1.144.109.76 (talk) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
*I would personally support using the ANA flag as a temporary solution and then using whatever flag the FIA decide is correct when we have that information. The alternative is using the "mystery" flag which makes it look like we don't know what country he's from, when in reality we do know that he's being affected by the current sanctions on Russia in sport, and the ANA flag communicates that information better. [[User:HumanBodyPiloter5|HumanBodyPiloter5]] ([[User talk:HumanBodyPiloter5|talk]]) 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC) |
*I would personally support using the ANA flag as a temporary solution and then using whatever flag the FIA decide is correct when we have that information. The alternative is using the "mystery" flag which makes it look like we don't know what country he's from, when in reality we do know that he's being affected by the current sanctions on Russia in sport, and the ANA flag communicates that information better. [[User:HumanBodyPiloter5|HumanBodyPiloter5]] ([[User talk:HumanBodyPiloter5|talk]]) 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
::The ANA designation only applies to competitors in athletics. It’s [[WP:OR]] through [[WP:SYNTH]] to apply that here. We have no information whatsoever that he intends to use that one.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 17:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC) |
::The ANA designation only applies to competitors in athletics. It’s [[WP:OR]] through [[WP:SYNTH]] to apply that here. We have no information whatsoever that he intends to use that one.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 17:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::As I understand it, you can only apply for a licence from a national sporting federation that has been recognised by the FIA. If you're from [[Transnistria]] in eastern [[Moldova]], you can only get a licence from Moldova because although Transnistria is a self-declared independent state (but not one recognised by the international community), it does not have its owm federation. Since there is currently no neutral federation, the ANA flag is about as meaningful as the Transnistrian flag. The FIA will need to rule on it. [[Special:Contributions/1.144.109.76|1.144.109.76]] ([[User talk:1.144.109.76|talk]]) 01:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:15, 7 February 2021
Formula One C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Aston Martin / Alpine flags
Is there any reason to think Aston Martin & Alpine will be changing from their current flags? Given that ownership is not changing, just branding, is there a source that suggests they will not be British or French respectively in 2021? OZOO (t) (c) 23:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it, neither have a current flag. The team could be registered anywhere, so until the team is entered or another reliable source is found for their nationality, we actually don't know what it will be.
5225C (talk • contributions) 00:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)- Agree, they are new constructors so don't have a "current flag". We should not just assume it'll be the same as Renault and Racing Point. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Respectfully, they are not new constructors. They are rebranding both teams. There is no indication of a change of ownership. This seem clear from the referenced articles from formula1.com for each team. If anyone suggests that they have to wait to see registration paperwork for these two teams, then that same requirement would apply to all teams and we should remove their flags too. Why not use the flags that were used by these two same teams, using their 2020 branded names, until we have data to prove otherwise.
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Respectfully, they are not new constructors. They are rebranding both teams. There is no indication of a change of ownership. This seem clear from the referenced articles from formula1.com for each team. If anyone suggests that they have to wait to see registration paperwork for these two teams, then that same requirement would apply to all teams and we should remove their flags too. Why not use the flags that were used by these two same teams, using their 2020 branded names, until we have data to prove otherwise.
- Agree, they are new constructors so don't have a "current flag". We should not just assume it'll be the same as Renault and Racing Point. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is there a source that suggests they will be British and French respectively in 2021?
SSSB (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)- I think that it's backwards to remove the flag until evidence is provided they have not changed the location of the main team ownership. Instead, I would suggest that the flag remains the same as previous years until a source can indicate that there was a change. I.e. status quo from previous year until evidence is provided to counter-indicate. The flag can be changed at that point. Renault is the owner of the Alpine team, as indicated by the Alpine F1 Team page, and is therefore a French company and French ownership. The Aston Martin in Formula One team is owned by Racing Point UK, a company based in GBR. The changes from 2020 season are for rebranding only, not changes of ownership.
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think that it's backwards to remove the flag until evidence is provided they have not changed the location of the main team ownership. Instead, I would suggest that the flag remains the same as previous years until a source can indicate that there was a change. I.e. status quo from previous year until evidence is provided to counter-indicate. The flag can be changed at that point. Renault is the owner of the Alpine team, as indicated by the Alpine F1 Team page, and is therefore a French company and French ownership. The Aston Martin in Formula One team is owned by Racing Point UK, a company based in GBR. The changes from 2020 season are for rebranding only, not changes of ownership.
