This page is for discussions related to articles within the scope of WikiProject Formula One.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Formula One This page is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 23 May 2011

WikiProject Formula One was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 23 May 2011.

Hi all,

I am currently standardising all F1 driver introductions to keep a fairly consistent format and opening paragraphs, drawing on any championships (per Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen and Fernando Alonso), karting (only FIA World/European Championships) and junior career successes (per Charles Leclerc, Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Nyck de Vries), and making F1 career run-downs more concise with better points of notability, as well as including career statistics and contract status at the end of the intro. Currently keeping the intros neutral but may consider including referenced statements such as "Widely regarded as one of the greatest drivers of all time/of his generation" for drivers such as Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen, per corresponding association football articles. Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.

I have applied this formatting to the ledes of all World Champions, clearly underlining career span to the reader alongside notable achievements in motor racing (e.g. major championships and Triple Crown of endurance racing). Working on concise career rundowns (per Niki Lauda, James Hunt, Jim Clark and Graham Hill), many of these had a woeful lack of quality and clarity for their influence and relevance to the sport, hopefully it'll serve as a starting block for an increase in GAs/FAs in this project.

Drivers completed.

Update: All 2024 drivers completed by 9 September 2024, all World Champion ledes completed by 8 October 2024, currently working on all Grand Prix winners and drivers who competed up to 2015. Per other discussions, currently looking at adding Grand Prix wins to opening paragraphs and potentially removing nicknames.

Mb2437 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say as long as WP:LEAD is generally followed articles should naturally be fairly consistent, they don't all have to be identical in terms of structure, especially not when they are in varying states of quality with everything from GA's to articles that are in need of serious improvement. TylerBurden (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of most introductions were an atrocious read prior to the changes made, not concisely breaking down careers with inconsistent detailing in many. Avoided major edits to Hamilton, Verstappen and Alonso, whose pages have been edited thousands of times to a fairly well-balanced form. Many other sports follow a similar structure on all pages. Mb2437 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about links of the form [[Formula One drivers from Foo|Fooian racing driver]], as in the lead of Valtteri Bottas. It feels like a bit of an "Easter egg" link to me. DH85868993 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link needs mentioning at some point in the intro, that way it does so without making an added point of the history of their nationality in the sport, which isn’t really notable with the exception of Zhou. I think it’s clear that clicking on “Finnish racing driver” leads to a list of successful Finnish racing drivers, rather than no link at all. Mb2437 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on all counts. A prime example is Antonelli, his article links to Italian Formula One drivers - he isn't a Formula One driver yet. It is an WP:EGG link. And the simple solution is to put "Fooian [former] Formula One driver" and then linking to the article makes perfect sense. For retired drivers and current drivers it is appropriate because it is almost always the most notable series they raced in. The only issue would be for former F1, but still active racers. But then I don't think it is a necessary link in any case, so missing it isn't a big deal. Additionally, in (for example Verstappens article) we can write, "the most successful Dutch Formula One driver, Verstappen has 3 world championships" and link to it in that way. SSSB (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps add "currently competing in Formula One under the Fooian flag for Team" for all, seen on multi-nationality driver pages, but doesn't feel as elegant or concise. The use of "Formula One driver" as opposed to "racing driver, currently [or formerly] competing in Formula One" restricts their racing career to solely Formula One. F1 career should always be mentioned in the lead paragraph, but all have competed elsewhere. Keeping the link isn't that deep really, but many readers will surely be curious to read on about their compatriots, hence why I think the inclusion is important. Mb2437 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but many readers will surely be curious to read on about their compatriots," I'm not convinced that's true. When people go to (I don't know) Bottas' article, they want to read about Bottas. I would suggest that they would want to read about Finlands history in F1 is when the article talks about it (I.e. "Bottas is the most recent Finnish Grand Prix winner". This kind of sentence is more common at Grands Prix articles) SSSB (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with a "one size fits all" model for these articles, particularly if it's going to be rolled out across every F1 driver. It will suit some articles better than others, and I would be against changing articles which are already well-written. As a side point, there's a bit of overlinking here and there – coaching and management do not need to be linked, for example, and country names are never to be linked. I would also say that I personally don't think linking to a list of racing drivers of whatever nationality is useful. These drivers have practically nothing else in common. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've predominantly been focusing on articles that are not well-written i.e. near enough every article besides the World Champions. The quality and lack of introductory detail made F1 articles far too difficult to navigate. Having a concise career rundown in the introduction should be the norm for F1 articles, a point which so many visit to get a grasp of.

