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.
I was wondering why we don't apply WP:COMMONNAME for some drivers in F1 articles. We use "Alexander" for Alex Albon and "Patricio" for Pato O'Ward, and now @Island92 changed Alex Dunne's name to "Alexander". As for most other racing championship articles such as DTM, IndyCar and Formula 2 WP:COMMONNAME is applied for the drivers above, I was curious why we don't apply this for F1 articles. I think it doesn't really make sense to use a driver name which is very rarely used. BryOn2205U (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
COMONNAME is only about the article title and in both the articles you cite Pato and Alex is used. So they are consistent. Outside of that there are other (or no) "rules. For example, if you're talking about the bolded name in the opening sentence then MOS:FULLNAME applies and the full name is used. DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no rules, no. But I still believe that blindly follow the entry list for the sake of it is a pointless exercise and a waste of time. And I also believe that going into articles and changing it to match the entry list (or the commonname for that matter) is actually nothing more than disruptive editing. SSSB (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that it would be better to use the names the drivers are best known for. Non-FIA championships like IndyCar, NASCAR and MotoGP already use those names in their entry lists, the FIA however rather chooses "official" names for drivers, especially in F1, F2 and F3. And just a very small amount of sources use these "official" names for drivers like Albon, Dunne and O'Ward. BryOn2205U (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused here. Could you kindly identify the specific instances of "Alexander Albon" in the Alex Albon article to which you object? The bolded usage at the start? The navboxes? The infobox with his full name? Namelessposter (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you. I do not favor any bright-line rule, so I would naturally oppose a mechanical adherence to the entry list. I do think Albon should generally be referred to as "Alex". Namelessposter (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There also wasn't a consensus to always use Alexander. So as far as I'm concerned, nobody should be changing it one way or another. Otherwise it will just descend into an edit war. SSSB (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should follow the entry list where possible. In some cases, this may be avoided (e.g. Carlos Sainz Jr. instead of Carlos Sainz to avoid confusion with his father), but we should be consistent in our approach. The official FIA names are used on all F1 communications, including television graphics and results/decision documents. COMMONNAMEs rarely deviate from their OFFICIALNAME in F1 and are usually only hypocorisms of their given name (e.g. "Alex" instead of "Alexander", "Max" instead of "Massimiliano") which, to me, read as informal. Major differences in COMMONNAME are usually followed by the FIA anyway (e.g. Niki Lauda, Lance Stroll, and Kimi Antonelli). MB243717:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are more "extreme" cases like in F2 where Pepe Martí is entered as "Josep María Martí", so I think following the entry list in this case would not be ideal considering the driver is always referred to as "Pepe". BryOn2205U (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, my point is that we should be consistent as to what names we use. In my opinion it should be either only the names from the drivers' article titles, or the names from the official entry lists. Preferably I would be for using the names from the article titles. Especially when it comes to all the drivers called Alexander. Most of them are referred to as "Alex", but some of them are better known as "Alexander", like Alexander Wurz (at least at the time when he was an F1 driver) and Alexander Rossi. So I think we should still differentiate between these drivers. BryOn2205U (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it makes much more sense to use the article title names in my opinion, rather than the entry lists. If we rigidly stick to entry lists, then we must do the following for driver names in articles:
"Carlos Sainz" rather than "Carlos Sainz Jr."
Diacritics should be excluded, i.e. "Nico Hulkenberg".
The season entry lists invariably list "Fernando Alonso Diaz" rather than "Fernando Alonso", and "Sergio Perez Mendoza" rather than "Sergio Pérez".
These would clearly be ridiculous changes to make. Why have an inconsistent custom of "use the entry list names, except in certain arbitrarily-decided cases" rather than just using the article titles? Jestal50 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I finally had time to read through the discussion mentioned above and for me it only makes sense to use the article titles or common names.
I agree with @Jestal50's point. The entry list "misspells" drivers like Pérez and Hülkenberg, and uses names which are rarely or never used by media, AND does not differentiate between drivers like Carlos Sainz Jr. and his dad with the same name.