- I respect that everyone feels a need to be certain about the flags. That's what is good about wikipedia editors - passion for accuracy. However, FIA has published the 2020 and 2021 Formula One Entry Lists ([1]), and there is no change in ownership for either team. They remain under Renault Sport Racing Limited and Racing Point UK limited. Would this not indicate that we can use the flags for both teams for the 2021 season?
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ownership does not equal nationality. Mumtakalat is a Bahraini investor who own a stake in McLaren, but McLaren compete under a British flag. American investors from Dorilton Capital bought a stake in Williams, but Williams competes under a British flag, not an American one. Midland was owned by a Canadian, but competed under a Russian flag because of the owner's ethnic background and business in Russia. So while it is most likely that Alpine will be French and Aston Martin will be British, that is by no means guaranteed. 1.129.111.93 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think OZOO was referring to a change in ownership because that could mean a change in where the corporate entrant is based, which could change the nationality.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)- The companies who own the team, or where the team/company are based are all irrelevant. Consider Force India or Benetton who changed nationalities half way through their time in F1. The only evidence I have seen that they will use the English and French flags is based on WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)- But Force India became a different legal entity, which is not occuring in this case. On what is the nationality based if not the company that enters the team? Is this specified in the regulations?
5225C (talk • contributions) 08:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)- But Benetton didn't become a different legal entity. Nationalities are based on where the team is registered. The only evidence you have that Aston Martin will be registered in the same place as Racing Point, or the Aston Martin company is based on WP:OR, likewise with Alpine.
- Red Bull also changed thier natioality half-way through.
- In fact there is nothing stopping Ferrari from becoming Croatian next year, apart from a bit of paperwork.
SSSB (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- But Force India became a different legal entity, which is not occuring in this case. On what is the nationality based if not the company that enters the team? Is this specified in the regulations?
- The companies who own the team, or where the team/company are based are all irrelevant. Consider Force India or Benetton who changed nationalities half way through their time in F1. The only evidence I have seen that they will use the English and French flags is based on WP:OR.
I still don't understand the purpose of the flags. Teams can be headquartered anywhere; for sporting reasons, for tax reasons, and for reasons of national pride. Who knows? Having the flags adds no useful value, and never has. Per MOS:ICON: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags..."
In this case, teams may be BASED in one country, REGISTERED in another, and OWNED in still a third, PRIMARILY SPONSORED in a fourth, and so on. Associating a flag with a team can lead to the kind of confusion MOS:ICON specifically refers to. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- But the FIA entry list, when it is eventually published, includes the team's nationality, definitively settling this discussion. Like any sport, the teams and drivers do act as national representatives, so to me having flags here is just as useful as having them in results pages from the Olympics.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)- The flags make sense for the drivers, but not for the multinational teams in the paddock. You don't (usually) have multinational teams in the Olympics, because unlike in F1 the Olympic teams are representing their country. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Constructors are officially considered to be representatives of the country of the national sporting body which issues their competition licence, hence why the anthem of the winning constructor is played on the podium etc. One can debate whether or not the sport should operate in this manner all day long; but we can't change what the facts are, only report them. I may dislike the nationalistic jingoism which exists in almost all sports regarding competitors, but I don't pretend that it's not a part of the sport. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Scjessey, the constructor flags aren't based on the nationality of the team - if they were most of them, including Mercedes, Renault/Alpine and Red Bull, would use the British flag. No, the constructor flags are based on the nationality of the national body that the team owners choose to get their team licence from. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- The flags make sense for the drivers, but not for the multinational teams in the paddock. You don't (usually) have multinational teams in the Olympics, because unlike in F1 the Olympic teams are representing their country. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I think there comes a point where WP:COMMONSENSE applies. The flags are currently blank because the teams might register under a different nationality, but is there any reason to believe that they will? Outside a branding change and maybe a new livery, everything else stays the same. Is there any evidence that Alpine will not be French or that Aston Martin will not be British? Dozens of editors seem to think they will, given how frequently they have added the flags in. 1.129.106.143 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, especially considering the entry list has the same company entered, which I would take to mean the same license will be used as before the rebrand.