Removed over-linking on the Jos Verstappen page (Netherlands, coached and managed) apart from the Netherlands A1 team, which needs a link there. As far as linking to a list of drivers from various nationalities, it has been the standard on F1 pages for a while, I've been adding it to pages who don't use it for consistency. Mb2437 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Providing it is concise, yes. The introduction is basically to establish notability and give the basics in a nutshell. It probably doesn't mean that a driver's entire career be summarised, and shouldn't include anything that would fail to make him/her notable if that was the peak of what they achieved. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though notability has been followed fairly well on the introductions I've completed thus far; only including FIA Karting Championships, junior career championships/vice-championships, F1 career milestones (teams moved to, maiden wins/poles/podiums, championships), and other major series raced in full-time or won. Full F1 careers have generally been summarised in one paragraph, with two covering drivers with more extensive careers. Mb2437 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the second link in the lead paragraph of Jos Verstappen to the list of Dutch racing drivers – one is tolerable, but not two. There just seems like a lot of blue in some of these, which can be a bit distracting for some readers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Jos Verstappen, we have "Dutch former racing driver" all as part of a link. Really, none of that needs linking as all are very common terms. I see we've even got "gearbox" and "bankruptcy" linked (gearbox linked in the lead and the next paragraph) – that's overkill. If we must link to a list of racing drivers from Country X, let's do it in the infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently standardising all F1 driver introductions to keep to a fairly consistent format, per goal 3 of this WP, with:

• Notable career achievements clearly laid out in the opening paragraph with no excessive details,
• Early life, karting and junior career successes touched upon briefly (more widely discussed for younger drivers),
• Concise F1 career analyses (mention of every season),
• Current drivers: career statistics and contract status; former drivers: other notable ventures.

Currently keeping the intros NPOV, with small exceptions where F1 success doesn't strictly translate to the subject's importance. Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.

I have applied this formatting to the ledes of all World Champions, clearly underlining career span to the reader alongside notable achievements in motor racing (i.e. major championships or endurance wins). Also working on concise career rundowns (per Niki Lauda, James Hunt, Jim Clark, Stirling Moss and Dan Gurney), many of these had a woeful lack of quality and clarity relative to their influence and relevance to the sport; hopefully it'll serve as a starting block for an increase in GAs/FAs in this project.

Drivers completed. All leads on this list marked N.I. are in serious need of improvement, feel free to contribute!

Update: All 2024 drivers completed by 9 September 2024, all World Champion ledes completed by 8 October 2024, all Grand Prix winners completed by 13 October 2024; currently working on drivers who competed up to 2015. Per other discussions, currently iterating with Grand Prix wins in lede, moved nationality wikilinks, cleaned infoboxes, and corrected career span nomenclature: "between x and y" for discontinuous careers barring one-year hiatuses. Mb2437 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to bring this up again here, because Mb2437 is working hard on lead sections for all F1 drivers, and I'm just concerned there wasn't really any consensus for some of what is being done.

I voiced opposition earlier to the concept of linking nationality in the lede to a list of drivers from that country. I still oppose it and I didn't honestly see any support for it, yet it's happening everywhere. I just don't think that's a helpful link in this context.

I'm also not keen on linking the span of years that a driver spent in F1 to a couple of season articles, i.e. his first season and his last. I don't really see how they're helpful or particularly relevant links in this context. On occasions, saying that Driver X competed in F1 from (for example) 1981 to 1985 is not really accurate when he might have done a couple of races in 1981, nothing in 1982, and sporadically until 1985.

I feel that the rather full-on rigidity of this standardisation is restrictive and unnecessary, and isn't suitable for drivers with radically different careers.

I don't want to dismiss what this editor is doing at all, because some lead sections were in dire need of work, but I want to see a more consensus-based approach, and more flexibility within the lead section structure. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started a discussion on nationality linking at "Formula One drivers from x". Career span could easily be fixed with "between x and y" for those who didn't compete in each of said years. Mb2437 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a reminder that occupations and roles held by the subject that don't contribute to his/her notability shouldn't be in the opening paragraph, per MOS:ROLEBIO. That would probably include most uses of "engineer", and "motorsport executive". The latter linking to "business executive" is an unhelpful link as it doesn't tell the reader anything at all about the role held by the subject. If a driver became a notable team owner then better just to use that term. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A motorsport business article could be justified in that case, or simply linking to motorsport. It has proven tough drawing the line with some articles regarding their notability as engineers and executives, I'd argue any driver who has managed/directed a Formula One team certainly qualifies for such a title, but with lower categories it's tricky e.g. Peter Gethin (can see why this one should be removed though). As for engineering, having a professional career as an engineer and subsequently having major developmental roles within their teams could be argued as notable but, again, a marginal call. Mb2437 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say try to imagine these guys without their driving careers, and consider whether or not their other activities would merit an article on Wikipedia. Definitely anyone who managed an F1 team or designed an F1 car would count, but I would describe them as team boss or racing car designer, just as they would be described in reliable sources, and aim for specificity rather than a generic "executive" or "engineer" term. Try to avoid linking to really broad scope articles which aren't going to explain anything to the reader about that driver. Having a professional career as an engineer, or studying as an engineer at college is not inherently notable but being an automotive engineer at an F1 team probably is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be going back over every article with the changes discussed (moving nationality links from lede, adding Grand Prix wins, re-wording discontinuous career spans), as well as cleaning up infoboxes and whatnot, and will look closer at their further professional notabilities with that. Mb2437 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the standardization work problematic. The edits being made affect the work of other WPs, including those for LeMans 24H/Sportscars, and Indy car. Contents related to the work of these WPs has been removed at times or de-emphasized. These edits are sometimes done under the guise of "clean-up," or because the information has been deemed "trivial." I have not seen that @Mb2437 has initiated discussions with the relevant WPs or at WP:Motorsport.