And currently we use a mix between the entry list names and common names, and we shouldn't keep it this inconsistent. As I demonstrated above that using only entry list names is not a good solution, we should consistently use common names in my opinion.
For the drivers named Alexander, as I mentioned in my last comment, we should use "Alex" for drivers like Albon and Dunne, and "Alexander" for drivers like Wurz and Rossi (the reason for this is mentionted in my last comment).
Correction: Alex Albon was still partially called "Alexander" in the first few months of 2019, while driving in F1, as seen here: [3] This was already the phase where more and more post refered to him as "Alex". And as time went on, he was only called "Alex" on social media platforms. At least I haven't found any post by F1's Twitter account calling him "Alexander" in 2019 after the Hungarian GP. BryOn2205U (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SSSB: I was "edit-warring", as you would call it, with @Island92 because after already stating my opinion on this and giving many reasons as to why we should use common names, no one else bothered to comment on this any further. I expected @Island92, the only user fully supporting the usage of official names, to comment and state his opinion, which never happened. After many days I finally changed the names to common names, which @Island92 reverted stating it's not the consensus, which is not true, given he was the only one supporting official names. It's fine if even only one person is against something, but if you're not able to provide any arguments apart from "It's the consensus" and "We should use what the FIA uses", it's just not enough. After reverting my edits further, he refused to comment on this talk page, even though he knew very well that this talk page, which I started, exists after he already left a comment here once. It's Wikipedia, and content on here should be discussed and improved if necessary. But if people refuse to discuss a topic, especially when they are against something, I certainly can't help it. I will not wait weeks for that person to comment, if it even happens in the first place. BryOn2205U (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being the last to comment does not determine consensus; nobody agreed or disagreed and your view remained unchanged before and after you made that comment. Many "would call it" edit-warring, you reverted to your preferred version several times across both pages without any consensus here. Island92 is not the only user in support: I am also, and two other users above have clearly stated that COMMONNAME is not decisive here. One could view the last-to-comment attitude as an instance of WP:GAMING via filibustering. I will not wait weeks for that person to comment—is it really a matter of urgency? MB243723:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a matter of urgency? — I would say that too if I was supporting official names. How long do you have to wait? Two weeks, six months or even ten years until finally someone is willing to discuss a topic where you might consider a change. Not only have I provided arguments on why common names are better, others have too. I haven't heard one single argument for using official names, expect "It's the consensus", and "The FIA uses it", and in the case of Alex Albon "Alex is not the clear commonname". The first two arguments are the weakest arguments I've ever heard, and for the third one: it certainly, VERY CERTAINLY, is the clear common name. Someone has to come up with a better argument, otherwise it's time for a change. I already named my reasons, and I will not repeat them again. BryOn2205U (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to come up with a better argument, otherwise it's time for a change. I already named my reasons, and I will not repeat them again—is that a threat that you will continue to subvert the consensus-building process here? I haven't heard one single argument for using official names, excluding the two you immediately listed, the use of OFFICIALNAMEs on all Formula One–related communications, my concerns with encyclopaedic formality, that there are clear exceptional circumstances to the rule (a compromise in your favour),[a] and whatever "the consensus" one refers to—there is no consensus, which means it's communal to maintain the status quo; it is not for nor against you, we use a mix of both. Regardless of whether you think they are strong arguments or not, those editors have either addressed concerns or outright disapproval with your position. Rather than propose a solution to ameliorate those concerns and reach a middle-ground, you have continued to filibuster the argument which has resulted in no consensus being reached. MB243709:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if I think about this I think we don't have to strictly use common names (article title names). However, I think there are circumstances, where we shouldn't use entry list names either.
Take Max Papis for example. His common name would be "Max" as it's the article title and he is currently better known as "Max" than "Massimiliano". But during his time in Formula One, he was mostly called "Massimiliano", as demonstrated in this video: [4]
So calling him "Massimiliano" in the 1995 F1 season article is perfectly justified.
