Talk:Formula One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleFormula One is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2005.
Article milestones
June 24, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 30, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 4, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 7, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
November 6, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
August 13, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natjman11.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding map of Grand Prix host countries[edit]

@Chaddy: You have removed a map that displays the countries that have hosted a Formula One Grand Prix from this article along with this one and this one, insisting it to be "propaganda", I assume because Crimea is grouped together with Russia. Firstly, regarding your edit summary, I never suggested there was an obligation to stick with the default – however, it is indeed true that disputed territories by default are grouped into the country who has the de facto administrative power in the region, even though you failed to include that part in your quote from the blank map documentation. It is not "propaganda", it's been left to the default based on commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, as explained by SSSB in this deletion request from last year. If you disagree with how the map handles international disputes, you are much better off initiating a new discussion on Commons on how the map should be coloured, rather than removing the map entirely from various Wikipedia articles. As an experienced editor, you should know that your personal disapproval with the grouping of Crimea is not grounds for complete WP:REMOVAL.

Pinging @SSSB: @Joseph2302: @Island92: @5225C: for some opinions so that this doesn't become an edit war between two people.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map is not propaganda. It sums up where Formula One Grands Prix have taken place in the World so far, including those in past seasons such as Africa countries. Island92 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This has been a contentious issue for years but at the end of the day we're trying to show where the World Championship competes and has competed in a graphical form. What we aren't trying to do is show a politically-accurate map of the world. The deletion discussion is quite clear; there is no policy-backed reason to remove the map. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only neutral point of view are the borders according to international law (the law also Russia is bound to by being a member of the UN). Showing the borders a nation wants to establish by forcibly breaking international law surely can not be neutral in any way, we support the point of view of Russia by this.
Thanks to this discussion I now have found this RfC and its preceding discussion from 2019/2020 for the article 2020 Formula One World Championship. Of course this only applies for this specific article, but the result is still interesting for this dispute here, too. The majority was against a colored map for various reasons and a map was suggested that only shows dots for the venues. I will ping all users that have participated in this RfC (as far as they haven't been pinged already by Ved havet): @Scjessey, @Tvx1, @DeFacto, @Sjones23. I also ping the creator of this map (@Cherkash) and @Unas964 and @RMN120501 (sorry if I have forgotten someone).
Another interesting point that should also be considered: The FIA itself sees the Crimea as part of Ukraine ([1]). Chaddy (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're not "supporting" anyone, we're sticking to the current, de facto situation in the world. It's a statement about what the situation is, not what it rightfully should be. E.g., the article of Afghanistan using the Taliban flag is not the same as Wikipedia "supporting" the Taliban regime.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 06:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What the FIA thinks is irrelevant, as we are not the FIA. The funny thing is that you quoted commons:File talk:BlankMap-World.svg/Documentation#Territorial disputes where it says "It is left to the user to decide how to color them", but this doesn't support your view. It supports continung to colour the Crimea as part of Russia, as this is what was decided by the user who created the map (Cherkash). Finally, colouring based on de Facto vs. de Jure is equally neutral, and equally not propaganda. In fact, Chaddy, you are the one who is slippy into non-neutrality and propaganda by insiting we colour a map based on your political opinion, this is made worse by the fact you aren't consistently supporting de jure, as you have no problem with the de facto shadding of Taiwan (whoch, if we followed international law (or at least recognition), would be coloured as part of China). SSSB (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
