This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've changed the 'average audience of 58 billion' sentence slightly so that it matches more closely the facts I could find on-line. Several news sites mention the Official FOM "Formula One Global Broadcast Report" or reports, but these stats don't seem to appear on any official site, anyone know where to find them? Mighty Antar 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Big business (1981–2000) In-text citations
Trying to find missing citations for the above, its clear that the third paragraph in this section is wrong. In simple terms, all three developments listed could be said to have already been present in road cars before the basic principles behind them were adopted and vastly reconfigured for F1 use. Quantifiying them as 'borrowed' or 'primarily developed' as stated, simply does not match up with the facts. Here's the paragraph as it is now:-
In the early 1990s, teams started introducing electronic driver aids such as active suspension, semi-automatic gearboxes and traction control. Some were borrowed from contemporary road cars.[citation needed] Some, like active suspension, were primarily developed for the track and later made their way to the showroom. The FIA, due to complaints that technology was determining the outcome of races more than driver skill, banned many such aids for 1994. However, many observers felt that the ban on driver aids was a ban in name only as the FIA did not have the technology or the methods to eliminate these features from competition.
Does anyone object if I change some of the wikilinks and the wording of the paragraph to read as follows?
In the early 1990s, teams started introducing electronic driver aids such as active suspension, semi-automatic gearboxes and traction control. The FIA, due to complaints that technology was determining the outcome of races more than driver skill, banned many such aids for 1994. However, many observers felt that the ban on driver aids was a ban in name only as the FIA did not have the technology or the methods to eliminate these features from competition.
The only other contentious point would be that Lotus bought in its active suspension in 1987, but I think early90s is close enough.
I think the current wording is correct, in that active does seem to have been first developed for the track (although not raced) by Lotus, then transferred to their road cars and raced at about the same time, and then developed by larger road car manufacturers for wider use. ("The Lotus system was born from F1 and has now returned to F1 and seems to have set a trend...having first toyed with a prototype F1 active suspension system in 81-82..." (Nye, Autocourse 87 p.69) & "One [ Lotus 92, a 1983 car] was used in active suspension trials" (Hodges 'A-Z of Formula Racing Cars' p.152). Semi-automatic gearboxes also seem to have transferred from racetrack to the road - the first semi-auto in F1 was Ferrari's 1989 device: My recollection is that Porsche, Ferrari, Jaguar et al didn't start putting them into road cars until the mid-1990s. I agree that traction control went the other way.
I don't agree (sorry!) that 'the early 90s' is a good approximation. I think we've got to put active suspension into context in the late eighties somewhere in the article. Lotus started developing it in 1982. Lotus and Williams both raced active in 87 and 88, both winning races in 87 with it. The 1987 Autocourse season review identifies it as the 'major technical talking point of the season'. Lotus also had a hydraulic 'ride height adjuster' in 1986 - a simple mechanism to lower ride height as fuel was burned off. As I said above, Ferrari introduced semi-automatic gearboxes in 1989, so the individual elements are more properly identified as coming from the late eighties. I do agree that the package really came together in the early 1990s. 4u1e 11:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll recant slightly on semi-automatic transmission. The 1950s Citroen and NSU road car systems described in the Semi-automatic transmission article do seem to do much the same job as the original Ferrari F1 gearbox, albeit without the electronic component. I'd discount the other earlier examples as being effectively automatic gearboxes (with torque converters) rather than hydraulically or electro-hydraulically operated clutched systems. 4u1e 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
With reference to Active Suspension, a couple of articles on the web [[1]] and [[2]] are worth looking at. The point that I've read before was that Lotus had developed the system for the Esprit having rejected developing it for F1 after the problems with the Lotus 81 and 88 and I remember the first time I ever saw the concept demonstrated on TV it was on a road car - and I was a F1 fanatic long before then! Anyone got any comprehensive books on Lotus? Anyway, going on your own comments above I think you must recognise this paragraph does now require a bit of work. Mighty Antar 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup. That's what I get for relying on my memory! I still think active originated in F1 though, the fact that it wasn't raced before it appeared on the road is slightly beside the point, surely? 4u1e 14:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
How about the following?