Now when it comes to Albon and Dunne, it's a different situation. Calling Albon "Alexander", apart from the fact he is entered and shown on the F1 website under this name, is still kind of justifiable, given he was better known as "Alexander" during his F2 days and at the beginning of his F1 career (his common name/article title also was "Alexander Albon" at the time). When it comes to Dunne though, I don't understand at all why he is called "Alexander" on the F1 season article. Since the start of his racing career he was called "Alex" and entered like this until he got to Formula 3. He was still called "Alex" though, expect for the entry list and the official F3 page. So I think we should look at all drivers individually rather than have a general rule for all drivers, as I proposed before. And as I said before, there are still drivers who were called "Alexander" during their time in F1, like Alexander Rossi and Alexander Wurz, and we should differentiate them from drivers better known as "Alex" like Albon and Dunne in my opinion. BryOn2205U (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^We presently use a blend of OFFICIALNAMEs and COMMONNAMEs; the latter are used in those exceptional circumstances (Carlos Sainz Jr., Pepe Martí) and, beyond that, OFFICIALNAMEs are followed where their common counterparts are merely hypocorisms. Again, the FIA typically follow common names closely, as evidenced by their change to Kimi Antonelli this year and past usage of Niki Lauda and Lance Stroll.
Drivers as constructor world champion
Hi,
There is currently a discussion on Sergio Perez a user want to include Perez as a 2 time constructor world champion. But is the team that wins and not the driver. I think it is incorrect to name the driver as a constructor world champion. But I need some supportLobo151 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone please edit this template to change the "2025 test drivers" parameter to "2025 test driver(s)" or something similar. A couple of the teams have only 1 test driver meaning "test drivers" would be incorrect. Electricmemory (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I left the parameter name as 2025_test_drivers, but changed the label (as displayed in the article) to "Test driver(s)". DH85868993 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add to this that—based on the previous discussion—we should be referring to him as "Kimi" in Formula One articles and "Andrea Kimi" in the context of past series (2014–2024), which would reflect both his COMMONNAME and his entry name at the respective times, should the article be moved. MB243701:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how commonname works. Commonname is for article titles only. We can continue to call him either Kimi or Andrea Kimi in articles, regardless of which year those articles are written about. SSSB (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but my point is this instance would cover both sides of the argument above. Just stating that here because I expect someone will change previous mentions of Antonelli to "Kimi", when he was not known by that name at the time in both regards. MB243712:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why they couldn't go back and do that. It would be an unnecessary waste of time, but they would be allowed to do it. SSSB (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's always room for improvement, even if someone in 2050 might change something in the 2025 season article. It might be unnecessary or a waste of time, but as long as the change makes sense, it shouldn't matter that much. In this particular case however, the better option in my opinion would be to use the name which was regularly used in the year of the season article (e.g. Andrea Kimi Antonelli in 2024 Formula One World Championship and 2024 Formula 2 Championship; and Kimi Antonelli in 2025 Formula One World Championship). BryOn2205U (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DNS / WD
We currently have some inconsistency between articles over whether the following race "results" are recorded as "DNS" or "WD":
If we can reach a consensus on each result, I'll update all the related articles accordingly. I've created a subsection for each result so they can be discussed separately. DH85868993 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can take such a blanket approach. I think withdrawn implies choice. You choose to withdraw from an event. So, it depends on why they couldn't take laps to the grid. Stroll elected not to start, so should be WD. In AUS 2024, Williams elected not to start Sargeant and he should therefore be WD. Massa had no choice in the matter, and should be DNS. SSSB (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can make it even easier. "DNS" should be applied if the driver is included in the "Final Starting Grid" document, "WD" if the driver isn't included in the document. But I'm not sure if they released this type of document at the time. BryOn2205U (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SSSB and 5225C above. Not sure how far back the starting grid doc goes, where their grid slot is left empty if they fail to start—that is a routine "DNS" in my opinion, anything else would be a WD. MB243712:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're all saying you agree with me, and then go on to say something which contradicts my position. Massa would not have appeared in the starting grid document, and he made no attempt to start. Nor was his