Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Content attribution

@DeFacto — the "calendar expansion" section is carried over from the 2019 article. I'd delete it from the 2019 article but I cannot because it's semi-protected (I did put in a semi-protected edit request asking for it to be deleted). I carried it over to this article because it seems more relevant here. The addition of Vietnam means that the calendar actually is expanding. Bits of the lead are lifted from the draft of the 2021 article and most of the rest comes from Draft:2020 Formula One World Championship. 1.129.109.116 (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Serghi1202, can you add which article(s), if any, you copied data from when creating this new article please, per WP:RIA. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto — I over-wrote the entire article shortly after Serghi1202 created it. 1.129.109.79 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as it's still all in the article history. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It would help if you told him what you wanted him to do. I'm not even sure that you know what you want him to do since your edit histories only allude to the need to make changes based on a hunch. This is what happens when you try to enforce policies that you don't understand. 1.129.109.79 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I refer you to my request above. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto — you're addressing someone who has 80 edits to his name, and judging by his edit history, English may not be his first language. You don't tell him exactly what you want him to post, where you want him to post it, or why you want him to do it. I'm not convinced that you know what, where and why you want to post, so I don't know how you can reasonably expect Serghi1202 to understand it. You cannot even explain the significance of WP:RIA, which tells me that you don't understand it yourself. 1.129.109.79 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I put a message on their talkpage asking for the info. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was copy of 2019 Formula One World Championship and Draft:2020 Formula One World Championship (which is mostly a copy of the 2019 article). As for calendar expansion, I removed it from 2019 season article, as it belongs here but not there. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

And I've asked for a history merge with the draft article that this was copy of. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the merge was done. We just need to wait and see if Serghi1202 included stuff from elsewhere too. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing markup

DeFacto, can you please slow down and read the policies that you are enforcing? It's obvious that you're rushing in because you're trying to fix a problem that the existing markup is already designed to fix and it's causing all sorts of accessibility issues for tablet and mobile readers. 1.129.109.172 (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The changes I have made are not wrt any policy, they are for accessibility and per MOS, nothing more. They haven't changed the appearance for regular readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You have cited the MOS in justifying your edits. The problem is that the MOS is a guideline, and as per WP:GUIDELINE:

"Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

I'd say that using an alternative markup that complies with policies without compromising accessibility for some readers qualifies as common sense. 1.129.109.172 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The previous markup, which you have now so unnecessarily restored, fails on the accessibility front, special readers cannot interpret and render it properly for users with accessibility issues, which is why I brought it more in line with the current accessibility guidelines. If accessibility is what you really want, then please restore the markup as I added it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility

MOS:ACCESS recommends, in its MOS:DTAB section, that as "Screen readers and other web browsing tools make use of specific table tags to help users navigate the data contained within them" that we should "Use the correct wikitable pipe syntax to take advantage of all the features available." The syntax provided is '|+' for the table title and '! scope="col" |' and '! scope="row" |' for column and row headers. And MOS:DTT recommends (with an example exactly like the situation in this article) "Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table". To this end, I updated the 'Entries' table in the article (in a fully commented sequence of 4 edits) to ensure maximum accessibility in this respect. IP 1.129.109.172 though, decided that improving accessibility per the guideline recommendations was "trying to fix a problem that does not exist". I'd like to hear how much importance other editors put on accessibility, and whether they think that these minor markup changes (unnoticeable through standard web browsers) should be restored, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, setting up a separate discussion on a subject that is already being discussed is pretty poor etiqutte. Especially since you don't acknowledge the existence of said discussion; an uninvolved editor could think this is the first time it has been discussed, and since you're asking for input, it looks like you're canvassing for support.

Secondly, the markup that you are looking to change was specifically designed to address the problem with headers that you are trying to fix without creating other accessibility issues. Which you would have known if you had asked about it, but once again, you charged in and assumed that the markup was unnecessarily complex and/or redundant and changed it in the name of a policy that you don't understand.

Next, the last time you did this, I pointed out that the series of edits removed key markup thst aided accesdibility. You were at pains to point out that you did not make the change in question, and yet your series of edits in this article (starting with this one) removed the very same markup parameter.

And finally, you spent an entire week trying to build a consensus and arguing the finer points of the policy. Yet for some reason you do not feel the need to bother with the process when it comes to markup, even though you're making wholesale changes to complex and carefully-constructed markup. Why is that? 1.144.109.163 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Headers and captions are not the same thing though. What's intended to be header and what's intended to be a caption needs to be properly formatted as such or else assistive technology won't work properly. The other markup you speak of (|style="background:#eaecf0; text-align:center"|) is intended to be used in cells which we want to highlight for some reason (i.e. points in a results table) but are neither headers nor captions.Tvx1 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

1.144.109.163, you are missing the point of accessibility. It isn't about sortability or simply to do with appearance, it is about using the correct markup to represent structures in the created html. That is why it is important to use the appropriate markup for concepts such as captions and headers. There is a short tutorial on this precise subject which might help you to understand this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And you are missing the point that when you are making wholesale changes to complex markup, you should at the very least outline the changes you want to make on the talk page. 1.144.109.128 (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Multi-year deals

There are clear difference between multi-year deals. If source names certain period. It is okay to keep the driver in the table. Russell and Sirotkin have not any certain periods of their contracts. It mean that team has an option for extending contract. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The team have specified a "multi-year deal". They have not specified the term, but nor have they said it is one year plus an option. We can only go by what the sources say. 1.129.109.64 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop removing Russell. A multiple-year deal starting in 2019 at very least includes in 2019&2020. That's the bare minimum it needs to be multiple-year deal.Tvx1 17:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Sirotkin, it seems pretty clear that a clause in the contract was activated to unseat him. SMP Racing say they pulled funding for a lack of progress in the car's development. The situation is not comparable to Russell's. Unless you can demonstrate that Russell's contract is for one year plus an option which must be activated, we have to take "multi-year deal" to mean "at least two years". 1.129.107.140 (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Multi-year means at least 2 years, so does apply to 2020. Most, if not all contracts, are likely to have performance based get out clauses that both driver and team can activate, but unless Russell's is reported as a one year deal with the second year an option, then it is WP:SYNTH to assume that the contract doesn't cover 2020. Fecotank (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

FOPA criticism of Liberty

I have wound back some of the detail on the FOPA statement for a few reasons:

1. The status of new rounds was only one part of FOPA's concerns.
2. Not every member of FOPA signed the statement; only sixteen of them supported it
3. Stewart Pringle and the BRDC commented on the Silverstone situation quite separately to the FOPA statement.
4. Silverstone's contract needs to be renegotiated this year, so Pringle's comments could be a negotiating tactic—the BRDC always did like shouting "the sky is falling!" when they were unhappy (which is every day of the week ending with the letter Y).
5. The BRDC's comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Chase Carey could walk on water across Sydney Harbour and the BRDC would criticise him for not paying the toll.

In short, upon reflection I felt that while the FOPA statement needed to be mentioned, it over-emphasised the Silverstone situation. Reading between the lines of the statements from the Russians and the Mexicans, the cynic in me wonders if the BRDC wasn't using FOPA to make their point about Silverstone as Pringle is the chairman of FOPA and the BRDC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: re your second point, it seems that, according to a Reuters report of the same story ([1]), FOPA only represent sixteen races - neither Russia, Monaco, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi or Japan are members. Of the sixteen members only Mexico seem to disagree with FOPA's stance on this, and of the non-members Russia have spoken out against FOPA. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m really doubting the relevance of the full explanation of the entire calendar expansion plan of Liberty Media and its criticism to the 2020 championship in particular. I’d say that belongs more in the articles on Liberty Media and on Formula One in general. What’s relevant here is the addition of the Vietnam Grand Prix and the Netherlands pushing for a 2020 race of their own.Tvx1 14:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The details provide context. There is a definite shift towards a street circuit model; Hanoi, Miami and Copenhagen all put forward street circuits and the Dutch were looking at one, too before they settled on Zandvoort/Assen. Then there is the political element of how Liberty manages existing races that are out of contract for 2020—most notably Silverstone—and how that shapes the calendar. The Mexican government has already slashed funding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't provide context to the running of the 2020 championship. The Argentine Grand Prix was raised as candidate for the 2019 championship. No information is known about it still being pushed for the 2020 championship. The Finland Grand Prix never even made a bid, contrary to this article's claims, they just announce a feasibility study and nothing new is known since. Likewise Kopenhagen, where they only had a study which concluded in race not being feasible. Miami doesn't have a 2020 contract either. And the criticism of Liberty Media's plans belongs on the article of, well, Liberty Media. If a races gets axed between the 2019 and 2020 calendars, we'll mention that. Assumed fears that some might be dropped though have little relevance. There is just a collection of too many details and events, many of which are not relevant here and some of which are plainly wrong, mixed with quite some synthesis on the article on the running of one championship. An article on one future F1 world championship is not a dumping ground for information on all long-term plans and idea's for the future of Formula One in its entirety. I feel that this paragraph can be considerably rewritten so that it is changed in to something with direct relevance to the 2020 championship.Tvx1 13:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"I feel that this paragraph can be considerably rewritten so that it is changed in to something with direct relevance to the 2020 championship."

And I feel that you can do more than sit on the sidelines giving orders—like some idea of what you want rewritten and how it could be improved. Because without it, I'll just be guessing and we both know that you will think whatever I do is wrong. So until such time as you start making actual suggestions, I'm going to ignore you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have given already given my suggestions above. Move the general criticism of Liberty Media's approach to their article, remove the races that weren't proposed for 2020 specifically and certainly those for which only a feasibility study was made without ever making any proper sort of bid and move the detailed explanation on th "destination races" approach to the Formula One article. And you cannot ignore talk page discussion and keep blindly reverting to your preferred version. There are policies on Wikipedia you have to follow.Tvx1 10:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"I have given already given my suggestions above."

You claimed the article contained synthesis, but did not cite a single example.

"move the detailed explanation on th "destination races" approach to the Formula One article"

Your edits removed the explanation, but kept the term. Given that you did not specifically address the use of the term in a comment that you had made two months previously and had not addressed since, it was reasonable to conclude that you did not have any issue with it.

