Talk:2022 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Sprint qualifying
The format name has been changed in merely "sprint". Points now are awarded for the first eight drivers, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. Pole position for the Grand Prix matches with the fastest driver on normal qualifying, no longer for the winner of the sprint. This content should be mentioned in the page.--Island92 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
On the subject of changes to the points systems in confused by what the article currently says on the new regulations regarding points for races that didn't have its full scheduled distance completed. It currently says no points if less than two laps are completed, points for the top five if more than two laps are completed. But what happens then if exactly two laps are completed, like in Francorchamps last year? There's a gap there.Tvx1 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- My interpretation is that there can not be "exactly" two laps completed. 2 and a half laps is "more than two". 2 and 1/1000 lap is also more than two. If this is the right interpretation, "2 or more" is a valid alternative. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, officially (at least last year) there was no such things as completing fractions of a lap. If you crash at the final corner on lap 5, you are credited with completing 4 laps, not 4.95 (as a random example). The same would be true of a safety car/VSC, because F1 documents only documument whole laps.
They could spilt the track into sub-sections (e.g. the first sector may be equivilant to 30% of the lap, or the start-finish straight might be 8%) to overcome this but it is simply impossible to split it into the infinetly many sections required for "can not be "exactly" two laps completed" of a lap you propose, at best they could do every 10m or so. This still leaves the same problem.
I've just updated the article to match the wording of the source, that is
no points
. Unfortuantly, two laps (or 2≤x<3 because of the way FIA's documents work) However, I suggest we wait to see the sporting regs in the flesh, rather than rely on poor wording from a journalist, mixed with out interpretation. SSSB (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)if less thanunless a minimum of two laps are completed- @Tvx1 and Ved havet: I thought I'd point out that the most recent copy of the sporting regs (dated 15 March) deal with this ambiguity. The regs now read: "If the leader has completed
more thantwo (2) laps but less than 25% of the scheduled race distance, points will be awarded in accordance with column 1 of the table below." (their striking, not mine) SSSB (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)- Good! Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Tvx1 and Ved havet: I thought I'd point out that the most recent copy of the sporting regs (dated 15 March) deal with this ambiguity. The regs now read: "If the leader has completed
- On the contrary, officially (at least last year) there was no such things as completing fractions of a lap. If you crash at the final corner on lap 5, you are credited with completing 4 laps, not 4.95 (as a random example). The same would be true of a safety car/VSC, because F1 documents only documument whole laps.
Given that official pole position and sprint race winners are now different things, is there an argument that we will need to have a modified results table this year? Something similar to the one below maybe? And if not, why not? Officially Mr X (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, and the argument is that sprint races still aren't considered race wins (they don't add to the drivers' race win count), like they do in the feeders. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Sebastien Vettel being out of the Bahrain Grand Prix
Under "Entries" I see that Nico Hülkenberg is listed as being in round 1 of the championship which is normal of course. However, Sebastian Vettel is also listed as being in round 1 of the championship.
I can see the reason being that due to the fact that Sebastian Vettel signed up to the Bahrain Grand Prix but later on withdrew, therefore meaning that he gets listed on this article as doing round 1 (see the article for the 2021 season for Kimi Räikkönen at Zandvoort) but at the same time, it feels odd that he's listed as being in round 1 despite the race weekend not even starting yet. Is this a normal procedure?
Sorry for the strange question, Daniel :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Doel (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- The procedure is to base it off the official entry list produced by the FIA, Vettel is on that entry list (which is cited at the bottom of the table). SSSB (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the entry list at the bottom of the table is not the official-official document we usually reference to, there's not been published an entry list document on fia.com/documents. It's possible we're seeing the same thing that happend with Kimi for last year's Dutch Grand Prix, where he was originally entered and present on the entry list, but later withdrew. The website referenced for the 2022 Bahrain Grand Prix still has Kimi on the 2021 Dutch Grand Prix entry list along with Kubica, so it's safe to assume they leave widthdrawn entries on there. Please note that the website, despite having "FIA" in it's name, is run by the Motorsport Network and, at the bottom of all pages, state the following: "[The FIA] makes no warranty (express or implied) in relation to, and shall have no liability for the accuracy of, any data or information displayed on this site". Ved havet 🌊 (talk – contrib.) 18:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Vettel has never entered the Bahrain entry list. The real Bahrain entry list due to be released today or tomorrow will show Stroll and Hülkenberg directly. Island92 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the entry list temporarily considering my above comment. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I restored Tvx1 version. Drivers in chronological order. Bahrain entry list set to be released will show Stroll and Hülkenberg directly with the latter put above Vettel in the Entries table.--Island92 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was a bit unsure about placing a reserve driver above a permanent driver, but considering Magnussen's entry list position above Alonso in 2015 Formula One World Championship, indeed that looks to be correct. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- At this stage I can confirm entry list to be released tomorrow morning ahead of first practice session. Starting from this season, media day has been moved to Friday, with the two Friday practice sessions to take place both in the afternoon. As a result, the entire race weeked is more compressed compared to 2021. That means entry lists are now released on Fridays rather than on Thursdays as it was the case until 2021.--Island92 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- We discussed that issue years ago and decided against delving into using permanent vs replacement drivers as the factor do determine their order in the table. The reason is that there simply isn't always such a distinction. Sometimes you just have two permanent drivers each completing half of a season and sometimes we've had even more than two drivers in the same seat during the course of season. Listing per chronological order of the rounds column is the only way we can consistently apply.Tvx1 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Makes sense, thanks! Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
IMSA E320's latest edit raises another question: Should Stroll be above or below Hülkenberg and Vettel? Ordering by Stroll and Vettel's driver numbers, he should be below, but if we're not gonna delve into permanent and replacement drivers then we should probably order by Stroll and Hülkenbergs numbers like he's now suggested? Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Don't we have the 2015 example? Island92 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- In 2015, both Magnussen and Alonso's driver numbers were smaller than Button's, so it wasn't an issue. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. Island92 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- To me, this doesn't make sense. What we are doing here feels like a little bit of both worlds. i.e. we list Hulkenberg before Vettel because we don't distinguish between permanent and temporary drivers (fine, doesn't bother me). But then we list Hulkenberg/Vettel before Stroll because Vettel is the permanent driver, and has a number smaller than Stroll, so we do distinguish between permanent and temporary drivers. The orders that make sense here (to me) would be Stroll-Hulkenberg-Vettel (by driver number, ordering by rounds) or Vettel-Hulkenberg-Stroll (by driver number of permanent drivers). SSSB (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, we distinguish between them or we don't. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- To me, the only two orders that would make sense would be Vettel-Stroll-Hülkenberg (by driver number) or Hülkenberg-Stroll-Vettel (by name). --Marbe166 (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- We've always collected drivers who replace each other together. SSSB (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that it makes sense. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- True, but it is indicitive, and it does make sense. It is also necessary for the more complex cases. I think a good example to point to here would be 2017 Formula One World Championship and Toro Rosso. In this case Kvyat drove both cars, and the result was that Kvyat ended up using the engine allocation for both cars. The engines he used for round 17 was the allocation that was orignally Sainz's at the begining of the season (not the allocation that was originally his). So it is necessary to list them together, espically if Hulk ends up replacing Stroll latter in the year. SSSB (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that it makes sense. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- We've always collected drivers who replace each other together. SSSB (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is not about distinguish classes of drivers, but simple chronology. Vettel and Stroll were already in the table (because they were entered for the championship) before Hülkenberg came along. So Hülkenberg is simply added in the correct chronological position to the existing order (thus above Vettel since Hülkenberg was the first of the pairing to be entered into a specific race).Tvx1 12:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I get why Hulk is above Vettel, but it doesn't make sense that he is also above Stroll, when they both entered their first race at the same time... you can't use the same arguement there. Hulk-Vet-Stroll just doesn't add up. SSSB (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why then shouldn't we add Hülkenberg below Vettel "because Vettel was already in the table"? Don't get me wrong, I agree that Hülkenberg should be above Vettel, but that's because we're basing the order off of the individual round entry lists. It's not consistent to then take into account the order of the season entry list in regards to Stroll. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stroll and Hulk are entered into round 1, Vettel is not. Hence the other 2 have competed first, so they should be listed first (in car order number), and Vettel should be listed under Hulk. So Stroll, Hulk, Vettel seems the logical order to me. Just because Vettel is the "permanent driver", that doesn't negate the fact that he's not the first person to drive the car in an f1 weekend this year. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, you're reasoning is flawed because that's not the correct chronology of how they were entered into this championship. Vettel and Stroll have been in that table in that order for months and Hükenberg should simply be added without reshuffling the base order.Tvx1 19:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why then should Hülkenberg be added above Vettel? I can answer the question for you: Because we're ordering them based on entry lists from rounds. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Vettel and Stroll have been in that table in that order for months and Hükenberg should simply be added without reshuffling the base order.