starting grid position left empty. Because he was in hospital recovering from surgery that he had on the Saturday. My point is that he should be listed as DNS because he was physically incapable of starting. Whereas WD implies that they could have started but didn't. SSSB (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for as long as the current starting grid procedure hasn't existed. Stroll is a comparable situation that was formally a WD. MB243713:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are endorsing inconsistency. Because if the current starting grid procedure had existing in 2009, by your argument, Massa should be listed as a WD. You want two different systems depending on whether a certain bureaucracy was in place. I think we need to take a semi-WP:IAR approach to DNS. We should be basing it off what actually happened, not what bureaucratic procedures a team arbitrarily decided to follow. SSSB (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is always going to be incosistency. You can’t expect one approach that fits all 75 years of the championship. Rules change. Tvx1 10:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're all saying you agree with me, and then go on to say something which contradicts my position. What did I say that was inconsistent with your position? 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SSSB said Massa didn't make an unsuccsseful attempt to start, but should be classified as DNS, which is not what you said, if I interpret both of you correctly. I agree with you though, unsuccessful attempt, i.e. was on the starting grid or in pitlane 30 minutes before start with the intention to start is a DNS. Anything before that is a WD. I.e. all three examples mentioned here are WDs. Hadjar in Australia 2025 is a DNS, as is Sainz in Austria 2025. Marbe166 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "attempt" I mean generally was there an effort to get the car to start the race, I didn't mean to refer to any specific part of the start procedure. I agree with SSSB that Massa was intending to start the race when he crashed, but yeah, I don't see how that could be construed as a genuine DNS as he clearly did not intend to start come race day. So I suppose I agree with SSSB's definitions but I do not agree with that application, Massa was a WD. Got a bit muddled there. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC); 16:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with SSSB’s stance. Choice had never anything to do with it. Often it’s not even the driver but the team who decides to withdraw a car. Withdrawals are acknowledged by a steward’s document announcing the withdrawal. We should NOT make up our own definitions for events. Our tasks is to report what reliable sources tell us what happened. Tvx1 10:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On this, Massa and Perez are both not listed on the results page in their respective races on the F1 website, whereas a DNS, like Sainz in Austria this year, is listed, providing a strong argument that both listed cases are withdrawals, not a DNS. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With a bit of digging I found the official race result published back then, no trace of Massa. A starting grid should also have been published, as evidenced here, but the web archive doesn’t have it archived. Tvx1 18:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We would not "make up our own defition for events" we would be applying a dictionary defintion to a situation explained by reliable sources. And "it’s not even the driver but the team who decides to withdraw a car." you've used the key word here, Tvx1, "decides". I didn't say it was the driver who had to make a choice, I simply said that a choice was being made. However, it seems that my broad interpretation of WD is clearly against consensus so I won't flog a dead horse on that point, and simply point out the holes in your arguements instead. SSSB (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SSSB on this topic. In my opinion, DNS has always been because the reason has occurred during or after qualifying, even if they have not set a time in qualifying. WDs should be for things prior to qualifying. E.g. Perez in Canada 2011. 2005 US GP should stay as DNS because they took the formation lap. I know Wikipedia hates inconsistency, but we are dealing with the FIA here, and I think the results currently reflect the characterisations of the situations as they arose. I know that's probably against lots of rules but Massa has been a DNS since I can remember, and so has Perez, and I think Stroll was only a WD in Singapore because it wasn't usual not to rebuild a car for the race. Tangost1 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Stroll was announced as having withdrawn. I genuinely don't think any of them need changing and I think they are all accurate representations of what happened. Tangost1 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that’s just not true. See for instance Mick Schumacher in Saudi Araba 2022. Withdrawn typically is when a declaration is made that a car won’t race, before the official starting grid is declared, DNS when a car fails to start for something that happens thereafter. Whatever the reason is. The difference can be noticed because in case of a DNS the relevant grid spot is left open, whereas in case of a withdrawal those behind the withdrawn car move up a spot. Also withdrawals are normally acknowledged through a stewards’ decision.
