the entire "summary" portion of the article that comes before the article body. Maybe you should read the guidelines you cite more carefully. I do agree that some content could be trimmed though, though "all of them" is overkill. Curious to know what other might think. TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm using "lede" to differentiate from the lead as a whole as I am only referring to the opening paragraph, apologies for the confusion. The full list of teams raced for is unnecessary, Ferrari should obviously be mentioned alongside his championship, but he is certainly not notable for his career at teams such as Sauber and Alfa Romeo. The top-three finishes shouldn't be mentioned as they are superseded by his winning the championship, he is not remembered for finishing second or third – these points should be mentioned when running through his career throughout the remainder of the lead. Career stats are typically mentioned later in the lead—after mentioning his retirement—if they are not records (or former records); again, he is not notable for his "nth-most so-and-so's". Some of the records he holds should be mentioned instead really. At that point in the lead, his being the most successful Finnish driver could also be mentioned, but this is a contentious statement as Häkkinen is arguably more successful. His personality should be mentioned towards the end of the lead, as it is with other public figures with noteworthy personal traits that do not underpin their fame. I would amend the original edit mentioning his rally career, as competing full-time in the top level of the discipline is definitely notable. Mb2437 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I would just say that sufficient notability is established through simply being a Formula One driver, so the remainder of the lede is not concerned with establishing notability any further. It's just about summarising salient points after that. Saying that it's not notable that he drove for Alfa and Sauber is just not true. If he had never driven for Ferrari and won a WDC, he would still be notable. His top-three finishes should be mentioned, in my opinion. I think that being the most successful F1 driver from one's country is worthy of the lede, but I would find it hard to justify that statement in Raikkonen's case, given that Hakkinen won more races, more WDCs, and scored more poles. Reducing the opening paragraph to "racing driver from Finland, was F1 world champion and competed from xx to xx" makes it too short in my opinion. Also, opening paragraphs for F1 drivers do not need to mirror each other – it's perfectly fine if they differ in construction, providing the guidelines are met. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede construction is mirrored across the vast majority of major sports, including association football, American football, baseball, basketball, golf and tennis. It's simply to make F1 articles easier to navigate; bombarding the reader with niche stats immediately does not achieve this aim. WP:LEAD is clear that opening paragraphs should not be too specific, simply stating his career span and notability (winning the championship in 2007 with Ferrari) achieves this without being too vague. His lede will be expanded if he achieves anything of note outside of the sport, like his years in WRC, which should be mentioned. Examples of one-time World Champion ledes: Denny Hulme, Damon Hill, Mario Andretti and Jochen Rindt. All are introduced concisely and clearly to the reader, addressing all major achievements. The best example is probably John Surtees, who also competed full-time in another major motorsport discipline. Mb2437 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Only loosely. I don't believe that, for example, showing the number of GP wins is a niche stat that would confuse any reader. To draw from your list, I'd say that the ledes at Hulme and Hill are too short. If we're sticking strictly to "notability only" in the lede, then a WDC is irrelevant. The driver is already notable simply by being a F1 driver. Arguably, his career span is also irrelevant, because it has no bearing on his notability. "One size fits all" usually fits nobody well. As it stands, this type of lede would not even differentiate between a race winner and someone who never even scored a point, and that is not helpful at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Career span is absolutely relevant as it defines the era they competed in, being able to read that immediately addresses clearly to the reader who they were and when they achieved their notability. Being an F1 driver in 1982 is markedly different to being one in 2024, it's a constantly evolving sport. Full career stats are clear to read in the infobox, winning n Grands Prix does not bolster the fact they won a championship, which should supersede all other stats unless they are records/former records, per Lewis Hamilton, Jackie Stewart and Jim Clark. I do agree being a race-winner could be mentioned in ledes of drivers who have won races in the absence of other notability (championship winner/runner-up) e.g. "[...] Gasly won the Italian Grand Prix in 2020 with AlphaTauri." Mb2437 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant, but not to a driver's notability, which was my point. A driver who competed in 1950 is as notable as Liam Lawson. It's about clarity for the reader, as you say, and race wins is absolutely just as important as career span. I don't agree that a WDC should supersede other factors, as all WDCs are different. Moss won 16 races but no WDC; Keke Rosberg won only 5 races alongside his WDC. The single stat of "WDC winner" is not sufficient on its own to show any kind of clarity and should be supported by other basic stats (not extensive stats). Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Championships do supersede wins as the value of wins has diluted over the years (243% more races per year now than in the 1950s), the value of winning a championship is universal and does not confuse the reader, who we have to assume has little-to-no knowledge on the subject. I don't think adding a bunch of additional facts adds reading value to the lede, even if they are the core stats (wins, poles, FLs, podiums), unless they are records which made the driver notable. Moss's lede has been expanded accordingly, his notability is the sheer extent of his motoring achievements beyond Formula One, amongst his second-placed seasons. Mb2437 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to go on about this here, but I disagree with you almost entirely, and particularly on your first point which is utterly unverifiable. But I have said it before, and at the risk of repeating myself: driver records do not make F1 drivers notable. You keep talking as if WDCs establish notability. These guys are already notable simply by competing at that level. Surely this is not too hard to understand. A brief rundown of a driver's achievements at the top level is very simple for anyone to understand – it really isn't going to confuse anyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact he is not known for winning n Grands Prix, he is known for being a World Drivers' Champion. Mb2437 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And your evidence for that is...? He is fundamentally known for both. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

He is in the FIA Hall of Fame for his championship, not being a race-winner. Mb2437 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What? You said he's not known for winning races. I asked for evidence and you start talking about the HoF. How on earth does that mean he's not known for winning races? Your arguments are total non sequiturs, and you never seem able to back them up. It just seems like you want all these ledes to be your own work, and you don't really accept any criticism at all. Personally, I think they're poor. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

He is known for many things, that does not make it right that they are individually laid out immediately in the lede. Here are several sources referring to Räikkönen solely as the "2007 World Champion" or the "former F1 Champion": . It is any racing drivers greatest accomplishment, and supersedes all barring the Triple Crown of Motorsport, of which the WDC forms a leg of. The lede should be a concise and clear statement of who he is; waffling on with cherry-picked statistics does not achieve this goal when it can be clearly stated in his championship victory (or victories, if he goes on to achieve more). I would also like to note that this article has an excessive detail warning, which very much starts with the lead in its entirety. The argument for listing race wins and removing nicknames is understandable, and I have amended the lede to include the former, but to state they are universally poor for concisely laying out exactly who the individual was to a reader—who likely knows little on the subject—is egregious, as is the argument against consistent formatting where it is standard across the majority of sports on English Wikipedia. The formatting makes each article considerably easier to read, as do the concise career rundowns on articles such as Jim Clark, Graham Hill, Niki Lauda, James Hunt and Alain Prost, which eliminate the need to wholly read 200KB articles to get a broad summary of their racing careers. The quality of some of these leads were stunningly poor before changes, and the consistency across the board serves to assist that, and it is no surprise how remarkably few World Champion articles are GAs and FAs. Every GA and FA in Formula One has done so, and each have always had clear and concise ledes. The thing with F1 is that its history with teams and driver transfers are remarkably simple, you either win Grands Prix or you don't, laying all of this out is incredibly easy and can be done in a universal manner to help readers easily understand the subject without impeding their knowledge. Mb2437 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I know. I've been here 18 years and I've been following Formula One for more than twice as long as that. You, with your 1000 edits, have a way of talking to people like they've just blown in from Drive to Survive. You said he's not known for winning races. I asked you to support that, and you haven't. You just repeat that he's won a WDC and you've decided that nothing else is sufficiently notable for the lede. That is your opinion, nothing more, and Wikipedia is built on consensus, something you haven't really made any