- so you want to order the table by a "value" that isn't expressed in the table?With respect, you seem to be the only person who understands the logic behind the ordering you proposed. If it's confusing us (who know what's going on) how is a casual reader supposed to understand the order? SSSB (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stroll and Hulk are entered into round 1, Vettel is not. Hence the other 2 have competed first, so they should be listed first (in car order number), and Vettel should be listed under Hulk. So Stroll, Hulk, Vettel seems the logical order to me. Just because Vettel is the "permanent driver", that doesn't negate the fact that he's not the first person to drive the car in an f1 weekend this year. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- To me, this doesn't make sense. What we are doing here feels like a little bit of both worlds. i.e. we list Hulkenberg before Vettel because we don't distinguish between permanent and temporary drivers (fine, doesn't bother me). But then we list Hulkenberg/Vettel before Stroll because Vettel is the permanent driver, and has a number smaller than Stroll, so we do distinguish between permanent and temporary drivers. The orders that make sense here (to me) would be Stroll-Hulkenberg-Vettel (by driver number, ordering by rounds) or Vettel-Hulkenberg-Stroll (by driver number of permanent drivers). SSSB (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. Island92 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course we are talking about rounds, as the above column says. Vettel did not enter round 1, so we cannot put 1 for him. In place of him entered Hülkenberg who therefore got 1, and as a result goes above Vettel. Island92 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- We're discussing whether Stroll should be above or below Hülkenberg and Vettel, not whether Hülkenberg should be above Vettel or not – we agree that he should. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course we are talking about rounds, as the above column says. Vettel did not enter round 1, so we cannot put 1 for him. In place of him entered Hülkenberg who therefore got 1, and as a result goes above Vettel. Island92 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok. If you put Hülkenberg below Vettel and therefore above Stroll it doesn't make sense. You may think Hülkenberg replaced Vettel during the season. He has 1 and Vettel can get 2 or 3. It doesn't make sense to read 2- for Vettel before 1 for Hülkenberg. Chronologically it didn't happen this. Actually Hülkenberg entered round 1 and he is force to be above Vettel so that we read 1 for him, following by 2- for Vettel when Vettel enters the first race. In the end, putting Hülkenberg below Stroll is wrong because he didn't substitute him. Island92 (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't think you're understanding what we're discussing.
- We all agree that Hülkenberg should be above Vettel regardless. What Tvx1 is saying is that Stroll should be below Hülkeberg and Vettel, because Stroll's driver number is bigger than Vettel's. What the rest of us are saying, is that Stroll should be above Hülkenberg and Vettel, because Hülkeberg is above Vettel and thus Vettel's driver number is irrelevant, we should order the two "cars" based on the driver number of the first drivers who drove them. Stroll's driver number is smaller than Hülkeberg's, so we're saying the order should be Stroll–Hülkeberg–Vettel, with their rounds probably ending up being 1–22, 1, 2–22 (if we're looking into the future).
- It's not wrong to put Hülkeberg below Stroll "because he didn't substitute him", we've already established we're not taking into account permanent and substitute driver. Stroll was the first driver of his car, Hülkenberg was the first driver of his and Vettel's car, when we only take into account Grand Prix entry lists and not who the "season entry" or "permanent entry" was/is. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, we do not all agree to that approach. I am still saying it should be either strict by car number (5-18-27) or strict by name (Hülkenberg-Stroll-Vettel). Who substitues for who in which car is irrelevant for an entries list. That information can be found in text, both in this article and the articles of the concerned Grands Prix. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- By "the rest of us" I was referring to SSSB and Joseph. What you are suggesting is moving away from an already established norm where we order the first two drivers (the cars) by driver number, and invidicual drivers (where there's more than one driver who've driven a car) by what rounds they drove it in. The way I understand people's opinions, nobody else suggests moving away from ordering individual drivers of one car by rounds, so you're alone in that opinion. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Marbe166: As I explained to you above, that system doesn't work, because who replaces whom (which is why we group together like that) is important when it comes to parts allocation, and also goes against the practice established in previous seasons. SSSB (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Taking parts allocation into account in an entrants list is way overkill, and of little public interest. The influence of parts allocations (i.e. grid penalties) are taken into account in the individual race articles. So, that practice needs to be reconsidered. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, it does not need to be reconsidered. It wasn't even about parts allocation. The consensus has always been to keep the round column's content in a logical state and order. Each of your suggestions would leave that in a random mumble jumble and would in some cases lead in some situations to a failure of us being able to convey to our readers who replaced whom when. Names and numbers have no importance to determine this table's order.Tvx1 13:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Taking parts allocation into account in an entrants list is way overkill, and of little public interest. The influence of parts allocations (i.e. grid penalties) are taken into account in the individual race articles. So, that practice needs to be reconsidered. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I really do not understand why Stroll being listed last is such a big drama. Contrary to what is being claimed here we have always combined season and race entry lists to establish the correct chronology. Parts allocation or "permanent" vs "replacement" have never been a real factor. Correct chronology in the round column is what we have always given priority because we determined years ago that it is the only way we can consistently provide a logic order with. In this case there is a chronological order in which they were entered into the championship first, Vettel and Stroll, and than the order in which they were first entered for particular grand prix weekend second, thus Hülkenberg added and listed above Vettel because the former was entered for the earliest round. For the exact same reason we have an order of Magnussen-Alonso-Button and not Button-Magnussen-Alonso in the 2015 article. I really don't understand why such a fuss is being created for this now, because no-one whatsoever has ever complained about Button's position back in 2015 and in the seven years since that order was established. The only source of discussion back then was the order of Magnussen and Alonso and that only happened because Magnussen was drafted in quite some time before the start of the season and thus before we added a rounds column to the 2015 table. Once that column appeared, those objecting actually realized that Magnussen-Alonso was the most logical order and the discussion ended and we retained that practice since.Tvx1 13:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- No-one complained about Button's position, because his number (22) was greater than both Alonso (14) and Magnussen (20) so it makes sense for him to go last when we sort by driver number. The same isn't true here, as Stroll (the "Button" in this case) has the middle number (18, compared to 5 and 27). It doesn't make sense to sort by the chronology of who entered the Championship first, because that isn't a field in the table. While this may be the justification for the Magnussen-Alonso-Button order in 2015, a STR-HULK-VET order here would still be consistent with how we did it in 2015. First by rounds, then by number. SSSB (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is nonsense. The initial order on the 2015 article was ALO-BUT just like it was VET-STR here because those pairings were in both cases the first to be entered for the championship and because ALO and VET have the lower numbers. Once the driver changes were announced we simply paired the new driver with the driver whose seat they were taking without changing the initial order. We merely put the drivers that drove the same car in the correct vertical chronological order. How we have it in this article now is exactly the same practice we used in 2015. Chronological order first by season entry list, then by grand prix entry lists.Tvx1 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- It may be the same practice, but it doesn't look like the same practice, and that practice doesn't make sense (at least to me). I would therefore argue that the practice needs to change. SSSB (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that this was the conscious reasoning behind Button's placement in 2015. I can just as easily assume whoever witnessed this in 2015 read the the situation as "We simply paired the new driver with the driver whose seat they were taking without changing the initial order, because the order still made sense considering Magnussen's number". As far as I can see, none of what you've assumed as the reasoning is a discussed practice with consensus, which means that discussion has to take place now. And even if it was, it seems like the current majority prefers sorting by the driver number of the first two drivers to drive the car in a Grand Prix. If we're not gonna have the "permanent"/"original" drivers above temporary drivers, it simply does not make sense to still order the seats based on their numbers. It's rounds that matter, not the original or "permanent" season entry list. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is nonsense. The initial order on the 2015 article was ALO-BUT just like it was VET-STR here because those pairings were in both cases the first to be entered for the championship and because ALO and VET have the lower numbers. Once the driver changes were announced we simply paired the new driver with the driver whose seat they were taking without changing the initial order. We merely put the drivers that drove the same car in the correct vertical chronological order. How we have it in this article now is exactly the same practice we used in 2015. Chronological order first by season entry list, then by grand prix entry lists.Tvx1 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- No-one complained about Button's position, because his number (22) was greater than both Alonso (14) and Magnussen (20) so it makes sense for him to go last when we sort by driver number. The same isn't true here, as Stroll (the "Button" in this case) has the middle number (18, compared to 5 and 27). It doesn't make sense to sort by the chronology of who entered the Championship first, because that isn't a field in the table. While this may be the justification for the Magnussen-Alonso-Button order in 2015, a STR-HULK-VET order here would still be consistent with how we did it in 2015. First by rounds, then by number. SSSB (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, we do not all agree to that approach. I am still saying it should be either strict by car number (5-18-27) or strict by name (Hülkenberg-Stroll-Vettel). Who substitues for who in which car is irrelevant for an entries list. That information can be found in text, both in this article and the articles of the concerned Grands Prix. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not "big drama", it's an honest discussion. I'm curious why you assume we're arguing that Button should be put above Magnussen and Alonso in the 2015 article though – Button's driver number is higher than both Magnussen and Alonso, and thus he would be below them regardless. This is, as far as I can see, a new dilemma, and I think we should stick to ordering them based on round entries, which means we should also order the two cars by the driver number of the first drivers who drove them in a round. Bringing in the season entry lists complicates things with a factor that's not represented in the table, and is arguably the same as ordering based on who's the "permanent driver", which we've established is a bad idea. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Button being listed below Alonso and Magnussen had nothing to do whatsoever with Magnussen's number, but solely with Alonso's and is exactly why Stroll belongs below Vettel.Tvx1 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Where may I find that information? Was there a conversation on it? Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Button being listed below Alonso and Magnussen had nothing to do whatsoever with Magnussen's number, but solely with Alonso's and is exactly why Stroll belongs below Vettel.Tvx1 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not "big drama", it's an honest discussion. I'm curious why you assume we're arguing that Button should be put above Magnussen and Alonso in the 2015 article though – Button's driver number is higher than both Magnussen and Alonso, and thus he would be below them regardless. This is, as far as I can see, a new dilemma, and I think we should stick to ordering them based on round entries, which means we should also order the two cars by the driver number of the first drivers who drove them in a round. Bringing in the season entry lists complicates things with a factor that's not represented in the table, and is arguably the same as ordering based on who's the "permanent driver", which we've established is a bad idea. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion looks to have gone inactive. It seems to me like 3 people support ordering everything by rounds, meaning ordering the cars by Stroll and Hulkenberg's driver numbers considering they were the first two to drive them, and considering we've established that "permanent" drivers should not play a role. Tvx1 suggests ordering by driver numbers of "original"/permanent drivers is the precedent, but has not answered requests on where this was discussed. Island92 hasn't responded on the issue and Marbe116 has suggested something else entirely. Unless someone else can agree on a solution with more people than themselves, I think it is unappropriate to hold this issue hostage by keeping on reverting. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- We all have real lives you know. Contributing to Wikipedia is doen whatever time we can spare. Here is the discussion we had in 2015. Button being listed bottom because he had a higher number than Magnussen was NEVER considered. It would serve you well not to be so condescending to an editor who actually helped build that consensus back then, when you weren’t even on Wikipedia yet. I think I’d know what our reasoning was back then. And consensus is not a head count. Strenght of arguments is what matters and your argument are neither strong nor possess logic to overturn to existing consensus, which has worked for years without anyone complaining. You are making an issue where really none exists.Tvx1 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, it wasn't considered because it wasn't an issue in 2015. Claiming that Button's placement in 2015 was because of Alonso's number and not Magnussen's suggests that it was discussed and considered, however. If it wasn't considered, which it makes sense that it wasn't, then there is no consensus on the issue like you're claiming there is. You also can't argue that it's "worked for years" when the issue hasn't occured before.