The development of electronic driver aids began in the 1980s. Lotus began to develop a system of active suspension which first appeared in 1982 on the F1 Lotus 91 and Lotus Esprit road car. By 1987 this system had been perfected and was driven to victory by Ayrton Senna in the Monaco Grand Prix that year. In the early 1990s, other teams followed suit and semi-automatic gearboxes and traction control were a natural progression. The FIA, due to complaints that technology was determining the outcome of races more than driver skill, banned many such aids for 1994. However, many observers felt that the ban on driver aids was a ban in name only as the FIA did not have the technology or the methods to eliminate these features from competition.
Seems reasonable to me - needs cites as well though! 4u1e 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is in the news
Don't know if it merits a mention in the main article but this article was used to decide a court case today. See here [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelpin (talk • contribs)
I don't think it was a court case - just a trademark application denied. It doesn't warrant mention in the article. Mark83 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right - sorry I misread the article first time.Kelpin 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
When does the F1 season start and end? Christopher Connor 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
These days, the season usually starts in early-mid March and finishes in mid-late October. You can find the exact start and finish dates for each season in the relevant season summary article, e.g. the opening paragraph of 2007 Formula One season states that the 2007 season started on the 18th of March and will finish on the 21st of October. DH85868993 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Historically it has started as early as January 1 (South African GPs in 1960s, IIRC) 4u1e 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Stewart and Hill image
I've removed this image as it seems to me to quite clearly contravenes point 1 of WP:BFAQMighty Antar 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Infobox Inaugural season
I believe that either the year or the wording should change
If its Inaugural F1 season then the year should be 1950 the first year a season (a series of races counting towards a championship) took place
If its Inaugural F1 race it should be 1947
If its the year the F1 formula was defined (1946) the wording should change
Personally I think it should say 1950 since that was the first season and also the year "Formula One" became the official name (it was called Formula A before that) Chris Ssk 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Most books agree on 1950. mattbuck 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now that the infobox has changed to say "Inaugural season", I think 1950 is the most appropriate year to display. So I've updated it to say 1950, but with an explanatory note mentioning 1946 and 1947. Ideally, I'd like the title of the infobox to be "Formula One World Championship" to make it even clearer, but the template doesn't seem to offer that option. DH85868993 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Constructors' Champion in infobox
I'm not whether Ferrari should be listed as the Constructors' Champion yet - it seems a bit weird listing the 2006 Drivers' Champion but the 2007 Constructors' Champion. DH85868993 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just thinking the same thing. Maybe we should put the year in brackets after the competitor? mattbuck 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is because they are the current champions. Even though the 07 drivers' championship has not been decided, while the constructors' has, both Alonso and Ferrari are equal championship holders, while Renault no longer is. I have, however, added a note for clarification. Charles 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ferrari are not the current champions. Although they cannot now be overtaken for the constructors championship (barring further Stepneygate revelations - a not improbable occurence!) the champions are not formally announced until the end of the season, to the best of my knowledge. Renault remain the reigning world champions. In any case, as DH says above, it's confusing having champions listed from two different seasons.