I find it doubtful that the various careers of so many drivers can, or should, be forced into a one-size fits all approach to their leads. Perhaps the Formula One specific sections of their articles can successfully be standardized, but this should be in an area outside of the lead. RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which non-trivial information has been removed? "Clean-ups" have simply been re-working infoboxes and syntax. All notable achievements in sportscars and American open-wheelers have been addressed clearly in leads and infoboxes. Mb2437 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed sections from infoboxes when you deem the information trivial, such as this edit.

If such information is deemed trivial, will you eventually be removing infoboxes for drivers who only have one or two F1 starts?

And again, why do you feel leads need to be standardized? Is this not a very large initiative that has impacts outside of WP:F1? Why not go to WP:Motorsport to propose such changes? RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "titles" section was unnecessary when his only title is addressed in his F1 infobox, as was having two single-event Champ Car entries and being disqualified from Le Mans once. We don't need dozens of infoboxes for every event contested by every driver where their careers were not notable.

The standardisation of leads is for reading clarity that previously did not exist across this WP; bringing this to WP:Motorsport is the next move once they have reached a certain quality so it's smoothed out across the board. Mb2437 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not hot it works. The conventions of those WPs are that drivers competing in those series/races have an infobox, regardless of their results. People working through those WPs will decide what is notable. This same convention exists for WP:F1. This is why every single driver who has competed in an F1 event, regardless of where they finished or if the bulk of their career was spent elsewhere, has their F1 results summarized in their infobox.

You have shown a lot of good intention by come on here proactively to discuss your changes. However, the pattern of your edits - the initiative to standardize - has an affect on more than just F1-specific content. Thus this should be brought to WP:Motorsport to ensure that all affected WPs have the opportunity to weigh in on your initiative. RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-worked over 100 infoboxes over the last few weeks and those conventions didn't seem clear or consistent, apologies if there was confusion there. Amongst them I've had to add several Le Mans infoboxes for drivers with extensive careers at the race, some of whom were not only class winners, but overall winners (Mauro Baldi, Maurice Trintignant). Either way, stating that a World Drivers' Champion also entered Le Mans once and was disqualified doesn't add much to what the reader should be seeing straight away, nor does adding his two Vanderbilt Cup starts, neither of which he particularly succeeded in or is notable for; this driver is not really relevant to other WPs. I wholly stand by my edit summary that the infoboxes were trivial. As the user below explained, it's a case of WP:DIB.

Perhaps the only exception to this would be Fernando Alonso, whose Indianapolis 500 entries were subject to widespread media coverage for his attempt at the Triple Crown of Motorsport. If there are a significant number of secondary sources covering Farina's careers in those series then, by all means, add them. Notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mb2437 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Mb2437 has the right approach to infoboxes. The correct approach here is to remove F1 infoboxes if those are trivial careers in the context of the driver's other achievements. I would recommend consulting WP:NMOTORSPORT to assess whether or not results are trivial: this guideline was endorsed by WikiProject Motorsport so should be a good starting point to decide what's important enough for an infobox. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I do agree there is a point where this concern does stretch to WP:Motorsport, and will be bringing the matter there in due course, per the OP: "Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge." Mb2437 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a driver has meaningful results for a series or was notable for their participation in it, then it should be in the infobox. In the case of one DSQ at Le Mans, having that in the infobox is much more a case of WP:DIB. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a topic that has blown out of proportion on Talk:Daniel Ricciardo, I am bringing it up here to get a consensus.