"you cannot ignore talk page discussion and keep blindly reverting to your preferred version"

You do it all the time. You know what I learned from that discussion? All I have to do is say "there is no consensus and the discussion is still going" and I can do what I want.

"There are policies on Wikipedia you have to follow"

Strangely enough, I couldn't find WP:DONTARUGEANDGIVETVX1WHATHEWANTS. But even if such a policy did exist, I would WP:IGNORE it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Finland planning to make a bid for a 2020 race was synthesis. They only did a feasibility study. Likewise they inclusion of Miami and Kopenhagen as proposed 2020 races was synthesis. And no I have no problem with the term "destination races". I have a problem with the undue attention it gets here. The proposed Dutch Grand Prix is hardly such a "destination" race. That location is picked because of its F1 history. The term doesn't merit more than a short mention of the concept here. The rest of you reply is one of your typical rants full of accusations of bad faith whenever things don't go the way you like it. I won't bother to address that part.Tvx1 13:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"The term doesn't merit more than a short mention of the concept here"

Your problem is that it's exactly that: a concept. It's an abstract idea created by Liberty and one that you cannot reasonably assume the reader will be familiar with. Hence it needs an explanation of some kind. It would be like describing the introduction of the MGU-H without detailing what the MGU-H is. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In such a case we would just put a full descriptive name followed by MGU-H between brackets rather than using multiple sentences to explain the full detailed working mechanics and components of a MGU-H (which would be put into a more in-depth article). We should follow a comparable approach here. At present it's overstated in this article. It's a rough, long-term concept not dedicated specifically to the 2020 championship. And not every calendar change is a consequence of it. They also cleary intend to revive some historic races, which they did with the French Grand Prix at Paul Ricard and which they are trying to do with the Dutch Grand Prix at Zandvoort.Tvx1 19:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Lance Stroll 2020 contract

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/formula1/49529336 NitrousLotus (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y added.
SSSB (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Source number 24 (at the moment)

There is a mistake. Someone must fix it.--95.234.111.87 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that out.
SSSB (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!--95.234.111.87 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Entries Change

It should be easier for users to get the necessary information faster as a user probably won't understand an entry name difference or the difference between one Mercedes engine and another. JamesVilla44 (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Calendar changes

The United States and Mexican Grands Prix (Mexico City Grand Prix on 2020) swapped places on the calendar so that the Mexico City Grand Prix round follows the United States, as of 2018 calendar. I think this information has to insert in calendar changes section. Only on 2019 season Formula One had the MEX round ahead of the USA round.--82.53.45.106 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I at least am going to need some persuasion that this change is notable for mention. The events are still at the same time of year, late October to early November, this is like mentioning that the Bahrain Grand Prix takes place 1 week after Australia instead of 2. I'm sorry but the Mexican and American rounds swapping places is completely inconsequential and therefore, in my opinion, not notable for mention.
SSSB (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks however, you're welcome.--82.53.45.106 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This appears to have become a tradition. USA and Mexico swap positions nearly every year.Tvx1 18:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2019

Daniil Kvyat to Alpha Tauri for 2020 https://beyondtheflag.com/2019/10/03/formula-1-daniil-kvyat-confirmed-2020-helmut-marko/ Indynasf1racer (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Indynasf1racer:  Not done Marko later (28 October) said that Kvyat was still under consideration for the Red Bull seat. This can be seen in the article through (at time of writting) ref 18.
SSSB (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Entrant and constructor columns

I really don't see the need for separate "Entrant" and "Constructor" columns. The only thing the Entrant column adds is title sponsors, and there are only four—Mission Winnow, Petronas, SportPesa and ROKiT. The only times the title sponsors are regularly used are in press releases/statements made by the team, which are self-published sources. The vast majority of third-party sources (such as this one) refer to (for example) Ferrari as "Ferrari", not "Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow". The only times sponsor names are routinely used in third-party sources are a) when a new title sponsor is announced or b) when there is some controversy around that sponsor such as Rich Energy or Mission Winnow, which only have passing relevance to an article like this. I think we'd be better off cutting the "Entrant" column and moving the flags to the "Constructor" column. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

We had this discussion a a short time ago here and here with a consensus not to remove that column. As much as I agree with you I cannot help but feel you are flogging a dead horse.
SSSB (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand that this has been settled and isn't really on the table at the moment, but can either of you explain to me why you'd recommend removing this information? Why you would go out of your way to make Wikipedia worse and less comprehensive? Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: On reflection I think I understand where your confusion lies:

• Entrant names are a field in the official FIA entry list, which is the primary and most important source of information for the Entries table in each season article. Entrant names are not usually sourced from teams. That said...
• Team websites and press releases are not self-published sources. If you read that article more carefully you would understand it to refer to individuals self-publishing information about themselves. In no way does it refer to the official websites of organizations and companies. Team websites and press releases are considered to be the most reliable sources. For instance, the only source we would use for a team signing a driver would be the FIA or the team itself.

Hope that helps. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lazer-kitty: I'm not in the least bit confused. One of the columns is redundant. The entrant might be the name that appears on the entry list, but the constructor name is the name used most commonly. As there are no radical differences between entrant name and constructor name, the entrant name could reasonably be cut. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: They are objectively not redundant, so yes, you are confused. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It is redundent as the entrant column and construcotr column tell us exactly the same thing the only difference is the entrant column includes the title sponser. Tthese days each entrant is required to build there own chassis (2018 was an exception as Racing Point bought the Force India chassis, meaning Force India could no longer use it)
SSSB (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a debate. They are literally and objectively two different pieces of information. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't mean the both columns are needed.
SSSB (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Doesn't mean the both columns are needed, the debate is "Are both columns needed"-You think yes, Mclarenfan17 and I think no. However I respect the 2 previous discussions and wont argue further as I see consensus doesn't support my view.
SSSB (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to stop replying to you now because this is a pointless conversation driven by two editors inherently misunderstanding the data this page displays. Please don't assume this means there is consensus for you to change the page. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lazer-kitty: well, as of right now we have two editors in agreement that the columns are redundant and one editor who insists otherwise and refuses to participate further until those two editors agree with him. That sounds like the makings of a consensus to me. We don't need your permission to form a consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

As said SSSB we already had two discussions, both of them ended without consensus for removing the entrant column. Don't see how the third discussion differs from the previous two with just one user who really eager to remove it. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was worth a shot because the controversy over Rich Energy and e-cigarette sponsorship has died down. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Orlen

I have changed "Alfa Romeo ORLEN Racing" to "Alfa Romeo Orlen Racing" per the Manual of Style on trademarks. The company sponsoring the team is PKN Orlen; they merely stylise the name as ORLEN in their logos. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. This should filter down into the Alfa Romeo Racing article as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 Regulation changes

A full view for what is new in 2020 season. Something good statements could be add in Regulation changes section for the page.--79.41.45.156 (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I plan on doing that at soe point after my exams (they finish Saturday). In the mean time feel free to be WP:BOLD and do it yourself.
SSSB (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll plan to do this, but I am not able to confirm that it's surely I'll write something. :) I have added it to have a look for expert users, like you, to add important topics for the new 2020 season.--79.41.45.156 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done - although Shark fins are so minor I didn't mention them)
SSSB (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. :)--79.34.216.248 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support series

Why "We should just limit it to open-wheel spec series"? Porsche Supercup also supports F1 at the sufficient part of the Grand Prix. For the record: I agree that it is pointless to add W Series, Formula Renault Eurocup, ADAC Formula 4, etc due to lack of the joint events. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A support series should be any series that follows Formula One around from event to event, sharing the majority of their calendars, not one that just is on the billing for one or two singular events. Supercup definitely is conjoined with Formula One. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Corvus tristis and The359. Super cup should be mentioned. W series definitely shouldn't.
SSSB (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

F2 and F3 were created as part of the FIA Global Pathway. The idea is to have a linear pathway from karting to F1. That's why F2 and F3 were added to that template—to show the relationship between the series, which is more than "races being run on the same weekend as a GP". I cannot think of a single driver who went from the Supercup to F1 (or even from Supercup to F2 or F3). Looking at some of the Supercup articles, it seems most of the drivers who might be known went from F2 or F3 to Supercup. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The template doesn't say FIA Global Pathway, it says Support Series. Porsche Supercup is a support series for Formula One. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Then maybe we should change "Support series" to "FIA Global Pathway". Considering that F2 and F3 have a much closer, much more relevant relationship to Formula 1, adding the Supercup to the list opens the door to adding other series—like the W Series and the TCR Asia Pacific Cup—to the list. The line between what gets added and what does not has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the lack of a relationship to F1 beyond racing on a GP weekend means the Supercup should not be included. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

But we've already discussed criteria for inclusion. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit premature to be declaring a discussion over based on comments made in the first six hours, don't you think? How about you at least give people the chance to find the discussion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

But the "FIA Global Pathway" 2020 series are completely unrelated to the 2020 F1 season, linking to the 2020 F4 championship would not be appropriate as none of the events are in conjunction, the only cross over between the 2 is that they are both FIA sanctioned. The term support series means racing series which are hosted together with F1 events, linking to those is appropriate as all or the majority of events are hosted in conjuction with F1 events or a significant number of F1 events also have races for that series taking part. W series doesn't qualify as W seires races are only taking part at 2 GP. Porsche Supercup is clearly a support series as Porsce Supercup races will be supported by/support F1 races at 8 events, just over a third. I see no rational reaseon to change the link to FIA global Pathway, nor to exclude Porsche Supercup.
SSSB (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I'm suggesting that we change "support series" to something else.

Supercars articles frequently use what might be called a "parent article", most frequently in years when there are non-championship races. These include a summary of the championship, plus details of all Supercars racing that took place outside the championship. Something similar could work here, such as "2020 in the FIA Global Pathway", with links to all F1, F2, F3 and F4 articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already explained why I am opposed to such an idea above but let me do so again. Firstly you've given no reason why support series should be removed, you've only explained why you think that FIA Global Pathway championships should be added. Now I would be opposed to add links to the FIA Global Pathway championships to the infobox because what happens in the 2020 F4 Argentina Championship has no effect on what happens in the 2020 Formula One World Championship or vice versa, unless it were pointed out to them most people wouldn't even realise they are connected through any kind of initiative. Further, the Championships which form a part of it seem to be arbitarly choosen. If there was an article 2020 in the FIA Global Pathway I would be more than happy for that to be linked in the infobox alongside the support series. However I am opposed to the idea of 2020 in the FIA Global Pathway becuase no reliable secondry source summarises what happens in the FIA global pathway for any given year, therefore if we were to do that it would constitute WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: the title was just a suggestion. What I'm envisioning is an article that provides a summary or overview of all F1, F2, F3 and F4 racing in a calendar year, like the old Formula Renault articles (like this, but more comprehensive). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The title article is not my concern, you can call it what you want my rational for not supporting still holds.

