| Revision as of 09:00, 22 January 2025 editUnas964 (talk | contribs)72 editsm →Remove the map that violates the Ukrainian territorial integrity← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:19, 22 January 2025 edit undoSSSB (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers58,414 edits →Remove the map that violates the Ukrainian territorial integrity: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
| ::No, it is not logical. The Grand Prix names do not match the borders for too many cases and have little to do with the "''de facto borders''". Apart from the numerous ongoing events in the US and the Emillia Romagna, the Swiss Grand Prix was held in France, the Luxembourg and San-Mario - in Germany and Italy, respectively. Indy 500 was never called a Grand Prix, in fact even having "double citizenship" (FIA and AAA/USAC). And how can you attribute European and Pacific Grands Prix to those "''de facto borders''"? Should you separate West Germany counts from the unified Germany? The term "British" does not count for the UK, too. Oh, and why then, according to the so-called "''de facto borders''", the Overseas Territories are not included (and Maldives?) to the UK and Puerto Rico to the US? And I can go on and go on... | ::No, it is not logical. The Grand Prix names do not match the borders for too many cases and have little to do with the "''de facto borders''". Apart from the numerous ongoing events in the US and the Emillia Romagna, the Swiss Grand Prix was held in France, the Luxembourg and San-Mario - in Germany and Italy, respectively. Indy 500 was never called a Grand Prix, in fact even having "double citizenship" (FIA and AAA/USAC). And how can you attribute European and Pacific Grands Prix to those "''de facto borders''"? Should you separate West Germany counts from the unified Germany? The term "British" does not count for the UK, too. Oh, and why then, according to the so-called "''de facto borders''", the Overseas Territories are not included (and Maldives?) to the UK and Puerto Rico to the US? And I can go on and go on... | ||
| ::This map is a mess and was created for a sole popurpose - to present Crimean occupation as a norm (not only, Abkhasia and South Ossetia too - by ]). ] (]) 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | ::This map is a mess and was created for a sole popurpose - to present Crimean occupation as a norm (not only, Abkhasia and South Ossetia too - by ]). ] (]) 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::Cerebral clearly meant the current method of highlighting the host country. They were clearly not talking about how the borders within the map are defined. ] (]) 10:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:19, 22 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2025 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on August 28, 2022. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Jack Doohan's Number
Jack Doohan has announced on Twitter that he will race with the number 7. There are instructions not to change the number unless it is 'confirmed by the entry list'. Is Jack Doohan himself outright stating he'll use that number not enough to confirm that this is the number he will be using?
Sorry if this is a stupid question :( Bibi on wiki (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Doohan changed his number. Where is the source that says Antonelli is keeping #12? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2308:CC00:48B2:B95A:BA61:BDD5 (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neither number is "confirmed" until the entry list is published. There is nothing to suggest Antonelli's preferences have changed, nor is there anything to suggest his preference depends on Doohan's preferences. They are discrete decisions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- And nothing to suggest his preferences have remained the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2308:CC00:48B2:B95A:BA61:BDD5 (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, Doohan doesn't actually pick his race number. He tells the FIA: "These are my preferences for race number: ..." and then the FIA decide. Secondly, given that the majority of sources agreed that Antonelli would get dibs on 12, (this is WP:OR) I think that the most likely thing that has happened here is that nobody's preference has changed. But Doohan is just announcing that his second preference is #7, after ANT took #12. I'm sure the FIA will communicate to a driver what number has been selected for them before the entry list is published, but I don't know when that is. Ultimately, if we don't want people to WP:OR fill out a column before the entry list comes out; don't include that column until the entry list comes out. Afterall, a drivers number is only relevant when you are watching anyway, its not like its going to be missed. SSSB (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- The source of Antonelli picking #12 is the exact one that confirmed Doohan picking #7.
- I quote:
- "The Australian had hoped to enter his F1 career with #12, but was beaten to that by Mercedes new signing, Kimi Antonelli."
- If you need another one, there you go -JayRizzy1992 (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- And nothing to suggest his preferences have remained the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2308:CC00:48B2:B95A:BA61:BDD5 (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neither number is "confirmed" until the entry list is published. There is nothing to suggest Antonelli's preferences have changed, nor is there anything to suggest his preference depends on Doohan's preferences. They are discrete decisions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gabriel Bortoleto race number will be 98, as per @PHortonF1 on Twitter 92.40.219.241 (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- PhortonF1 on twitter does not constitute a reliable source. SSSB (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Jack Doohan rookie
Jack Doohan will still be a rookie in 2025, so he will make his debut as a full time driver in 2025 and should be mentioned alongside Bearman, Antonelli and Bortoleto. 82.76.86.133 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- It depends if you define a rookie season by their first appearance (including substitutions) or their first appearance as a full time competitor. I know that StatsF1 does the former (for example). Either way, right now we include Bearman but not Doohan which makes no sense at all. Either both, or neither. SSSB (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would say neither, they have started grands prix. Marbe166 (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is simple, WE don’t define what a rookie is at all. The sports governing body does that for us. Drivers are considered rookies as long as they have not started two races, hence they can fulfill the free practice stand-in rule as long as they haven’t started that amount of races. Thus Doohan is a rookie, Bearman isn’t.Tvx1 05:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Picture
@SSSB: It's logical understanding not to display a 2024 car model on a 2025 page. We did not make it in the past. That McLaren pictured is running on track for a 2024 event, not 2025. Island92 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The picture of Verstappen is from 2024, is that also outdated? The car doesn't win the WCC, the constructor does, and the constructor depicted is the same. Clarification can be made in the caption. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense to include a 2024 car until we have a 2025 image, especially since the caption states that McLaren is the defending champion, referring to the previous year. I'd be fine adding a
(2024 car shown)