The argument is that only the nationality a driver races under should be mentioned in the lead, per MOS:NATIONALITY. Given that drivers frequently select nationalities to race under for financial and political reasons, I believe it is easier to state all their applicable nationalities (along with “competing under the x flag”) than simply the one they have selected, especially in cases such as Alex Albon and Max Verstappen. Thus, I oppose changing the current precedent of naming all nationalities in the lead. Mb2437 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in support of changing the current precedent of naming all nationalities in the lead, because it doesn't meet biography guidelines and the precedent is incorrect. The convention for F1 pages simply states it should be included in the article. But the article is different thing to the intro. Wikipedia convention and guidelines are explicit in not including multiple nationalities in the intro, unless there is a notable reason for doing so. While I agree with @Mb2437 in that drivers may select to race under another flag. This doesn't mean that it is notable. Drivers choosing different flags is not unique to F1. It is done in football, basketball and plenty of other sports, but they are not listed with both citizenships, unless there's a notable reason for doing so. In Ricciardo's case there is no notable reason for doing so.

For a driver like Romain Grosjean, who has represented both Switzerland and France. It can make sense to include both. Until Ricciardo or any other driver does that, it should simply list the country they are notable for being from, which is in line with wikipedia guidelines under MOS:NATIONALITY.

I also propose rewording the conventions to be clearer and explain that the lead should only include one citizenship unless they are notable for both, while including any dual citizenship information in the body of the article. Basetornado (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose changing the way we do it now, especially if we take this discussion from only Daniel Ricciardo to changing it for all the drivers. This will create confusion with drivers like Max Verstappen (who is actually a Belgian person driving with a Dutch license), for them changing the lead to '... is a Dutch racing driver' would just be 100% incorrect. Also for drivers like Lando Norris and Lance Stroll who have raced with a Belgian or Flemish flag on their cars at some point in their career (Norris still does, he has both his flags on his helmet), and do identify with both their nationalities, it would only create confusion not to mention them both. Romain Grosjean (Swiss person racing for France), Nico Rosberg (Finnish Monegask driving for Germany) and Pascal Wehrlein (Mauritian driving for Germany) are a few others that raced for a different nationality than they associated most with. Now I do agree that Daniel Ricciardo is the odd one out here, aside from clearly being from an Italian family and admitting he has an Italian passport, he barely identifies with the country, but since we do mention it for all the other drivers in the lead, I think we should do it in his article too, just for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesRoutine (talk • contribs) 07:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all counts. Mb2437 (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. I think we must avoid a situation that we do mentioned in with some drivers, but not with others drivers. Then we get a lot of confusion and separate discussions.Lobo151 (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. No where else on wikipedia does it this way. Because it is against how pages should be written. No one is going to be confused. The vast majority of these drivers are notable for one country. Listing two is the confusing and misleading part. If it's a piece of trivia that a driver is a dual citizen, then they are not notable for being one, and it just leads to more confusion.

Wikipedia guidelines are incredibly clear on this. It only gets listed if it's notable. "They could choose to drive under a different nationality" is not notable. Having them all listed removes any context to why it's included. Because a driver who legitimately drove under both flags is listed the same as someone who never did, and only has citizenship through a parent, but is only ever referred too as being from that country.

How the majority of these pages, including Ricciardo's are currently written is in clear breach of the guidelines. There is not even a need for a consensus here. It's just plain wrong to list it as it is. Basetornado (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the guidelines are not a set of rules, but a manual of style. It clearly says on top of the guidelines page you're linking that exceptions can be made if there is a consensus or if it's deemed necessary to make an article or type of articles better. Secondly I quote: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident", this means that next to the country they are notable for, we can also include the territory where the person is currently a national of, because this is based on a persons passport.

There seems to be a consensus for this among editors of motorsport related articles, and it doesn't look like were gonna get to a solution here, so I guess we will have to get this reviewed by admins, preferably admins that have some feeling with sports articles. LesRoutine (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion just began yesterday. Administrators don't have more sway over consensus than other users, so just let this discussion continue and see where it goes. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get it reviewed by admins. I have no issues with that. The guidelines also state there must be a good reason for doing so. So far some of the reasons Ive heard are "his parents are from there", "he puts their flag on his helmet" and "drivers can change nationalities". None of which is a good enough reason and can be said about virtually any athlete with dual citizenship.