International law is not my "political opinion", it's the basement of all international relations. But interestingly, exactly this is Russians strategy: Implying that international law just would be a "political opinion" which could legally be relativised by another "political opinion". And also whataboutism isn't helful. Taiwan is not the topic of this discussion here. You can start another discussion on the Taiwan subject. Chaddy (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crimea is not the topic of discussion here, the topic of discussion is the map, so Taiwan is as relevant as Crimea. You cannot have it both ways. International law is politics, when countries decided on how they view the Crimea, they decided based on political alliances and international relations. The fact that you insist on showing the Crimea based on international law, but you aren't applying this argument consistently across the map shows that your arguement is based on your political opinion. Wikipedia is not the place for political opinions. SSSB (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course the Crimea is topic of this discussion here. It is the reason why these maps are disputed since years.
International law is not politics, it is law. Of course, governments ignore it when they want to. But the rules themselves are clear. You can not ignore this fact and tell the opposite.
You don't know anything about my political opinion. Please stop speculating about it.
All in all, your discussion stretegy is unfair and destructive. I only see whataboutism and derailing here from you. Please stop this. Chaddy (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The topic of the discussion is the map. This is where your problem lies. I don't dispute the fact that international law is clear, but if you insist the map follows international law, then you should insist it does so consistently. Otherwise your entire argument is fundamentally flawed, if you insist on one rule for Crimea, but are happy to apply a different rule to everyone else. The fact that you don't means you are turning a black-and-white issue (what rule set should we apply to the map) into a political argument (which territories should be coloured to international law, and which shouldn't). This isn't "whataboutism" from me, you are refusing to acknowledge that your complaint has wider implications. SSSB (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will not play your whataboutism game. It is too obvious what you are trying here. But this will not work. Chaddy (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is playing whataboutism. We're simply pointing out to you that international law was NEVER a factor for this map. We only ever cared about sporting nations acknowledged by this sport's governing body. Again, see my example of the FIFA maps and the United Kingdom. And the map you linked to doesn't prove anything. It has full lines seperating England, Wales and Scotland from one another, even though we know that the FIA only recognizes the United Kingdom as the nation covering that territory.Tvx1 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only neutral point of view to represent the borders of sporting nations is to reflect the borders shown by that sport’s governing body. Since the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia, and thus the Russian Automobile Federation responsible for governing motorsport in Crimea, we should reflect. For the exact same reason we do not draw the United Kingdom as one country, per the UN/international law, but we draw England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as separate nations, per the FIFA.Tvx1 10:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The FIA considers Crimea part of Ukriane as I have proven. Chaddy (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You haven't proven anything. Your "proof" is WP:OR. I also seem to remember (from previous discussions) that the race programmes for the Russian Grand Prix showed Crimea as Russian. SSSB (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting interpretation of OR...
Here again my evidence: [2]. Chaddy (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, WP:OR. WP:OR states "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". What you've done is analyised the material (the lack of a line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine) to reach a conclusion (that the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia) which isn't actually stated by the source. The source doesn't explicitly state how the FIA consider the Crimea, hence it is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"What you've done is analyised the material (the lack of a line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine) to reach a conclusion (that the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia) which isn't actually stated by the source." - Really? Have I to explain you how a map works? Chaddy (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The prenense or absense of a line on a map is WP:OR, it only implies what the FIA's stance is, it doesn't explicitly state it, and therefore it is WP:OR. And cut the patronising attitude, especially as your wrong.