Unless and until anyone can come up with an FIA press release announcing Ferrari as the 2007 F1 champions, Renault should remain in the infobox. I have edited to that effect. Happy to discuss. Cheers. 4u1e 08:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Argentine F1 championship
I've deleted this section on the basis that although it may have been called 'Formula Una' - the cars were not Formula One cars. See this forum thread. The main thing is that the cars seem to have used exclusively 4.2 litre stock blocks, way over the F1 3 litre limit. The South African and British series were much closer to being real F1 series, with numbers of ex-championship cars, and (I think) the locally built cars built to F1 regs. Although F5000 cars did run in the Aurora series in some (all?) years as well, I think there's a clear distinction here. This is, however, a rather obscure topic: Anyone know more about it? 4u1e 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Year links
Easter egg links are generally discouraged because their destination is not obvious. This article has many links to "Year Formula One season" piped down to just the year, thus breaking the guideline. However, links to those articles are relevant and useful so it would be good to keep them. Possible ways around this would therefore to change, for example, "1999" to "1999 (see 1999 Formula One season)" or "the 1999 season". There may be other ways around it, and it would be nice to fix such links. violet/riga(t) 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to! ;-) I tend to go for your latter suggestion myself - the wordage still needs to be readable and the full version is a bit of a mouthful. 4u1e 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I recommend discussing this on WT:F1 first? A lot of F1-related articles use a lot of these type of links. DH85868993 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably a good idea - and it's not quite as mechanical as just subbing '1999 season' for 1999 - I don't suggest for example having 'Michael Schumacher was champion in the 1994 season, the 1995 season, the 2000 season, the 2001 season, the 2002 season, the 2003 season and the 2004 season'! 4u1e 09:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Are they true Easter Egg links though? They just take you to the page on that year that is most relevant to the topic. The "xxxx Formula One season" is basically a "xxxx in Formula One" page, and it's very common in music articles, for example, to have links to a year go to "xxxx in music". Everyone knows what a year is (I believe!), so for the year to be linked usefully, it needs to go to a page with information on that year relevant to the topic. AlexJ 16:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Alex here -- it fits with others widely accepted. Guroadrunner 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
GrandPrix+
GrandPrix+ is the first e-magazine about F1, available at 0900 GMT on the Monday after each race. It is produced by experienced FIA-accredited journalists and photographers and is sent in PDF format. It includes between 50-60 pages of news, features, opinion and photography. I would like to propose that a link be added to the Formula One wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish collector (talk • contribs) 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
5 g's of lateral force?
This seems extremely high. Every other web site I can find on currrent Formula 1 race cars indicates a max sustained lateral force of about 3.5g's of lateral force on certain high speed turns. The 2005 and older cars could pull 4 g's, but they had about 125hp more power with the 3 liter engines, and lower wings. The newer cars don't have the power to maintain the speeds required for a 4 g turn, while overcoming drag and energy losses to cornering forces.
A quote from this link below: "The vast loadings that Formula One cars are capable of creating, anything up to a sustained 3.5 g of cornering force" formula1.comJeffareid (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
while I agree 5 may not be reached anymore, the g-meters shown in races often get to the 4g, so i'd say it's best to go with that. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
4g's sound resonable, the tires have improved to the point that brake overheating at some tracks is becoming an issue now. Jeffareid (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The highest maximum value I've seen on the g-meters on TV was 4.7g, so 5g sounds about right. 82.135.69.223 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In Fact the Maximum has been 6,1G !!! in the famous (it doesn't actually seem so good on the TV) curve 8 in Istambul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.151.102 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Criticism
I´m missing a paragraph about criticism on Formula 1. On the internet there are more and more fans being very critical to the state of Formula 1 and the proposals for the future. PG, 23 december 2007, 17:27
7 post shaker add to see also list
I would like to add the article about the 7 post shaker technology. I feel this is a worthwhile add, since it relates to racing technology across all genres of racing. Let me know what everyone thinks and I'll add it sometime soon. Thank you!!Rooney McFaddy (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't be in favour. If we're going to add 7 post shaker, then why not other elements of racing technology which are used in F1, such as Wind tunnel or Telemetry or Computer-aided design? I think the "See also" section in this article should be for articles which are particularly associated with F1, rather than racing in general. DH85868993 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the list would get rather long if we included all racing tech articles. I would like to see a link to an article on vehicle technology specifically in the area of racing. There are thousands of articles on vehicle technology but few of them incorporate racing. To find these articles requires tediously searching through many different categories. I would like to see a racing technology and how it applies to F1, CART, NASCAR, etc. on each of those article's see also list. Thank you for responding to me and I will not post this add. Rooney McFaddy (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Changes to feeder series section
Anon 60.48.179.193 and I have been reverting back and forth a bit over the 'Feeder series' section. The changes I introduced (see diff) were intended to give a bit more of a historical perspective on this by mentioning F2 prior to F3000 and giving a slightly bigger historical spread of driver. Some minor corrections were also bundled up in the change: Karts are not single-seaters; Zanardi raced in F1 before he raced in Champ Car, so he is arguably not a good example here; better to give the start year for GP2 than to say 3 years ago (since it will not then go out of date); having added mention of Mario Andretti it then became necessary to amend mention of Champ Car and CART to American Championship Car Racing, as neither CART nor CCWS existed when he transferred to F1. This all seems reasonable to me (of course) - if anyone wants to revert it, I'd be grateful if the reasoning could be given here. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
NEWS (New Regulations for 2009 and 2010)
I just placed the topic far towards the top of the main heading, to grab the attention, this article can be moved towards the end at a later stage!