That sentence about the opening paragraph, it's also explicitly stating that dual citizenship should not be listed unless notable. They even have examples of dual citizens underneath it, showing why they're not listed, as well as some that are because they are notable for both. Basetornado (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is clear, nationality is only to be mentioned if notable, and Ricciardo's Italian nationality is not. It can be discussed in his personal life section. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the same logic, Grosjean's Swiss, Rosberg's Finnish and Monegasque, Wehrlein's Mauritian and Norris's and Stroll's Belgian nationalities are also not notable, and do not need to be mentioned in the lead, as they have not gained notability under those nationalities. Marbe166 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norris and Stroll's Belgian nationalities shouldn't be mentioned. They are effectively trivia. Not notable to the average person. Rosberg's Finnish nationality may be notable as he did race under that and his father was a Finnish world champion in the sport, but Monegasque is completely out. Wehrlein lists himself as Mauritian and German, so it's more borderline. Basetornado (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! Well done :) 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing secondary and other nationalities from the lead sentence. The first sentence, and the lead paragraph, are concerned with establishing notability. These drivers are not notable for anything other than their racing careers. The nationality they use for racing is the only nationality connected with their notability. The guidelines and the MOS are very clear on this, and although exceptions are occasionally permissible, any exception in this case has to be related to notability, the core function of the lead sentence. No suitable rationale for creating an exception in the case of Ricciardo, or Verstappen or multiple other drivers has been offered here. These guys have one nationality they use for racing, and others are relative trivia to be included in early life or personal life sections, properly sourced as usual. The fact this this information is sourced is not a reason to include it in the first sentence. I'd also add that ethnicity or birthplace do not belong in the lead unless connected to their notability, as per MOS:CITIZEN. So Verstappen is Belgian-born, that is irrelevant to his notability and therefore irrelevant to the lead paragraph. What's not to understand? In certain cases, wording can be adjusted to suit drivers who have raced under two nationalities, but the recent "one size fits all" policy regarding these articles is unhelpful and unconstructive.

Also, this is not a content dispute. This is a discussion about whether a guideline in the manual of style is to be followed or ignored. I find that bizarre. Wikipedia is a rules-based order. Just follow the guidelines. Some of the comments elsewhere that effectively consist of "Why should you care? Just look the other way!" are utterly vacuous. I agree that an administrator should probably be invited here to comment, and if necessary, decide whether the manual of style exists to be followed, or arbitrarily ignored when editors feel like their opinions justify it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully second the entirety of Bretonbanquet's comment. There was an arguement made at Lance Stroll that sources mention him as Belgian-Canadian in sources in passing, to which my response is "so what?". Firstly, these sources are the minority, so a WP:DUE arguement could be made about mentioning this in the lead, and secondly, his Belgian nationality is trivial regardless of how many people discuss it. SSSB (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the go from here? Do we need to bring in an admin, or has a decision been made. Basetornado (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear consensus reached, so the status quo remains for the time being. Mb2437 (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it (as broadly indifferent, having weakly supported your position in the past but having been swayed by the policy) there is a consensus, the consensus is in favour of only listing nationalities drivers have raced under. And as this is the only view point with actual policy behind it, and has the most support, any uninvolved editor, as suggested by Basetornado, (we don't need an admin) would surely rule that there is a consensus to only list nationalities they compete under. If you really want to insist that there is no consensus for change, we can always go for a Wikipedia:Closure request or Wikipedia:Request for comment. SSSB (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the 'policy' has multiple interpretations; the lead of MOS:CITIZEN clearly states "the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident". Amongst the examples are also Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose dual nationality has been stated to avoid ambiguity as it poses a "political issue". This very much applies in F1, where drivers frequently choose flags to race under for political and financial reasons. Not only does the policy quoted clearly allow for the style to remain, but it also avoids any ambiguity and controversy over driver nationality e.g. stating Max Verstappen is a "Dutch racing driver", when he is Belgian, or stating Alex Albon is a "Thai racing driver", when he is British. Alternately, as with a lot of association football articles, the nationality could be omitted in favour of—for example—"Max Verstappen is a racing driver, currently competing under the Dutch flag", per the example of Nicolaus Copernicus, or a footballer like Matty Cash. Mb2437 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have multiple interpretations. You are missing the start of that sentence about where they're a national or live etc, where it says "In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident;". The Arnold Schwarnegger example is because he is notable for being an Austrian actor and an American politician. That's the political issue.

Verstappen is both Belgian and Dutch but he is only notable for being Dutch. That's the point. Notability. It doesn't matter what nationality they are, just what they are notable for being.

At the point it feels like you are wilfully misinterpreting and leaving out information to suit your argument, especially leaving out the start of the sentence and even if we go by what you said, he is still Dutch, so that still fits for both where he's a national of and notability.