What happens in 2020 F4 season has no impact on the 2020 F1 season. And if you don't keep it to FIA global pathway then not only would be article concept be original research (no reliable secondry source, that I know of, summarises F1-F4 for the calendar year) but your cut off would also be original research, why isn't Formula Renault include in your summary article? If you do use FIA global pathway events as the inclusion criterea then the article title would have to reflect this, you wouldn't be able to call 2020 in open-wheel racing for example. (and don't WP:LAWYER me by pointing out that you wouldn't call it that becase of Indycar, its just an example)
SSSB (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: Formula Renault is not part of the Global Pathway. Also, "FIA Global Pathway" is its name, not "FIA global pathway". I have no idea why you moved it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you moved it. - WP:LOWERCASE.
Formula Renault is not part of the Global Pathway. - that's exactly the point I am trying to make, you want to create a report of all the championships of an initiative where all the championships are run indepently of each other and the championships which form a part of this initiative (which is effectilvly a PR stunt) are arbitarly choosen as being the route the FIA would like future F1 drivers to take despite there being many other pathways they could take. Additionally, the idea of summarising all the championships in one article appears to be your original idea making such an article WP:OR. I don't how this can justifable be an article.
SSSB (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the title of a program, like the Red Bull Young Driver Program or the Ferrari Driver Academy. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, every source I can find uses "Global Pathway" rather than "global pathway". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think any motorsport series accompanying F1 and sharing 50% or more of its calendar with the F1 calendar should be considered a support series. One could, for example, envisage a series that was confined to just the European leg of the F1 calendar, and another confined to just the Americas. But if the series is mostly separate from the F1 calendar and only shares a few dates, it should not be considered a support series. Obviously we have no article or reliable source defining exactly what a "support series" is, so this is just my view; however, I think it is a workable formula that could be applied across all forms of motorsport. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this, except that I think "50% or more" should instead be "over 50%", i.e. the majority of its calendar, the reason being that 50% or more would, for example, qualify the 2008-09 and 2009-10 GP2 Asia seasons as support categories, but not the 2008 and 2011 seasons. -- Nineixsixine (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I mean 50% or more of the support series calendar, not the F1 calendar. And the distinction between "50% or more" and "over 50%" is only relevant when there is an even number of races. I think we err on the side of inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So have we reached a formal consensus on this yet? Right now it looks like it's 5-1 in favour of including PSC.

I also think Formula BMW Europe should be added to the 2008/09/10 pages since it was a junior single-seater championship that supported F1 at most rounds. -- Nineixsixine (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nineixsixine: consensus is not a vote. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

And yet a consensus doesn't require unanimous agreement. In the absence of a unanimous agreement it is perfectly acceptable to identify the consensus as being the opinion of the vast majority of editors as is the case here. Othwise discussions can continue indefinitly.
SSSB (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: I'm aware of that, but I also noticed that Nineixsixine has less than 200 edits and may not be fully aware of how a consensus is formed. Thinking of it as a vote is a common enough error among inexperienced editors. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I just point out a problem here?

I think any motorsport series accompanying F1 and sharing 50% or more of its calendar with the F1 calendar should be considered a support series.

When the sport introduced custom numbers in 2014, we had to find a way of organising the driver table in a logical manner as the numbers were no longer sequential abd it was agreed that this organisation had to be obvious to the reader. Some people wanted to arranged the 2014 driver table based on the 2013 WCC standings, but this idea was rejected because a) the order was not obvious and b) someone would have to read the 2013 article to understand the organisation of the 2014 article.

I think the same problem applies here because it's not obvious why Porsche Supercup is included, but something like the W Series is not. Furthermore, someone would have to read 2020 Porsche Supercup and 2020 W Series to understand why one is here and the other is not (and even then, this "at least 50% of the category's calendar has to be in support of a Grand Prix to be included"). To further complicate things, the W Series offers superlicence points whereas the Porsche Supercup does not. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a problem no matter what series we decide should qualify for the support series calendar. If we include Formula 2 but exclude Porsche Supercup then that decision isn't obvious either. And if someone looked at Porsche Supercup and F2 calendars then they would think Porshce Supercup was excluded because it feautures at 8/8 rounds rather than 12/12 (or 9/9 for F3) which isn't the reason for exclusion. W Series offering superlicence points and Porsche Supercup not is irrelevant as offering superlicence points is unrelated to being a support series, and most people will be unaware of this fact anyway.
SSSB (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem because the names of the respective championships show their relationship. You've got "Formula 1" and "Formula 2" (and "Formula 3"). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in to this discussion fairly late on, but I cannot understand why the W Series should not be listed as a support series when this reference from Formula 1 directly says that the SERIES will be part of the SUPPORT bill? I mean, to me, that is pretty black and white. I can't really comment on the supercup but the W-series for sure should be listed regardless of how many calendar dates they share. MetalDylan (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the template is meant to indicate support series for the entire season. If you didn't cut off that quote you would note that it ends with "at the United States and Mexico City Grands Prix" - just two races. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why not have Supercars, the TCR Asia Pacific Cup and S5000 as well? They're all running in support of a Grand Prix. And that's just one Grand Prix—there's probably dozens of minor categories that run on the support bill of at least one race.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and it really should be after Formula 3. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Aston Martin

According to the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51323241, Lawrence Stroll and his consrtium have brought out Aston Martin. So will Racing Point be rebranded as Aston Martin and will Aston Martin continue to sponsor Red Bull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICryOverSpiltMilk (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@ICryOverSpiltMilk: Racing point will be rebranded as Aston Martin for 2021. Aston Martin will continue to sponsor Red Bull this year but won't do so next year. Hope this clears it up.
SSSB (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Racing Point

There's been a spate of edit warring over the Racing Point F1 team name. Can we get some clarification over what it is meant to be? This press article on their website clearly states it should be BWT Racing Point F1 Team. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I have cited that source in the table as Racing Point could not have made it more obvious that this is the new name.
SSSB (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The entrant name, not just for Racing Point, but for everyone else is all going to come down when the entry list for Australia is released in about a month. No point in having an edit war, let's just keep it what the source says. The entry list is clear, just a month is all we need. Admanny (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Grand Prix

I've noticed that over the last 24 hours rumours have emerged that the Chinese Grand Prix has been cancelled. This has provoked some back and forth editing on this article. While indeed organizing sporting events in Shanghai has been suspended at this moment, the Chinese Grand is scheduled for eight weeks from now and we cannot simply assume that the suspension will still be in place at that point. So far, I have not found any reliable source from FIA, FOM or the grand prix's organizers announcing that the grand prix has been cancelled or postponed. So at this moment we can't state in this article that it has been. However there is serious doubt it will take place and I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to include a sentence in the prose underneath the calendar explaining the current uncertainty?Tvx1 19:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think any prose is needed. If a GP is canceled, we would know. There is no need to have Wikipedia be updated immediately just because some outside institutions might mention it earlier. Theoretically, we could claim that every sporting event in China for the next few years is canceled just because current events are canceled, but that is silly. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's leave things as they are for the time being. As things stand, nothing has changed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above. There is no need for a note on the uncertainty. We can leave it as it is until we get official confirmation.
SSSB (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid though that doing nothing is going to allow the disruptive edits to continue. Therefore I have asked for semi-protection of the article in the hope that that will stabilize things somewhat.Tvx1 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The entire calendar *as a whole* is meant to follow the FIA's scheduling and should not be based on rumors. I agree we should not touch it until they make a decision or not, then we can remove it if it is indeed cancelled like Bahrain 2011 from F1 2011. Admanny (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to strike through the row instead (or just the original date if it gets postponed) to indicate that it was part of the official calendar. Otherwise it might suggested that it was not put on the official calendar because of the virus outbreak which would be inaccurate. Doing it one way 9 years ago doesn't mean we have to follow the same way again.
SSSB (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest doing that *only* if it gets postponed, like Sanya over at 2019-20 Formula E season. If a race is cancelled I think it's best to entirely remove the row, because at the end of the season we'd want to only have races that were run, even if they may not be completed like Malaysia 2009, on the list. Admanny (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am 99% positive that a strikethrough does not follow the Wikipedia manual of style and should not be used in this way. In the event of a cancelation the information should either be deleted or denoted in some other way. However, I lean toward outright deletion for simplicity, with an explanation of why in prose. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You can stike through text in articles as stated at Help:Wikitext#Show deleted or inserted text. It states that it can be used when discussing removed content which is what we will be doing. But I am open to denoting it in another way.

I would prefer to keep it in the table and denote its cancellation in some way. I feel that the table should list the races which were listed on the official calendar and then we denote those races which were cancelled. I also feel that more emphasis should be placed on the late cancellation of the Chinese Grand Prix than on the introduction of the Vietnamese or Dutch Grands Prix or the so-called "destination model" (which would reflect sources).
SSSB (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The section of the guide page you linked to, deals with talk page comments, not article content. Striking through inside articles is really not done.Tvx1 14:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Quoting from that page However, when the article itself discusses deleted or inserted content, such as an amendment to a statute:

• It is best to indicate deleted content using the strike-through markup <del>...</del> - although it is not done frequently it can be done. Anyway if you don't like this method we can always use another. I just thought it would be the clearest.
  SSSB (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

So at this point it appears to be a matter of two things, what to do when a GP is postponed, as we discussed using strikethroughs, either through the entire row or just the date itself, and what to do when a GP is cancelled, either striking through the entire row or removing it entirely.