5225C (talk • contributions) 05:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)- Yeah, at this point in time claiming that there is a possibility that they might change their registered nationalities honestly constitutes original research. There is nothing to suggest that the status quo will change for these teams any more than there is to suggest it will for any other team. All that has changed is that they've written a different name down on the entry list. A few months ago there was more justification, but at this point it's starting to look silly. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, the entry list says they're the same companies, so makes sense to use the same flags. If they do decide to change flags, we can always change it if/when they announce a change of flag. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, I agree to follow common sense and assume that they aren't changing flags. But,@HumanBodyPiloter5: saying they are staying the same is orignal research, not the other way around. And the justification hasn't changed. You seem to be getting confused, WP:COMMONSENSE says that we should insert the British/Frnech flags despite it constiting orignal research.
SSSB (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)- @SSSB:, both are original research to some degree. Including the question marks implies that there is evidence that the nationality they race under may change, but there isn't any evidence of that. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the question mark only implies that we don't know, nothing more, nothing less, it just means there is no (solid) evidence of what flag they will use.
SSSB (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)- Except the reality is that due to a combination of circumstantial evidence and the resultant WP:COMMONSENSE, we do know what flags they will almost certainly be racing under. If they do decide to make a highly unexpected change then we can address that when it happens. The closer we get to the scheduled start of the season the more it looks like we're implying that there is evidence that they will make a highly unexpected last minute change. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- You hit the nail on the head. Following circumstantional evidence is original research. More, importantly, why are we still discussing this if we agree to ignore the original research policy in this case?
SSSB (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- You hit the nail on the head. Following circumstantional evidence is original research. More, importantly, why are we still discussing this if we agree to ignore the original research policy in this case?
- Except the reality is that due to a combination of circumstantial evidence and the resultant WP:COMMONSENSE, we do know what flags they will almost certainly be racing under. If they do decide to make a highly unexpected change then we can address that when it happens. The closer we get to the scheduled start of the season the more it looks like we're implying that there is evidence that they will make a highly unexpected last minute change. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the question mark only implies that we don't know, nothing more, nothing less, it just means there is no (solid) evidence of what flag they will use.
- @SSSB:, both are original research to some degree. Including the question marks implies that there is evidence that the nationality they race under may change, but there isn't any evidence of that. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Given the uptick in flagicon edits recently I think it would be appropriate to start an RfC for two weeks to gain proper input. Admanny (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:RfC is if we can't come to an agreement. I see agreement here. As far as I can tell, nobody is opposed to using common sense and adding the British and French flags to Aston and Alpine respectivly (apart from Sjessey who wants flags removed completely, but that doesn't effect if we should use WP:COMMONSENSE.)
SSSB (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:RfC is if we can't come to an agreement. I see agreement here. As far as I can tell, nobody is opposed to using common sense and adding the British and French flags to Aston and Alpine respectivly (apart from Sjessey who wants flags removed completely, but that doesn't effect if we should use WP:COMMONSENSE.)
- Yeah, at this point in time claiming that there is a possibility that they might change their registered nationalities honestly constitutes original research. There is nothing to suggest that the status quo will change for these teams any more than there is to suggest it will for any other team. All that has changed is that they've written a different name down on the entry list. A few months ago there was more justification, but at this point it's starting to look silly. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
2021 chassis names
This piqued my curiosity: how do you intend to present the 2021 cars? The pandemic means that the original design overhaul was pushed back to 2022 and the 2020 cars kept in service for a year with some limited development. To complicate things, Ferrari have announced that the SF1000 will be the SF21 while Red Bull have announced that the RBR16 will be the RBR16B. This raises the question of whether the 2021 cars should get their own articles, or if one article covering both years is best. And if one article is best, what name should that article have? 1.129.106.195 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Historically, when the same car has been used for multiple seasons/under different names, we have had a single article, using the original name, e.g. both the Ferrari F2001 (used in 2001) and the Ferrari F2001B (used at the start of 2002) are described in Ferrari F2001. Similarly, the Wolf–Williams FW05 (which was a rebranded version of the Hesketh 308C) is described at Hesketh 308C. DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Having seperate article from RB16 and RB16B is illogical. The name makes is obvious it is the same car (and it should be at Red Bull Racing RB16). The same applies to the Mclaren MCL35M.