- The strength of our argument is very similar to what you yourself said in 2015 however, which is that rounds take priority. The original/permanent season entry list is not a round, neither is it represented in the table in any other way. Drivers of the same car are ordered from the round 1 entry list forward, not the season entry list forward, and thus it only makes sense to order the two cars based on the driver numbers from the round 1 entry list, not the season entry list.
- With all due respect, I strongly disagree that your claimed consensus based on a consideration that never occured, regarding an issue that hasn't happened before, is a stronger argument than ordering drivers based on factors present in the table. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
IMO, the entries table sounds ok as it is. It mainly goes per entry list round by round (source close to that which refers to the general entry list), despite having the general entry list of the season cited for the whole table. That's the experience I've have during these years. If, for example, Lenovo becomes new Haas title sponsor from the Australian Grand Prix, we put Lenovo Haas F1 Team for this team name entrant as the Australian entry list says, including the note by writing that the team entered differently during the season, as per "Haas entered rounds 1-2 as Haas F1 Team" (we have a similar case with Ferrari as they entered some races with Mission Winnow and other did not). Per entry lists round by round, Hülkenberg has entered before Vettel in the season and he should go above him. Island92 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, we're not discussing whether Hülkenberg should be above or below Vettel, we know he should. We're discussing whether we should order Stroll above or below Hülkenberg and Vettel. We either put Stroll above them both, because his driver number is smaller than Hülkebergs, or below them both, because his driver number is bigger than Vettel's. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see why this has generated such controversy. The team started the season with Stroll and HUL. So the order is Stroll then HUL, ordered by number as is done for every other team. Then Vettel replaces HUL in the third race or whatever, and he goes below HUL to maintain the sequence of entries. This is achieves exactly the same as what's been done on the 2015 article (regardless of the reasoning, the result is the same). 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand when we've literally established that we order drivers from round 1 forward. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Save that that just isn't true. They started the season with Vettel and Stroll. That pair was contracted first and entered for the championship first and Vettel even drove the car before Hülkenberg. Putting that pair below Stroll implies that Vettel didn't become into consideration until after Saudi Arabia. That's just plain wrong.Tvx1 17:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see why this has generated such controversy. The team started the season with Stroll and HUL. So the order is Stroll then HUL, ordered by number as is done for every other team. Then Vettel replaces HUL in the third race or whatever, and he goes below HUL to maintain the sequence of entries. This is achieves exactly the same as what's been done on the 2015 article (regardless of the reasoning, the result is the same). 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which numbers they have. It matters the time the entry list for that specific race is released. Which driver did Hülkenberg replace? Vettel. It happened at round 1 and as a result Hülkenberg should go above him, seeing that Vettel can enter round 3, 4 we don't know yet. If Hülkenberg replaces Stroll he goes below him, as Stroll entered from round 1. Island92 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Island92: with respect, your missing the issue. The issue is if Str should go above Vet and Hulk, or below Vet and Hulk. The order between Vet and Hulk is already agreed upon.
Generally speaking (no repling to Island92), I don't really care enough to continue to go around in circles (which this discussion has beien doing for some time). I would also note that consensus can change, and I would argue that there is enough basis in this discussion to start a discussion (which should be seperate, as my support was based on what I thought was the practice in other articles, whether that is correct or not) which seeks to change the previous consensus. SSSB (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Because you are assuming it per pair in the team. I know each pair is ordered by number, but here we have to consider new partecipants who came in the list and we have to refer when it happened per round, not considering any more their number order. Stroll can go under Hülkenberg and Vettel because he is not "connected" with what happened to the drivers above him. Island92 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Or Stroll can go above Hülkenberg and Vettel because he is not "connected" with what happened to the drivers who would be below him. Hulkenberg and Stroll entered the first round so should be ordered by number putting Stroll above Hulk and Vettel. Or am I misunderstanding your argument. SSSB (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Why does Stroll have to go above HUL and VET if his number is higher than that of his team mate VET? At round 1 it was HUL who replaced VET and he goes above him and Stroll the last. Island92 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stroll should go above HUL and VET because his number is smaller than that of his round 1 teammate HUL. Vettel's number doesn't matter, he won't have driven the car until round 3. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I have explained to you time and time again, Stroll's number being smaller than Hülkenberg's DOESN'T MATTER IN ANY WAY. We go by chronological order. Vettel and Stroll were the first drivers to be contracted and actually entered in the championship by Aston Martin. Vettel even drove in testing. That's the exact same situation as with McLaren seven years ago and the exact same reason why we listed Button in the bottom back then. You are getting more and more lonely in your view so I strongly advise you to drop the stick.Tvx1 17:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we go by chronological order. However, when ordering drivers of the same car (Hülkenberg and Vettel), we go by chronological order beginning from round 1, not the season entry list. That's why we should order the two cars (Stroll and Hülkenberg-Vettel) also beginning from round 1, not the season entry list. If we are to order entries starting with the season entry list, then Vettel should be above Hülkeberg, because he was entered into the season before Hülkeberg drove for him in round 1 and 2. I don't know why you assume I'm getting lonely in my view, the way I read the conversation, Joseph, SSSB and 5225C has expressed this view as well. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ved havet: you're reading the conversation wrong. My view is that we follow the same practice as in previous seasons, Tvx1 has clarified that this was (though I still find the logic inconsistent).
My second preference would be to sort by driver number/name, reagrdless of who replaced whom, or who was contracted first (but this would be a complete change, and would require an entirely new discussion).
I certainly don't care enough to continue to contribute in a discussion which is going around in progressless circles (other than to clarify misinterpteations of my view, either through my own fault, or others). The only way I see this getting resolved is getting an univolved editor to gauge a consensus (WP:Closure requests), or an WP:RfC. SSSB (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- You found the logic inconsistent, which is what I was referring to. Either way, I don't see any previous practice. This issue, where sorting based on driver numbers from the season entry list and the round 1 entry list has different results, looks to be a first. Both schools of thought would provide the same result in 2015. This means that unless there for some reason has been a dicussion where it's been established that the two "groups" of drivers (permanent and temporary drivers of the same seat) are indeed to be ordered from the season entry list forward, this "previous practice" that's being talked about is just a personal interpretation of the situation, not a joint, conscious decision (because there was no decision to make, there wasn't a conflict between two alternatives). It's natural that when the issue arises is when you have a discussion on how to handle it, and that's why I think this is the time to actually establish a consensus, based on what people think is logical right now.