The Matty Cash argument? He plays for Poland. That's notable. The majority of dual national drivers have only ever driven for one country and that is what they are notable for, anything else is trivia suited for early life or personal life. Basetornado (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Matty Cash argument is that he is not stated as a "Polish footballer", because that statement is factually incorrect. Other examples in association football include Jodi Jones, Diego Costa and A. J. DeLaGarza. Association football articles use that basis to avoid controversial lead statements, as should be the case here. The two ways of doing so are, for example:

A) "Max Verstappen is a Dutch and Belgian racing driver, currently competing under the Dutch flag" (current format) OR

B) "Max Verstappen is a racing driver, currently competing under the Dutch flag"

A is clearly allowed for in MOS:ETHNICITY under example 3 for "public or relevant dual citizenship", B is recommend under example 6 for "controversial or unclear" nationalities. The policy you are citing very clearly underlines that "Max Verstappen is a Dutch racing driver" would be categorically incorrect. Mb2437 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Basetornado. The Schwarzenegger argument is not relevant. It is a political issue on his page to show both nationalities in the lead sentence because he achieved notability under each nationality, and he is, after all, a politician. His Austrian nationality is relevant to his notability as a politician because it disqualifies him from certain offices etc. That is absolutely not the same as F1 drivers choosing nationalities – their reasons are not political in anything like the same way. The footballer argument is also not relevant, because footballers often choose a certain nationality in order to qualify for a particular national team. F1 drivers don't do that. Saying Verstappen is a Dutch racing driver is not wrong in the slightest – he is Dutch. It's also true that he's Belgian, but that has no bearing on his notability, so it doesn't belong in the lead. Saying he's Dutch does not negate his Belgian citizenship, so there really isn't a problem. I don't believe there's any ambiguity there, and it's not misleading. He just isn't notable for being Belgian. It merits a mention in the personal life section, as it is currently written, but it doesn't belong in the lead any more than his sim racing or the fact he lives in Monaco. He isn't notable for those things. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The footballer argument is also not relevant, because footballers often choose a certain nationality in order to qualify for a particular national team."

Equally, Formula One drivers often choose a certain nationality for financial and political reasons e.g. Alex Albon. The fact this hasn't become a debate about Albon proves that there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Mb2437 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that Albon chose to race under his Thai citizenship for political reasons? It clearly isn't the same thing as a footballer digging up a grandparent's citizenship solely to enable him to compete for a particular national team. It also (very obviously) isn't for political reasons in the way that it was for Schwarzenegger. The one thing about Albon (which I said at Ricciardo's talk page) is that he did race as British for a time. That might possibly qualify as achieving notability as a British person rather than solely as a Thai. But nothing else does, and Verstappen never raced as Belgian, as I understand it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albon chose Thai nationality because of personal preference and for sponsorship, he's spoken about that a few times. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be on par with Scharzenegger's case, that is simply an example of stating both nationalities where the statement is contentious. Verstappen established his career as a Belgian national, living in Belgium and winning multiple Belgian Karting Championships. It is not a trivial note of heritage when the subject lived in the country throughout their entire upbringing and junior career, unless they later identify otherwise. Verstappen has clearly stated he identifies with both, and not simply "Dutch". When it came to it, he could only pick one, the argument against using association football as the precedent here simply makes no sense. The MOS is very clear that, in a situation like that, ambiguity should be avoided by either stating both or stating neither. Mb2437 (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He won his karting championships under the dutch flag.

This is getting silly. Basetornado (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting silly because there are several points in MOS:ETHNICITY (the basis of your argument) that contradict what you are saying. In such a case, we should not be rushing to make controversial statements, some of which would be factually incorrect. Mb2437 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are points that are used for specific circumstances. It's not meant for "this person has dual nationality and could potentially compete for another country". If that was the case, you'd see far more athletes with it. It's meant for when their notability is linked to two different countries or their nationality is controversial in some way, such as for a refugee or for someone who competed for a country despite not being from there.

It's not for "this person has dual citizenship, but competes for one country and is known widely for that one country".