I am personally in favor of having the table look clean, so I would strike through just the date should it be postponed, and remove the entire row should it be cancelled. If it does get postponed, we can always adjust the round numbers should they also need to move up. Admanny (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, after completing some tests in User:SSSB/sandbox/GP cancellation I think I am going to withdraw my idea of striking through the whole entry, but only because if you strike through a bolded 4 you can't tell its been struk through at all. I would still support keeping it in the table but I'll have to do some brainstorming on how to making it really obvious that this is the case to everyone. I tried highlighting it which I think works quite well. If anyone comes with any other ideas please mention them. To expand on Admanny's I think it would be silly to strike through the entire entry if it gets postponed, just the date will do. I support keeping the race entry there in the event of cancellation for the reasons I mentioned above. I would invite you to take a look at my expirementation at User:SSSB/sandbox/GP cancellation, any comments are welcome (even the negative ones).
SSSB (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Striking through is also an accessibility issue. There are number of readers who aren't aware of font variations. Let's just deal with this like we dealt with the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix (which was first postponed and later cancelled) and the 1997 Potuguese Grand Prix.Tvx1 21:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added a new suggestion to User:SSSB/sandbox/GP cancellation. Coloring the entire row red looks very glaring to the user and thus I oppose. I've went ahead and made it grayed out with everything italicized, race date cancelled and leading to a note with more info. More importantly, I still support removing the entire row, but I am open to putting it something like this. Admanny (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also added a version to SSSB's sandbox. I have called it "WRC style" because it is modelled on the WRC articles; two rallies (2019 Rally Australia and 2020 Rally Chile) have recently been cancelled. Thought it might be useful to show how it is done there.

It's worth remembering that the calendar isn't the only thing affected—the season summary and results matrices are also affected, and this has been a point of contention among rallying editors. Rally Australia was only cancelled a week before it was due to take place; the teams had arrived and were setting up. However, Rally Chile was cancelled months in advance. This has created an unusual situation where Rally Australia is in the 2019 season summary and results matrices, but Rally Chile is not in those tables in the 2020 article. For what it's worth, I think the difference is largely procedural and probably lost on your average article reader. It's worth mentioning here it's something that we need to take into consideration: if the Chinese GP is cancelled, should we include it in the summary and results matrices as well? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: the stricking through accessability issue can be easily dealt with simply by adding a character which screen readers can detect, such as an asterix, to the row. Both Mclarenfan17's and Admanny's solutions are better than mine and I am happy to have either of them implemented.
SSSB (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

All this discussion is unnecessary. If the FIA revises its calendar to exclude the Chinese Grand Prix, we simply remove the entry and mention what happened in the prose somewhere. Also, the coronavirus is serious enough that the Chinese Grand Prix may not be the only one race excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This was originally my suggestion and still is what I support. Postpone, strikethrough just the date, nothing else. Cancel, remove the entire row. I know I've made suggestions to keep the row should it be cancelled on behalf of SSSB, but that's an alternative route I'm willing to take.

Anyway, this discussion as a whole went from rumors about cancellation/postponement of the Chinese GP (which we all agreed to do nothing until FIA confirms) to what should we do if it gets postponed or cancelled. Ah, the hypocrisy. So it appears here that we've come to consensus on what to do if a GP is postponed? Everyone seems to agree on striking through just the date and moving up round numbers if necessary. What to do when a GP is cancelled appears to still be up for discussion. Admanny (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I actually see a number of users who have voiced their concern with any case of striking through content. I would actaully prefer to simply replace the dates with the word "postponed". That's much more simple and has no accessibility issues. I really don't see the necessity of keeping the original dates partially visible. We can deal with that in the prose.Tvx1 19:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Admanny:

So it appears here that we've come to consensus on what to do if a GP is postponed?

We re-write the calendar. Say China is postponed until a week before Japan—we simply move it from its current position in the calendar to its new position and explain how the change came about in the prose. We shouldn't be leaving the original date in the calendar because a) it is more appropriate to explain the change through the prose and b) tables should support prose, not replace it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Your comment up to b) is simply your opinion, please stop expressing your opinions as though they are fact. Evidently it is not an opinion everyone shares. No-one has suggested that we do anything related to b. We are simply discussing how much information in the table is too much. You've misunderstood what we are trying to do. In my mind no matter how we display the potponment/cancellation in the calendar, the prose will be the same regardless.
SSSB (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not just an opinion. They're simply describing what we did last time a Grand Prix was cancelled shortly before the season started.Tvx1 23:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB:

No-one has suggested that we do anything related to b.

I'm simply drawing on MOS:TABLE as a reminder going forward:

Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.

I'm just concerned that there is an attitude—and I am noticing this across the spectrum of WP:MOTOR—where tables are being used instead of prose. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Evergreen comment, where Formula One articles are concerned. The topic is blighted by overcomplicated tables compiled by a small cadre of editors obsessed with trying to render every conceivable detail in table form. I've tried to push back from time to time, but I've never managed to get anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't think the calendar is overly complicated. The round number, the grand prix, the location and the date are the bare minimum of what we should include in a calendar. Anyway, I have pointed out throughout the discussion that we should not overcomplicate things. If the Chinese Grand Prix is postponed, replace the date by the word postponed and explain the full situation in the prose.Tvx1 22:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"At the moment everything looks like we are going to China."

— Toto Wolff to Motorsport

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has died down a bit. The original intent of this discussion was how to deal with the Chinese GP rumors, which we all agreed to not do anything until FIA confirms something else. Let us figure out how to deal with a postponement/cancellation when time comes to it. Admanny (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

how to deal with the Chinese GP rumors

That's easy. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's the media to state the Chinese Grand Prix is "postponed". Lustigson (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This news has been added to the article with the date replaced with postponed.
SSSB (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with it in prose

I think two things need to be addressed in the prose:

1. The decision was made for logistical reasons. Freight that needed to go to Shanghai was due to be shipped out this week. The coronavirus prompted the postponement, but it was not a case of "we're worried about an outbreak in Shanghai".
2. There is quite some distance between Wuhan and Shanghai. While the outbreak in Wuhan is spiking, it is being contained elsewhere. We can't imply that the virus is in Shanghai. I suggest we rephrase "2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" to "COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak". WHO guidelines on naming new viruses stress avoiding tying the virus to a specific place, people or industry after pork farmers suffered a hit from swine flu (which was renamed H1N1).

I just can't find a wording that I like. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The decision was made for logistical reasons. - no it wasn't. The decision was made in February for logistical reasons.
but it was not a case of "we're worried about an outbreak in Shanghai" - you're right, it was a case of "we're worried about an outbreak in China. But as Shanghai is in China it comes to the same thing. Further Shanghai has 311 Cornavirus incidents and supposedly the city is at a standstill. The situation might not be anywhere near as bad as Wuhan but it is still serious, a lot more serious than any place outside of China.

However, I am in agreement with your second point, but, I think the current wording works just fine. The only thing I would say is that I don't see why it is necessary to state why they made the decision when they did (i.e. how does The decision to postpone the race was made in February 2020 so as to allow teams to redirect their infrastructure for races outside Europe that needed to be shipped to other events. add to the article). To the reader of this article it doesn't matter when the postponemnt was made (assuming it wasn't after the preceding round) and therefore they don't need to know the rational of why a decsion was made in mid-February.
SSSB (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To the reader of this article it doesn't matter when the postponemnt was made (assuming it wasn't after the preceding round) and therefore they don't need to know the rational of why a decsion was made in mid-February.

I included it for two reasons:

1. As you pointed out, it's not just the outbreak—it's the outbreak and the logistics of shipping stuff all over the world. If we just limit the article to "it was postponed because of the coronavirus", then I think the article is misleading.
2. As I mentioned earlier, this was an issue in WRC articles. How do we represent a postponement or cancellation if it happens before the season starts? And does that get handled differently if the postponement or cancellation happens when teams are in the country? Since no-one really answered it when I raised it, I thought it best to err on the side of caution.

I'm happy to keep discussing it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I think you misunderstood (or I misunderstood you). My understanding is that when they made the decision to postpone logisitics where not taken into account. Rather logisitics were only taken into account when they made the decsion on when the decision should be made (i.e. logisitics were only taken into account when they decided to make a decision in February) However, in my mind, the reader doesn't need to know when a decision was made a therefore they don't need to why a decision was in February. Only that a decison was made a some point. Therefore I don't think that putting "it was postponed because of the coronavirus" would be misleading at all. Rather completely accurate.

You're second point is a very fair question but I think it best to focus on one issue at a time. We have plenty of time to discuss that before any news of a cancellation will reach us. But let's pray it doesn't come to that. China is one of the better rounds on the calendar.
SSSB (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SSSB here. They made the decision because of the virus. As the sources say, the organizers actually requested the postpomnent themselves and F1 agreed. It wasn't F1 who initiated the decision. And the decision was made mainly out of concern for their human resources, not so much logistics. They were mostly concerned about risking the health of the people that would have had to travel there weeks before the GP to start the preparations.Tvx1 17:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

References

So where are with this issue with the prose?Tvx1 18:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, @Mclarenfan17: hasn't responded to our latest point. It's up to him (or someone else) to continue arguing for it to hold its place in prose. If we don't hear anything I say we remove it.
SSSB (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is my response: dual-axis steering killed whatever interest I had in the championship (that interest was already on life support). So I don't care. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear that all we need to say in the prose is that the Chinese Grand Prix was postponed because of the virus outbreak. No other details are relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Team and driver changes

Why don't we implement @Mclarenfan17:'s idea about covering not only the changes but every driver contract info? It will help to understand subject of the article without visiting previous seasons articles or driver articles. It works fine here (Zhou, Aitken, Schumacher). Corvus tristis (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Driver contracts should be covered on the driver articles, or perhaps on the articles of the associated teams. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I see the statement but it doesn't contain any argument why it should be dealt in a such way. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2020 season, whereas contracts are not (or at least rarely) specific to any particular season. Moreover, if you open the door to driver contracts then what of other significant personnel such as team principals and FIA officials? No, I do not think this sort of information is a good fit for the season-specific articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see the benefit of editing sentences for every driver just to state that they stayed with their teams.Tvx1 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too difficult to do. For example: "Ferrari retained Sebastian Vettel and Charles Leclerc, while McLaren re-signed Carlos Sainz, Jnr. to partner Lando Norris".

if you open the door to driver contracts then what of other significant personnel such as team principals and FIA officials?