While we are on the subject of the map. Kosovo is listed as an FIA member, but it's borders aren't on the map.[3] Does this mean that the FIA doesn't recognise Kosovo, of course not, because it is an FIA member. Proof that the map proves nothing, as it completely contradicts what it does/doesn't recognise. SSSB (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are (dotted) borders for Kosovo on this map. Do me a favour and stop your desinformation. Chaddy (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of this bullshit above is why the map shouldn't have the countries, only the venues. It's also worth noting that for many races (though not all, of course) the country has nothing to do with the race, which is normally arranged by a promoter and/or circuit independent of their government or nation. Take the countries out of the equation and the arguments go away. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scjessey: +1 I also think this could solve this dispute. Chaddy (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I continue to strongly believe that any map should only show the precise location of venues, marked with a dot. As soon as you start shading in countries, you open yourself up to controversy and edit warring. With that said, I don't think this world map has ever shown any useful value to the reader in the first place. If you want to show that Formula One is a global business, just say so in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scjessey is speaking volumes of sense. Just use dots to represent circuits. Makes a load of sense - especially seeing as there are non-"national" GPs in the F1 championship. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that shading doesn't add anything worthwhile. I never understood how the afore mentioned RfC reached the conclusion that there wasn't a consensus to remove the shading. However, I don't support removing the map entirely. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here the map doesn't show that F1 is a global business. It highlights the lack of races in Africa, and the prevalence of races in Europe. SSSB (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, do we have a consensus to use a map like this one? Of course someone who can handle svgs needs to create one for the current season. But this shouldn't be a problem. Chaddy (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Within this thread, maybe (no opposition, yet). I would recommend a bold replacement, as there has never been a consensus in favour of colouring. If it is reverted, then we can move to a discussion dedicated solely to that issue (a new one, to avoid us getting distracted by how we colour, which isn't relevant to if we should colour). If we still don't have consensus, we go to RfC. SSSB (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree with this per WP:BRD. I would also add that you could have coloured dots for current calendar and black dots for all the others. The relevant data can be found in this article (which also has the problem map). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay! Now just someone needs to create such a map. Chaddy (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would just use the same system of dots as previously, with larger, solid dots for current races, and smaller, outlined dots for previous ones. It'd be good to add some colour somehow though, as they become very black and white without the coloured countries.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 20:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cherkash: I'm not sure if you're aware of this discussion, but what's your take on it? Would you be interested in adopting a pratice where countries aren't coloured in in your 2022 and future Formula 1 all over the world maps?  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 20:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just use coloured dots, then. SSSB (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bad idea. Not everyone can fully distinguish all colors. We should never use color alone to convey information.Tvx1 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...which is why I'm suggesting the same system of dots as previously, with larger, solid dots for current races and smaller, outlined dots for previous ones. However, adding some colour helps making it less bland.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 22:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't suggesting to use colours to convey information. I was just saying that rather than using big black circles, and small white ones (like we do now), use big blue dots (or whatever colour), and small white ones. That way the colours don't actually convey anything, but just make it prettier. SSSB (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But suggesting to use blue and white to distinguish them, you are suggesting to rely on colors. Use different shapes, like dots and squares, instead as everyone can distinguish that.Tvx1 23:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is this any different to using black and white like we do now? Or shading countries in green? Colour blind people can still distinguich shades, even if they can't tell what the colour is. The key doesn't need to mention colours, we simply say, "big dots represent current locations, small dots represent previous locations". SSSB (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ved havet, thanks for pinging me. I personally think that coloring or highlighting the countries is relevant to the subject. Countries that host(ed) Grands Prix are not insignificant, as demonstrated by this being specifically mentioned in a bunch of Wiki articles on F1, as well as a multitude of external sources. Also, majority (if not all) of the races are actually organized by FIA member clubs which specifically represent the countries - so it's not only "promoter and/or circuit" that is typically involved (as was incorrectly mentioned earlier by Scjessey). However, if for some reason there is a strong desire by some editors to have a "blanked out" map with de-emphasized countries while at the same time specifically emphasizing the venues only, I can help with this by creating such a version of the map like I've done in the past. cherkash (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cherkash: It was not "incorrect" for me to say that most races are arranged through promoters and/or circuits. In fact, almost all of them are done in that way. It is true that many countries (or regions of countries) may provide backing, tax incentives or subsidies to these, but most actual races are run through a promoter of some kind, even if that promoter is just a "front" for a nation or region. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scjessey: It was not incorrect - but you are conflating commercial arrangements with the sporting arrangements. E.g. FIA is involved in the latter, while FOM (or whatever they happen to be called at any given moment in time) in the former. cherkash (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cherkash: That's just naivety. You cannot separate commercial and sporting arrangements in F1. Without a commercial promoter, most races simply wouldn't happen. In fact, the promoter usually has to pony up a fuckton of cash just to get F1 to even consider racing somewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One party being dependent on the other doesn't mean they can't be separated.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cherkash: would you mind creating such a map. That way we can at least be on the same page about what such a map would like. Rather than have people give opinions based on imagination. Then we can make a more informed decision. SSSB (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SSSB: Here you go. cherkash (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, to be frank I think with just the dots remaining the map loses 90% of its usefulness.Tvx1 23:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. cherkash (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the map is just as useful as before. For me, this proves that highlighting nations doesn't actually add anything other than colour. The only thing I would say is that the dots for previous races need to be made clearer (maybe make them black, and distinguish old and current races by the size of the dot alone. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's gonna make it useless arond Europe. The dots will just melt into each other.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, that's already a problem, but I see your point... we could have a global map, and a Europe map (like Formula E article do). I don't know I'm just brain-storming.