Yes, but the issue here is that sources either don't agree with each other, or are too vague in how they deal with it (like Massa not appearing on the final classification for Hun '09). StatsF1 (which does not use DNS or WD, but simply "f" (fail to start; and explains that the "f" is because of withdrawal) lists Massa's cause of non starting as "crash" (not "withdrawn"). To make this even more confusing we have a bureaucracy that has changed. That is why I proposed we WP:IAR and synthesis. Because I felt that it would be more beneficial to readers if had a consistent approach, rather than an inconsistent bureaucracy. Because with an inconsistent bureaucracy "WD" can mean wildly different things for a race in 1960 compared to 2020. So putting WD is really nothing more beneficial than if we went with the StatsF1 approach and went with "f" for anyone who didnt start without the reason. I regret proposing this now, but what's done is done.
But you've hit the problem on the head: "Withdrawn typically is when a declaration is made that a car won’t race, before the official starting grid is declared, ..." with Massa was this declaration ever officially made. Or did the FIA take a force majure approach and say "he obviously can't race, so we will just bump everyone up a spot". If the latter, would that make him a WD or a DNS?
Agree with SSSB. Massa should be a DNS because he took part in qualifying. FIA is unreliable. The thing with Schumacher at Saudi Arabia and Stroll in Singapore is that the teams didn't elect to rebuild the cars, which was odd at the time, as was Sargeant in Australia. I remember thinking at the time they 'shouldn't they really be DNSs'
The sources should be the coverage of the Grand Prix themselves, and then the nomenclature used at the time for instances of WD and DNSs can ascertained, because the DNSs and WDs dependent on how they were characterised at the time, which is why there is an inconsistency. The results should be left as they are. Tangost1 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no. Having taken part in qualifying or not isn’t nor ever was the defining factor. Again, it’s not up to us to create a definition. We reflect the sources. Tvx1 13:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when I wrote at the start that we have some inconsistency between articles regarding those results, I didn't mean we have inconsistency between <the result we have for Sergio Pérez at the 2011 Monaco Grand Prix> and <the result we have for Felipe Massa at the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix>, I meant that for each of those results, we have inconsistency between the various articles which document that result, e.g.:
Which is why I reverted it originally. At a minimum, we should be consistent between our driver/constructor/car/season articles. The best way to deal with this below would be to write clearly what happened with as many RS listing the result as possible, then put it up to a simple vote; this conversation is stalling. MB243713:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
StatsF1 says "f" (= the same as what they have for Lance Stroll in the 2025 Spanish Grand Prix, which we have as "Withdrawn")
Defunct teams, constructors and team entities.
Following confusion on the Team Lotus page incorrectly stating that Team Lotus is the last defunct F1 team to win a race and a Constructors' Championship, discussion has occurred as to what 'defunct' actually means. The current opinion seems to be that a team is defunct if nothing of it remains in the sport today, but I don't think this really works, and I think defunct teams should not be regarded as anything different to constructors that are no longer on the grid.
Here are some thoughts (I'm sorry if they're a bit disordered)
Toro Rosso should be considered 'defunct' because the name no longer appears on the grid, despite being the same team infrastructurally as Racing Bulls. Racing Bulls has its own page separate from Alpha Tauri and Toro Rosso. It is too tenuous to say that Jordan is Aston Martin, and that BAR is Mercedes, because personnel have changed, factories, ethos, ownership, size, chassis names, engine suppliers, have all changed, and times have moved on even if Aston Martin still harbours a few employees from its Jordan days, and BAR and Honda shared the same location for a time.
The page about "Team Enstone" is problematic because Toleman and Benetton did not arrive at Enstone until 1991. Toleman should therefore really be less prevalent on the page. Technicalities such as factory locations and team personnel are not solid enough to distinguish teams. Ferrari and Benetton were still different teams in 1996 despite swapping a lot of employees after 1995. Names have to take priority, it clarifies results and statistics for one thing. Equipe Renault (1977-1986) is a very different team from any iteration of Renault under Team Enstone, mainly because the former was for a while owned by the French government, but you can't say Renault's been defunct since 1986 (which Equipe Renault has). The French government also partially owned Renault during the years it was the works team for Williams, and that might imply that we need a page called 'The French government in Formula One', and that's just ridiculous. You could also make an argument that we need a page for 'Adrian Newey In Formula One' considering Newey's success, but again, that's ridiculous; he's just worked for different teams.