- I'm not gonna keep nagging on this either, but I don't think this is a good way of establishing the common practice going forward, because I genuinly don't see how there has been a standard practice on an issue that hasn't been experienced before. If that makes me an annoying asshole, so be it. This means we're about to establish a new practice that might not be logical, based on one person's claim that the practice already exists. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ved havet: you're reading the conversation wrong. My view is that we follow the same practice as in previous seasons, Tvx1 has clarified that this was (though I still find the logic inconsistent).
- Yes, we go by chronological order. However, when ordering drivers of the same car (Hülkenberg and Vettel), we go by chronological order beginning from round 1, not the season entry list. That's why we should order the two cars (Stroll and Hülkenberg-Vettel) also beginning from round 1, not the season entry list. If we are to order entries starting with the season entry list, then Vettel should be above Hülkeberg, because he was entered into the season before Hülkeberg drove for him in round 1 and 2. I don't know why you assume I'm getting lonely in my view, the way I read the conversation, Joseph, SSSB and 5225C has expressed this view as well. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I have explained to you time and time again, Stroll's number being smaller than Hülkenberg's DOESN'T MATTER IN ANY WAY. We go by chronological order. Vettel and Stroll were the first drivers to be contracted and actually entered in the championship by Aston Martin. Vettel even drove in testing. That's the exact same situation as with McLaren seven years ago and the exact same reason why we listed Button in the bottom back then. You are getting more and more lonely in your view so I strongly advise you to drop the stick.Tvx1 17:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorting out by number is the normal case as we have two drivers per each team. So far ok. Aston Martin have got three drivers, so we have to consider the new driver who was called in (HUL) for whom he ran in place of (VET). Seeing that HUL replaced VET at round 1 HUL goes above VET. That's the conclusion. Stroll's position above or below someone else is out of the question. Also, Stroll is always below VET as Stroll has 18 and VET 5 (order by number indeed). Hence the correct order is HUL-VET-STR. If Stroll will be replaced during the season, the driver who replaces him is forced to be put below Stroll because Stroll has already got round 1. Hence we could have this order in case it happens: HUL-VET-STR-HUL. It is like the case in 2015. Magnussen (20) replaced Alonso (14) at round 1, so MAG goes above ALO. So far ok. Button (22) is displayed anyway below ALO (14), sorting out by numbers. Order MAG-ALO-BUT.Island92 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Aramco
I'm quite certain that Aston Martin's power units are branded as 'Aramco Mercedes', just like how Racing Point's power units were branded as 'BWT Mercedes' in 2019 and 2020, and so the entry list and constructors' standings should say 'Aston Martin-Aramco Mercedes', not 'Aston Martin Aramco-Mercedes'. See this video from the official Formula 1 YouTube channel.
In it, the constructor names are shortened - Haas Ferrari is just 'Haas', Alpine Renault is just 'Alpine', etc. - and Aston Martin Aramco Mercedes is just 'Aston Martin', not 'Aston Martin Aramco'.
Nineixsixine (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per the entry list Aramco is part of the name of the chassis, not the
namemake of the engine.Tvx1 18:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)- Yes, as the last one.--Island92 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also here, where you can read "Name of the chassis".--Island92 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. Really weird that they'd name the chassis like that. Nineixsixine (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Money first. Island92 (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not weird at all. The thought process would be "all these websites (including Wikipedia) use the constructor name, not the team name. So we'll pay extra for our sponsership to be added to the chassis name, rather than the team name." I wouldn't be remotely surprised if this became more common in the future. SSSB (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. Really weird that they'd name the chassis like that. Nineixsixine (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also here, where you can read "Name of the chassis".--Island92 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, as the last one.--Island92 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Guanyu Zhou
The official F1 website, FIA entry list and the man himself have said that his name is Zhou Guanyu. Should we not be matching these official sources here? I know that he has been Guanyu Zhou in the feeder series' but seems wrong to be not matching with the FIA entry lists? MetalDylan (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion is ongoing at WikiProject Formula One. Tl;dr: We're waiting to establish a WP:COMMONNAME. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note that an editor has started an WP:RM at Talk:Guanyu Zhou. SSSB (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- As the RM decided that Zhou's common name is Zhou Guanyu, I believe that should be how we list him on this article. But RxxingAddict disagrees. Whilst he was referred to as Guanyu Zhou in previous years, there seems to be a clear change for F1 this year, where he is almost listed way more often as Guanyu Zhou. What do others think? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- There has been a big discussion that ended with a consensus to change his article to Zhou Guanyu, and I don't see the need to restart this discussion just because one editor disagrees, who very well could also have taken part in the original discussion, there was plenty of time. H4MCHTR (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- As the RM decided that Zhou's common name is Zhou Guanyu, I believe that should be how we list him on this article. But RxxingAddict disagrees. Whilst he was referred to as Guanyu Zhou in previous years, there seems to be a clear change for F1 this year, where he is almost listed way more often as Guanyu Zhou. What do others think? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note that an editor has started an WP:RM at Talk:Guanyu Zhou. SSSB (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
It's Guanyu Zhou because it is what he has always used even if the commentators say it the other way round. 👍 RxxingAddict (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- So? It isn't what he's using now. It isn't his common name. What he used in the past or in other series isn't really relevant. SSSB (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:ZHNAME.Tvx1 17:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Like the consensus reached, hence Zhou Guanyu.--Island92 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Pole and sprint position annotations
In the standings tables, shouldn't the pole annotation come before the sprint position annotation (in situations where the pole sitter also finished top 8 in the sprint), considering pole is now decided in qualifying on friday, before the sprint? Meaning Verstappen's result would be "X P 1", rather than "X 1 P". Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, seeing that pole position is achieved before during the weekend, on Friday. The sprint takes place on Saturday.--Island92 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Name of circuit in Imola?
The name of the Wikipedia page, Imola Circuit, is misleading. The (current) name of the circuit is Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari. Joe Forster/STA (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- This has been discussed previously. "Imola" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the venue in WP:ENGLISH while the WP:OFFICIALNAME lacks WP:RECOGNISABILITY. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Joe Forster/STA (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Fastest Lap Point
In article,
- Additionally, the fastest lap point will now only be awarded if more than 50% of the scheduled race distance is completed.
On the other hand, on the regulations by FIA,
- No point will be awarded if the fastest valid lap time is achieved by a driver who was classified outside the top ten positions, or if the leader has completed less than 50% of the scheduled race distance. ( "2022 Formula One sporting regulations" (PDF). FIA. 15 March 2022. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 18 March 2022.)
Isn't it better to change the expression of the text? --悲喜交交 (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll change the text to "if 50% or more of the scheduled race distance is completed." in line with the regulations (as the current text in our article suggest that there will be no point, but the regulations say there will be a point, if the race is stopped after 50% distance.) SSSB (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Why not?
Island92, why not? You can tell the country of the others from their name, but not with this one. Let's enrich the experience of our readers for the cost a comma and five letters, eh? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why do we have to put Imola Circuit, Imola, Italy and Monza Circuit, Monza? We don't put the state for each circuit, thus we don't put Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne, Australia and so on for example.--Island92 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't a big deal. The flag displayed is the Italian flag. Had we had the Emilia Romagna flag, I'd have got your point of view. Island92 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- That might be a reasonable excuse if you could see the flag, discern the colours and design, and knew what country it was the flag of. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't, that's why WP:WIKILINKS are so awesome :) Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- You expect the reader to go to the article about Imola to find what country it's in, unlike for all the other GPs? I know an easier way. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- The flag itself is a wikilink is what they meant I think. H4MCHTR (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is the alt-text not displaying properly for the flags in the calendar table? If it isn't and that can't be fixed then it would make sense to add country names to the text in the tables. From the opposite direction I do have to question the necessity of saying "Jeddah Corniche Circuit, Jeddah", "Imola Circuit, Imola", "Circuit de Monaco, Monaco", "Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone", "Circuit Zandvoort, Zandvoort", "Monza Circuit, Monza", or "Suzuka International Racing Course, Suzuka". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- With touch-screens and with images switched off the alt-text isn't always readily accessible. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- And I agree there's a lot of redundant information on the one hand and essential information missing on the other. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yet another case of speculating a problem in to existence by assumption. If this was a real issue, wouldn't you think that any reader would have actually complained in the years we had this circuit in our calendars for first the San Marino and now the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix? I'll remind you not to fix something that ain't broken. The flags are generated through interactive templates designed to tell readers what they stand for. Just put your mouse or thumb on it and the country will appear. No clicking required. Even blind people will have "Italy, Imola Circuit, Imola" read out to them.Tvx1 20:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- So what's the gesture on a touch screen, do you know? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't work on touch screens. Putting your thumb on it is clicking on it, and go to Italy.