Kind regards XTerminator2000 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for DELETING my article already ! Now there is NO reference to Hybrid Engine in the whole article! If you think you are better than the rest - "Why don't you just go and build this whole thing yourself?" Kind regards !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by XTerminator2000 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) XTerminator2000 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Caption Slightly Incorrect?
This caption:
"Nick Heidfeld and Nico Rosberg battle on the street circuit of Albert Park in the 2008 Australian Grand Prix"
seems to be slightly wrong, as they wouldn't be battling if the safetly car was out (the SC sign). --71.120.75.145 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the word "battle". DH85868993 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a Sport?
Why is there no mention of the fact that few people believe that Formula One is really a sport and not a marketing technique? Given that both Stirling Moss and Fernando Alonso have stated that they don't believe modern F1 is a sport, is this not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.84.253 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
'Sport' is a very vague word and I do believe F1 is a sport. F1 involves 'competeive activity', which is the first deffinition of sport in the OED. Shooting Deer with machine guns is a sport in some parts of the world. By your arguement is the film 'Crash' not a film because it's esentially a Cadilac advert? Or iRobot which was a feature length Audi Add? F1 is a sport.(Morcus (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC))
"Formula One is a business empire which only manifests as a brief sport every other weekend or so". Nice quote which I read somewhere in the past. I think it's sums up F1 pretty well =). A Prodigy (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to Fernando Alonso's comments in 2006 following his penalty for "blocking" Massa, I think you have to provide context and allow for the fact that he was speaking when his emotions were (rightly) very raw. As to the original point, sport and business aren't mutually exclusive, F1 is both a sport and a business. To the individual team members (drivers, mechanics, designers etc.) and most of the fans, F1 is very much a sport. To the CEOs of major corporations who pay millions in sponsorship and to Ecclestone it is a business. I too have heard the quote about it being a business expect for a few hours every fortnight or so. I think its worthy of inclusion with the proper reference. Mark83 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, your version of my mentioned quote is the correct one. I think it appeared on a BBC Sport article as the F1 section there is the main sports section I regularly visit. Considering the article was published a year or two ago (if it DID appear on the BBC site), it will be very hard to track it down for use as a citation. A Prodigy (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Revenue and Profits
Given that F1 generates billions of dollars of revenue every year, and without money from car-makers, TV channels and sponsors, the sport would be a lot smaller. We really need to expand and rename the paragraph "Cost of F1" to "Revenue and Profits". Bridgestone obviously makes money from making tires for F1. And Force India is probably just an expensive hobby for the owner. We really should research the money side of F1 and expand the article to reveal who's making money and who's not. People use Wikipedia to get very detailed info they cant elsewhere for free. Tri400 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Racing and strategy section
I noticed no mention of strategy, it mostly seems to be the rules to set up the grid and one about passing (lapping). Huw Powell (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Any information like that would probably be better suited to the Formula One racing article.Mustang6172 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Formula One vs Formula One Championship
this article should be split into two parts. as formula one is a rule set, and the formula one championship is the actual compotition. in the same way "football" is a rule set/game, but the premier league is the compotition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.3.145 (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I take your point, but it is OK for the one article to cover both topics: Formula Two does a similar thing. DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a single championship - there are two, the world drivers' and world constructors' championships.Mark83 (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don’t believe that the article should state that Formula One is “currently officially referred to as the FIA Formula One World Championship”. Formula One is, as stated, the highest class of racing sanctioned by the FIA. The 2009 rules for this class are defined by the FIA’s Technical Regulations. The FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing series contested over a number of events which, to quote the FIA’s Sporting Regulations, “are reserved for Formula One cars as defined in the Technical Regulations”. I propose that a rewording of the introduction is needed to reflect this. GTHO (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
'Sports Cars'
According to this article, FIA grew as a offshoot from french motorracing, much like 'Tour De France' bicycling hasnt. Why isn't what's now called 'sportscars' at least mentioned? You know, 'Le Mans 24 hour', etc.?