@Scjessey: you don't think those are relevant? McLaren had Andreas Siedl replace Eric Boullier and attribute their success in 2019 to that decision. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

They are more relevant to the articles of the individuals concerned, or the articles of the constructor. Contracts are rarely specific to a year. There's nothing wrong with mentioning such things in passing, but they should not form a permanent part of the season articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey. I still don't see the benefit of this proposal.Tvx1 17:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If Driver X competed for Team Y in Year Z, then that is relevant to the Year Z article. To omit it from the prose, but leave it in the table amounts to having the table do the job of the prose, which is not what the tables are for. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no mention of contracts in the table, so your statement is factually inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Contract is not the point. The point is that the table is supplementary to prose. We haven't any mention about the Driver X in Team Y in prose, we have it only in table. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not factually accurate either. We have an entire section on driver changes in the prose. We need only say what has changed from the previous year. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As you said, the "entire section on driver changes in the prose" covers only changes, but not covers all Drivers amd Teams in prose. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need to cover all of them. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rumors of more event cancellations

Because of 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak and quarantine regulations for individual countries, the Grand Prix of Australia, Vietnam and Bahrain could be cancelled as well. So far it is only superficial information, so I do not change the article. But we should keep an eye on it. If so, it would be the shortest racing calendar since 2010. --Mark McWire (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources discussing this in particular?Tvx1 18:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The BBC published this yesterday stating that Bahrain and Vietnam will go ahead as scheduled.
SSSB (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Victorian health authorities think the Australian GP will go ahead as planned.

But we should keep an eye on it.

Race cancellations would be pretty big news. Do you honestly think nobody here would notice it if it happened? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There was a statement in German Motorsport Magazin about the possibility and discussion of race cancellations for all Overseas races. Mark McWire (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

-> https://m.motorsport-magazin.com/formel1/video-10693-formel-1-2020-coronavirus-drohen-noch-mehr-rennabsagen.html Mark McWire (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is major news worldwide. Why do you think a dozen editors are going to miss it if it happens? Secondly, you describe it as "rumours" of race cancellations. Wikipedia is no place for rumours. If races are cancelled, we will deal with it when it happens. There is no need to do anything until then because there is nothing that we can do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Mark McWire, also define overseas races. At this stage the cancellation of the Italian Grand Prix is much more likly to be postponed/cancelled than the Canadian Grand Prix or the even the Vietnamese, Japanese, Bahrain or Australian Grands Prixs. This is just base-less speculation with absoulutl no basis in fact. Besides we don't act until the FIA acts, officially acts.
SSSB (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

At this time, possible consequences are no longer limited to calendar changes. Italy, for instance has been considerably affected by the disease. And the northern part of it in particular. Well now two of the teams, Ferrari and AlphaTauri, are based in northern Italy. This means that they could have problems getting there personnel in the GP's' countries.[2][3]Tvx1 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing lock

I think we should lock the article from editing because I found several vandalism. Why would F1 race in Mandalika? Rayuzan M (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rayuzan: one vandalism/disruptive edit in a week doesn't make it qualify for page protection. It requires several disruptive edits from people over a short amount of time to qualify. However, for future reference, you can request page protection at WP:RPP.
SSSB (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Latifi's name

Personally I couldn't care less that the FIA spelt his name wrong on the entry list. His name is Nicholas, it makes no sense to reference it as Nicolas when it's just such an obvious error. The section is not meant to be a transcription. Thoughts? 49 TL 16:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. We're not obliged to copy the entry list exactly when there are obvious typos. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's an error that appears in one source. Every other source spells his name correctly. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if we follow sic or not. However it is two sources. Both the official entry list for the season and for the AUS GP make the same spelling error. (i.e. all official entry lists so far this season)
SSSB (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use the official entry lists as the source for how to spell the dude's name. That's just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If the FIA were to realise this mistake they would release a version 2 of the entry list which they have not done, so it may have been intentional. If the race is confirmed cancelled then I'll be open to spell his name right as that "voids" the entry list. Admanny (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Quoting your edit summary: ...we MUST follow the official entry list. The general content, yes. But not letter for letter. The entry list has made an obvious mistake. A typo on the season entry list perhaps which was copy and pasted over or something else, or maybe Latifi or Williams made a typo when he/they filled out the entry application. However, I see no benefit of including an error in our entry list just becuase there was an error on the entry list. That's just pedantic and the ignoring of common sense. so it may have been intentional. - that's speculating and a pretty wild speculation at that.
SSSB (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It really is rather silly to purposely spell his name wrong just because someone else spelt his name wrong. As I said before, the section is not meant to be a pure transcription of the entry list. Are there any other sources for this spelling of his name? Otherwise I would strongly recommend restoring the correct, widely-accepted, spelling. 49 TL 20:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

But why are you sure the FIA is using an incorrect spelling. Don't forget that these drivers have to supply passport information to the FIA for such things as confirming the nationality they compete under. Why are you so sure that the spelling without "h" is the correct one? Is their a direct quote from him in a reliable source confirming this.Tvx1 22:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources if you take the time to look. Introducing 2020 Race Driver, Nicholas Latifi - WilliamsF1TV; 2019 F2 Entry List; Or maybe even his own website? 49 TL 22:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, his own site should really be sufficient. Strange that the FIA contradicts themselves.Tvx1 22:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Australian Grand Prix

Well, it looks very likely that the Australian Grand Prix will be cancelled. This means we need to agree on how to deal with this article. The prose addition seem easy enough, but how will we deal with this in the different tables and in the calendar? How do we deal with this in the rounds column of the entry list?Tvx1 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Calendar:

Schedule of events

Round	Grand Prix	Circuit	Race date
–	Australian Grand Prix	Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne	—
1	Bahrain Grand Prix	Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	22 March

Summary table:

Round	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report	Ref.
–	Australian Grand Prix	Cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic				Report
1	Bahrain Grand Prix					Report

Simple. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would have thought that the Sunday race of the 2019 Spa-Francorchamps FIA Formula 2 round is the best guide. They were official entered for the event so the one remains in the rounds column, AUS GP stays at the top of the calendar and the results matirxes as the event has started as the weekend has already started. In the results matrices we put WD for Mclaren as they withdrew before the cancellation and we put C for everyone else. If we get another AUS GP we stick it in the grid. The reuslts matrices (including cars drivers etc.) will then show two AUS GPs, one which was cancelled, the second which wasn't. They are both covered in the same article. Every driver who enetered gets a entry (i.e. Latifi is now on one entry). Again the reason I believe it should be dealt with in this way is because the weekend has official started. But again this is just my opinion.
SSSB (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I also think that the AUS GP should retain its status as round 1 as the weekend has officially started.
SSSB (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: honestly, I think we might need an RfC for this. Assume for the moment that the race goes ahead: we're still considering Norris and Sainz Jr as having taken part because their names appeared on an FIA document. To the lay person, you would think the more practical definition of taking part is actually getting out on the circuit. We're now in a position where we are actively considering the Grand Prix as having taken place (in some form), even though no-one has done anything. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:, two people disagreeing with no other input does not call for an RfC after 15 minutes. Also I am nit suggested that they took part, and Sainz and Norris certainly won't take part but they have entered. The two are completly different and in any drivers page it say entries. There is no disputing that all 20 drivers and 10 teams have entered, therefore I think this statistic should be added. Look at similar situations of withdrawals in the 50s, 60s or 70s.
SSSB (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: I'm thinking in general because it's something I see across the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. The 2019 Rally Australia was cancelled before it started, but editors still consider competitors to have taken part because of an entry list published weeks in advance. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the rounds column here. In 2011 the Bahrain Grand Prix was scheduled to be round 1, but was postponed shortly before, but the Australian Grand Prix was held and thus listed as the actual round 1.Tvx1 18:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We just need to wait and see what happens. Right now, the race has not been officially cancelled but McLaren has officially withdrawn. The page as it stands is thus correct and reflects the current information. We don't know yet if the race is going to be postponed or cancelled outright or what. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the race weekend oficially started, therefore I would consider this to be round 1 regardless of if it gets cancelled, postponed or it goes ahead. If it were cancelled on Monday it would be a different matter but it wasn't.
SSSB (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't go by our personal opinions. We should reflect the facts supported by sources.Tvx1 21:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1:, I know that, but so far there are no sources. This is my recommandation whilst we wait fo reliable sources to catch up.
SSSB (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it might go on after all.Tvx1 22:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's been canceled. The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

[4]

McLaren should not be listed as withdrawn. "Withdrawn" suggests that they were capable of continuing, but chose not to. The cancellation means they could not continue at all. Listing them as withdrawn because they withdrew before the cancellation is purely procedural. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, but they did withdraw. The fact they are not competing has nothing to do with the event's cancellation. Therefore they are withdrawn.
SSSB (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB:

The fact they are not competing has nothing to do with the event's cancellation.