I personally think we should adopt a all-or-none approach. Only listing the country for GPs which aren't named after a country makes no sense because of cases such as San Marino Grand Prix, or Luxembourg Grand Prix. I notice that we don't try to fix this "problem" in 1997 Formula One World Championship, where the flags for those GP don't match the location. SSSB (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pressing and holding works in the Wikipedia app, but not in a browser. I agree though that consistency makes sense in this matter. I don't see the country of every grand prix as very critical information, but if it is, it should be applied across every grand prix regardless of it's name. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yet another case of speculating a problem in to existence by assumption. If this was a real issue, wouldn't you think that any reader would have actually complained in the years we had this circuit in our calendars for first the San Marino and now the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix? I'll remind you not to fix something that ain't broken. The flags are generated through interactive templates designed to tell readers what they stand for. Just put your mouse or thumb on it and the country will appear. No clicking required. Even blind people will have "Italy, Imola Circuit, Imola" read out to them.Tvx1 20:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- You expect the reader to go to the article about Imola to find what country it's in, unlike for all the other GPs? I know an easier way. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't, that's why WP:WIKILINKS are so awesome :) Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- That might be a reasonable excuse if you could see the flag, discern the colours and design, and knew what country it was the flag of. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't a big deal. The flag displayed is the Italian flag. Had we had the Emilia Romagna flag, I'd have got your point of view. Island92 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The Imola Circuit Singed a contract until 2026 Raymond Cirera (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Present tense
Looking for consensus of the group instead of edit war. Island92 has reverted this edit twice, once citing that the "title source should not changed" [1]. If I'm making a mistake I would like a better explanation. How does updating the grammer to present tense "changing the title source? Thank you. RemotelyInterested (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Because your edit didn't change the tense in some text of this article, but in the title of a source. We cannot change the titles of sources we cite at all. We must write as they are in the linked source.Tvx1 19:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I did not think I did that, but I got lost in that long citation. RemotelyInterested (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022
 | This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Results for Miami GP: Verstappen P1, Leclerc P2, Sainz P3 2600:1017:B0AE:8E25:FDE0:59D6:417F:2B8A (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Please add the scheduled date of each race to the table
Would it be possible to add the scheduled date of each race to the table, please? It's the only reason I came here, and it took me some time to discover that I'd have to click on Report to find out, which is not very helpful to our readers, who are supposed to be the people we are trying to serve. I'd do it myself except that, (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO), I currently have neither enough time nor enough interest, and I'd also hate to put in the effort only to discover that there is already a good (or bad) reason why the date is not already there (something which may be less of a risk for editors more familiar with this article and this series of articles, or a risk some editors are more willing to take in this particular case than I am). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please read the calendar section. All dates are already in the article.Tvx1 20:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
FP1 Drivers
In light of the recent announcement that Nyck de Vries will get an FP1 outing for Williams in the 2022 Spanish Grand Prix, I thought it would be relevant to bring this topic up. Given that for this year, each team must give young drivers an opportunity in two FP1 sessions for this year, would it be useful to add the FP1 drivers with the corresponding race to the entrants list? This was last done for the 2016 season so there is precedent for doing this on Wiki articles. Dh16dh (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I still think a list in prose is fine. There is no need for this to be in the table, and there is a lot in the table already. Also, note that not every team will have FP1 drivers (necessarily) as Alfa Romeo have already fulfilled the requirement through Zhou. SSSB (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
World Constructors' Championship standings is not correctly addressed
There is flawed editing on the World Constructors' Championship standings as Lewis Hamilton is creditted with top 5 finishes he didn't achieved and Max Verstappen didn't win in Monaco but was put as a winner by which ever has the editing power on the World Constructors' Championship standings (Sergio Perez was correctly put as winners in the Drivers's Championship but is 3 in the World Constructors' Championship standings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milst3r8688 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- As per the note below the Constructors Standings table: "Rows are not related to the drivers: within each team, individual Grand Prix standings are sorted purely based on the final classification in the race (not by total points scored in the event, which includes points awarded for fastest lap and sprint)." Jestal50 (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- if the correct is on the Driver's Championship; it should be reflected on the Constructors considering Verstappen finished third but is mentioned as first in Monaco.. Kinda weird if the person who has the ability to make the correct edit is unwilling or is a Max Verstappen fanboi.. there should be the correct race result as Hamilton is creditted with multiple fifth place despite only done so once; making me believe the person who can edit is Max and Lewis fan boys Milst3r8688 (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Jestal50 has already clearly explained to you that the rows are not related to an individual driver's results. It is the Constructors' Championship, drivers are not being "credited" with anything. There is a note alongisde the table that very explicitly states this. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith.Tvx1 15:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- if the correct is on the Driver's Championship; it should be reflected on the Constructors considering Verstappen finished third but is mentioned as first in Monaco.. Kinda weird if the person who has the ability to make the correct edit is unwilling or is a Max Verstappen fanboi.. there should be the correct race result as Hamilton is creditted with multiple fifth place despite only done so once; making me believe the person who can edit is Max and Lewis fan boys Milst3r8688 (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Porpoising
Should something be added in this article about "Porpoising"? If you look up Porpoising on Wikipedia, you get a very interesting discussion of ground effects, but little about the impact its had on this season. Actually, the discussion around porpoising seems to be one of the features defining this year of F1. I don't know if we should add maybe a whole section to this article about how it has impacted this season or if it should just be mentioned, but surely the lack of anything about it is a serious omission? Birdsgeek (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Error found in the results on page
There is an error on the constuction championship section. On the row of Monza's results, Red Bull's results are incorrect. Verstappen was 3rd in the race and not 1st. While Perez was 1st and not 3rd. Just swap the two results around please. 197.229.149.81 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- The table is correct, the table isn't one row per driver. The better result goes on top, regardless of whose result it is, as explained clearly under the table. SSSB (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022
| This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The winning constructor in Canadian Grand Prix 2022 is Ferrari (29 points) and not Redbull Racing (25 points). You should correct that mistake, thanks. 5.91.46.108 (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wrong. The winning constructor is not determined by who took the most total points, but by who won the races. Red Bull was handed the winning constructor’s trophy on the podium.Tvx1 01:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Pole position
Max Verstappen does not have pole position for Austria because it is a sprint weekend. Pole is decided by the sprint qualifying race winner not by being the fastest in the conventional qualifying. 131.251.33.195 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Read the last sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Formula_One_World_Championship#Sprint_points_system_and_events. This rule has been changed this season. H4MCHTR (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- ughhhhh 131.251.33.195 (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Controversies section
I note that HumanBodyPiloter5 wasn't quite happy with the controversies section that it might violate WP:NPOV. As on the further edit I made I note that the statements were well referenced. I'd rather go for WP:BEBOLD and have well referenced statements, than not including information. Happy to discuss. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no point in including information that is not related to the article. Vips is no F1 driver and isn’t mentioned anywhere in this article. Neither is Andretti as he never intended to enter in 2022 to begin with. And the portroyal of him not being accepted (yet) as a controversy is pure POV, false and not supported by sources.Tvx1 09:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Tvx1 - I note your comment: "Vips is not a Formula One driver and labelling Andretti’s call for an entry somwhere in the future as “controversial” is pure POV. Nothing of the proposed content is related to the 2022 championship." Vips is a F1 reserve driver, has driven a F1 car at an event, is already mentioned on the page as a driver in a free practice event. This is related to the F1 championship as a matter of record. I accept that maybe Andretti's issues with an entry might not be "controversial" - shall I create a section named other events then? It is news that is ongoing during the F1 championship season - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don’t think it belongs here at all. The incident doesn’t affect the 2022 championship at all. It belongs in Vips’ own article.Tvx1 09:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even if Red Bull had to suspend him as a reserve driver? That strikes me as quite a big step to take and there was a lot of mainstream media coverage about it (e.g. ESPN and CNN). - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Everything Red Bull Racing is not directly related to Formula One and relevant for the current season article. Test driving in a free practice session has not and does not "open the door" for their relationship to the team to be covered as if they were a full-time driver. This belongs in his own article. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- So you suggest a new linked article about events around the 2022 Formula One season? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I suggest it belongs in his own article. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why would we want a new article to deal with just two events of which one didn't even happen "around the 2022 world championship"?? I agree with Ved havet, that not everything happening in Formula One during an ongoing championship is automatically connected to that championship. If Red Bull were to today announce a driver signed to replace Pérez for the 2025 championship, when the latter's contract has ended, we would mention that in that newly signed driver's article, Red Bull Racing's article, in Pérez's article, and in the 2025 championship's article once that is created. Not here as this is not related to this championship. Vip's incident belongs in his article and Andretti's ventures can be dealt with in Andretti Autosport#Formula One. I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.Tvx1 10:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with the rest that Andretti's 2023 entry has no relation to the 2022 season, and Vips' firing also has no bearing on the 2022 season. Appearing at an event doesn't mean he's related to the 2022 championship. He was a reserve driver, now he's not. Teams move around test/reserve drivers all the time. The359 (Talk) 12:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree Rikelleher (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- So you suggest a new linked article about events around the 2022 Formula One season? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Everything Red Bull Racing is not directly related to Formula One and relevant for the current season article. Test driving in a free practice session has not and does not "open the door" for their relationship to the team to be covered as if they were a full-time driver. This belongs in his own article. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even if Red Bull had to suspend him as a reserve driver? That strikes me as quite a big step to take and there was a lot of mainstream media coverage about it (e.g. ESPN and CNN). - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don’t think it belongs here at all. The incident doesn’t affect the 2022 championship at all. It belongs in Vips’ own article.Tvx1 09:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Tvx1 - I note your comment: "Vips is not a Formula One driver and labelling Andretti’s call for an entry somwhere in the future as “controversial” is pure POV. Nothing of the proposed content is related to the 2022 championship." Vips is a F1 reserve driver, has driven a F1 car at an event, is already mentioned on the page as a driver in a free practice event. This is related to the F1 championship as a matter of record. I accept that maybe Andretti's issues with an entry might not be "controversial" - shall I create a section named other events then? It is news that is ongoing during the F1 championship season - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Stats in the constructors championship are not showing Tsunoda's results
Please correct the stats for Tsunoda in the WCC section 181.179.30.84 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
WCC section is showing different stats
In the WCC section you should have the first line for the results of the number 1 driver and the second line for the results of the number 2 driver. It's confusing reading the stats as the best result in line 1 and worst result in line 2. 181.179.30.84 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- This table's purpose is to compare teams, not teammates. If you want to compare teammates the appropriate venue are the results tables at the teams article (or the sub-article where relevant). I.e. Scuderia AlphaTauri#Complete Formula One results. SSSB (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022
| This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
French Grand Prix Constructors Standings QiansPassion (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022 (2)
| This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the column: World Constructors' Championship standings, it shows that Max ended as 2nd in the Australian GP while he retired.