Therefore I think we should refrain from linking teams by things other than name, as is with the page for 'Team Enstone', which maybe needs some reconsideration. I think it should remain in existence with the relevant explanations and links to each individual constructors, as it already has, because Enstone is a clear entity, but it just implies other pages, like, 'Team Faenza', or 'Team Milton Keynes' (considering Jaguar) and maybe that's a bit of rabbit hole best avoided, as really all we would be doing is saying that 'Oh look, Red Bull and Jaguar were in the same place' Jaguar's factory was nothing like what Red Bull is now, so I think we should not make pages like 'Faenza' or 'Milton Keynes'. Enstone is the exception I think because it's been Renault twice, it's won championships in more than one iteration, and the personnel were similar for a long time. Toleman just needs to be toned down a bit in my view. Senna, easily Toleman's most renowned driver, never set foot in Enstone.
When I say constructors I am referring only the first name and not the engine manufacturer. Obviously 'McLaren-Ford' should be considered the same constructor as 'McLaren-Mercedes', and the precedents we have for privateers should remain the same. Pages referring to 'INSERT TEAM NAME in Formula One' should remain, as they link different entities by name, which is useful for historical manufacturers (Renault, Porsche, Alfa Romeo, Mercedes)
Overall, this means that the last defunct constructor to win a race should be Racing Point, and the last defunct constructor to win a championship should be Brawn. I think that makes it clearer and easier to understand, because you can't really say that Brawn's epic year had anything to with Mercedes other than an engine supply, and Hakkinen didn't win in a Mercedes, despite McLaren being the Mercedes works team at the time. Mercedes in the 1950s is not the same as Mercedes today, but it's never been said the Nico Rosberg won the first race for Mercedes in F1, because Fangio did.
As for Lotus, it has been clearly established that Team Lotus, Lotus (2010-2011) and Lotus (2012-2015) are different constructors. Team Lotus is therefore defunct, Lotus (2010-2011) is also defunct despite having turned into Caterham, Caterham is also defunct but separately from its predecessor and Lotus (2012-2015) is defunct despite now being Alpine.
It's cute to want to give Team Lotus a nice epilogue like the page says, but it only confuses people, because the last race a car called a Lotus won, was in 2013, not 1987. Tangost1 (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only standards that really matter are how they are treated by relevant sources, e.g. motorsport media, annuals, official records, histories etc. Lotus's treatment as distinct entities and as defunct or whatever is not really for us to decide unless this treatment is unclear in the relevant sources. It's my understanding that it is not. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not always. When it comes to constructor names and whether teams are 'separate' enough to warrant separate articles, the consensus is that we follow what the FIA says, as sources often contradict themselves on whether, for example, Aston Martin should be treated separately to Racing Point. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still reliable, though. And in any case, I feel that you're missing my original point, which is that, in this particular instance, whether the FIA treats different iterations of the same team as different constructors is the important point (as was mentioned in the discussion about whether Racing Bulls should have a separate article to last year's RB.) BMB YT 500000 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comment made no reference to the Formula One Group. I was only talking about the FIA. Once again, I state my point that how the FIA distinguishes constructors is (for the most part) how we distinguish them. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only about Team Enstone: that page is not a substitute for our more detailed team pages, and I don’t think it holds itself out to be (as you note, it repeatedly links to the main articles for every constructor in its lineage). The term is not an uncommon colloquialism in the racing press, and there is some connective tissue (Symonds, Byrne, Briatore, Permane, Enstone itself) linking two, three, or more eras of the team, so I think it’s reasonable to have a standalone article on the concept. The fact that a colloquialism may not be 100% factually accurate (yes, I am aware Toleman was never actually based in Enstone) doesn’t mean that the underlying concept is illegitimate. If you disagree, you’re welcome to nominate the article for deletion.