Expanding on my previous point, the point of the map isn't to highlight the nations which host F1 races, it is to highlight where in the world races are. So I've always thought the colours were actually a distraction to the map's purpose. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly disagree that the proposed map is as useful as the existing one. I don't understand how you can even claim that. And who says that isn't the point of the map to higlight the hosting nations? You? When was there ever any discussion on that subject?? The first time a map appeared in a season article was back in 2012. And that one only highlighted the nations and didn't mark the circuits at all. So I'd say highlighting the nations was always the main intention. Showing where the circuits were located within the nations was an intention which was added much later. I really find it remarkable that you are so lecturing about maps which originated five years before you joined Wikipedia. All this is just a knee-jerk reaction to one editor who simply refuses to accept that we never used international law as a basis to generate these maps.Tvx1 14:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you in that I find the colours useful to a certain extent, and think there's better solutions if the border issue is even an issue. Let's stop making time on Wikipedia an argument, though.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time on Wikipedia isn't the argument. It isn't about experience. The argument is a blunt claim on the purpose of something when the person in question wasn't involved with creating and purposing the subject in any way.Tvx1 19:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map has never been "useful" in any of its forms. As I've said before, it would be better to get rid of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That’s only personal opinion. Many readers and editors don’t support that view.Tvx1 13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also argue it is original research, since it has been created from scratch by synthesis of available data. My point is that for such a synthesis to be included, it needs to prove its value to the reader rather than the other way around. The lame argument that it is needed to "show the global nature" of the sport is easily answered by the existence of "which take place worldwide" in the article's introduction, so it is really not needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is improper use of WP:SYNTHESIS. What's the conclusion in the map that is not explicitly stated by any source? The official schedule explicitly states the countries along with the tracks, and combining this year's schedule with previous seasons does not imply any such conclusion.
Even if WP:SYNTHESIS was relevant, it needing to "prove it's value" is not a relevant factor to whether it should be included or not. It's a visualization of where F1 rounds have been held, both in terms of tracks and countries, both of which are supported by the sources. Such visualizations are neither uncommon nor problematic.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 15:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Combining this year's schedule with previous seasons" to create a thing is TEXTBOOK synthesis. You specifically need a source that explicitly states what it is that you are trying to convey with this map, and because no such source exists we are currently creating one by violating this part of WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using or combining more than one source is not the issue, it's what Wikipedia is built on. Doing so to reach a conclusion not supported by any source is an issue however, and that is what is adressed by WP:SYNTHESIS. Again I'll ask you, what is the conclusion this synthesis creates that is not explicitly stated by any source? Because as far as I can tell, we're trying to convey 1) what rounds are on this year's calendar, and 2) what rounds have been on previous years' calendars. The sources support both of those things, and I don't see how the map creates a separate conclusion from this that's not supported by the sources. The map is quite literally a visualization of List of Formula One Grands Prix.
I'll add that such maps are far from uncommon on Wikipedia. They're being used in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 infobox, in the list of World Rally Championship rallies, and in the list of Super Bowl host cities. And with good reason, considering one of the good article criteria and featured list criteria is that the article/list is illustrated with media files, which includes visual maps.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 17:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rationale for including the map in the first place was that it showed that Formula 1 was a global sport, but that is better explained in the text already. The map is, therefore, superfluous at best and (because of the apparent conflicts it is creating above) an edit war magnet at worst. Moreover, an apparently broken visual solution that has clear accessibility issues is best excluded until such time as a solution can present itself. Remember this map was never intended to be in this article in the first place, and trying to repurpose it has created all kinds of trouble. This is the last I will be saying on the matter, since I don't want to wander into the realm of disruption to make a point, but it would be wrong not to stridently state my objection. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My rationale is that it illustrates the content of the relevant articles/article sections/lists where it is included, just like any other image, map, diagram or other other visual aid. It doesn't matter if you think the text "explains it better", you could have that opinion about practically any media file. A picture is worth a thousand words though, which is why maps are used alongside text in countless Wikipedia articles without any problems, and why visualizations are a criteria for "Good" articles and "Featured" articles and lists. This all really is a complete sidetrack from the real discussion, the only reason this map has caused a conversation is because one user wrongly decided to remove it based on how it rendered the border between Ukraine and Russia. Removing the colouring of countries, or removing the map completely, are drastic and completely unecessary solutions. There is a discussion to be had on how such borders should be rendered, but besides that, just the use of such a map is recommended, extremely common, and a non-issue.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk 20:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scjessey, I’m sorry but you’re being ridiculous here. Firstly, there is no case of synthesis here whatsoever here. There is no connclusion being drawn from statements from different sources. There only is a map with very easily verifiable information of which countries host and hosted formula 1 races. I could understand the usefulness on season articles being questioned, but then again the 2015 article became a featured article with the full map, but in this article in a section that details the history of the races being hosted throughout out the world a visual representation of where in the world the host countries and their F1 tracks are situated is very worthwile. Secondly, your claim that the rationale for including the map was to demonstrate “the global nature” is just as sweeping and false as SSSB’s claim that showing which countries host(ed) races was never the intention. As far as can derive from when this map was created and when they were first added, the intention always was to visually show where in the world the host countries are situated and where in these countries the host circuits are located.Tvx1 00:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scjessey, I’m sorry but you’re being ridiculous here.