- Currently Ferrari SF21 redirects to the SF1000 article, but depending on the interpretation of secondry sources, it may well be considered as a new car (and therefore new article, saying that the Ferrari SF21 is the same as the Ferrari SF1000 may be original research).
SSSB (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)- I don't think the SF21 having a wildly different name to the SF1000 (as opposed to being called the SF1000B or SF10001) justifies giving it a separate article though, as shown in the Hesketh example DH85868993 gave. Given the chassis has to be reused and will be largely the same because of how Ferrari has allocated its tokens, I think it would be fair to call and treat the SF21 as a B-spec vehicle. I would be interested to see if there are any precedents for this though (where the chassis is mostly the same, new engine from supplier, noticeably different name), nothing really comes to mind.
5225C (talk • contributions) 13:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)- It having an entirely different name or an identical one is irrelevant. But, if the media (i.e. secondary sources) consider it another car, then we must too (this is incredibly unlikely for Red Bull or Mclaren as their names directly tells us it's a B-spec (or M-spec, what happended to B-L?), that's why I specifically mention Ferrari).
SSSB (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC) - Since we already know that the 2021 cars will be substantially similar to the 2020 cars in a large nyumber of key areas (with reliable sources consistently saying that "the 2020 chassis designs will be carried over for 2021" or something to that effect) it's in no way original research to say that the 2021 and 2020 cars are just different evolutions of the same car. The fact that the name might be different is irrelevant. The article on Mumbai doesn't pretend that the city magically came into existence in 1995; and there isn't a separate article on the city of Bombay. This may of course change as the season progresses, if for some reason it becomes clear that there is a pressing need to have a separate article on (some or all of) the 2021 car(s). However, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and we have no way of knowing whether that may be the case yet. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- It having an entirely different name or an identical one is irrelevant. But, if the media (i.e. secondary sources) consider it another car, then we must too (this is incredibly unlikely for Red Bull or Mclaren as their names directly tells us it's a B-spec (or M-spec, what happended to B-L?), that's why I specifically mention Ferrari).
- I don't think the SF21 having a wildly different name to the SF1000 (as opposed to being called the SF1000B or SF10001) justifies giving it a separate article though, as shown in the Hesketh example DH85868993 gave. Given the chassis has to be reused and will be largely the same because of how Ferrari has allocated its tokens, I think it would be fair to call and treat the SF21 as a B-spec vehicle. I would be interested to see if there are any precedents for this though (where the chassis is mostly the same, new engine from supplier, noticeably different name), nothing really comes to mind.
Here is why I am asking the question: assuming that everything goes according to plan, by this time next year the SF21 will have completed 23 races. The SF1000, on the other hand, only completed 17. There is an argument here - and to be clear, I am not in favour of it, just pointing it out - that because it is a racing car and was designed to compete in races, then "SF21" better represents the name of the car because it completed more races. 2001:8003:2312:E301:D1D3:D94C:AF1C:E76E (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- But Ferrari using the chassis under the SF21 name more than the SF1000 name doesn't change the fact that the former is a derivative of the latter. A comparable case is again the Hesketh 308C: although the FW05 version was used more, it's still a derivative version of the 308C, and the article should be orientated towards the original vehicle.
5225C (talk • contributions) 06:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)- New F1 Cars being a derivative of their predecessor is a much more common practice than most people seem to realize here. The SF1000 was just as much an evolution of the SF90. It's hard no to see how similar they are. Likewise the F399 was an evolution of the F300 and was in turn evolved into the F1-2000. It isn't very common for them to build a completely new car from a completely new design every season. They only tend to do so when there is a massive change in the technical regulations.Tvx1 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between "this car is a derivative because it follows the same overall design philosophy with many minor changes and a few major changes to improve overall performance and further refine the design" and "this car is a derivative because most of the chassis is identical except for this specific area we have been allowed to change"?
5225C (talk • contributions) 00:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)- I think you are making an overly simplified despriction of the potential situations. We're not even sure how accuarte that is for the 2021 cars. The SF21 might still fall under the former definition techinically. It hasn't been presented yet. In fact I can't even say for sure whether your definitions would in reality ensure a major technical difference. They can still make minor and major changes to the areas they are allowed to develop. I also genuinely believe that you do not understand how little difference the SF90 and the SF1000 had.Tvx1 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- What do you suggest then? Should the SF21 have its own article? Do you want the SF90 and the SF1000 merged?