No one is saying not to include it in the article, just not the lead. The main reason I wanted it changed to begin with is because how wikipedia pages are written, if you see dual nationality in the lead you assume they are notable for that second country in some way. The F1 driver listed have not been, so it was misleading to include them in that way. Simply being born or raised there doesn't count for notability. I didn't think it would be a big argument, because it seems very simple. Basetornado (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read MOS:ETHNICITY, there is not a single point there that contradicts the argument we should only list the nationality they are notable for. Verstappen is notable as a Dutch racing driver, he has no notability as a Belgian. MOS:ETHNICITY only contradicts your arguement that we should mention both. The Matty Cash exmaple isn't relevant, it is a different sport, it isn't mentioned as an example of it being done "correctly" on MOS:ETHNICITY, and how Cash achieved his second nationality doesn't apply to any (at least current) F1 driver. It is in no way controversial or inaccurate to suggest that any F1 driver has one main nationality. It would be like suggesting that it is controversial or inaccurate to play the Dutch national anthem when Verstappen wins, you have to play the Belgian one too. This is exactly what we are doing. The lead mentions that nationality that makes them notable (as MOS:ETHNICITY tells us to) which is their F1 nationality. The "personal life section" can then go into detail about how they actually have dual nationality. That is where that information belongs, not front and centre. In fact, previous edit wars on nationalities in the lead suggest it is more controversial to describe Verstappen as Belgian-Dutch, and less controversial to describe him as simply Dutch. SSSB (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Matty Cash example is perfectly relevant: an Englishman who has no notability as an English player, only Polish, but to call him simply a "Polish footballer" is controversial and incorrect. The final example in MOS:ETHNICITY is very clear on it. However, it also clearly says in his lead that he plays for the Poland national team, which covers the base of notability. This should be done simply with "competing under the x flag", rather than making a half-truth immediately in the lead. It being a different sport does not matter, the style manual is the same, if we're agreeing to follow it meticulously. Mb2437 (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Matt Cash was eligible for Polish nationality but didn't have it at birth, he had to apply for it. Every multi-national in F1 (at least cutrently) had multi-nationality from birth. The fact that you describe listing only the notable nationality as a "half truth", "factually incorrect" and "controversial" show that you know nothing about multi-nationalism or how it works. And it being a different sport does matter because FIFA and FIA have different rules on what nationality you can compete as, and football has national teams, F1 doesn't. Finally, what Wikipedia:WikiProject Football does is it not relevant, it is a different wikiproject with different practices, please familiarise yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFF. SSSB (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this. I tried to stay out of the discussion to keep an overview. Everything that needed to be said has been said, not only here but unfortunately also on three other talk pages. There is no point in each repeating our same opinion another five times… It’s clear we’re not getting a consensus here, so I suggest we keep a status quo and leave both nationalities in the lead. It’s less incorrect than removing one, especially because it’s nuanced under which flag they’re racing. For me, that’s the last thing I’m gonna say about this, I don’t think this is important enough to spend this much time on. LesRoutine (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough consensus to change Lando Norris and Lance Stroll given their dual nationalities are merely trivia and firmly second nationaltiies, but not Verstappen, Albon, Grosjean, Wehrlein or Rosberg, where the debate is contensious. Mb2437 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling "Verstappen is Dutch" a half-truth, controversial or inaccurate, is starting to look disingenuous. It is none of those things. The Matty Cash example is irrelevant. Cash wasn't Polish at all until he wanted citizenship so he could play for Poland. Until you can find an F1 driver who has done that, the example is irrelevant.

An editor has said further above, effectively, that despite more editors being in favour of changing the current wording, he doesn't see a consensus and thinks we should just go with the minority and continue to ignore the MOS. There is still a complete failure here to understand that the lead sentence is not about accuracy; it is about notability. Removing a non-notable nationality from the lead sentence is not factually incorrect, not misleading, and not controversial.

I second removing the dual nationalities of Stroll and Norris in the meantime, and would add Ricciardo to that list (Edit: I see Ricciardo has already been done). The others should be taken on a case-by-case basis if necessary, and bespoke wording can be found to satisfy those individual cases. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be held at WP:Motorsport, not within a discipline-specific WP. RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's too late for that now. By all means place a notice for that discussion at WT:MOTOR. SSSB (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this has come up a few times with different users, I'm bringing this here for a consensus. For a while, the lead paragraph of driver pages has opened with "John Smith is an Xish racing driver [...]", with a wikilink to relevant (Formula One) racing drivers from said country. I've applied this across the board as the majority of F1 driver GAs had this link. There is an argument for this being an MOS:EASTEREGG violation, although I don't believe its a huge leap. I have weak support in keeping them on the basis of giving the reader a further reading opportunity and keeping these pages from redundancy. Mb2437 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, we each started a new discussion at the same time. For my part, I'm not a fan of these links, and I prefer to see nationality unlinked in the lede. The lists can be linked elsewhere in an article, placed perhaps in better context, but I don't think they're very helpful as the first link in the whole article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:EASTEREGG linking.

"Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link"

If I am a reader and click on a link that says "British racing driver" I would not expect to end up on an article for only one category of racing drivers. If the link can't be incorporated naturally into article text, it could still be present on the article in a "see also" section or the like, but tricking readers just for the sake of having it in the immediate lead is unnecessary. TylerBurden (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to See also is a good shout, could also link it in the infobox with their nationality. Mb2437 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion regarding which name should be used for this vehicle. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. DH85868993 (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list of Formula One drivers who finished at podium (Q2976110). What do you think about to create this list? Also, what would be an appropriate name for such a list? Eurohunter (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created such an article in 2018 (I named it List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish) but it was deleted through AfD shortly afterwards (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish). If it were recreated WP:CSD#G4 would apply. SSSB (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: This AfD looks kinda poor. I'm not really sure why it was deleted with such discussion. I don't see there consensus for deletion. @Spartaz:. I don't think it's less notable than list of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap or list of Formula One polesitters. If we look at it, it's the fastest lap vs podium finish. Eurohunter (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 delete votes, the creator voting to keep 3 times (including as an ip) and a random other stuff exists argument, dunno, I don’t see a compelling argument to counter the policy based anticruft argument. If you feel that this list has a notable nexus then there must be sources that discuss drivers who finished on the podium as a subject and not just mentioning that driver x finished on the podium. The afd was 6 years ago and I don’t remember it. Given the age of the afd, if you find the sources discussing the notability of drivers finishing on the podium then policy doesn’t prevent you starting again. Obviously if it comes back without the sourcing then g4 applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: What do you think about it? Eurohunter (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm annoyed that it was deleted, because I put a lot of time into it (not that that's relevant). Otherwise I'm largely indifferent. I still think that it is boderline vis-a-vis WP:NLIST. But I also realise that this opinion is (or at least was) a minoirty one. SSSB (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: I think it's worth to try to ask admin to restore the list, check sources and maybe add something more if possible. I would look at such list and try to search some more sources if needed and if it's possible but I need to see the list first - what is done. Eurohunter (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and ask them to restore in the draft space. SSSB (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohunter, that’s not how it works. There was a clear consensus to delete the list, so you need a clear consensus in favor of it before it can be restored. Tvx1 09:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: First, I need to see what we are talking about, then I can look at it and try to improve it if possible. I don't think it needs any new consensus - it was removed because consensus was reached, but it refers to old list - new list would be something else and anyone can nominate any list to AfD. Eurohunter (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: I wouldn't say that consensus was even clear, let alone clear enough. I would say it was random consensus at it best. "Winners okay but podium finishers? Noooo" by @Clarityfiend:, yours "Just Trivia" (what do you mean?) and "Delete per nomination" by @Sabbatino: so we have just two (whole two) votes against and one vote too keep @Deathlibrarian: but also without any arguments. Summarising, it was quite random AfD with random votes without arguments - just one yes and two times no. I think it's lacking discussion and arguments. For whole "Winners okay but podium finishers" I could just say look at list of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap (just fastest lap). Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the venue for debating how strong the consensus was, or if the closer correctly interpreted the consensus. The location for that is Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you think you can add something to the article to show that WP:NOSTAT isn't applicable, or that WP:NLIST is satisified, go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

I don't know where Tvx1's claim of "you need a clear consensus in favor of it before it can be restored." comes from. As far as I can tell that is not a requirement of Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

Once you have re-created the article in the main space, Tvx1 can nominate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4, at which point you can argue G4 doesn't apply (either on the talk page, or at Wikipedia:Deletion review). If the page is kept after moving to the mainspace (i.e. it was successfully argued that WP:CSD#G4 does not apply) Tvx1 can start a new AfD. SSSB (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to do a proper reading of Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It literally states that that process is NOT intended for the undeletion of content that was deleted through discussion. It exists to undo uncontroversial deletions.Tvx1 23:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing uncontroversial deletions is one reason for requests for undeletion. But then it says: "this page [WP:Requests for undeletion] is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be "userfied", i.e., restored as a draft or emailed to you; this way, the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace,". I.e. then Eurohunter can improve the article in the draft space to show that the deletion rational no longer applies. This rational basically allows the restoration of an article so that it can be improved to meet the inclusion criteria. That's what Eurohunter is trying to do. SSSB (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already List of Formula One driver records#Podium finishes, where there are not just total career podiums but also so many, many, many variations. That's quite enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started a move request for Williams Grand Prix Engineering to be moved to "Williams Racing": Talk:Williams_Grand_Prix_Engineering#Requested_move_28_October_2024 Mb2437 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Williams Grand Prix Engineering#Requested move 28 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been going through a lot of F1 driver infoboxes over the past few weeks and believe it's unnecessary to state "last win" and/or "last entry" when the driver only has only a single win or entry, clearly noted in the "entries" and "wins" parameters. Not sure if this has been discussed before, thoughts? Mb2437 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have an entry count and win count in the infobox, it is unnecessary to specify first and last. Becuase if you know they only have 1, then the first is the last. However, I also don't see any benefit from removing it where it is deemed unncessary. SSSB (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]