To your related point: I wouldn’t mind a Team Faenza page at some point, at least for the Red Bull era. I think the racing press draws a clear line between Jaguar and Red Bull, though: the main things that crossed over were Mark Webber and the wind tunnel. The point is that the concept of Team Enstone is broadly recognized by the racing press and Team MK is not. Namelessposter (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should have a broader Faenza article. Racing Bulls is rarely discussed at length without mention of STR, AlphaTauri, and Minardi. MB243700:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Team Enstone (and possibly Faenza) would be the limit, though. I wouldn't advocate for, say, Team Milton Keynes or Team Silverstone as they are very rarely mentioned as such in sources, and Red Bull is clearly a different team than Jaguar, for example. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nannini / 1986 Spanish Grand Prix
We currently have some inconsistency regarding Alessandro Nannini's result at the 1986 Spanish Grand Prix:
If Formula 1.com says DNS, I'd go with DNS. In those days DNSs were usually referred to as a form of retirement anyway, so it's hazy, but I'd go with DNS Tangost1 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the race actually had it as ret until someone changed it earlier today. More to the point, what actually happened during that race? Did Nannini ‘s car fail during the first lap? Was there a red flag in the first two laps and did Nannini not take part in the second start? Did his car fail during the formation lap or even the reconnaisance lap?Tvx1 23:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Minardi bible, "Forza Minardi", by Simon Vigar, Nannini's diff failed on the parade lap. So he didn't line up on the grid, and that's a DNS. At the second corner on lap one, Jones ran into the back of Palmer and both retired, but there was no red flag. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, Formula One-related articles on English Wikipedia link demonyms to the article about the country, e.g. [[Finland|Finn]]. Recently I've seen a few examples like [[Finns|Finn]] and [[Finnish citizen|Finn]] (just using "Finn" as an example - I've seen it for other demonyms too). Do we have a preference? DH85868993 (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Finn is a Finnish citizen. So if "Finish citizen" were an article, "Finn" should link there. But "Finish citizen" is not an article, but a redirect to Finnish nationality law which would be an easter egg. So linking to Finland would be more appropriate. However, I would argue that these constitute WP:OVERLINKing. What I am actually seeing more of in infoboxes is (to continue DH's example) is Finland linking to Formula One drivers from Finland. I'm not sure how we feel about those? SSSB (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox linking was a compromise I came to with a couple users over the WP:EGG linking in leads ("British racing driver") which, in hind sight, I was in the wrong about. It is an informative link in an appropriate location as the parameter is specifically about their F1 driver nationality and each respective link expands upon that. The other compromise discussed was moving it to "see also", but I would say it is more natural and elegant in the infobox. MB243715:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on removing them all from leads, not just in Formula One. A lot of junior drivers have either their demonym linked as opposed to racing driver, or both—which fails MOS:SOB. The links are unnecessary as their place of birth / where they were raised will be linked at somepoint, tying back to their nationality. I usually link to ethnicities if relevant, in which case it would be [[Finns|Finn]]. Linking to an ethnicity in the lead sentence fails MOS:ETHNICITY anyway. MB243715:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fatal accidents
There is inconsistency in the labelling of fatal accidents in the Drivers' Results tables on season pages. In 1970, Rindt and Courage's DNS and Ret are labelled with † and ‡ respectively. Senna and Raztenberger (1994) are labelled with hyperlinked letters to a notation (forgive me if that's the wrong phrase).
Using † may be confused with the 90% race distance retirement rule and ‡ with half points.
In my view they should all be denoted with the same symbol (which symbol should be used?) or none at all. Lots of fatal accidents are also not currently symbolised at all, and it begs the question, considering Jules Bianchi and John Taylor (racing driver), who both died a considerable time after their accidents, is there a time limit on how soon after an accident does a driver have to die? Presumably any symbol denoting a fatal accident should be applicable to all drivers listed in List of Formula One fatalities that had accidents applicable to results in the results tables.
Also, why does Senna's Ret for Imola need to be hyperlinked to 'Death of Ayrton Senna' and have a notation?Surely the hyperlink should be in the notation? And does this imply the need for pages on other fatal accidents of note, such as Rindt, Peterson or Bianchi, and how do we decide which accidents to make a page about? Frankly I think we should keep individual pages of fatal accidents at a minimum and refer it to 'Death' sections on their biographies. Senna should be the exception due to the broader, global impact of the event.