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)- I think it should have a seperate article just like the SF90 and SF1000 have. Describing the SF21 as a b-spec of the SF1000 is an overly simplistic description of the situation.Tvx1 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's still to early to tell. We'll need to wait at least until testing, if not until the season itself has begun, to truly know how sources will regard the 2021 cars in relation to 2020 versions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- What about the MCL35M and RB16B then? They are both subject to the same degree of change as the SF21 is.
5225C (talk • contributions) 00:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- But McLaren and Red Bull have given their cars a b-spec name, so ths SF21 is not comparible to the RB16B and the MCL35M in the "is it a b-spec?" discussion
SSSB (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC) - Agree with SSSB. Also we have to wait until the cars actually come into existence and how the sources deal with them before we can make a proper decission on this.Tvx1 15:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Are the b-spec names proof that those versions will be treated by sources as being any more or less the same as the versions used in 2020 than cars which don't receive b-spec names in 2021? For now, based off of how sources have talked about the 2021 cars, I would say we should assume that they will be treated as being the same as the 2020 cars, and if that changes then we should deal with that when it happens. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- But McLaren and Red Bull have given their cars a b-spec name, so ths SF21 is not comparible to the RB16B and the MCL35M in the "is it a b-spec?" discussion
- I think it should have a seperate article just like the SF90 and SF1000 have. Describing the SF21 as a b-spec of the SF1000 is an overly simplistic description of the situation.Tvx1 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- What do you suggest then? Should the SF21 have its own article? Do you want the SF90 and the SF1000 merged?
- I think you are making an overly simplified despriction of the potential situations. We're not even sure how accuarte that is for the 2021 cars. The SF21 might still fall under the former definition techinically. It hasn't been presented yet. In fact I can't even say for sure whether your definitions would in reality ensure a major technical difference. They can still make minor and major changes to the areas they are allowed to develop. I also genuinely believe that you do not understand how little difference the SF90 and the SF1000 had.Tvx1 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between "this car is a derivative because it follows the same overall design philosophy with many minor changes and a few major changes to improve overall performance and further refine the design" and "this car is a derivative because most of the chassis is identical except for this specific area we have been allowed to change"?
- New F1 Cars being a derivative of their predecessor is a much more common practice than most people seem to realize here. The SF1000 was just as much an evolution of the SF90. It's hard no to see how similar they are. Likewise the F399 was an evolution of the F300 and was in turn evolved into the F1-2000. It isn't very common for them to build a completely new car from a completely new design every season. They only tend to do so when there is a massive change in the technical regulations.Tvx1 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
After Alpine's announcement I think it would be wholly proper to split chassis names accordingly. Teams that indicate 2021 will be B-spec of 2020 should use the same page per COMMONNAME and those who don't should have their own page. Ferrari SF21 included. Admanny (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I can't disagree, this seems intuitive for Alpine/Aston Martin and it's not a stretch to apply it to Ferrari etc. as well.
5225C (talk • contributions) 10:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)- I still think it's too early to be making these calls. A change in name does not mean that the car will be fundamentally different enough to warrant a new article, and the name staying largely the same does not mean the car will be fundamentally similar enough to warrant keeping the coverage within the same article. There is no need to rush here; once testing and the races themselves are underway we'll have a far clearer picture than just chassis names. With the Silverstone and Enstone teams there is probably a stronger argument for separate articles since the constructor name is changing, but it's still not definitive. Ultimately splitting one article if it becomes clear that a second one is needed is easier than merging two articles together if it becomes clear that the second article was unnecessary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree we can wait for Ferrari, but looking at coverage now of the A521 it is clear that it will be treated as distinct from the R.S.20. I imagine the same will happen for Aston Martin. But, like you've said, there's no rush, but I believe this will end up being the course of action we take.
5225C (talk • contributions) 11:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)- So where are we three weeks later? I really think that we should create articles at least for those cars that a completely distinct name to those used in 2020. Moreover, in examples like the Ferrari one I really don't see the sources treating the SF21 vs the SF1000 in too different manner than how they treated the SF1000 vs the SF90.Tvx1 18:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree we can wait for Ferrari, but looking at coverage now of the A521 it is clear that it will be treated as distinct from the R.S.20. I imagine the same will happen for Aston Martin. But, like you've said, there's no rush, but I believe this will end up being the course of action we take.