Not to rub it in, but yeh, theres a reason some people think F1 is commercial, drivercentric, advertising capitalism...
Anyway, I can't say that in a article, so someone else care to put in at least a link to 'sportscars' and other french revolutionary and (im guessing) numerous offshoots of the original idea. Namely: 'how long does your automobile last'? Seems criminal not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.134.243 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The other modern racing disciplines are covered in their own articles - you are mainly referring to sportscar racing. You could also have a look at Grand Prix motor racing. This article only claims to be about F1, which, like most other European motorsport, traces its roots back to the original French Grand Prix racing. It does not claim to be the sole descendant of of those races. 4u1e (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Commentators
Can I just not find it, or is there no section about the commentators of F1? If there is not a section, could I recommend that somebody perhaps includes one. (Edit) Second thoughts on this, I'm not sure if one would need to be included. Can I get some other thoughts on this.Ste900R (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering there is no one company that broadcasts the season events, trying to list every commentator used by channels worldwide would be too much effort. Plus, it isn't too important anyway. Commentators change year in and year out as different corporations buy the right to show races. I don't think its worth it personally. Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Blooded Edge. Someone like Murray Walker would possibly be an exception - he commentated on F1 for more than 50 years - but I would guess that even he's not well known outside the UK. 4u1e (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
What if we started a seperate article titled Formula One commentators? There we could list major corporations which broadcast races for respective regions such as BBC -> UK', including the team of commentators as well. Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 10:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I never knew that article existed. Why not just add the list of commentators onto there in the respective sections? Blooded Edge (T•C•A) 11:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
"GP2 is the current main feeder series for F1 - every GP2 champion has gone on to race in F1."
That's not correct, Pantano won in 2008 but he most likely won't be part of the f1 2009 season.
True, but only because he has already raced in F1, so he's a known quantity as far as the teams are concerned. Could re-word slightly to say "every GP2 champion has raced in F1". 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Requested move 1 June 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) buidhe 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
“ The 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship™ runs from March to December and spans 21 races in 21 countries across four continents. Formula One World Championship Limited is part of Formula 1® and holds the exclusive commercial rights to the FIA Formula One World Championship™.”
So, you're saying that F1 is called Formula One more often than Formula 1? Logo fixer (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not what's being said. What's being said is that your initial reasoning was incorrect (I.e. there is evidence to prove that "Formula One" is the official name and you have offered no proof that suggests that Formula 1 is the official name. SSSB (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Now this was discussed most recently in late 2018 with a consensus not to change (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 50#"Formula One" or "Formula 1", also discussed in March 2018 and September 2017 as linked in the late 2018 discussion). What's changed? What new perspective do you have which was missed before that would overturn these previous consensus'? SSSB (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Support, most of their own official channels use Formula 1 (Twitter, website, etc) which is usually a good indicator.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Looking at Formula One's legal documents (sporting regualtions, financial regualtions use One, the Formula One page on the FIA (governing body)'s website use One, the group of companies that hold shares in F1 are called the Formula One group, the official intro for F1 races (at least in 2018) where copyrighted to Formula One. Meanwhile the technical regualtions, other parts of the FIA's website and the sport's social media use 1. It seems that F1 can not decide within itself whether to official use 1 or One and I therefore reach the personal conclusion that there is insufficent evidence to suggest that 1 is the official name over One. SSSB (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, while it may be used that way in some instances most official documents (as SSSB has pointed out) use One over 1. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment How would you all feel if Formula 1 was the base article and you all wanted it to be called Formula One? Logo fixer (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