@Tvx1: I said I wouldn't be saying more on this matter, but I feel compelled to point out that this violates WP:NPA. Please try to be more civil and assume good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Locations Initiative[edit]

The current New Locations Initiative section seems a bit ambiguous, the cited main aim of this initiative is to "introduce races in countries that have never competed in the sport before". It's my understanding of the current sections that the Miami Grand Prix should be kept in the Future Grands Prix section until the race is complete. However, after that where should it be placed? I think it's important to highlight the newer races but I don't think it fits under the cited aim of the "New Locations Initiative". I tried to find out more information about this initiative but couldn't find much, so it may just be worth renaming the section to "New Races (2008-present)". I also don't quite know why these sections (including the Returning additions section) are limited to 2008-present, maybe we should change it to something a bit more recent (the last 5 or 10 years or something?). FozzieHey (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The biggest problem with this section is that it should be removed. It is blatant WP:RECENTISM and WP:OR (as most of the Grands Prix within this section are not identified as being part of the New Locations Initiative within the sources). SSSB (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't object to the section being removed, but I think it is important to highlight the new races in the main article. That might not include a dedicated table but just a couple of sentences detailing the expansion, I think the current List of Formula One Grands Prix article handles quite a lot of that already though. I don't think that would be too WP:RECENTISM because we also have a few sentences detailing the history dating back to the 1950s. FozzieHey (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A handful of sentences explaining how the number of races and variaety of locations are already in the prose (but could be updated, as it currently deals with the 2014 season). Having dedicated sections covering individual periods is WP:UNDUE unless we cover other time periods equally. (i.e. if we have a table for the 15 years to 2023 (which is 2008-2023) we should have another table for 1992-2007 etc.) I would remove the returning additions (2008-present), new locations initive, and future GP sections, and let the prose only handle the most recent addition(s), and future (100% confirmed) races. SSSB (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with deleting the Returning additions and New Locations Initiative sections and detailing a short history in prose (the rest is handled in the List of Formula One Grands Prix list). However, I think it's a good idea to keep the Future Grands Prix section, it's not WP:UNDUE as they don't have any coverage elsewhere (neither in the Grands Prix list article nor their respective season articles because the 2023+ season articles don't exist yet). I also think it's more intuitive to handle those races in a simple table (removing the notes section and just showing the introduction year) than it is to handle those in prose. So if we were to just limit the Future Grands Prix section to confirmed races in which a season article doesn't already exist, I think that would be the best course of action. FozzieHey (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a quick demo table to try and demonstrate what I'm thinking of. FozzieHey (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Race Circuit Target calendar entry
Qatar Qatar Grand Prix TBC 2023
United States Las Vegas Grand Prix Las Vegas Street Circuit 2023
These Grands Prix are already listed in List of Formula One Grand Prix, where it is listed with all the other Grands Prix. If we want a seperate section dedicated to future Grands Prix then the appropriate location would be that article, not here. Even if we did decide to include future races in this article, we don't need a table for two GPs, a simple sentence would do: "The Qatar and Las Vegas Grands Prix are due to join the calendar for the 2023 season. The wikilinks can then be used to find out more information (such as track). But again, a similar sentence is already in the list article.

My opinion is that the GPs section in the article should effectely be a summary of the lead of List of Formula One Grand Prix, nothing more. SSSB (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree that List of Formula One Grands Prix has these two races, it's not very easy to see upcoming races (whereas if you wanted to see a tabled list of races in a given season, you would go to the respective article for that season). What I was thinking of with the simple table above is to effectively provide the differences between the current season's article and the next season. I would support adding an "upcoming" section to the list article (below the current "Active and past races") section and changing this article's section to be a subset of the list articles lead. FozzieHey (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what we will do then. I'll wait a bit longer, and if there are no additional comments, I'll be bold and trim it down. SSSB (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can Las Vegas and Kyalami be considered "new locations" anyway? F1 has raced at these before. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think for the purpose of this, new locations can be defined as "Races that are not in the current season, but are included in the next season". That sufficiently differentiates it from the "Active and past races" section. FozzieHey (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Qatar Grand Prix isn't new in any definition though. Am I the only here who remembers we already had a Qatar Grand Prix occuring in 2021?Tvx1 19:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I probably shouldn't have used the word "new" there. The additional section we're suggesting in the list article is an "Upcoming" section comprising of races not included in the current season calendar. When that is implemented, we can just drop the race tables in this article. FozzieHey (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you guys say the Alfa Romeo 158/159 is an F1 car or simply a pre-war Voiturette converted to be an F1 car?[edit]

It started production in 1938 but in 1950 was entered into the F1 World Championship where it won every race (except the obvious Indy 500) and continued to win races until 1953.

Its very strange. GarethBaloney (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]