or something if we think it is necessary. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- agree with Cerebral726, as the photos clarify "reigning" in the caption AstralNomad (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I second everything Cerebral726 said. SSSB (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also agree with Cerebral726. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add that driver cooling modifications will be used when FIA forecasted race temperatures are above 30.5C.This will raise the weight of car by 5 kilograms when used. In addition the size of DRS slot gaps will be reduced from 10-15mmm to 9.4-13mm. This is order to prevent the development of secondary mini-DRS devices such as seen on the championship winning McLaren MCL38 at the the 2024 Azerbaijan Grand Prix. 2A02:C7C:A01:3E00:6416:9E81:7DAB:2ECD (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2024 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like the previously requsted addition to be made to sporting regulations section of the article firstly to include the changes to DRS flap size and an update to the driver coooling subsection of the sporting regulation section to include more specific details of car weight increases which is included in the extenal article the link of which I have already provided . I hope this helps. 2A02:C7C:A01:3E00:F5D1:59D5:32AA:3396 (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
References
Team names
@Island92: Regarding this edit, we must follow sources. Do not perform WP:OR and predict what will come to pass. Show me a source that matches the table as you desire and we can follow it. If not, we must match the only source we have for the 2025 Entry List. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This story is repeating again, punctually. FIA can report in the season entry list Formula One. For a question of space in this document you can read F1. To put the entrant name on one line for Aston Martin, Mercedes and Racing Bulls they will enter with F1. As I said, this happened multiple time in the past. Island92 (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is Misplaced Pages, we match the WP:Verifiable source. The team name column lists the names as I changed them to. You don't get to arbitrarily shorten their names because you expect them to be that way. Once the 2025 Australian Grand Prix releases its entry list, feel free to update with an actual source and not speculation. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- We've already discussed this issue before at length at Talk:RB_Formula_One_Team#Following_sources. Your speculation is not worthy of inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The expectation is based for what happened in the past. Not speculation, but fact. In Australia they will enter with F1, so there is no point in making another edit to reverse from Formula One to F1. There is enough evidence to claim this will be again the case. Island92 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- We have this discussion every year. Until is appears on an entry list (published by the FIA) it is speculation. Every year you speculate that it will get shortened to F1, because that is what has happened historically. That doesn't mean it won't change in the future. At this point, I am inclined to consider this a case of WP:INCOMPETENCE, given you still don't understand what speculation is and isn't. SSSB (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently every year it ends with F1, after all. Island92 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- For context, the same discussion about speculation from 2023. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- And then? Speculation converted into reality eventually. Has been case for multiple years as I said, and I have no reason to think will be the case once again. Keep Formula One, ok, but will be changed ahead of first race. Island92 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't stop it being speculation. You have a reason to think that they will change this practice - the entry list. You have no (non-speculative) reason that they will continue this practice. You said earlier that this is an "expected" change. The fact that it is "expected" makes it speculation. Everyone expected Mclaren to stick with their naming convention with the McLaren MCL32. Everyone expected it would be the McLaren MP4-32 (which it originally was). Likewise with the McLaren MP4-16 - everyone expected the McLaren MP4/16, following the convention of the previous McLaren MP4/15. SSSB (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This source reports them as F1 Team. I can have the right to think McLaren and Alpine will enter as Formula 1 Team. This name entrant can be put on one line. McLaren already entered as Formula 1 Team in 2024. Island92 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you can have the right to think whatever you want. But you dont have the right to put those thoughts into Misplaced Pages. As you said below, that source (like you) is speculating based on what has happened in the past. SSSB (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- This source reports them as F1 Team. I can have the right to think McLaren and Alpine will enter as Formula 1 Team. This name entrant can be put on one line. McLaren already entered as Formula 1 Team in 2024. Island92 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't stop it being speculation. You have a reason to think that they will change this practice - the entry list. You have no (non-speculative) reason that they will continue this practice. You said earlier that this is an "expected" change. The fact that it is "expected" makes it speculation. Everyone expected Mclaren to stick with their naming convention with the McLaren MCL32. Everyone expected it would be the McLaren MP4-32 (which it originally was). Likewise with the McLaren MP4-16 - everyone expected the McLaren MP4/16, following the convention of the previous McLaren MP4/15. SSSB (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- And then? Speculation converted into reality eventually. Has been case for multiple years as I said, and I have no reason to think will be the case once again. Keep Formula One, ok, but will be changed ahead of first race. Island92 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- We have this discussion every year. Until is appears on an entry list (published by the FIA) it is speculation. Every year you speculate that it will get shortened to F1, because that is what has happened historically. That doesn't mean it won't change in the future. At this point, I am inclined to consider this a case of WP:INCOMPETENCE, given you still don't understand what speculation is and isn't. SSSB (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The expectation is based for what happened in the past. Not speculation, but fact. In Australia they will enter with F1, so there is no point in making another edit to reverse from Formula One to F1. There is enough evidence to claim this will be again the case. Island92 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- We've already discussed this issue before at length at Talk:RB_Formula_One_Team#Following_sources. Your speculation is not worthy of inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is Misplaced Pages, we match the WP:Verifiable source. The team name column lists the names as I changed them to. You don't get to arbitrarily shorten their names because you expect them to be that way. Once the 2025 Australian Grand Prix releases its entry list, feel free to update with an actual source and not speculation. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@SSSB, Island92, and Tvx1: Thoughts on this edit? Seems like we need to match the source exactly, which capitalizes PETRONAS (and BWT, and AMG, and the G in MoneyGram, etc.).-- Cerebral726 (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Petronas cannot be displayed in capitals since Mercedes decided to have it PETRONAS. We don't have to match everything, necessarily. I was reverted for this in the past. Mercedes in the past entered as "Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport". The case is different for BWT and so on as BWT are the initials of Best Water Technology. We had RB which stood for Racing Bulls, indeed. Island92 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It’s a good edit. We don’t just copy font styles. Tvx1 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- As outlined in the third bullet point of MOS:TMRULES: we should follow standard capitalisation practices (I.e. "Petronas" not "PETRONAS") SSSB (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Calendar" section contains a factually incorrect world map where the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, Crimea, is marked as russian. I suggest removing this map.