That statement is meaningless. I want is not a reason for change. WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies there. SSSB (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The previous discussion linked above showed the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. No one supporting this move has presented any evidence that has changed and, given the short amount of time since then, I doubt it has. Calidum 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't doubt that the Formula One Group prefers the use of "Formula 1" or "F1" as a brand (ironic given its name, and the fact that the commercial rights are vested in Formula One Licensing B.V.), but still a firm oppose from me because this article isn't about the sport as a brand, it's about the sport in its entirety. And since the sport IS the "FIA Formula One World Championship", that makes the title of the article perfectly correct (and sensible) to me. And even if it wasn't and it just came down to common usage, it would still be a coin toss. If you will allow me to use another example in contrast - the article about the British Broadcasting Corporation will always be called BBC because in common usage the latter is overwhelmingly used. Such a strong bias toward one term or the other does not exist here. Mark83 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - A former F1 logo reads "FIA Formula 1 World Championship": Logo fixer (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You'll note my argument didn't solely rest on what the FIA calls the sport. But just to answer the comment, stylistic decisions in logo design made in the 1980s aren't reason to change an article title in 2020.Mark83 (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, for reasons stated by others. Fecotank (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, a logo is not a brand. Halmyre (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as per previously raised arguments, but specifically those raised by SSSB - no new argument for change has been put forward. The logo in question also contains the text "world championship", but there's no suggestion to change the article to include that text as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose no evidence consensus has changed since last discussion. We shouldn't be basing decisions based on stylised logos, it's officially Formula One. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment Have you read my point that F1's website and social media pages are called "Formula 1"? Logo fixer (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes and logos don't define anything. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Well apparently you haven't. You still said logos don't define anything, and we understand that, but F1 still calls themselves Formula 1 on their website and social media! How many times should I repeat that? Logo fixer (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
"You still said logos don't define anything, and we understand that". Well, apparently you don't. And who's "we"? Britmax (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The way F1's social media pages called are not logos. we is me btwLogo fixer (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
No, but it's branding and the evidence suggests that the way their social media is branded isn't the official name. SSSB (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support: although there is a discrepancy in how the sport presents itself, I think the number is used more than the word in a wider context. Teams often have a full name that uses the number, such as "McLaren F1 Team"; events are always promoted using the number, such as "Rolex Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix"; even television listings use the number. The support and feeder series—events specifically created to develop driver talent—also use numbers, such as Formula 2 and Formula 3. The point of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopaedia, and so I have always felt that articles should be written in such a way that someone with no knowledge of the subject should be able to read an article and fully understand it once they finish. I say this because I think the sport is most recogniseable to people with no prior knowledge as "Formula 1", not "Formula One". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see how the names of Formula 2 or 3 have anything to do with this, they are not Formula One. SSSB (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"I fail to see how the names of Formula 2 or 3 have anything to do with this, they are not Formula One."
Because, as I said, it fits in the context of global open-wheel racing. Look at an article about a Formula 2 driver's ambitions to make it into Formula 1—it presents the sport as "Formula 1", not "Formula One". As Mark83 pointed out, "such a strong bias toward one term or the other does not exist here". If the sport and the governing body are inconsistent in how they present the sport, then we should widen the scope of the sources we are considering to include media, competitors, promoters, sponsors and other entities that are directly tied to the sport. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, firstly we have Formula Two, FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012) and FIA Formula 2 Championship. Two use the word, the other the number so that argument works both ways depending on which Formula 2/Two you consider. The one that was created as the feeder to F1 at the same time as F1 was created uses the word, the most interation (from 2017) being the only article which uses the number. Interestly we have one article about Formula Three (although all the sub articles appear to use the number). So again this goes both ways. SSSB (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition when you proposed this move with that argument in 2018 (albeit with an IP address) consensus was not found in favour of thisstatement. What's changed since then? SSSB (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB You only say that because you like it when the article is called Formula One in lieu of Formula 1, I see. Logo fixer (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I say it because it's true. The discussion is linked in my original oppose comment. What I "like" has nothing to do with it. SSSB (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"What's changed since then?"