Another thing is that a page title called List of Formula One fatalities doesn't explicitly deny fatalities that aren't drivers, such as marshals. What's the reasoning for not including them? Paolo Gislimberti and Graham Beveridge who died at the 2000 Italian Grand Prix and 2001 Australian Grand Prix spring to mind. They aren't mentioned because they aren't associated with a driver death. That's inconsistent. Frederick Jansen van Vuuren was a marshal and is only mentioned because Tom Pryce was killed at the same time. Do we need a new table under drivers for marshal deaths? Or another page and a differentiation in the page title between driver fatalities and others. And how do crowd deaths resulting from accidents fit in, such as the five spectators killed during Rolf Stommelen's accident at the 1975 Spanish Grand Prix, which Stommelen survived. Surely these count as 'Formula One fatalities'? Tangost1 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the confusion? The table is clearly footnoted with definitions of both daggers. However, I would be in favour of using the stylised † instead, which is frequently used in war-related articles to denote deceased leaders. Avoids any confusion with †, which is used in modern articles to denote drivers who did not finish but were still classified. Either way, it still is not a problem.
How do we decide which accidents to make a page about?Notability. As you said, Senna meets that criteria when others may not, or the content can simply be merged into their Death sections. Senna was a triple World Champion who died on live television in front of millions, millions more attended his state funeral, and his death was a key turning point in motor racing safety. This is not applicable for anyone else.
The fatalities list very clearly states Track marshals and other race attendees who have died as a result of these accidents are not included in the list.Featured lists on Wikipedia always set out clear inclusion criteria in the lead. MB243723:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style and did not wish to engage in a style war. The confusion is that different fatal accidents are expressed in different ways. Surely this is against Wikipedia general idea of consistency.
I made the Senna point because maybe I was wrong? I'm new to wikipedia, I'm learning that it could be explained as notability as such.
Yes, I saw the explanation about track marshals not being included in the list. But, the question was, why? And the page title does not imply solely driver deaths. Tangost1 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you strongly disagree with its title, you can make a move request on the talk page. Alternatively, you could discuss the content on said talk page and work with others to improve the content. MB243723:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the footnotes (efn, in Wikipedia jargon): normally I think you would be invited to edit first and ask questions later. What you said sounds broadly sensible but there may be an issue with the implementation, so it might be better to try it out and see how it looks before inviting comments.
With respect to the death of Ronnie Peterson (or anyone else), there is no centralized decisionmaking process for whether an article should or shouldn’t exist, and you’re welcome to create a Peterson death article if you can find the sources for it. (I’m sure you could; the GPDA drivers’ trial was a very strange moment in F1 history.) But generally the presence or absence of other stuff that is wrong is not a valid argument for why more stuff should be made wrong to be consistent with existing wrongness. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
With respect to marshal deaths, you should consider raising that issue on the article’s talk page first before raising it here. Substantively, it’s a fair point, but the talk page may reveal an earlier discussion where people affirmatively decided to not include them. More broadly, however, I would caution that we cannot expect every article title on Wikipedia to be completely precise, because the guidelines try to strike a balance between precision and concision.
With respect to your general sentiment, generally Wikipedia operates on the principle “be the change you wish to see in the world”. Most of us got here because we saw something wrong with Wikipedia and figured that it wasn’t going to get fixed unless we did it ourselves. You’re more than welcome to do the same. Namelessposter (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"" the final paragraph. You do not have to bring minor concerns here; unless it is clearly controversial/major, be bold and make the change yourself. If it becomes a point of contention with other editors, then bring it here. MB243723:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to wikipedia. I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style and did not wish to engage in a style war. Yeah, I was just having a discussion. I've been hounded recently (I'm new) for just editing so apologies for just having some caution. Please assume Wikipedia:Assume good faith I was trying to by being proactive. Tangost1 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith - that's why I'm trying to share these guidelines with you. We all started out as newbies, and Wikipedia is built on a set of principles (largely refined by arguments and experience from a decade prior) that is rarely apparent to the naked eye. Guidance pages like be bold and WP:otherstuffexists are pretty foundational to discussions on this website; as you can probably imagine, a lot of the key administrators on Wikipedia are attorneys. Namelessposter (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