https://en.wikipedia.org/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262 Alex Aquasky (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done it is not factually incorrect as it consistently shows de facto borders. See as another example how Taiwan is coloured. SSSB (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- |ans=no
- If we are for consistency, let's take what the official F1 considers as a map of participating countries. It shows country borders per UN resolutions, where Crimea is Ukraine, Taiwan is China, and Koreas are separate.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-E9XuAIIUU&t=244s
- Please delete the map, as it doesn't align with the official Formula 1 map. Alex Aquasky (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- For starters, that is not an official map. We also have no obligation to follow F1's map. I have no objection to inserting a map that aligns with de jure borders instead of the current one. But I don't see any reason why we should remove the existing map (without a replacement) just because it's borders don't align with how you think the borders should be represented. SSSB (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Current and former host countries of Formula 1 races - The replacement works for me. Please find attached and replace the existing map. Thanks. Alex Aquasky (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- The existing map is ok. Island92 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- So is the new one. And your new stranger to changing things that are "ok" to something else which is "ok". I'm going to @Tvx1: who has been very active in these debates previously, in case I am missing a reason why we shouldnt use de jure borders. SSSB (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- The existing map is ok. Island92 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- For starters, that is not an official map. We also have no obligation to follow F1's map. I have no objection to inserting a map that aligns with de jure borders instead of the current one. But I don't see any reason why we should remove the existing map (without a replacement) just because it's borders don't align with how you think the borders should be represented. SSSB (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WPF1logo.png){kind=link}
Chassis names
@Balenda: Those chassis names you added from StatsF1.com is just speculation. Stats F1.com bases these names on previous seasons. As a result, is better to wait from the constructors themselves how they will call the new chassis in 2025. To date, only Williams confirmed the FW47. Hence I suggest reverting. Island92 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Under this link only Ferrari states TBA. https://www.statsf1.com/en/2025.aspx What do you reckon? Balenda (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I reckon that that website is not reliable for chassis names. It is better to wait proper announcement from the constructor themselves. They are able to say VCARB 02 just because in 2024 it was VCARB 01. It doesn't work like that. It's speculation. Island92 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Needs a more reliable source (official announcement ideally). Cerebral726 (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- StatsF1 is not a WP:RS, so probably all of them should just be listed as TBA for now (or don't have the column showing until some team actually confirm the chassis names in actual reliable sources). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I added a few that had official press releases with the names of the cars. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- They can be wikilinked, as is the case with FW47. Island92 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I added a few that had official press releases with the names of the cars. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- StatsF1 is not a WP:RS, so probably all of them should just be listed as TBA for now (or don't have the column showing until some team actually confirm the chassis names in actual reliable sources). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Needs a more reliable source (official announcement ideally). Cerebral726 (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I reckon that that website is not reliable for chassis names. It is better to wait proper announcement from the constructor themselves. They are able to say VCARB 02 just because in 2024 it was VCARB 01. It doesn't work like that. It's speculation. Island92 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Transfer RedBull
Liam Lawson now replaces Sergio Perez in RedBull Racing (official ESPN and Canal+ France) Froideval20 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Still speculation and rumor at this time. We will wait for confirmation. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- No such confirmation has been announced at all. Tvx1 16:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to the driver changes section that Sergio Pérez will leave Red Bull Racing despite initially being under contract with the team for this season following poor performances during the 2024 season. 2A02:C7C:A01:3E00:88A5:566:1E8B:8889 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- {{already done}}, put past tense was used instead of future because Perez left with immediate effect. Tvx1 19:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
References
Perez sentence
@Island92: Sergio Pérez will leave Red Bull Racing after four seasons despite being originally under contract to race until 2026.
is unclear. It could mean he will leave at the end of the 2025 season, or in the middle of the season. You have to know when Sergio joined Red Bull. Why do you think this is better than After originally being under contract to race for Red Bull Racing through 2026, Sergio Pérez will leave the team before the 2025 season.
Cerebral726 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course a driver leaves at the end of the season. A contract ends up on 31 December. In 2025 he will have left the team. Island92 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please communicate more clearly. You are just saying things, not explaining why the sentence you changed, which requires prior knowledge about Perez's career, is superior. Additionally, drivers leave at all different times of the year (Ricciardo, Ocon, etc.); Perez's contract wasn't even supposed to be up on 31 December. Because of the confusion regarding his contract and delayed timeline in when it was announced, it is worth being extra clear. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- We will be in 2025. In 2025 the tense will be changed. Pérez left Red Bull Racing after four season (2021-2024). Lewis Hamilton left Mercedes after twelve seasons (2013-2024) to join Ferrari. I do not see things so complicated, honestly. Island92 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure we will be in 2025 and it will make sense when we do change it to "left". But for now, the nebulous future tense is unclear. Why on earth would we need to use a structure that minimizes effort later to a tense change when we can use one that is actually clear? This is so lazy and pointless. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- As things stand, it's ok in my opinion. According to your method, we should rephrase all drivers movement because we are still in 2024, then. And in 2025 again a rephrasing is needed because is a 2025 page-related. Island92 (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it was not ok. Perez left with immediate effect. No future event in any way. We report facts as published in reliable sources. Tvx1 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- As things stand, it's ok in my opinion. According to your method, we should rephrase all drivers movement because we are still in 2024, then. And in 2025 again a rephrasing is needed because is a 2025 page-related. Island92 (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure we will be in 2025 and it will make sense when we do change it to "left". But for now, the nebulous future tense is unclear. Why on earth would we need to use a structure that minimizes effort later to a tense change when we can use one that is actually clear? This is so lazy and pointless. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- We will be in 2025. In 2025 the tense will be changed. Pérez left Red Bull Racing after four season (2021-2024). Lewis Hamilton left Mercedes after twelve seasons (2013-2024) to join Ferrari. I do not see things so complicated, honestly. Island92 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please communicate more clearly. You are just saying things, not explaining why the sentence you changed, which requires prior knowledge about Perez's career, is superior. Additionally, drivers leave at all different times of the year (Ricciardo, Ocon, etc.); Perez's contract wasn't even supposed to be up on 31 December. Because of the confusion regarding his contract and delayed timeline in when it was announced, it is worth being extra clear. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@SSSB, 5225C, Tvx1, and Joseph2302: looking for additional opinions from frequent editors. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand how it is any worse than "Lewis Hamilton will leave Mercedes after 12 season ..." Don't get me wrong, I think they are both poorly written. And the fact that we have the same sentence structure for every driver is incredibly boring. And how long a drivers has been with a team/in the sport is only notable if it is an long time - so I don't know why we are mentioning it for all drivers. I just don't understand why we are specifically attacking the Perez sentence and not the entire section. SSSB (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For starters each driver’s contract is terminated in its own way. Furthermore, I don’t understand why we are still using future tenses at at all. Hamilton clearly stopped being a Mercedes driver after the Abu Dhabi weekend. Perez has left Red Bull with immediate effect. These aren’t changes that are still set to happen in the future. I really don’t understand the issue here. Tvx1 19:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree both need to be addressed. I was just reverted while trying to make a partial improvement for no reason, hence why I was focusing on at least trying to fix this and get consensus there was no reason to follow the same format for all drivers regardless of context. I agree Tvx1 that Perez has left the team, so perhaps I suggest
After originally being under contract to race for Red Bull Racing through 2026, Sergio Pérez left the team before the 2025 season.