Eh? They have the only confirmed case of COVID-19. That's what kicked this off. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What I am saying is that even if the event had gone ahead Mclaren still wouldn't compete. The statement you quoted holds true. However the event's cancellation is because they are not competing. They are not not competeing due to the event's cancellation. Therefore they should be listed as withdrawn in the classification tables
SSSB (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: I think that's a nuance that is going to be lost on the average reader. A cancellation should override everything. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

How about listing McLaren as WD, with a note that they had officially withdrawn before the race itself was cancelled, which is exactly what happened. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If we see mass cancellations—Vietnam is tipped to be called off, Horner thinks Bahrain won't happen, and I doubt China will go ahead—we might need a new table format:

Schedule of events

Original	Actual	Grand Prix	Circuit	Race date
1	–	Australian Grand Prix	Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne	Cancelled
2	–	Bahrain Grand Prix	Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	Cancelled
3	1	Vietnamese Grand Prix	Hanoi Street Circuit, Hanoi	5 April
4	2	Dutch Grand Prix	Circuit Zandvoort, Zandvoort	3 May
5	–	Spanish Grand Prix	Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Montmeló	Cancelled
6	3	Monaco Grand Prix	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	24 May
7	–	Azerbaijan Grand Prix	Baku City Circuit, Baku	Cancelled

Those titles "original" and "actual" are for illustrative purposes only. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, although I'd prefer "scheduled" and "actual". Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, although it should be scheduled not original.
SSSB (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Autosport are reporting the season might be delayed until Baku, so here is an alternative:

Schedule of events

Round		Grand Prix	Circuit	Race date
Races cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic
1	–	Australian Grand Prix	Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne	—
2	–	Bahrain Grand Prix	Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	—
3	–	Vietnamese Grand Prix	Hanoi Street Circuit, Hanoi	—
4	–	Dutch Grand Prix	Circuit Zandvoort, Zandvoort	—
5	–	Spanish Grand Prix	Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Montmeló	—
6	–	Monaco Grand Prix	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	—
Revised calendar issued after pandemic declared over
7	1	Azerbaijan Grand Prix	Baku City Circuit, Baku	6 June

It's not perfect, but with some tinkering it could work. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting the calendar may be suspended until May, with the Dutch Grand Prix opening the season. Lots of conflicting information at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Official cancellation statement

Here's the official statement. All these events are postponed, although I would imagine finding space for them in the calendar will be very difficult. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes

@Tvx1: I'm not sure what you have done (or even if it was you), but the "Notes" section at the bottom of the article is now empty. I think it was because you added the "group" parameter to some notes. I can't figure out how to fix it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the notes to appear under the table they apply to, but the duplicate note in the lead creates problems. I have reverted to entire string of edits while I'm trying to figure this out.Tvx1 23:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: honestly, I think that's a little over-designed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, that would make things more practical. Now we have tables with notes, but the actual notes are buried at the bottom of the article.Tvx1 00:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: if you click on the note or hover over it, you get the text of the note displayed. So I don't see the point of it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Making it a necessity to click on a small letter just to see the contents is just impractical. Putting notes under the table they belong makes this much more practical and clear for our readers.Tvx1 00:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Making the reader scroll down to read the notes and then cross-checking with the table seems completely impractical. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a necessity at all. Besides one has to scroll far further right now.Tvx1 00:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless they click the note or hover over it, in which case there is no need to scroll down. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A functionality which would remain when the notes are listed under the table. So there is no requirement for scrolling in that case either. It would only generate positive effects, no negative ones.Tvx1 13:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Season Report vs Calendar Changes Sections

It seems that there's some information in the "Calendar changes as a result of the coronavirus pandemic" section that would be better placed in the Season Report section (the statements from Ross Brawn and Ferrari, and the quarantine fears from the Italian teams). Moving that information out of Calendar Changes could make it possible for the that section to simply state the changes, maybe possibly including some more information on when the changes occurred as well. SlantedSun (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@SlatedSun: That's fine by me. Feel free to be WP:BOLD.
SSSB (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawls

Hey,

Mercedes stated in a statement that they had no intention of racing . Should we list them as Withdrawn in the table? Or are we going by an official list?

Thanks, ~ RhinosF1_(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 10:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As they never officially withdrew I would say keep as is.
SSSB (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Order calendar where necessary, please fix it

Bahrein initially 22 March, Vietnam 5 April, China 19 April.--80.117.52.71 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bahrain, Vietnamese and Chinese Grands Prix have no dates currently the dates you listed above now have very little meaning. It therefore makes more sense to list them alphabetically, doesn't it?
SSSB (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're totally right. I did not focus enough on this! It does 100%. However, races, not race. @SSSB:--80.117.52.71 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks.
SSSB (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again, actually, races, not race. @SSSB:--80.117.52.71 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: no longer applicable due to other edits.
SSSB (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Although three rounds have been postponed, no new calendar has been produced. We don't know when or if the postponed races will be held, only that they will happen on a different date to the original calendar. No source has been provided to say that Zandvoort is Round 2 (and every other round has a new number). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, technically the Bahrain Grand Prix could be postponed until 23 March—the day after it was originally scheduled—and still be the second round. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Season status category

As the Aus GP has been cancelled, is the season still counted as "Scheduled motorsport seasons"? I would say it is "Current motorsport seasons". Unnamelessness (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say it's current, too. We're past the planned starting date and there are ongoing events that affect the sport's ability to be run. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Especially because we've already had testing. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That testing was pre-season though, not in-season. I don't think we can reasonably say the season is underway. They have clearly postponed the start indefinitely.Tvx1 16:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the map in the calendar section

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the "calendar" section of this article include this map in its current form, show an edited version with less information, or exclude the map entirely? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nations that are scheduled to host a Grand Prix in 2020 are highlighted in green, with circuit locations marked with a black dot. Former host nations are shown in dark grey, and former host circuits are marked with a white dot.

Survey

• Exclude or edited - I do not believe the map adds any useful value to the article, so I would prefer to see it removed completely; however, if a version remains I think it should only include the dots showing the locations of the circuits being used in the 2020 season only. The green highlighting for the nations is problematic because of disputed national borders (see the discussion above) and information about nations and locations in past years are not relevant to the 2020 season. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Edited - I believe that the map does add some value (though not a great deal). However I do believe that host countries should not be highlighted on the map (or any of the map's variations) and that it should be limited to showing the venues of the 2020 season (likewise the map of 2019 Formula One World Championship should only show 2019 venues. The maps on Formula One, List of Formula One Grands Prix etc. should also not be shaded but should show past and future venues as the current map currently does. The reason I oppose shading in the countries is because it is completely irrelvant, it is much easier to travel from Yakutsk, Russia to the Japanese Grand Prix then it is to travel to the Russian Grand Prix. Its also unrepresentative as Russia is over 170% the size of the second largest country (Canada). Finally, which country your in has no impact on any of the events. Its also worth noting that I wouldn't be the least bit upset if the map is removed altogether.
  SSSB (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Edited – Currently these maps used in the season articles show the entire history of formula one races around the world. It shades both former host countries and countries that are scheduled to host/hosted in the relevant season. I believe the map in this article should only deal with this season's races. I do support shading the countries that host the race. The purpose of the map is to give our readers a rough idea of the spreading of the championship across the world. This is why we include a relatively small version of it next to the calendar.Tvx1 18:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  How does shading countries help the article achieve the aim of give our readers a rough idea of the spreading of the championship across the world. In my mind shading the countries actually hinders this becuase of the variance in the size of the countries. The reality is that for 2020 9/22 races are in europe (excluding Russia for the sake of arguemnt) but just by looking at shading it would indicate that there are more race in the USA than Europe simply becuase the USA is so much bigger than any of the European countries. How does shading help the purpose of the map?
  SSSB (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  This is an excellent point. The shading is actually misleading the reader. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Edited or exclude - I favour the removal of country colouring and the marking of borders in any way. The reason is that the current map gives an exaggerated and totally false impression of the extent of world coverage that F1 achieves. For example, the one single race venue in Russia means that 11% of the world's land area is coloured as having held an F1 race, whereas the three race venues in Portugal are only worth colouring 0.6% of the world's land area. Also, boundaries are political, and any political disputes over borders (such as the current Russia/Ukraine one over the Crimea) inevitably lead to time-wasting edit-wars over the way the border appears in the map. So I would be happy with a map with no border representation (and hence no country colouring). But if borders are not removed, then I favour complete removal of the map. This map, with all race locations ever, marked on it, should, I think, only be used for general F1 articles such as this one, and not for season specific articles. Season article maps should only include races for that season. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Include – I think simply stating something like "de facto status of the territories is shown" is enough to give a note to the reader on how the borders are depicted. Any map of the world that shows borders of the countries is largely controversial at least somewhere: there are many border areas in the world that are disputed and/or not firmly established; this is not a good reason not to show the borders, but an excellent reason to include a warning on what exactly is shown. Also, arguing that the countries should not be colored simply because some of them happen to be bigger/smaller than some others, is somewhat strange to me: that's the whole purpose of the map as a graphical representation of the world – no one said a simple map like this with only three shades should somehow represent proportionality of anything. It's mostly just a binary yes/no (or tertiary yes/no/never) that's indicated – and it's just fine like this. There could be other maps that add another dimension to the 2D maps of the world, e.g. by hue or saturation representing some qualitative parameter (relating to the number of races, years on the calendar, etc.) – but this is not the point of this particular map. This map is made to simply show countries that have/have not hosted races, with extra info on track locations. Primarily, it emphasizes the info for a given season (with a primary color), with extra info on earlier seasons only given in a subdued way (gray coloring). cherkash (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Edit - in the context of this article, the map in its present form serves no useful purpose. Edit to show only the markers for Grands Prix and ignore all shading.
  5225_C (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1 to request closure at WP:ANRFC. I think a close would be useful given the significant controversy over the map since November 2019. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've request closure at the afore mentioned page.
  SSSB (talk) 09:22, 9 March 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.

@Sjones23: but edited how. WHich of the proposed ways that it should be edited (removal of non-2020 races and/or removal of borders) does the consensus reflect.
SSSB (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: I've clarified it in my closing statement. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cherkash: As the creator of the current version, would you be willing to produce the map needed per this discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a question. How do we deal with cancelled races in the map? Do we rewove their shading?Tvx1 17:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Created: File:Formula 1 all over the world-2020 - current circuits only.svg. All the scheduled races are kept for now – this could be updated later once the final status of a given race is determined. cherkash (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cherkash, there we go already. Melbourne dot should be removed.Tvx1 23:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cherkash, the dot for Monaco should be removed as well now.Tvx1 17:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I strongly disagree with this approach. The map should keep all the dots of the regularly scheduled season and the caption should remain the same. Either that or get rid of the map entirely. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That would just overcomplicate things. Let the map limit itself to the races that are actually held and let's use the prose the explain the situation of the postponements and cancellations.Tvx1 21:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The exact opposite is true. Keep the map as it is, rather than going through the complicated process of updating it and changing it whenever a change in the calendar is made. Better yet, get rid of it completely. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The RfC above shows a clear consensus that the may should remain. However I do agree with Scjessey that the map should show all the races that were due to be held and then let the prose deal with rest.
SSSB (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

But why? "I think we should do that" is not an argument. Why is it so important to keep displaying races that weren't held? Surely the prose can deal with that much more efficiently. In fact, at this point the readers can't even distinguish cancelled and still to be held races on the map.Tvx1 13:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Below, there is a thread suggesting that we keep two calendars (original and adjusted). I don't like that approach, but this simple graphic partially achieves that goal. I think constantly editing the graphic is overly complicated. In fact, I think the same thing about the calendar. Keep it simple. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Calendar