- I still think it's too early to be making these calls. A change in name does not mean that the car will be fundamentally different enough to warrant a new article, and the name staying largely the same does not mean the car will be fundamentally similar enough to warrant keeping the coverage within the same article. There is no need to rush here; once testing and the races themselves are underway we'll have a far clearer picture than just chassis names. With the Silverstone and Enstone teams there is probably a stronger argument for separate articles since the constructor name is changing, but it's still not definitive. Ultimately splitting one article if it becomes clear that a second one is needed is easier than merging two articles together if it becomes clear that the second article was unnecessary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Abiteboul leaves Renault
How do people feel about including Cyril Abiteboul's departure from Renault under the "team changes" section? I would argue that any senior personnel leaving a team is pretty significant because they influence the culture and direction of the team - look at McLaren's turn-around from Eric Boullier to Andreas Seidl. 1.144.108.105 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Problem is where do you draw the line? There are probably dozens of changes in personnel every year, all made with the aim of improving a team's fortunes, but very hard to quantify a performance uplift being down to any single person. Think it best to contain personnel movements to the person and team articles. Pholnphilit (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Problem is where do you draw the line?"
- Simple. This is what I said:
- "any senior personnel leaving a team is pretty significant"
- Senior personnel. So, team principals and car designers, for one. 1.144.108.165 (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The section on team changes forms part of larger section on what is basically the entry list. Team members don't appear on the entry list and can even change race to race. It isn't important to mention, for example, that Binotto was absent from a couple of races or that Williams had Roberts or whoever it was as acting team principal. Ultimately, team members aren't relevant to the season entry list and their involvement with the team can be covered on their personal and the team's articles.
5225C (talk • contributions) 12:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)- A change in team principal is pretty significant overall though. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's significant, but not relevant to a section titled "entries".
SSSB (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)- If we learned nothing else from the Netflix series (and yes, I know they take some creative licence), it's that team principals play a huge role in managing the fortunes of a team. 1.129.106.144 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Their importance to the team's operations doesn't make them relevant to the entry list.
5225C (talk • contributions) 03:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Their importance to the team's operations doesn't make them relevant to the entry list.
- If we learned nothing else from the Netflix series (and yes, I know they take some creative licence), it's that team principals play a huge role in managing the fortunes of a team. 1.129.106.144 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's significant, but not relevant to a section titled "entries".
- A change in team principal is pretty significant overall though. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Team personnel are not entered."
No, but team personnel run the teams, and the teams are the ones that are entered. Without the team personnel, the entry is meaningless. It's a piece of paper that says you are entered. 1.129.106.136 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- @SSSB: Aside from personnel not being an official entry, they are frankly not significant enough to justify discussion on the season's article. By the same logic 1.129.106.136, we could also include, for example, a list of the organisers of the races and a table of the FIA officials who run the GPs. They are all essential to the running of the season, but we don't include them because they do not have any particular notability outside of their specific role. Team personnel are team personnel and they can be discussed on the team's article and their own article if applicable.
5225C (talk • contributions) 01:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)- While the appointment of a new CEO, designer, engineer etc is of significance to a team, they are less so to a championship season and thus should be kept to the team articles. By way of a similar example, in 2020 it was discussed and agreed that while the change of ownership of Williams was a significant event for the team, it was agreed that it had little bearing on the season. Fecotank (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Cancelled races table
Is a whole table really needed for one cancelled race? Sure, it was done in the 2020 article, but there were multiple cancellations. Here it's just one race. I don't really see the need for it - explaining it in prose would be much more succinct and much more effective.
Also, could somebody please add nowrapa for Imola/Emilia Romagna to make the article more accessible to mobile readers? 1.144.108.135 (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- User:SSSB - in that case, the table should be removed from the article and the issue addressed in prose. Something like this:
- "The Chinese Grand Prix was included on the original calendar that was approved by the World Motorsport Calendar. However, the event was postponed at the request of event organisers, who cited the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Emilia Romagna Grand Prix at the Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari, which was originally intended to be a one-off Grand Prix in 2020, was retained in its place."