Cerebral726 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)- Incosistent. Also other drivers left the team before the 2025 season. Island92 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then we'll fix those as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Consistency isn't blindly using the same tense throughout the section. Consistency here is correctly reflecting the sources for each case. Tvx1 01:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Incosistent. Also other drivers left the team before the 2025 season. Island92 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Lawson's number
Cannot be #30 for the time being. #30 was as reserve driver and FP1 and races where needed. Bearman raced with #38, #50, but selected #87 for entire season. If Lawson wants to keep #30 he has to confirm it with a source-statement, otherwise he is able to select a different number. Hence for the time being TBC is needed. Island92 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is this not good enough a source? It includes a video posted by the VCARB team in which Lawson explains the reasoning behind his choice. Furthermore, the source states "but now he has signed a contract until the end of the year, the New Zealander was given a free choice of number of those left available between 2 and 99". SportscarFan2004 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- All this for 2024 as reserve driver. 2024 is a thing, 2025 is another. And 2023 was another when he raced with #40. Now he is a Red Bull driver under contract to enter a whole season, so he is able to select another number between #2 and #99. Island92 (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was a contracted driver this season, though. Last year, Ricciardo was forced to sit out some races due to his injury, with Lawson stepping in (indeed as a reserve driver). This year, Ricciardo was dropped and Lawson was signed (as an actually contracted driver), meaning he had to pick a full-season number. See the source I've listed above for Lawson's reasoning. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- All this for 2024 as reserve driver. 2024 is a thing, 2025 is another. And 2023 was another when he raced with #40. Now he is a Red Bull driver under contract to enter a whole season, so he is able to select another number between #2 and #99. Island92 (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- AlphaTauri/RB/Racing Bulls use 40 as their temporary number, which Lawson used when he substituted for Ricciardo last year. 30 is a permanent number. Once again you've concocted a fantasy and are attempting to enforce it. That's not how this worls. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sainz was forced to miss the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix and Bearman raced with #38. Magnussen replaced by Bearman with #50 in Azerbaijan. Bearman with #87 in 2025. #30 cannot be a permanent number is you have raced for just six races. Island92 (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are a driver set to take part in a whole season and unless you confirm #30 you are able to select a different number if you want. Island92 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well theoretically any driver could ask to change their permanent number if they really want to. Unless there is any indication that het actually is in the process of changing it, though, there is no reason no to list his current choice. Tvx1 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are contradicting yourself. Bearman was indeed a REPLACEMENT driver for both Sainz and Magnussen. He was not contracted and thus couldn't pick his own number. Lawson was NOT a replacement driver; Ricciardo was dropped. Since Lawson was the full-time driver for RB after the Singapore GP, he was able to pick his own number. He picked 30. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wrong, it quite certainly can be. We’ve even seen drivers having chosen a number while doing even less races. Please accept that you’re wrong. You are acting on personal conjecture, not information from reliable sources. Tvx1 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, let's see how it pans out. Here Lawson is not displayed with #30 at all for the time being. Island92 (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was literally promoted this morning. Give those people some time to properly update the content. Tvx1 11:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but Red Bull Racing knows Lawson used #30 in 2024. They could have added #30 as soon as Lawson was placed alongside Verstappen in this presentation. This has not happened yet which makes me feel like Lawson has the right to select a different number for 2025. Island92 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that "this presentation" refers to the link you posted above (11:38 time stamp, this morning). Not only is that blatant original research (and therefore what you think about it is completely irrelevant) it's also pretty weak. I would suspect that Red Bull's top priority is not updating the driver numbers on their website. Meanwhile, it looks to me like #30 was Lawson's choice of number (that is certainly what is suggested at List of Formula One driver numbers) it would entirely defeat the point of career numbers if he changed it. And there is no indication that we would do so. SSSB (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that there are no sources confirming Lawson's car number for 2025, it should be listed as TBA/TBC. Anyone arguing #30 definitely is his number or is a temporary number are all applying WP:OR since we don't have sources that confirm either. So TBA/TBC is the only sensible thing to list, as #30 for Lawson for 2025 isn't sourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This one (which was mentioned above) states he choose 30 for his 2024 appearences. Unless we have a source to say he won't be racing with this number, it is WP:OR to say he will change his number, given youa re supposed to pick a "career number". Otherwise we might as well put TBC for all drivers who are returning for this year and have not reconfirmed their number. SSSB (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry had missed that source, which does seem to confirm 30 as a chosen number. Therefore I am changing view to support listing 30 (as we are right now), as no sources indicate the contrary I.e. 30 is an auto assigned number. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This one (which was mentioned above) states he choose 30 for his 2024 appearences. Unless we have a source to say he won't be racing with this number, it is WP:OR to say he will change his number, given youa re supposed to pick a "career number". Otherwise we might as well put TBC for all drivers who are returning for this year and have not reconfirmed their number. SSSB (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that there are no sources confirming Lawson's car number for 2025, it should be listed as TBA/TBC. Anyone arguing #30 definitely is his number or is a temporary number are all applying WP:OR since we don't have sources that confirm either. So TBA/TBC is the only sensible thing to list, as #30 for Lawson for 2025 isn't sourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said before, every driver actually has the right to change their number, should they wish. If you’re using that argument to remove Lawson’s number, it means all numbers should be removed subject to reconfirmation.Tvx1 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the mean, I nee, Red Bull has updated their site to show his number 30. Tvx1 14:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also Autosport is listing him as #30 with a clear backstory to the number too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely seems we're fine to keep the 30 in with all this sourcing. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hate to be that guy, but we've been fine to use 30 ever since Lawson chose 30 since we knew from the outset it was not a temp number, as I explained when this discussion started. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely seems we're fine to keep the 30 in with all this sourcing. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also Autosport is listing him as #30 with a clear backstory to the number too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that "this presentation" refers to the link you posted above (11:38 time stamp, this morning). Not only is that blatant original research (and therefore what you think about it is completely irrelevant) it's also pretty weak. I would suspect that Red Bull's top priority is not updating the driver numbers on their website. Meanwhile, it looks to me like #30 was Lawson's choice of number (that is certainly what is suggested at List of Formula One driver numbers) it would entirely defeat the point of career numbers if he changed it. And there is no indication that we would do so. SSSB (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but Red Bull Racing knows Lawson used #30 in 2024. They could have added #30 as soon as Lawson was placed alongside Verstappen in this presentation. This has not happened yet which makes me feel like Lawson has the right to select a different number for 2025. Island92 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was literally promoted this morning. Give those people some time to properly update the content. Tvx1 11:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, let's see how it pans out. Here Lawson is not displayed with #30 at all for the time being. Island92 (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are a driver set to take part in a whole season and unless you confirm #30 you are able to select a different number if you want. Island92 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sainz was forced to miss the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix and Bearman raced with #38. Magnussen replaced by Bearman with #50 in Azerbaijan. Bearman with #87 in 2025. #30 cannot be a permanent number is you have raced for just six races. Island92 (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Doohan
