This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 13:27, May 9, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
@Cerebral726: That info is simply redundant and should not go there. Island92 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it redundant? Redundant with what? I am fine with moving it elsewhere in the article, a much better solution than outright deletion. Where do you think it should go? Cerebral726 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Race report section, but I'm not convinced at all.--Island92 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to that section per your recommendation. You aren't convinced that it isn't redundant? And if so, redundant with what? Cerebral726 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that once kissed the thophy shines made headlines in the paddock, but for the importance itself I don't really think should be mentioned in a Formula One Grand Prix page article. That's it. There is so much information which rotates around the Grand Prix itself, but everything is not always mentioned.--Island92 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The information isn't redundant (because it isn't mentioned anywhere) else. But I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. It just isn't a notable thing. Mentioning this is WP:UNDUE emphais - espically when put in a dedicated section. We never discuss the details of any other trophy (many of which are much more impressive than some LEDs in the trophy). SSSB (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content is well sourced. Just because other articles are deficient doesn’t mean we need to remove a simple sentence describing something highly relevant to the subject of the article. I’m fine with removing the section header, but there’s nothing UNDUE about a short description. This need to make every race report as detailed as our least detailed race report is a common thread that makes them worse overall, and is misaligned with Wikipedia’s standard for including content in articles. Cerebral726 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of trophy description does not make other articles deficeient. The subject of this article is the sporting aspect of the event, so the special features of the trophy are not highly relevant - as they had no impact on the actual race, or other relevant sessions. The trophies special features are of minimal relevance to the subject (what happened in the event). SSSB (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our job in determining relevancy is whether or not reliable sources report on the content. Three separate sources discuss the trophy in relation to the entire event called the "2023 Japanese Grand Prix", which is the actual subject, not just the time where cars are on track. As relevant points of comparison, should we exclude the missile strike from the 2022 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, since it ultimately didn't effect the race or time on track? Should the Super Bowl articles not mention the broadcasters, advertisements, or halftime show, since they don't effect the end result? Clearly not. The trophy handed to the winner of the 2023 Japanese Grand Prix is definitionally on WP:TOPIC to the 2023 Japanese Grand Prix, and is firmly backed up by three articles written by reliable sources. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