- There should also be some mention of the Australian Grand Prix being moved to the end of the year. 1.129.106.144 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- User:SSSB - in that case, the table should be removed from the article and the issue addressed in prose. Something like this:
Brazilian GP
A Brazilian judge has suspended the contract to run the Brazilian GP. Presumably this means that, at this point in time, the GP is cancelled. Should become clear within a week as the São Paolo authorities have five days to submit relevant documents. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't mean it's cancelled (at time of writing) it just means the formal agreement is void. A couple of weeks ago we had a situation where there was no formal agreement for the Spanish Grand Prix.
SSSB (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC) - I thought that the Brazilian GP wasn't being held anyway? Weren't they going to hold the São Paulo GP instead? With regards to the contract, a temporary suspension is no the same as cancellation.Tvx1 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021
Mercedes' chassis name has been confirmed to be the W12 as per their twitter [2]
Lewis Hamilton is listed on the F1 website drivers page, which was updated today [3] Norgz7775 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- The F1 drivers link clearly says "F1 Drivers 2020". Mercedes haven't announced he's signed a contract yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Chassis name added.
SSSB (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just FYI, the F1 site does say "F1 Drivers 2021" and has Hamilton listed (this may have changed since you last looked; or we may be looking at something different!). Personally think he should be in the table now (but definitely retain the note). Not worried either way though. Bs1jac (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Only put him in the table when official entry list releases if he still doesn't have a contract. Similar scenario to Senna in early 90's with McLaren iirc. Admanny (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- The official entry list has been released a while ago and is actually used as source for the table. That entry list actually does include him. Also the Senna situation isn't really comparable since Wikipedia didn't exist back then. We don't really have a precedent of us dealing with something similar in the past.Tvx1 23:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Only put him in the table when official entry list releases if he still doesn't have a contract. Similar scenario to Senna in early 90's with McLaren iirc. Admanny (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just FYI, the F1 site does say "F1 Drivers 2021" and has Hamilton listed (this may have changed since you last looked; or we may be looking at something different!). Personally think he should be in the table now (but definitely retain the note). Not worried either way though. Bs1jac (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021
Good Evening,
With respect I feel that the 'Technical Regulations' section is lacking significant detail. I'd like to propose that something like this is added.
"On 27th of May 2020 it was announced that rule makers had opted to 'clip' the floor of the cars in order to reduce downforce for 2021. In 2020 the floor is permitted to run in a straight line from an area adjacent to the cockpit back to a point ahead of the rear tyre, however from 2021 that point ahead of the tyre must be 10cm further inboard, so making the floor edge a diagonal line when viewed from above. It's expected that this change will reduce downforce levels by 5%[1].
In August 2020 three further changes were announced for 2021, these are expected to remove a further 5% of downforce giving a 10% decrease in total when added to the aforementioned 'floor clip'. Specifically these three changes are the removal of some slots on the edge of the floor, narrowing of brake duct winglets by 40mm and chopping of diffuser fences by 50mm. It is expected that teams will find downforce improvements of roughly 5% over the winter so the anticpated overall downforce reduction is 5%[2]. TuscanSteve (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done, with some additional editing.
5225C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)- Glad to be of service this time. You may remember that my previous contribution regarding Roscoe the dog on the 2020 Sakhir Grand Prix page wasn’t so helpful. TuscanSteve (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Nikita Mazepin's Nationality
It has recently been confirmed that Mazepin will not be allowed to run under the Russian flag but under a Neutral Flag and be entered as a Neutral Athlete from Russia due to the CAS ruling. Neutral Flag hasn't ever been seen in F1, will the change be entered here? It won't though affect F2/F3 Russian drivers because of F1 being a World Championship and F2 being a Championship.