Shouldnt doohan's picture be in the "racing drivers" part as well? Hes also making his debut as a "full-time driver" IsaacMDB23 (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Driver changes I mean IsaacMDB23 (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Island92 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, as explained in a previous thread the rules still consider Doohan a rookie. Tvx1 11:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Alexander Albon
@Jestal50: the practice is Alexander Albon in the table, templates and table results. In Australia you will read Fernando Alonso and Alexander Albon. Has always been this. Island92 (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's time for change. As pointed out in this edit Special:Diff/1265835716 we seem to have double standards. And the reasoning that "this is what the entry list says" is, quite frankly, daft. I think it is high time we recognised that our table exists to show the season's entrants, not mirror what the FIA has done. The same goes for all our other tables. Our tables, and our articles, should name individuals, and organisations based on what the current name was at the time, which is the practice across most if not all of Misplaced Pages, contrary to what Island92 would have us believe: Special:Diff/1265943397 SSSB (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And at the time of the first 2025 race he will enter as Alexander Albon. Has always been the case. This is the page related to F1, not his own page you able to display Alex Albon. FIA documents state him differently, as well as stating Alonso without Diaz or Sainz without Jr. Island92 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- For starters, the entry table on 2024 Formula One World Championship does include the Jr because we need to distingiush between him and his father, which perfectly illustrates my main point (which you have conveniently ignored): we are not the FIA. We do not exist to mirror what the FIA does. There is no reason for us to blindly follow what the FIA does, especially as very few secondary sources do. And ultimately, we follow secondary sources. Who cares how the FIA choose to display the information. We certainly don't - the formatting of Albon's name (and it is formatting) are the only way we follow the FIA's lead. There is no concievable reason for us to follow official FIA documents despite the commonname being something completely different. Or can you give me one? SSSB (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And at the time of the first 2025 race he will enter as Alexander Albon. Has always been the case. This is the page related to F1, not his own page you able to display Alex Albon. FIA documents state him differently, as well as stating Alonso without Diaz or Sainz without Jr. Island92 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I pointed out in my edit summary, if the justification for not using the established WP:COMMONNAME of Alex Albon is that the 2025 FIA entry list says otherwise, then this also implies that the table should say "Fernando Alonso Diaz" for consistency. As for the official race classification documents, as well as saying "Carlos Sainz" without the Jr. (which we definitely should not be doing in the table) it also says "Sergio Perez" without the accent on the E. Clearly, we shouldn't be using these documents to inform how names are displayed in our tables, because if the FIA happened to spell a driver's name wrong then it would be rather silly of us to insist on also spelling it wrong in our tables. Jestal50 (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is no concievable reason for us to follow official FIA documents. No? So why are we reporting "Formula One" when in Australia it will be "F1 Team"? Island92 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because you are speculating about what will happen in Australia. We are not speculating that the Alexander Albon in the entry list is the same person as Alex Albon. Stop comparing apples and oranges. SSSB (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No? Click on Alexander Albon and you are redirected to Alex Albon. Where is the problem? Click on Nicolas Hülkenberg and you are redirected to Nico Hülkenberg. Where is the problem, too? If we report Formula One because the only current FIA entry list cited says that, this document says Alexander Albon, not Alex Albon. Island92 (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where is the problem with putting Alex Albon? Doesn't matter how the FIA document formats his name (and official name vs. alternate name is a formatting choice). We all know its the same person. However, his commonname is Alex Albon. On Misplaced Pages we refer to people by their commonnames. The problem is that you insist that we blindly follow the FIA documents, you bite editors who, quite reasonably, change it to Alex Albon (which is what most sources use). The first practice isn't harmful but is a pointless exercise. The second is harmful to the encylopedia. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should just use the WP:COMMONNAME that matches the article name I.e. Alex Albon. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was accused of not reporting exactly what the source said, and hence it was changed from F1 Team to Formula One Team. When Australian entry is given I'm free to change it. THIS what I was told. If this is the practice, hence Alexander Albon should be written, commonname or not commonname! You are complicating things for nothing SSSB. Island92 (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the second time, that's not what happened. Stop misrepresenting what happened at #Team names to support your opinion. You were not accused of "not reporting exactly what the source said", you were accused of speculating about what a future entry list will say. The only way that discussion would be relevant is if I were argueing "future entry lists will show Alex Albon". That is not what I am arguing. If you continue to claim that the #Team names discussion has any relevance here, I will either consider it WP:DISRUPTIVE or question your competence in understanding that discussion and take the necessary steps. The person complicating things is you by insisting we follow a document for a reason you are yet to give. SSSB (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you insist on reporting Alex Albon is speculation, too, because you do not know how he will appear on the AUS entry. I see no difference to Team names, commonname or not commonname. Island92 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, you are all being way too emotional here. Please tone things down. Firstly, it’s not just this one entry list that uses Alexander, but every individual GP entry list, starting grid document and official results table uses Alexander. And the later don’t use Alonso Diaz or Nicolas Hülkenberg as well. Secondly, WP:COMMONNAME deals with article titles only. We are not obliged to follow that for article content. Thirdly, and this is to you Island, person names and team names are completely different concepts so you are comparison is irrelevant. Tvx1 13:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Every individual GP entry list and results document says Carlos Sainz without the Jr. Either our tables on this article should say "Carlos Sainz" and "Alexander Albon", or they should say "Carlos Sainz Jr." and "Alex Albon". The latter option is more sensible in my opinion. A mixture of these two options is inconsistent. Jestal50 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not speculating at all. I think we can all be fairly sure that he will show as Alexander on the entry list. What's relevant is how we identify him. How the FIA choose to identify him (i.e. as Alexander) is broadly irrelevant. SSSB (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it isn’t. And the FIA aren’t the only ones frequently using Alexander. The usage of Alexander is far more common than you portray it to be. Tvx1 13:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that I need to clarify. My position is not: we should change all instance to Alex because that is his commonname. It is: we should stop insisting that we must always refer to him as Alexander, just because that is what the FIA do in their official documents. That is why I said what the FIA do is irrelevant. Because it is equally legitimate to use Alex or Alexander, and so there is no reason