This need to be switched around to Check 2nd and Max Retired. See screenshot: http://puu.sh/JcKUO/f6b9fa38a0.png 83.86.194.247 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Tyoo
Hi guys, & gals. Just to let you know the word colloquially is mispelt in the text. I think it's written as colloqally, so just do a control-f to find it & please remediate. Thanks 120.16.155.192 (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
You would be mistaken, it isn't misspelt.5225C (talk • contributions) 16:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)- Struck, I misunderstood the comment. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Typo
Hi guys, & gals. Just to let you know the word colloquially is mispelt in the text. It's written as colloqually, so just do a control-f to find it & please remediate (it's missing the leather i). Thanks 120.16.155.192 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Done Sorry, I misunderstood your request the first time. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Financial regulations
Hi. This paragraph does not make sense; most likely due to the grammar (& I'm not sure what the statement is meant to be saying in order for me to offer advice on the fix)..
Ahead of the Austrian Grand Prix it was announced that planned 2022 spending allowance for of $141.2m would be increased by 3.1% (an estimated $4m) to counter high inflation levels after concerns that inflation could have led to several teams spending over the originally planned budget cap.
Can someone fix this up please; most likely the 'for of' part? Thanks 120.16.155.192 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022
In the Grand Prix column of the calendar, row 4, there is a formatting error after Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, the * causing a line break. Widen the column by a few pixels to fix it? Just a minor gripe. 2A01:4B00:8574:B500:691A:BC58:8633:CA4F (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Max will be champ
Max now has enough points that if he were to finish every race 2nd & his nearest challenger were to win every race, he'd still get the chocolates ;-) 120.17.115.236 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- This information is not relevant for the encyclopedia. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- And if he doesn't finish every race second, and his nearest challenger wins every race? Max isn't champion until his lead is greater than the number of points still available. SSSB (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Have multiple independent reliable sources reported that Verstappen is now in such a position? If so it would likely be appropriate to add something along the lines of "
following this result, Verstappen had a large enough points lead that he could finish second in every race and still win the title
" (although I'm sure that could be more elegantly worded) to the relevant section. It's editorialising to say "following this result, Verstappen is extremely likely to win the championship
", but it's not editorialising to present the bare facts in a relevant place. Even if Verstappen winds up losing the title, a piece of text like that would remain relevant in contextualising the size of the lead that was (hypothetically) overturned. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)- It isn’t even true though, given the fastest lap points and the remaining sprint.Tvx1 14:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it was? If Verstappen finishes second (or in the points) in the sprint race. There are nine rounds left. A win+FL =26 points. Second =18 points. Then one race has 8 points for winning sprint, and 7 points for finishing second. 9*8+1 (races*points difference between 1st&FL to second + sprint race points difference) = 73, which is less than VER's 80 point lead. Or am I missing something? SSSB (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, Verstappen can still lose the championship mathematically, and that's what counts. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- It isn’t even true though, given the fastest lap points and the remaining sprint.Tvx1 14:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Race results switched
In the 'World Constructors' Championship standings' table GR's and LH's race results have switched in British GP. 2001:14BB:69B:ED65:F2D0:EE0F:41E8:331A (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are not. Please read the notes beneath the table. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- True.. I wish you the best of luck 2001:14BB:69B:ED65:F2D0:EE0F:41E8:331A (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Free Practice Drivers
Would it be worth having a column on the Teams and Drivers table that shows each Free Practice driver that did a session instead of having a lengthy paragraph under the table. I recall it being done on the 2013 Formula One World Championship page and would make logical sense to have it on this one because every team has to run a FP1 driver twice this season. Norgz1328 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- There was a consensus a few years ago that this shouldn't be done (which is why it was removed from 2014, 2015 etc. If I recall correctly, the consensus was based on the fact that free practice drivers aren't really entered into the Championship (there is no way for them to be included in the standings) - so it's relevance to this article is fairly minimal to begin with - free practice drivers therefore don't really belong on a table outlying drivers who entered the Championship. There is also the issue that the table is very wide already. I'm still not in favour of free practice drivers in the main table, and I think it is too early to commit to anything (lets see how it looks when all the teams are listed), but otherwise we could try a table like in 2005 French Grand Prix#Friday drivers if prose becomes too cumbersome? SSSB (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Since there is now a requirement for teams to run test drivers, I think it would be appropriate to consider a second table for them, like something below:
Constructor Test drivers Rounds Alfa Romeo-Ferrari 
Robert Kubica
7, 12–13 AlphaTauri-RBPT 
Liam Lawson
14 Haas-Ferrari 
Antonio Giovinazzi
16, 19 Mercedes 
Nyck de Vries
12 Red Bull Racing-RBPT 
Jüri Vips
7 Williams-Mercedes Nyck de Vries
7
- 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- We don't need the rounds column. We never had it before and we don't list the rounds now (in the current article, we simply say Kubica did three rounds). The rule should also be to only migrate to the table after listing them becomes excessive. SSSB (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's almost guaranteed to get to that point with every team having to enter a driver. At an absolute minimum there will be 12 rows (one for each compulsory rookie driver, plus one each for Alfa and Haas who have already entered a non-rookie driver), and we can probably expect closer to 20. That we never had a rounds column before doesn't make it a bad idea. It's a fairly dense way to provide more information and value. I mean is it better to say "Appearances = 3" or "Rounds = 7, 12–13"? Width can't be used as an excuse here since it's a new table. And in this article we do list rounds for every driver except Kubica. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I just opposed to a two-row table, or a table filled with lots of "TBA" rows. Right now, (pre Belgium Grand Prix) we would have a 4 row-table (5 if we include header row), which I don't feel is enough to justify a table at this time. And I also don't really see the benefit of a "rounds" of "apperences" column. Where the teams elected to run FP drivers, or how many times they ran are of no relevance. (I would even go as far as to argue that FP drivers shouldn't be listed on this page at all, but that's an arguement for another day). SSSB (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I also don't really see the value of mentioning at what weekend they tested at. Free Practice sessions are of no significance to the actual Grand Prix/round. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I just opposed to a two-row table, or a table filled with lots of "TBA" rows. Right now, (pre Belgium Grand Prix) we would have a 4 row-table (5 if we include header row), which I don't feel is enough to justify a table at this time. And I also don't really see the benefit of a "rounds" of "apperences" column. Where the teams elected to run FP drivers, or how many times they ran are of no relevance. (I would even go as far as to argue that FP drivers shouldn't be listed on this page at all, but that's an arguement for another day). SSSB (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's almost guaranteed to get to that point with every team having to enter a driver. At an absolute minimum there will be 12 rows (one for each compulsory rookie driver, plus one each for Alfa and Haas who have already entered a non-rookie driver), and we can probably expect closer to 20. That we never had a rounds column before doesn't make it a bad idea. It's a fairly dense way to provide more information and value. I mean is it better to say "Appearances = 3" or "Rounds = 7, 12–13"? Width can't be used as an excuse here since it's a new table. And in this article we do list rounds for every driver except Kubica. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- We don't need the rounds column. We never had it before and we don't list the rounds now (in the current article, we simply say Kubica did three rounds). The rule should also be to only migrate to the table after listing them becomes excessive. SSSB (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Leclerc P6
Leclerc finished P6 in Spa - 5 second penalty for speeding in pit lane 45.92.120.83 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Verstappen Pole at Belgium
source: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.2022-pirelli-pole-position-award.5QmhWoitl6y5UPy3cO4tmJ.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.215.190 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Verstappen didn't get pole, he wasn't in the first place grid spot. Who gets the trophy is irrelevant, cf. Hamilton '21 Turkey. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- You may also want to see the relevant discussion at Talk:2022 Belgian Grand Prix#Pole SSSB (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but Bottas was credited the throphy in Turkey ‘21.Tvx1 10:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Sprints on the Calendar and Results?