Source: Mazepin not allowed Russian Flag
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norgz7775 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- FIA must confirm it. Actually F1.com includes it. Island92 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Island92: Wrong. Per this Autosport, "the Russian Automobile Federation has now announced that it received clarifications from the FIA concerning the CAS ruling this week, confirming it would impact drivers competing in world championship series". The FIA do not need to confirm it. They have already told the RAF that they ate affected. Besides, the FIA is a signatory to WADA and the CAS, so they are bound to follow a ruling. This isn't a case of the FIA saying "CAS have told us this and we're deciding on how to handle it", but rather "CAS have told us this, so it's going to happen". 1.144.109.57 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Russian Doping Ban: Nikita Mazepin
Would Nikita be listed under the Russian flag to the Neutral flag as Russia has been banned from all spots until 2022? WKiernan08 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, he will be. @Tvx1: added it last night but @Island92: removed it. I disagree with Island92's reasoning, the FIA cannot overrule the decision. If the ban affects the Russian Automobile Association, Mazepin won't use the flag.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what F1.com says. Per Autosport, the FIA have already told the Russian Automobile Federation that they will be affected by the ruling. This is not a question of whether Mazepin will have a Russian licence or something else, but rather of which nationality he will compete under as a Russian licence is not permitted. 1.144.109.57 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify I did not add anything. I merely removed the Russian flag because it was wrong to keep using it. I have not added a neutral flag yet because they tend to use a different one depending on the vent. At the Olympics the just used the olympic flag whereas at athletics championships they are Authorized Neutral Athletes. The exact flag his is to use has not been clarified. As for F1.com, they’re probably just slow in updating.Tvx1 01:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that it has been updated, the wording of the note should be changed. It currently reads like this:
"Nikita Mazepin is of Russian nationality, but he will race under a neutral flag after WADA extended the ban on athletes competing under a Russian flag to all FIA sanctioned World Championships."
However, it shoukd read like this:
"Nikita Mazepin is a Russian driver, but he will race under a neutral flag after the Court of Arbitration for Sport extended the World Anti-Doping Agency's ban on athletes competing under a Russian flag. The court also ruled that the ban applied to all FIA-sanctioned World Championships."
Firstly, the ban was imposed by WADA, but this development stems from the CAS ruling on it. That might seem like semantics, but the WADA ban came into effect in 2018. Sergey Sirotkin and Daniil Kvyat were free to race under Russian licences until this CAS ruling. Secondly, the original wording introduced WADA without any context; it's not clear who they are based on the wording alone. 1.144.109.57 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Done. Island92 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021
Please revert this edit. The statement that "the FIA must confirm it" is incorrect. As per this source, "the Russian Automobile Federation has now announced that it received clarifications from the FIA concerning the CAS ruling this week, confirming it would impact drivers competing in world championship series". The FIA do not need to confirm anything because a) they have already told the Russians that they will be affected and b) the FIA do not have any power over the nationality that appears on a racing licence provided that a driver registers with a national federation recognised by the FIA. 1.144.109.57 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Change has been made, see above for discussion.
5225C (talk • contributions) 02:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Mazepin's flag
Could this flag work properly in place of the Russian flag?--Island92 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Island92: that works fine pending the FIA informing us what flag they are using.
SSSB (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)- It's been added, even for 2022 article.--Island92 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Needless to say, it's a temporary flag in place of the Russian flag. FIA will tell us which flag we should add as soon as they've decided the flag for this Russian driver.--Island92 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Initially I supported this as a generic flag for neutral athletes, but now I'm wondering if using it is a violation of WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)- @SSSB: I thought it could work correctly, that's why I started this new talk. Despite being a provisional flag, whether you consider it being a violation we could leave . @DeFacto: It wouldn't have been an edit war if you had looked at this new talk in time. When I added the ANA flag, my description consisted in writing "per talk".--Island92 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Island92, I don't see a consensus here to use the ANA flag, so please revert until there is one, and comply with the spirit of WP:BRD rather than edit warring. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Initially I supported this as a generic flag for neutral athletes, but now I'm wondering if using it is a violation of WP:OR.
- Needless to say, it's a temporary flag in place of the Russian flag. FIA will tell us which flag we should add as soon as they've decided the flag for this Russian driver.--Island92 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's been added, even for 2022 article.--Island92 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would personally support using the ANA flag as a temporary solution and then using whatever flag the FIA decide is correct when we have that information. The alternative is using the "mystery" flag which makes it look like we don't know what country he's from, when in reality we do know that he's being affected by the current sanctions on Russia in sport, and the ANA flag communicates that information better. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- As I understand it, you can only apply for a licence from a national sporting federation that has been recognised by the FIA. If you're from Transnistria in eastern Moldova, you can only get a licence from Moldova because although Transnistria is a self-declared independent state (but not one recognised by the international community), it does not have its owm federation. Since there is currently no neutral federation, the ANA flag is about as meaningful as the Transnistrian flag. The FIA will need to rule on it. 1.144.109.76 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)