why we can't use either. I would personally prefer us to use Alex all the time, because that is the most common (even though both may be prevelant) but really I want to abandon this nonsense of "the FIA is the holy grail, we must blindly follow their lead" because it isn't constructive and leads to the biting of editors who don't follow this pointless practice. SSSB (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Every individual GP entry list, starting grid document and official results table uses what is reported when the individual entry list is released. It's automatic. It's computerised. At the conclusion of the Las Vegas Grand Prix, the Constructors standings have it as "Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber" because the team entered like that. At the conclusion of the Qatar Grand Prix the Constructors standings have it as "Kick Sauber F1 Team" because the team entered like that. These documents have never reported Jr. é, è, ü and similarities. Island92 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, it’s NOT only the FIA using Alexander. You keep incorrectly downplaying that usage. Tvx1 19:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I never said that. At no point have I said only the FIA are using Alexander. That's got nothing to do with what I am arguing. I am arguing that Misplaced Pages should be albe to use either Alex or Alexander, even in tables based off of official results - we don't have to use Alexander just because the FIA do (which is what Island92 is trying to enforce). For the third time, I am arguing that we shouldn't blindly follow the FIA documents. I'm not saying we can never call him Alexander. And Island92, you still haven't actually given a reason why we can't call him Alex (which is his name). In fact, you've done the opposite. All you've done is given a reason why we shouldn't just follow those documents. SSSB (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- SSSB, I just explained that what is written in other FIA documents other than the entry list document is merely a consequence of what is written in the entry list once released. Information for driver and team entrants is just copied and applied like those for other documents, where necessary. That said, Albon is a F1 driver that competes in the sport under the FIA jurisdiction. So what's the best source other than the FIA ones? Ok, we don't necessarily have to follow it, but is the only direct one (from the governing body) closer to the entry table. As a result, FIA claims him as Alexander and if you think Alex is a better understading because on Misplaced Pages things work differently, at the same time you have to accept Alexander, too, especially if other sources not coming directly from FIA say Alexander. Island92 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I never said that. At no point have I said only the FIA are using Alexander. That's got nothing to do with what I am arguing. I am arguing that Misplaced Pages should be albe to use either Alex or Alexander, even in tables based off of official results - we don't have to use Alexander just because the FIA do (which is what Island92 is trying to enforce). For the third time, I am arguing that we shouldn't blindly follow the FIA documents. I'm not saying we can never call him Alexander. And Island92, you still haven't actually given a reason why we can't call him Alex (which is his name). In fact, you've done the opposite. All you've done is given a reason why we shouldn't just follow those documents. SSSB (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that I need to clarify. My position is not: we should change all instance to Alex because that is his commonname. It is: we should stop insisting that we must always refer to him as Alexander, just because that is what the FIA do in their official documents. That is why I said what the FIA do is irrelevant. Because it is equally legitimate to use Alex or Alexander, and so there is no reason why we can't use either. I would personally prefer us to use Alex all the time, because that is the most common (even though both may be prevelant) but really I want to abandon this nonsense of "the FIA is the holy grail, we must blindly follow their lead" because it isn't constructive and leads to the biting of editors who don't follow this pointless practice. SSSB (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it isn’t. And the FIA aren’t the only ones frequently using Alexander. The usage of Alexander is far more common than you portray it to be. Tvx1 13:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, you are all being way too emotional here. Please tone things down. Firstly, it’s not just this one entry list that uses Alexander, but every individual GP entry list, starting grid document and official results table uses Alexander. And the later don’t use Alonso Diaz or Nicolas Hülkenberg as well. Secondly, WP:COMMONNAME deals with article titles only. We are not obliged to follow that for article content. Thirdly, and this is to you Island, person names and team names are completely different concepts so you are comparison is irrelevant. Tvx1 13:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you insist on reporting Alex Albon is speculation, too, because you do not know how he will appear on the AUS entry. I see no difference to Team names, commonname or not commonname. Island92 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the second time, that's not what happened. Stop misrepresenting what happened at #Team names to support your opinion. You were not accused of "not reporting exactly what the source said", you were accused of speculating about what a future entry list will say. The only way that discussion would be relevant is if I were argueing "future entry lists will show Alex Albon". That is not what I am arguing. If you continue to claim that the #Team names discussion has any relevance here, I will either consider it WP:DISRUPTIVE or question your competence in understanding that discussion and take the necessary steps. The person complicating things is you by insisting we follow a document for a reason you are yet to give. SSSB (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was accused of not reporting exactly what the source said, and hence it was changed from F1 Team to Formula One Team. When Australian entry is given I'm free to change it. THIS what I was told. If this is the practice, hence Alexander Albon should be written, commonname or not commonname! You are complicating things for nothing SSSB. Island92 (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should just use the WP:COMMONNAME that matches the article name I.e. Alex Albon. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where is the problem with putting Alex Albon? Doesn't matter how the FIA document formats his name (and official name vs. alternate name is a formatting choice). We all know its the same person. However, his commonname is Alex Albon. On Misplaced Pages we refer to people by their commonnames. The problem is that you insist that we blindly follow the FIA documents, you bite editors who, quite reasonably, change it to Alex Albon (which is what most sources use). The first practice isn't harmful but is a pointless exercise. The second is harmful to the encylopedia. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No? Click on Alexander Albon and you are redirected to Alex Albon. Where is the problem? Click on Nicolas Hülkenberg and you are redirected to Nico Hülkenberg. Where is the problem, too? If we report Formula One because the only current FIA entry list cited says that, this document says Alexander Albon, not Alex Albon. Island92 (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because you are speculating about what will happen in Australia. We are not speculating that the Alexander Albon in the entry list is the same person as Alex Albon. Stop comparing apples and oranges. SSSB (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is no concievable reason for us to follow official FIA documents. No? So why are we reporting "Formula One" when in Australia it will be "F1 Team"? Island92 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
On Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages rules prevail over FIA rules. WP:COMMONNAME means we should use Alex Albon and Fernando Alonso, because that is how they are referred to in the preferred secondary reliable sources, rather than primary sources like the FIA. It's possible this may end up applying to other individuals, such as Kimi Antonelli, although it is early days on that one and his full name should be used for the time being. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you explained that the entry list dictates what names are used on other FIA documents. But as Misplaced Pages is not an FIA document, it's not really relevant. You tell me to accept Alexander. I absolutely do. I am perfectly happy to keep using Alexander where Alexander is already being used. I am perfectly happy to allow editors to use Alexander when they are writing content. The only issue I have is where editors insist that we must use Alexander, and can't Alex. All I am trying to do is explain that we can legitimately refer to him as Alex or Alexander within our articles, in all contexts (including results and entry tables). SSSB (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:COMMONNAME pretty much requires that in the body of the article (which includes tables and such), it should be Alex. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it doesn’t. As I already explained before, firstly WP:COMMONNAME applies to article TITLES only and secondly Alex isn’t even the clear commonname. Both Alex and Alexander are frequently used in reliable sources. Therefore there is no pressing need to change anything here just for the sake of changing. Don’t fix what isn’t broken! Tvx1 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be amazed if "Alexander" has a TENTH as many appearances in F1-related sources as "Alex" does. There is no doubt whatsoever that we should be using Alex. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not exactly scientific, but in Google Trends there is not even a contest: Google Trends Comparison -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it doesn’t. As I already explained before, firstly WP:COMMONNAME applies to article TITLES only and secondly Alex isn’t even the clear commonname. Both Alex and Alexander are frequently used in reliable sources. Therefore there is no pressing need to change anything here just for the sake of changing. Don’t fix what isn’t broken! Tvx1 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2025
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change Petronas to PETRONAS, which is the capitalized way. WilsonJrTan (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please see MOS:CAPS. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Remove the map that violates the Ukrainian territorial integrity
Please remove the map that marks Crimea as a part of Russia since it is officially recognised as a part of Ukraine. The source of the map is highly controversial (example1, example2), responsible to a lot of anti-Ukrainian Misplaced Pages content and maps. Unas964 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
- Example 1 has nothing to do with the map in the article. The fact that example 2 even exists shows that it is a perfectly legitimate way of showing Ukraine. Your highly controversial link does not show any controversy (from a quick glace) so I don't know why you included them.There is nothing wrong with a map that consistently shows de facto borders (what the borders actually) over de jure (how they are officially recognised). That being said, if you want to replace it with a map that consistently shows de jure borders be my guest. But it must be consistent i.e. show Crimea as Ukraine, and also Taiwan as China (to choose one example). A map which is inconsistent would be a map which leans in a political direction and would therefore be a WP:NOPV violation and significantly more controversial because of it (and to pre-empt an argument you made before: the current map is not a WP:NOPV violation because it is consistent in how it chooses to show borders - de facto) SSSB (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your position is highly biased and harmful. Showing a map of Ukraine without Crimea is in fact WP:NOPV violation, as well as the International Law. And there are no de facto borders now bewteen Ukraine and Russia, only a de facto frontline. As the article is protected to edit, I shall search for other ways to remove this insulting map. Unas964 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- "My position" is that we define borders consistently. That's neither biased nor harmful. Nor is it a NPOV violation. Nor is it an international law violation. There is no international that governs if/when maps show de facto borders. What is against international law is the annexation. And even Ukraine recognise that Crimea was annexed, and is therefore still de facto Russia. But that is not a reason why we can't reflect that Crimea was annexed in our maps. I told you how you can "remove this insulting map", find/create a suitable replacement. SSSB (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The status of Crimea is regulated by the several documents. One of themn is Constitution of Ukraine, Article 134, that states that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine and is governed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. After the occupation in 2014, a special status of Crimea was introduced as a "Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine" (also see here). Ukraine never recognised and never accepted the peninsula as "annexed". That means that you include false statements in your answer.
- A good option would be to remove the map completely, which would be consistent with the prior articles about Formula One seasons. Yet, as mentioned, the article is protected from edits, so I cannot make any changes here. Moreover, given your pro-Russian position on the issue, I foresee you blocking any such changes (in favour of the internationally regognised Ukrainian borders) from any contributor. Therefore, as said above, I shall search for other ways to remove the map. And I see no further sense in arguing with a person who justifies the occupation and disrespects Ukrainian sovereignty. Unas964 (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have either not read my reply in full, do not understand my reply (making me question your WP:COMPETENCE), have actively chosen to ignore the main points of my reply (making you a likely WP:TROLL, or believe I am deliberately lying about my position (meaning you are failing to assume good faith).
- And to prove that assuming good faith is justified, in #Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2024 I actually defended the use of a map which shows Crimea as Ukrainian. SSSB (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- "My position" is that we define borders consistently. That's neither biased nor harmful. Nor is it a NPOV violation. Nor is it an international law violation. There is no international that governs if/when maps show de facto borders. What is against international law is the annexation. And even Ukraine recognise that Crimea was annexed, and is therefore still de facto Russia. But that is not a reason why we can't reflect that Crimea was annexed in our maps. I told you how you can "remove this insulting map", find/create a suitable replacement. SSSB (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your position is highly biased and harmful. Showing a map of Ukraine without Crimea is in fact WP:NOPV violation, as well as the International Law. And there are no de facto borders now bewteen Ukraine and Russia, only a de facto frontline. As the article is protected to edit, I shall search for other ways to remove this insulting map. Unas964 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
There was earlier discussion on this above, and my suggestion that all maps be deleted had some support. Seriously, they serve no useful purpose. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That discussion was primarily about a labeled map, and the support to delete was around the labeled maps, not this non-labeled version. SSSB (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great! I stil think we should get rid of it because it adds absolutely no value to the article, yet acts as a border-war magnet. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's fair to say it has no value. It allows editors to see how events are spread globally, which of particular use to those who don't have good knowledge of the globe. But I agree that it's value is low. SSSB (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, let's get rid of it. If there was some discussion in the article about how events are spread (which there could be, considering the efforts the last few seasons to put races into "zones" to reduce travel) then there might be case to include it, but visualising the spread of events isn't actually something readers need. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can add that previous F1 seasons (2024_Formula_One_World_Championship, 2023_Formula_One_World_Championship etc) does not include the controversial map. Yet there are still too many pro-Russian contributors here who struggle to justify the occupation of Ukrainian lands at any cost thus promotong such illegal maps. Unas964 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I actually just do not think it's that deep. If the users in question were actually pro-Russian and trying to push a pro-Russia POV, why wouldn't they be doing on articles actually about Russia and Ukraine and the war? Seems a really odd way to do it. The more plausible explanation is that these are the boundaries used on a very popular and standard map template available on the Wikimedia Commons, and if you want to discuss the default borders on that map you should probably take the discussion there instead of bringing it up on F1 articles every few years. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- a very popular and standard map template was created by a user whose primarily language is Russian and hence cannot be considered unbiased. If you examine the .svg template, you will see it contains not only Crimea attached to Russia, but other separatists regions created out of Russian invasions in sovereign states, as well (Transnistria, Abkhasia, Tskhinvali, DNR/LNR). That renders it a propaganda tool rather than just a regular template.