Is there a consensus on if and how to highlight which events include a sprint (sprint race/sprint qualifying, whatever they call it now)? I can see no reference anywhere about which forthcoming events have one, and finding out which previous events had one is not particularly clear. The WDC table has it's superscript numbers, that's fine. But what about the calendar and Grand Prix results table? (The latter might be contentious as a sprint is not a GP, could/should we change it to include sprints?) 185.49.38.221 (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is an established consensus against including sprint results in the Grand Prix results table. I do see why indicating the sprint event in the calendar section might be justified, perhaps using an asterisks? SSSB (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe it is better to include info about sprint events in the lead sentence of the calendar section? "The 2022 calendar consists of twenty-two events..." Corvus tristis (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- We actually already have an explanatory footnote about what weekends includes Sprint events, seen in the Scoring system section. I've done an edit simply reusing this note in the calendar section. Fair solution? I agree with Corvus tristis though that Sprint events could warrant a line in the running text, but maybe it should wait until they're no longer just trials (if they do indeed become a permanent feature of the championship in future seasons). Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Better in the prose at the beginning. If we put the Footnote there, it should be put in the Result table and standings as well. Island92 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Did the same per 2021 as it was called sprint qualifying at the time. Island92 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
It made me reflect. The Calendar table shows generic information about each single Grand Prix and its circuit and race date, too. I added the Footnote in the table related to results (hence more specific) for both 2021 and 2022 articles. Island92 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2022
| This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you make the row of the Driver's names in the grid of the "World Drivers' Championship standings" a bit wider? So the name "Kevin Magnussen" doesn't take up two lines for me. Thank you :) BryOn2205U (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Done with the addition of a nowrap tag. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Tiebreaker
A quote from the article:
"In the case of a tie on points a countback system is used where the driver with the most first places is ranked higher"
Does this include sprint first places? (Fran Bosh (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC))
- No, I'll clarify that. SSSB (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- No. That‘s why they are not fully included in the standings tables.Tvx1 05:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hamilton "recovering after a weak qualifying"
This seems a small thing - but if Hamilton's poor quali result at Hungary is worth mentioning wouldn't it make sense to also mention that his DRS failed? It would build on the other DRS issues occurring throughout the season and would also be in line with the red bull quali issues described here. Something along the lines of "... was also recovering from a weak qualifying due to a DRS fault." perhaps? 2404:4408:671D:4000:498B:AC6C:985A:E6B8 (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. I think it's very unfair to describe a qualifying session as weak if he had a technical issue, so changed to "... Hamilton, who recovered from seventh, following a DRS failure in qualifying." SSSB (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022
| This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
fix the constructors championship positions at the singapore GP 90.145.57.18 (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Constructor, Power Unit, Team Changes
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- Red Bull and Alpha Tauri Constructor is now Red Bull-Honda and Alpha Tauri-Honda (no longer RBPT). The power unit name is the Honda RA622H and is referred to as such now (no longer RBPTH001):
- Red Bull and Alpha Tauri use Honda engines, Honda did announce they were leaving but they were to provide engines in the background. Subsequently signed a deal to provide engines (production and service) until the end of 2025. As of the Japanese Grand Prix, Red Bull, Alpha Tauri and Honda agreed to a re-strengthening of their relationship and the Honda name has returned to the cars. So Constructor is now Red Bull-Honda and Alpha Tauri-Honda (no longer RBPT). The power unit name is the Honda RA622H and is referred to as such now (no longer RBPTH001). This is a deal that will go on until the conclusion of the 2025 season and wil become stronger again in 2023.:
- https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/honda-to-continue-red-bull-f1-technical-support-until-2025/10347644/
GhostF1 (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your sources do not say anything about a change in constructor or engine name. The entry list for the Japanese Grand Prix has both teams entered under RBPT. Jestal50 (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Not done, please provide reliable sources that actually support your proposed changes.Tvx1 06:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2022
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Verstappen became a 2 times champion 77.234.70.47 (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not done, awaiting clarification.Tvx1, — Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Points system for shortened races
Clarify that the points for shortened races only applies if a race is suspended Lgrave (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Probably is better to wait for further clarification... Lgrave (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to wait for clarification as the article 6.5 in the 2022 FORMULA ONE SPORTING REGULATIONS [1] is clearly stating the condition and may be added. Xalron (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Scoring system table edit
| This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The note in the Sprint row stating "Sprints took place at the Emilia Romagna and Austrian Grands Prix, and another will take place at the São Paulo Grand Prix." serve no purpose, and should be removed. It has nothing to do with scoring system. If it was relevant the same note should have been added for normal races as well. If necessary that information can be clearly seen in the Standings tables. Xalron (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not done SSSB (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- It does serve a purpose. The sprint race is only held at select Grands Prix so the purpose of that note is to specify the rounds at which that points system (the points system for sprint races) applies. So this claim that it is irrelevant or serves no purpose is demonstrably false. SSSB (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
2nd paragraph
You may want to change the following, "Drivers and teams are competing for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion, respectively." to "Drivers and teams were, and are, competing for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion, respectively." as the Driver's World Championship is now won by Max, so the fight for the Driver's title is past. Up to you what you do with this, as, tbh, the 'change' does sound ugly despite being grammatically correct. Thanks 120.16.14.5 (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- The Drivers' Championship is still ongoing, in the sense that you can still score points towards it, even if Max has won the title. SSSB (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Race directors could be added to each race report page
Hello everyone, I was wondering about adding the name of the race director to each race report page, as there is now a rotation of the role, rather than the good old days of Charlie Whiting. Appreciate that there may those with strong views who regularly update the pages, so thought best to leave this here for now rather than to attempt to make the changes myself 90.243.15.50 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Why, it doesn't add anything to this article? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Joseph2302, it adds nothing to the article. SSSB (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Closing Rounds - Singapore
Grammar.. please add in **to** between "due" & "it". "Only twenty-eight laps were completed before the race was curtailed due it passing the three-hour time limit." Thanks
You may like to add in the word **insurmountable** to read "..having an insurmountable lead.." . Verstappen was crowned World Champion, having a lead of 113 points, with only 112 still available.[189]. Thanks 120.16.204.147 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Free practice drivers
Do we really need a list of all the free practice drivers that ran? Seems pointless to me, as their participation in a practice session made no difference to the season itself, other than fulfilling a rule that they had to run people. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- If I had it my way, free practice drivers wouldn't be mentioned in this article at all, and only in the report about the Grands Prix. However, if we do list free practice drivers here, listing them using prose is (in my opinion) not the best way about, simply because some drivers have driven for multiple teams. This is why it was tabulated, after discussion at WT:F1. I've just stripped a whole load of excessive detail from the table, and am sorely tempted to remove the "rounds" column on the same grounds. The move was WP:BOLD, so you could always follow WP:BRD. SSSB (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Joseph2302. A driver practicing in an F1 car is not important to include in this article. The appropriate place to record this is on the pages for the drivers who participated. JohnMcButts (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Sources cited displays name entrant and drivers numbers, like a normal entry list. Island92 (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. We aren't having an entry list of FP drivers in this article. That's not what I agreed too, and it's not what you proposed. You can be bold and add those details, but when it gets reverted please follow the appropriate process (WP:BRD). SSSB (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Because only then did I think it. Before saving. Free practice drivers are normally put below in the list. Next to them numbers, constructor and name entrant showed as well. Therefore I put that sort of table to match with source cited. It's kind of being ripetitive to that main above but not a big issue. Island92 (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Alonso P7 reinstated
Alonso has had his penalty overturned as per source: FIA overturns Alonso's US F1 penalty after Alpine wins appeal (autosport.com). The standings and report page need updating as a result. MetalDylan (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Already done Looks like this has been done by someone. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Circuit Names
Question. Why does the page use "Monza Circuit", "Interlagos Circuit" and "Imola Circuit"? And not the official names, which F1 also used this year for the track maps, when the transmission for these 3 races started. Imo I would prefer the official names, and I don't really know why the "[...] Circuit" names are used. BryOn2205U (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Or at least they used the other names in Imola and Interlagos, I don't know about Monza. BryOn2205U (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
That is the practice. Island92 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @BryOn2205U: More specifically: over the years, there have been discussions over what names to use for these circuits on English Wikipedia, e.g. this one for Monza, this one for Interlagos and this one for Imola and these are the names we settled on. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH were factors in the considerations. DH85868993 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@DH85868993 Ah okay, thanks for clarification. BryOn2205U (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022
