Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:56, 21 January 2025

This page is for discussions related to articles within the scope of WikiProject Formula One.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

[REDACTED] Formula One [REDACTED] This page is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 23 May 2011

WikiProject Formula One was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 23 May 2011.

Racing Bulls move discussion

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

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

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

Good article reassessment for 2015 Australian Grand Prix

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

Assistance with the history of race directors

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

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

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

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

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

Race entry lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferrari as engine manufacturer

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

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

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

John Hogan draft article

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

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

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

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

Neutrality at Lewis Hamilton

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

Esports results

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

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

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

Due?

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

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

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

• Project-Class Formula One pages
• NA-importance Formula One pages