- My struggle to remove it from Wikimedia Commons failed so far, yet we can prevent the spreading the malevolent content in specific articles, as here. As said, removing it as was done in the articles about the prior F1 seasons is a possible option, yet I see a strong opposition to that. Unas964 (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. The template that is used here (and in most articles with world maps) is c:File:BlankMap-World.svg, which has had many contributors over the years, some of which might speak Russian. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Unas964: There is something to be said for whether or not the map is useful, that is a conversation worth having. But trying to go around and force articles to remove a world map because you disagree with the one Misplaced Pages uses? What a waste of time. Create a consensus on the parent map to change the border. If you can't do so, then so be it. But F1 articles are not here to arbitrate borders, just to reflect the common consensus. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ukrainian territorial integrity is not a matter of discussion. You cannot search for any consensus ignoring Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT and equalising the position of the culprit (Russia's view on the political map) and the victim. Irrelevant or not, any articles, including about Formula One, should not reflect fringe or extremist viewpoints. In this case, it definitely does. Unas964 (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is neither fringe nor extremist. It is the reality. The consensus is that this is the reality. The fact that the reality is also illegal isn't actually relevant to what the reality is. Anyone who disagrees with the consensus that Crimea is de facto Russian territory (legally obtained or not) is, frankly, kidding themselves. SSSB (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ukrainian territorial integrity is not a matter of discussion. You cannot search for any consensus ignoring Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT and equalising the position of the culprit (Russia's view on the political map) and the victim. Irrelevant or not, any articles, including about Formula One, should not reflect fringe or extremist viewpoints. In this case, it definitely does. Unas964 (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Unas964: There is something to be said for whether or not the map is useful, that is a conversation worth having. But trying to go around and force articles to remove a world map because you disagree with the one Misplaced Pages uses? What a waste of time. Create a consensus on the parent map to change the border. If you can't do so, then so be it. But F1 articles are not here to arbitrate borders, just to reflect the common consensus. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. The template that is used here (and in most articles with world maps) is c:File:BlankMap-World.svg, which has had many contributors over the years, some of which might speak Russian. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I actually just do not think it's that deep. If the users in question were actually pro-Russian and trying to push a pro-Russia POV, why wouldn't they be doing on articles actually about Russia and Ukraine and the war? Seems a really odd way to do it. The more plausible explanation is that these are the boundaries used on a very popular and standard map template available on the Wikimedia Commons, and if you want to discuss the default borders on that map you should probably take the discussion there instead of bringing it up on F1 articles every few years. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can add that previous F1 seasons (2024_Formula_One_World_Championship, 2023_Formula_One_World_Championship etc) does not include the controversial map. Yet there are still too many pro-Russian contributors here who struggle to justify the occupation of Ukrainian lands at any cost thus promotong such illegal maps. Unas964 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great! I stil think we should get rid of it because it adds absolutely no value to the article, yet acts as a border-war magnet. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
If editors seem eager to keep this map, perhaps we can persuade Cherkash to create a version that shows just the locations of circuits and former circuits (the dots), but eliminates the "nation" coolouring that is always so controversial? I would still prefer complete removal, but I'll take any solution that can make the controversy part go away. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the names of most of the Grands Prix are after the country, I think the current method is the most logical. I think it should either be the map as it is or no map at all personally. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well then it should be none at all. We link to articles for each Grand Prix event, together with circuit and location articles that include comprehensive maps. Why do we need a controversial and hard-to-read map of the world to duplicate this information? We don't do this for the 2025 Formula 2 Championship, or the 2025 FIA Formula 3 Championship, or for the 2025 MotoGP World Championship, or the 2024–25 Formula E World Championship (although that uses cities for its location). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think any level of controversy avoidance should be a factor, nor whether or not other championships use one. But I don't have a strong opinions on its usefulness, which I think is the key reason to include or not include it. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've always considered the purpose of the map to show circuit location, and I have therefore always considered the colouring the maps least usefull feature. Either you know which country is which, or you don't. Colouring the map doesn't help that. SSSB (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think any level of controversy avoidance should be a factor, nor whether or not other championships use one. But I don't have a strong opinions on its usefulness, which I think is the key reason to include or not include it. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it is not logical. The Grand Prix names do not match the borders for too many cases and have little to do with the "de facto borders". Apart from the numerous ongoing events in the US and the Emillia Romagna, the Swiss Grand Prix was held in France, the Luxembourg and San-Mario - in Germany and Italy, respectively. Indy 500 was never called a Grand Prix, in fact even having "double citizenship" (FIA and AAA/USAC). And how can you attribute European and Pacific Grands Prix to those "de facto borders"? Should you separate West Germany counts from the unified Germany? The term "British" does not count for the UK, too. Oh, and why then, according to the so-called "de facto borders", the Overseas Territories are not included (and Maldives?) to the UK and Puerto Rico to the US? And I can go on and go on...
- This map is a mess and was created for a sole popurpose - to present Crimean occupation as a norm (not only, Abkhasia and South Ossetia too - discussed long time ago by Kashmiri). Unas964 (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cerebral clearly meant the current method of highlighting the host country. They were clearly not talking about how the borders within the map are defined. SSSB (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well then it should be none at all. We link to articles for each Grand Prix event, together with circuit and location articles that include comprehensive maps. Why do we need a controversial and hard-to-read map of the world to duplicate this information? We don't do this for the 2025 Formula 2 Championship, or the 2025 FIA Formula 3 Championship, or for the 2025 MotoGP World Championship, or the 2024–25 Formula E World Championship (although that uses cities for its location). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)