| This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please consider to add three pages of the test, the Barcelona and Bahrain Pre-Season a test, and one for the Abu Dhabi Post-Season Test. You may find the results on formula1.com 218.188.221.130 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Belgian GP Pole Position
Official FIA results have Max Verstappen with the pole position of the Belgian GP, even if he received grid penalties, he has the pole position and official results of the session confirm that. Please correct it as Carlos Sainz did not have the fastest time at the Belgian GP, therefore, he officially did not scored pole position. 181.179.30.86 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not how it works. FIA pole position credits go to the driver who starts the race from the first grid slot. Being the fastest in qualifying does not necessarily result in pole position. There is no error. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to continue, but there are two citations in the explanatory note, one from the FIA and one from the official F1 site. Reading either of those would have confirmed Sainz was on pole even though Verstappen was fastest in the session. Why then is there an edit request? 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- According to the document from FIA, it has mentioned that Max Verstappen is the one who earn the position, even Formula One’s official website has mentioned that Max is one who got pole. you may check the links i have given(underlined link), which tells me that Max is the pole winner 218.188.221.130 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, those just show Verstappen having set the fastest qualifying time. This is the official starting grid and it has Sainz in pole position.Tvx1 02:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- but max was given the Pirelli pole position award [[2]] also check the document, it didnt only said that max has set the fastest qualifying time, right above that column, there is a “Pole Lap” and that one was given to max 218.188.221.130 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes and then a penalty was applied to Max. The penalty didn’t apply to the qualifying session, but to the starting grid. The trophy is awarded to the fastest qualifier, but Carlos Sainz undisputidely started the race from the pole position slot. There many precedents for this.Tvx1 03:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- but max was given the Pirelli pole position award [[2]] also check the document, it didnt only said that max has set the fastest qualifying time, right above that column, there is a “Pole Lap” and that one was given to max 218.188.221.130 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, those just show Verstappen having set the fastest qualifying time. This is the official starting grid and it has Sainz in pole position.Tvx1 02:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- According to the document from FIA, it has mentioned that Max Verstappen is the one who earn the position, even Formula One’s official website has mentioned that Max is one who got pole. you may check the links i have given(underlined link), which tells me that Max is the pole winner 218.188.221.130 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022
| This edit request to 2022 Formula One World Championship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you change the nationalities for Robert Shwartzman in "Free Practice Drivers"? I suggest to remove the Israeli flag and only keep the plain white. Then you add a citation and write that Shwartzman drove under an Israeli license in Round ???. (compare with - > 2022 FIA Formula 3 Championship -> Teams and Drivers - > Brad Benavides - > Citation) 2003:CF:749:6C2D:1D47:360C:E516:133E (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not done for now: The flag refers to the driver's license, and Shwartzman is driving under an Israeli license. I think his article explains this well. Regarding your second suggestion, please only submit edit requests with complete and specific descriptions of the desired changes. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Actualcpscm: Shwartzman didn't enter as an Israeli competitor today, nor @Tvx1: did he enter as Andorran. Today he was a neutral athlete with a white flag. My guess (unsourced) is because of the historically poor relations between Israel and the UAE. The question raised by this IP is how to display this. I personally dislike the / formatting, but I think it's better than what IP has suggested. I'm not aware of any existing precedent or consensus within WP:F1. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I base my argument on an admittedly faint memory of this being the precedent, but I can't say where I read this. Maybe this is something to discuss more at length: Do driver flags refer to their nationality or their license? I'd be happy to get more input for this. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- The flags reflect the entry list, which typically matches the nationality of the body that awards the license. This is certainly an exception to the norm. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- The suggestion of only using the one flag is flawed because Shwartzman participated in as many rounds as Israeli as he did neutral. In the Brad Benavides case, the majority of races were done as an American (2/3), so picking the American flag and placing the Spanish in a note is more justified. This is more complicated. I would actually go for the opposite approach, have the Israeli flag with a note saying he later used a neutral flag, based on the fact that he is an Israeli, see the lead of Robert Shwartzman: "Robert Mikhailovich Shwartzman (...) is a Russian-Israeli"
Secondly, I think a note is warranted (or even necessary) regardless of which flag(s) we use. Even if we have Shwartzman across two lines. SSSB (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Actualcpscm, driver flags represent the nationalities the drivers compete under, not their licences. Per the international sporting code, drivers competing in FIA world championships use a passport nationality in official documents and ceremonies. In rare cases, like Mazepin last year, drivers are forced to compete under a neutral banner. 5225C, the entry list of Abu Dhabi has his nationality as AND. Last time I checked, that was the country code of Andorra. Can you eloborate why you think that is not the case here.Tvx1 17:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Tvx1: AND is the country code for Andorra, but you're not the first person to fall for this. AND in this context stands for "Authorized Neutral Driver". If you watched the broadcast you would have noticed a white flag in the FIA graphics. You can also see that in the FP1 classification. Further, if you look at, for example, this Ferrari highlight video at 0:05, you can see the Israeli flag on Schwartzman's race suit has been covered over with a red patch. Whereas if you look at pictures from the USA, you can very clearly see an Israeli flag (for example). He does not have Andorran nationality, and clearly that's not what he competed under, or there would be an Andorran flag in all these instances. He competed as a neutral driver.
That aside, I think it's innapropriate to only display him as an Israeli competitor when 50% of his appearances have been as a neutral athlete. Equal prominence should be given to both. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well nice of them to make it so confusing. Anyway he is displayed with both of the designations he entered with this season Tvx1 09:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence he was competing under a white flag, and not no flag where the world feed used a white space (not white flag) as a place holder. Above is even the claim that he had a red 'flag' on his race suit. Because the white flag seems inappropriate, if he was competing under no flag. Maybe we should be using
instead? SSSB (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah look I take your point that it could be a "no flag" rather than a "white flag" situation but I think a
is less confusing to see than a . It certainly looked like a white flag on the world feed and in the FIA documents, so the distinction (regardless of whether or not there actually is one) seems unnecessary to draw and less useful than the status quo. The reference to the race suits is just to point out that it definitely wasn't an Israeli flag. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC), expanded 12:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah look I take your point that it could be a "no flag" rather than a "white flag" situation but I think a
- @Tvx1: AND is the country code for Andorra, but you're not the first person to fall for this. AND in this context stands for "Authorized Neutral Driver". If you watched the broadcast you would have noticed a white flag in the FIA graphics. You can also see that in the FP1 classification. Further, if you look at, for example, this Ferrari highlight video at 0:05, you can see the Israeli flag on Schwartzman's race suit has been covered over with a red patch. Whereas if you look at pictures from the USA, you can very clearly see an Israeli flag (for example). He does not have Andorran nationality, and clearly that's not what he competed under, or there would be an Andorran flag in all these instances. He competed as a neutral driver.
- I base my argument on an admittedly faint memory of this being the precedent, but I can't say where I read this. Maybe this is something to discuss more at length: Do driver flags refer to their nationality or their license? I'd be happy to get more input for this. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Actualcpscm: Shwartzman didn't enter as an Israeli competitor today, nor @Tvx1: did he enter as Andorran. Today he was a neutral athlete with a white flag. My guess (unsourced) is because of the historically poor relations between Israel and the UAE. The question raised by this IP is how to display this. I personally dislike the / formatting, but I think it's better than what IP has suggested. I'm not aware of any existing precedent or consensus within WP:F1. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Logan Sargant FP1 Sao Paulo
Why is it said that Logan Sargant drove in FP1 in Brazil? He didn't. 2A00:A200:0:E00:0:0:0:2F (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say he participated in FP1. It says he participated "in a free practice session", which he did, in FP2 - see https://www.planetf1.com/news/formula-1-2022-results-sao-paulo-grand-prix-fp2/ DH85868993 (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Scheduling and format of sprint weekends
Island92 with these two edits: Special:Diff/1140340129 and Special:Diff/1140340937. I'm afraid I'm going to have to strongly disagree. Firstly, the section is called "Calendar", which is this context is synomous with "Schedule" (i.e. a schedule of which races will happen and when, it even uses this title in the indycar series article.) Which events are going to host sprint events is a scheduling issue, not a regulation issue. Therefore I don't see the justification of moving this from the "calendar" section to the "regulation changes" section. The content you moved isn't regulation changes.
On the subject of my explaination of the weeked structure, that can go. I just thought it would be a good addition to explain the weekend format - both types of format, not just sprint as you suggested in your summary (also not a regulation change)
But which events host sprint formats is a calendar issue, and my interpretation is that failing to mention this in the part of the article discussing the season's schedule (or calendar) section would mean a faliure of section 3 of the good article criteria ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). Because of the main aspect of the season is the format of the individual events. If all the events unambigously follow the same schedule (as they have done in the past) we don't need to explain anything (readers can check out Formula One racing). But if different events follow different formats this needs to be made clear - in the appropriate section, not in an unrelated section. SSSB (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
AlphaTauri constructor table number are wrong?
Seems the table gives one of the drivers all the points? 2A02:1810:858D:5B00:B19E:28A7:C565:54E1 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)