attempt to build for your edits. The detail tag is valid: but it very likely refers to the body of the article, although the lead needs work. I don't agree that very strict uniformity on wording is helpful for the reader, who only reads one article at a time. While we're on the subject, I don't think that your rewritten leads are as you seem to think they are, although some are decent in many ways, and better than what went before. They are though (in my opinion) sometimes too detailed, far too F1-centric in some cases, and sometimes too long (several are well over 500 words and MOS:LEAD suggests 250-400), with too much overlinking and wikilinks that aren't particularly useful. They are not by any measure concise. Some of them even I struggle to read, and I know all this stuff already. There is detail in some of them that shouldn't be anywhere near the lead, and even odd details that don't actually relate to the driver in question. You've also ridden roughshod over two long-standing consensuses that I've seen, not least the extremely contentious Northern Ireland situation. But I sense you're not really open to criticism of your work. You should be aware that anything you write on here is liable to merciless changes by others, which you may have to accept unless you can build a consensus for your edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not about treating editors like they're new to the sport, it's about the reader – we cannot assume any knowledge beyond what is easily explainable or already obvious, thus all jargon and niche statistics need to be avoided, especially from the lede. I agree that wins are notable enough of the opening paragraph, had amended the edit as such, and plan to roll that out across-the-board. Finding a balance between F1 and other series is often tough as drivers are generally most notable for their time in F1, so it can be assumed most readers would are looking for a summary of that career above else. All those with extensive careers outside of F1 have a full paragraph expanding upon it. I'm aware of MOS:LEAD suggesting of 250–400 words, although this is a broad guideline, there are many GAs/FAs throughout English Wikipedia with 500–600 word biographical leads for those with extensively successful careers. Some drivers are certainly worthy of that extent, others are not. I do agree that some need trimming though, however it's easier to cut down content that was there than what wasn't, so I don't believe the effort was completely in vain, particularly in the cases of Stirling Moss, Jacky Ickx, Jim Clark, Bruce McLaren, Jody Scheckter and Keke Rosberg, whose leads were all under 150 words prior to re-writing. I have tried to keep the language neutral and free of jargon where possible, some leads may be better at this than others and users are free to make alterations as such, I have no qualms with improving reading clarity as that is the entire point of this project. The reversion of the Northern Ireland edit didn't change the content, just moved it up two lines; it's hardly roughshod when MOS:NATIONALITY is fairly clear on contentious nationalities, I had not scoured through the talk page and acknowledged a consensus from 18 years ago, apologies for that, it was a simple reversion to an edit I do not contest. Anyway, I've mostly been focusing on low-quality leads with no real substance, and simply hope that with tweaks they can be put up for GA nomination, as many have the scope and clarity throughout the article that are far stronger than the leads were. As for standardising opening paragraphs for reading clarity, that sort of aim is clearly underlined in goal 3 of WikiProject Formula One, and all F1 driver articles marked as GAs have always contained concise career rundowns and lede paragraphs. TLDR: Most leads wholly re-written were atrocious, not all are perfect but have set a clear baseline for future amendments. Mb2437 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You were addressing me, not the reader, but anyway. Okay so we agree on wins, that's something. Sure, notability often rests more on F1 than other series, but try to imagine a driver's career without the F1 aspect, and you'll probably find he would've been notable anyway, for his other activities. You have a slight tendency to adhere rigidly to some aspects of the guidelines, and be a bit fast and loose with others, and it's better to be more consistent with that. I would say very few drivers are worthy of leads of 600 or more words, and they're all likely to be multiple world champions, or people with multiple strong claims to notability. I agree that it's easier to trim leads than write them though. Keeping the articles free of jargon is admirable, but not to the point of losing the meaning. Wikilinks are always handy to explain a term if necessary. Getting articles to GA/FA standards would iron all that out anyway. That said, most of these are nowhere near GA quality, especially recent/current drivers, because of the amount of recentism in the article bodies. Race by race, blow by blow accounts aren't going to survive GA assessment, and we have a lot of those. If only MOS:NATIONALITY was clear about contentious nationalities... it doesn't address the UK nationality situation at all. Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom is worth a read, although it's only an essay and should be used as a guide rather than a guideline. We had a long-standing consensus regarding British drivers to include both "British" and the constituent country of origin in the lede. You probably weren't aware of that, but you've undone a few. It was designed to prevent people changing British to Scottish and so on, and it worked rather well. For example, Jackie Stewart is clearly Scottish and it should somehow be referenced in the lede, alongside his British sporting nationality. If necessary, a consensus on wording can be re-established at the WikiProject. The Irvine consensus was most recently confirmed only last year, so a quick look would've revealed that. Anyway, regarding Raikkonen, I'll be moving the nickname at some point out of the lede, and nicknames should really be in context rather than tossed into the lede with no explanation of the nickname's meaning or origin. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah apologies for sounding condescending, my tone can be fairly muted at times, it's the North Devon in me. All major motorsport victories that firmly establish the notability of a driver have been added to the lead paragraph: FIA championships, major endurance wins (Le Mans, Daytona, Sebring, Mille Miglia), major Indy wins (title and 500), and the Daytona 500 in Mario Andretti's case, that should help lay out clearly their importance in motor racing immediately. A few have added details i.e. Stirling Moss's 212 official wins, Dan Gurney's influence on motorsport, Brabham/McLaren's WCC winning teams, Hill's Triple Crown, as well as a few title records/only driver to do x (Alonso, Lauda). Will be adding Grand Prix wins over the next week or so. Everything I've deemed to be jargon has been linked to the motorsport glossary article (usually "non-classified" and "privateer"), although I cannot guarantee I was faultless in this; should hopefully be easy fixes for any editors skimming through.

Recent driver leads should be ironed out with time, I can't imagine we'll need a full junior career paragraph for drivers such as Andrea Kimi Antonelli once he achieves more at a higher level, at which point it should simply be stated that he won several titles with maybe an example or two. But, for now, those are the titles that make him notable, and striking a balance between those and his F1 career may prove difficult, as it is with any driver whose succeeded outside of the sport. Yeah, the race-by-race accounts on a lot of current drivers aren't ideal, especially those who have recently competed in junior categories (Oliver Bearman's junior career section is over 3,000 words long!). As current drivers have constantly evolving articles, GA and FA attempts should only really be made at World Champions and former drivers to avoid it losing its meaning anyway.

I have reverted Jackie Stewart and Jim Clark to their original wording. I do think it's cleaner to address their Scottish heritage immediately in the early life part of the second para: most well-written biographical leads have "born and raised in [...]" written there, but it's not that deep really. Nicknames could be explained with efn's as has been done with Fangio and Hunt, if not explainable I agree they should probably go. Mb2437 (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I understanding that you intend to add F1 wins to the lede? It's just that we have drivers now with endurance wins in the lede and no mention of F1 wins, which isn't very balanced. I agree with a lot of what you're doing, but I'm increasingly uncomfortable that there's not really any consensus for it. For example, your idea to link nationality to a list of drivers from that country doesn't have any consensus at all; in fact more people voiced opposition to it. I think it might be an idea to revisit this at the WP, and let other people have a say, rather than talk about it here, as this isn't the right place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, wins will be added. Starting the topic on nationality linking now. Mb2437 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also just add that the concept of a driver's nickname (usually only used by a fraction of people) being so important as to precede every single marker of notability is absolutely ridiculous. In Peterson's article we've got his nickname but no mention of his race wins. It's actually just really bad. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's lead needs re-writing, which should include a career stats line as his figures are notable. See examples that have been comprehensively re-written and include such stats: Graham Hill, Jacky Ickx, Bruce McLaren, Gilles Villeneuve. Mb2437 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I also didn't start the trend of using nicknames, that is commonplace throughout English Wikipedia and was on the vast majority of these articles before I edited them, only added a couple for consistency (Hulme being widely known as "The Bear" and Hill being "Mr. Monaco"). Mb2437 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I would argue for removing nicknames from ledes. They're appallingly inconsequential, unencylopedic and have zero to do with notability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)