It looks like this has been discussed partially already, but I wanted to point out that the source under the table for the schedule shows the original schedule and so the source does not match what is in the table. Would it not be better to keep one table with the original schedule and reference, and then have a second table showing the changes / revised schedule with the postponed/cancelled races potentially listed at the bottom, and potentially with different references. Just a suggestion. Bs1jac (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My preference would be to have the original calendar only, with a simple notice saying "season currently suspended". Then replace it with an updated calendar when there is a new schedule with confirmed dates. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Azerbaijan Grand Prix is not yet cancelled, it's "expected" to be cancelled, but not been officially announced or ratified yet. See [5], [6]. Until it's confirmed, we shouldn't be listing it as postponed. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite right. This is the position we have followed all year. I'd have undone it myself if hadn't got there first.
SSSB (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And now it is officially postponed, [7]. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Round numbers

Does Australia, now that it's been cancelled, still count as being round one? The FIA has already released the entry list, so my guess is that is so, since it will mess up the "rounds entered" column in the entrants table. Admanny (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

My guess is also yes given the weekend had already started. I would recommend keeping it as such till we get contradictary information.
SSSB (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Autosport are reporting that the season might not start until Baku. If we're looking at mass cancellations, I think we can make an exception to the usual rule about "a Grand Prix starts when the entry list is published". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Why? And which way do we go. Are you saying that Bahrain should be round 2 if it were.cancelled today, or are you going the opposite way.
SSSB (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: the Autosport article is suggesting that several races could be cancelled at once. They're not going to want to go through the rigmorale (or the bad PR) of showing up to a venue, only to cancel two hours before FP1. So I suggest that we only focus on the events that happen. If Baku is the first round that is run, we treat that as Round 1. That's why I suggested the above table formats that show the original, intended calendar and the actual, eventual calendar. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. However AUS is both the intential and eventual round 1. As I keep expalining the Australian Grand Prix was run in part. However if the Bahrain Grand Prix isn't run in part then I would actual have suggested skipping it in the counting system had you not suggested it first. In such an event it would also be acceptable to remove it from reuslts matrices (yes I know that contradicts what I said last month but I changed my mind)
SSSB (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB:

As I keep expalining the Australian Grand Prix was run in part.

Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct—the best kind of correct! (Kudos if you get this.)

However, for all intents and purposes, the race did not happen. Yes, I know, we treat the Thursday as part of a Grand Prix weekend, but put that aside for a moment and look at this through the eyes of a layperson, someone with only the most superficial knowledge of the sport until today. All the news coverage focuses on the cancellation. There are no cars on the circuit. But then they get on Wikipedia and see that the event "happened" because of a piece of paper that was published on the Wednesday or Thursday? Cue a lengthy explanation from us as to why this means the race happened.

I'm not saying that we make this the norm. I'm saying that the extraordinary circumstances mean that we can make an exception here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The scenario you describe sounds nonsensical to me. Australia was scheduled to be round 1, then it was cancelled in the middle of the weekend. The article explicitly says the race was cancelled. There's nothing confusing about this.

By the way - F1.com lists each race and their round number, if the round number officially changes then I imagine FOM will update it there. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cue a lengthy explanation from us as to why this means the race happened. - is your only basis that people might find it confusing. You want to ignore the facts becuase it makes is simplier to understand? That's not how an encylopedia works. I also dispute that we need a lengthy explanation. A short statement in a footnote will suffice. Something along the lines of Because the Australian Grand Prix was cancelled after the Grand Prix weekend had started, it is considered the first Grand Prix of the season would suffice to expalin the sitation. They can then find further details on this in the prose located both here and at 2020 Australian Grand Prix. Using this a layperson, someone with only the most superficial knowledge of the sport wpould understand why it is considered the first race of the season. The article also makes it very clear in multiple locations that the event was cancelled before any (significant) track running (or at least it should). I really don't see why you think the explanation would need to be lengthy.
SSSB (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You want to ignore the facts becuase it makes is simplier to understand? That's not how an encylopedia works.

Except that it's our rule that "a Grand Prix starts when an entry list is published". A layperson would reasonably expect a Grand Prix to involve cars on track. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget that this article will have a full season report section. We don't have to, nor can we even, provide all potential information through the tables. I have started the report section in the mean time.Tvx1 13:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's bear in mind Wikipedia is not an official document – consider how it appears to the reader. Given the cancellation/postponement of the the next three rounds, from a reader's point of view, it makes little sense to treat Australia differently in the tables. The details can be explained in the rest of the article (or on the individual race's pages, although I would now be in favour of deleting these). Also bear in mind that mass-cancellations of Grands Prix is unprecedented, at least as long as Wikipedia has been around, so how we would normally treat things should not necessarily mean we do the same here. Sr88, talk. 15:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, I get that it is not necessarily logical. However, I have slept on it (I haven't actually slept but you get what I mean) and I do get where you are coming from. However, it is not as simple as simply changing the Dutch Grand Prix to round 1. We would then need to change the entry table's rounds column. But we can't just get rid of the info detailing that they were entered into AUS because they were and this is a fact that is reflected on the drivers pages (Nicholas Latifi is considered to have 1 emtry). So unless we want to mark it as round 0 or when the entries for AUS GP are void I don't see how we can do it any other way.
SSSB (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

By your logic Lewis Hamilton's perfect stats with every race started is ruined. No cars on track=entries doesn't count. Latifi still 0 entries. Alex (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you prove that the FIA feel the same? Also the fact that Hamiltons stat is ruined is irrelevant. Until it can be proved that AUS GP entry list is void we must follow it, this list shows a Latifi entry, similarly a Hamilton entry.
SSSB (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Entry list is completely irrelevant. You just cant count grand prix which have never happened. If we had at least free practice then it would be debatable but with no cars on track at all it cant be counted. Good thing is that now (at least during previous season) they show number of grand prix at the start of the broadcast. If I'm not mistaken, Abu Dhabi was 1018th so I'm pretty sure we'll see number 1019 next time we actually will have the race. Obviously can wait until that time and change later but I don't think its good to cause confusion with this incorrect gp entered stats. Alex (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless you prove that AUS GP doesn't count then I don't think its good to cause confusion with this incorrect gp entered stats. could just as easily be applied to you. And the entry lists do matter because they are published by the FIA. FIA is the governing body and therefore we follow the statistics (entries etc.) they use.
SSSB (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Better you prove that AUS GP do count. "...therefore we follow the statistics (entries etc.) they use" - and do we have website where can check all this statistics from FIA? Alex (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Using the race count in F1 broadcasts is also WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Race count from broadcast is official statistics. Alex (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB:

Unless you prove that AUS GP doesn't count

We had this debate when Anthione Hubert was killed. The race had started, but it was red-flagged on the second lap and the race was never re-started. As the leader had not completed the minimum distance required for a result to be recorded, the race was abandoned.

The same logic applies here: no result was recorded for the Australian Grand Prix. Therefore it does not count. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Using the race count in F1 broadcasts is also WP:OR.

The broadcasts are produced by Formula One Administrstion, and they are recordings. They are perfectly acceptable as a source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: if you can prove (with sporting regs) that no two laps being run makes the entry lost void, I will concede, however I was under the impression that de Vries was credited with pole and all the drivers were still credited with entries. Until then my understanding is that the entry list stands and therefore AUS remains round 1 for the benefit of consistancy of the drivers entry statistics. And stats in the race broadcast only count if it is I'm the public domain indefinitely (or a significant amount of time) after the race is complete. Otherwise it is unverifiable and can't be used.
SSSB (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where the FIA put this but it is on the official F1 website. Unfortunately I'm not sure when they update those stats (WP:AGE MATTERS). We will have to wait at least until Tuesday (one working day after weekend complete) to see if they consider AUS GP entry list void. Then I am happy to revert the decision that it counts as round 1. But even then I wont be 100% satisfied until they get updated for quali for the next race.
SSSB (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: Article 6.5 of the Sporting Regulations says:

"If a race is suspended under Article 41, and cannot be resumed, no points will be awarded if the leader has completed two laps or less, half points will be awarded if the leader has completed more than two laps but less than 75% of the original race distancd and full points will be awarded if the leader has completed 75% or more of the original race distance."

Now, to be fair, this assumes that the race started in the first place. There is nothing about the procedure for cancelling an event before it begins. If the race did not start, no result can be recorded.

my understanding is that the entry list stands and therefore AUS remains round 1 for the benefit of consistancy of the drivers entry statistics

What are you basing that on?

We will have to wait at least until Tuesday (one working day after weekend complete) to see if they consider AUS GP entry list void. Then I am happy to revert the decision that it counts as round 1.

I suggest reading this interview with Ross Brawn, where he says:

"We have plans to rebuild the season and try and accommodate as many of the lost races as we can."

I think it's pretty clear that they consider the race as not having happened. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Article 6.5 doesn't tell us anything as it neither confirms nor denies that the entry list stands. What are you basing that on? - a lack of evidence to suggest contrary. My issue isn't so.much that the Grand Prix took place (or didn't) but the fact that the presence of an entry list would suggest the entrants are due an entry on their pages. Likewise the entry table here should then show who was entered into Australia. But like I said if on Tuesday F1.com haven't updated their stats I am willing to compromise and say it didnt take place despite their being a lack of significant evidence. Also I am not willing to make assumptions by reading between the lines of an interview, that's WP:OR again.
SSSB (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on the entry list. It's not a fixed document. Remember when Pascal Wehlein injured himself and Sauber called Giovinazzi up? The entry list had to be amended.

Article 6.5 doesn't tell us anything as it neither confirms nor denies that the entry list stands.

By that standard, nothing in the regulations does. And yet, the article make the following claim (see note [a]):

"The Australian Grand Prix was originally due to take place on 15 March. It was cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. However it is still considered to be the first round of the season as an entry list was released."