I wasn't aware that I was not permitted to make the same arguments if the subject came up again, which seems odd given that consensus can change. Could you please highlight the policy that says I cannot use the argument? But, to answer your question, new people have joined the discussion. They may not be aware of the argument that I made and they may find it credible. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I have always felt that articles should be written in such a way that someone with no knowledge of the subject should be able to read an article and fully understand it once they finish.
A rename from Formula One to Formula 1 isn't going to change that is it? Formula 1, F1 and just about every other alternative already redirect to this article. If the article is confusing, then an edit of the text rather than a rename is required. Fecotank (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
"A rename from Formula One to Formula 1 isn't going to change that is it?"
You missed something. This is what I said:
"I have always felt that articles should be written in such a way that someone with no knowledge of the subject should be able to read an article and fully understand it once they finish. 'I say this because I think the sport is most recogniseable to people with no prior knowledge as 'Formula 1', not 'Formula One'."
I think it is far more likely that people with no knowledge of the sport will search for "Formula 1" rather than "Formula One". In future, I think you should read everything rather than take comments out of context. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I never said you couldn't make the same argument again, you can. But personally I feel that the last discusion (closed 18 months ago) that I don't see any reason why consensus would have changed unless you have new information which we were previously unaware of. The situation now is almost exactly the same as it was then (only know we have had another 42 races) and I don't see how you can expect consensus to have changed. SSSB (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
"I don't see how you can expect consensus to have changed."
That's putting the cart before the horse. You're suggesting that in order to establish a new consensus by making this argument, I first need the existing consensus to change and then I have to make the argument to change the consensus? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
What Fecotank was pointing out was that searching for Formula 1 will get you the same result as searching for Formula One and no reader is seriously going to think they reached the wrong article. And what I am actually saying is that its extremely unlikely that the consensus is going to have changed in such a short time. As stated in WP:CCCOn the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Now I am not suggesting that you or Logofixer are being disruptive. Logofixer probably didnt know about the previous consensus and you were just awnsering the question but it supports the fact that you cannot seriously expect consensus to change over such a short time span when nothing is available. SSSB (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
However, as I've said before, I've added some points that the previous consensus did not have. Logo fixer (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Do we really need so much back and forth on this? Can we let people state their opinion, vote, and then await for the result/consensus? Mark83 (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment reply - It's totally okay for mini arguments to happen in move discussions. Logo fixer (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I know discussion to get to a consensus can be good. I read some of the above as too argumentative, but that's just my opinion and as long as everyone is happy I am, just throwing my 2 cents in. Mark83 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mark83: maybe this needs an RfC rather than an RM. An RfC is open for longer and has a better chance of attracting more voices. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
And what I am actually saying is that its extremely unlikely that the consensus is going to have changed in such a short time.
In fairness, it was last discussed over 12 months ago, although not much has appeared to change in the intervening period. More of an annual groundhog day process that we go through to come back with the same result.
Do we really need so much back and forth on this?
Not really, but when one editor has a snipe at another, inevitably it will draw a response. Unless it results in editors changing their votes, which it appears not to have, all fairly pointless though.
An RfC is open for longer and has a better chance of attracting more voices.
Might help to prolong the discussion, but given that this one after 6 days is seemingly headed in the same direction as its predecessors, unlikely to change the outcome. Fecotank (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fecotank: - I agree with all of this. Mark83 (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fecotank: - As you said, Might help to prolong the discussion, but given that this one after 6 days is seemingly headed in the same direction as its predecessors, unlikely to change the outcome, there have been 2 people who supported this move, where one made the support June 2, another June 6, so there is likely going to be a support in a couple of days as well. Logo fixer (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hybrid engine for new F1 cars/Hh2452
I think the new rules usually mean new winners. Mercedes did such a good job in preparation for the current "hybrid era" of the sport (which began in 2014) that it has had no real competition at all until Ferrari caught up at the start of this season.
Thanks for this. Just a friendly note to say that talk pages aren't for use as a forum, but rather to "provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article". You raise an interesting possibility, but to be included in the article we'd need to reference an external source. Mark83 (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