The emphasis is mine. This claim is completely unsourced. The burden rests with the person making the claim. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I know the entry list isn't fixed but as much as I want to (genuinely) we can't declare it void without evidence. I've also provided a source which shows AUS as still being round 1.
SSSB (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We generally don't use formula1.com for this sort of thing. Ever notice how it's not frequently used in articles? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's the best we got (for either side of the argument). You aren't able to produce anything more reliable.
SSSB (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the claim. The article is. It is currently unsourced, and all you have produced is a self-published source. Show me something that proves the FIA still consider it to be Round 1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You are making a claim. You claim that the FIA (not the BBC or Autosport) don't consider it round 1. And yet you haven't provided any proof for this either. If you change the article it still makes an unsupported claim. Also I haven't produce a WP:SPS. I produced a WP:PRIMARY source which is perfectly acceptable. My primary source clearly list AUS as round 1. You need to.prove you are right just as much as I do.
SSSB (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The article specifically says that someone—it is unclear who—considers it to be Round 1 despite the cancellation. Who is it and where is the proof of this? Because as far as I can see, you're treating a WP:F1 policy—that a Grand Prix starts with the publication of an entry list—as if it is an FIA policy. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, I am not maintaining this because I consider the Grand prix to have started but rather because those drivers and teams appear to be considered entered. The difference is significant. We can not say AUS is cancelled without ignoring its representative entry list. At this stage all the evidence points to drivers and teams being credited with 1 entry for this season. The fact that the entry list exists and there is no evidence to suggest it has been nullified is my evidence for this. Now, you can change the footnote to say the opposite to what it does now but the same problem still remains, occurring to whom and can you categorically prove it, no matter which stance you take these questions can not be awnsered. Until we get more evidence we this discussion can't move anywhere. I've stated that I am going to revisit this on Tuesday (Monday evening my time works too) and if the stats at f1.com haven't been updated I will admit you have more evidence than me but until there is more evidence suggesting that they should be credited with entries than evidence suggesting the opposite.

Not to mention that if we didnt consider AUS as round 1 then we would have to remove the entry from {{F1stat}}, all the constructor and engine infoboxes and the rounds column in the entry table.
SSSB (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: I think you're still conflating a WikiProject policy with FIA policy. I've always felt that the "a Grand Prix weekend starts when the entry list is published" rule is little more than a guide as to when a championship article should be updated, and I've treated it as such. I think that if you asked the average man on the street when a Grand Prix weekend starts, they would probably be inclined to say on a Friday.

If you look at this objectively, we're basically saying that a Grand Prix took place in some form, even though no cars actually took to the track. I think that's really difficult to justify. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right. Okay, you have blessing to consider it as not being round 1. My only condition is this. That you remove the entry from {{F1stat}}, the rounds column on the entry table, all the entry parameters on the infoboxes for teams and engines and tou revert my edits at List of Formula One circuits and List of Formula One Grand Prix, change the next GP parameter in 2019 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and for 2019 AUS. Otherwise our articles would contradict each other. These edits must be made in one session to minimise disruption. I'm going out now, or I'd do it myself.
SSSB (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Also revert {{Latest F1Gp}} and hide/change parameters on the infoboxes of Ocon and Latifi.
SSSB (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: I'm about to go to sleep myself ...

I think it might be worth taking this to an RfC, just to get the perspective of non-F1 editors. This informal rule is deeply entrenched in WP:F1, so doing something different might need a compelling reason behind it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You are joking, right? Every one who has discussed this (in 2 highly visible locations) is now in agreement and you want an RfC? I suggest we make these changes and then start a discussion at WT:F1 between the project's editors about how a cancellation should be presented at each possible stage (between race calendar release and entry list, entry list and Fp1, between start of FP1 and Q1 etc.) Only if we are in disagreement should a RfC even be considered. Starting an RfC in anticipation of disagreement is a waste of time.
SSSB (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Although we do generally use the entry lists as the the clear discriminator wether someone took part in a Grand Prix weekend or not, this is not a rule that could possibly be rigidly applied to every Grand Prix there will be in the entire history. Sometimes there are simply exceptions, and as this is a very exceptional and unprecedented situation I too agree that it makes sense to make an exception. That said we must keep reflecting facts supported by sources. I noticed the Spa F2 race being mentioned here, but I don't think that's a comparable situation. There session took place and a race was even started. Moreover De Vries even received championship points for his pole position. No at all similar. I will also note that the organizers actually to intend to have the Australian Grand Prix take place on a later date this year. Thus it is actually postponed instead of cancelled entirely.Tvx1 16:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

They are "seeking to reschedule the race", but it is ultimately up to the FIA to say whether it will happen. For now, the official word is "cancelled", but with the intent to try to reschedule in the future. Admanny (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The source quotes them giving an explanation why they explicitly uses the world cancelled. They wanted to make clear to the spectators that there would be not activity at all this weekend, rather than session being delayed by hours. Other than that they did not meant there would be 2020 Australian Grand Prix at all.Tvx1 23:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed... One original schedule, perhaps with a column indicating postponed/cancelled for each race, and then replacing with a new schedule once announced. Possibly then with a link to the original schedule and summary of cancelled races in the text. Bs1jac (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Overlinking

As I write, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is linked eleven separate times in the article, which I argue is totally unnecessary. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I think. The one in the lead should remain. In the first sentenace of Calendar [[Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports|as a result]] of the [[2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]] should be changed to [[Impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic on sports|as a result of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]]. The first link in Reaction to coronavirus pandemic should remain, the rest can be removed. In results and standings it should only be linked for the first one (i.e. Australia). The notes (currently a, b and c, which all link to that article) can be removed. This takes us to 3 links.
SSSB (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment I also removed one link when I removed the now redundent comment about Monaco being run over 260km.
SSSB (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey:, in the absence of any other suggests and/or opposes to my suggestions I have gone ahead and carried out those changes (some were done by Joseph2302 earlier today.)
SSSB (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Entries

We must follow the actual source for this table that says Alfa Romeo Racing ORLEN and not Orlen, ROKiT Williams Racing and not Rokit, AMG for Mercedes and not Amg, BWT for Racing Point and not Bwt, DP for Renault and not Dp. Per 2019 season.--87.19.106.54 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

AMG, BWT, and DP are acronyms, they would not be listed any other way, so they are not good examples.

Orlen is debatable as the capitalization is a stylistic choice, same as ROKiT. I would however point out that our own article on Orlen is not capitalized. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd also point out recent discussions regarding "Toyota Gazoo Racing" which is what we use, versus the stylized "TOYOTA GAZOO Racing" used by corporate. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but per previous season we followed the official document. Why different for 2020?--87.19.106.54 (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Because 2019 is currently a violation of MOS:TM. We should change that one too.
SSSB (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Also note Rokit along with Orlen
SSSB (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The actual source is being followed. Sources determine what is the correct information, not the formatting. I see no reason why MOS:TM should not be followed in this case. Also note that per 2019 is a poor argument as 2019 is simply in violation of MOS. Just because we violated polic before doesn't mean we should do so again. The entry list is not definitive. We don't have to and shouldn't follow it word for word, letter for letter but we should instead use common sense. Capitilising Rokit of Orlen just because the source does is not using common sence. Blindly following the entry list is not using common sense. If you are to persuade anyway that this article is an exception to MOS:TM you are going to have to do a lot better. ((Pinging editors from previous discussion @Mclarenfan17, DeFacto, and Scjessey:}
SSSB (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Source is is being followed, ok, but if you write Orlen instead of ORLEN or Rokit instead of ROKiT you are not following properly it. However, it's better to wait other users' response.--87.19.106.54 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that MOS:TM is a manual of style guideline, which is more important than how a company chooses to stylise its name. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the preference of following MOS:TM here. Deviating from it does not genuinely improve the article.Tvx1 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup. MOS:TM should be followed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see both arguments here. Yes, MOS:TM does advise against capitalisation. But at the same time, it's a guideline and the entry list is a representation of the teams. I would, however, also point out that teams are typically known by their WP:COMMONNAME. Does it really matter if we refer to the team as "Alfa Romeo", "Alfa Romeo Orlen" or "Alfa Romeo ORLEN"? We used to have a column in the table for the official name of a Grand Prix, but we removed it because sponsors could change and all it really affected was the colour of the signage around the circuit. I'd say the same thing applies here: the sponsor name only really affects the colour of the livery. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see any compelling reason to contravene MOS:TM, so would avoid capitalisation. Indeed the Orlen article complies, so why shouldn't we here? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: the argument is that the team is presented as "Alfa Romeo Racing ORLEN" in entry lists. Given that the WP:COMMONNAME is "Alfa Romeo", the argument suggests that we can overlook MOS:TM because the entrant column is supplementary to the constructor column; i.e., it's not the primary way of presenting the team. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: the point I'm answering is how the sponsor's name should be rendered - as "Orlen" or "ORLEN". Not whether it should be used. And WP:COMMONNAME is part of the WP:Article titles policy, it only applies to article titles, not to how the thing is referred to in other places inside articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I'm aware of that, but I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous this is. I don't think it matters one way or the other and there are policies and guidelines in support of each method. If we removed the column entirely, I doubt it would affect anything except maybe sparing us the need to quibble over the MOS. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: which policy or guideline do you think contradicts WP:TM, and supports putting "Orlen" in all upper case in this article under discussion here? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: you seem to be missing my point. I don't care either way which one we use because I don't think the column is needed at all. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We could always add supplemental information in the form of notes (as we have for other things). For example, Stylised as "Alfa Romeo Racing ORLEN", or something like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue that such a note is only relevant to the Alfa Romeo article, not the season article. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would even go so far as to say that the entire title sponsor is only relevant to the team article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair points. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm from Spanish Wikipedia, and I am against adding Orlen and Rokit and not as shown by the FIA ​​Entry List (ORLEN and ROKiT), but it is not important now. Be careful, since there is an article called Rokit and is a London shop of vintage clothes, and can cause confusion by adding Rokit in Entries. The Williams Racing main sponsor would be ROKiT (not stylized, the same page shows it that way), a telephone company. So from my point of view ROKiT should be added, so as not to cause confusion with the clothing store (Rokit). --XxAlanEZExX (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

ROKit is still stylised even if that's how the company choose to stylised it. Also we dont exist to pre-empt confusion between companies with an identical name.
SSSB (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, Rokit the clothes company don't actually look notable anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)