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

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

All - I've drafted an article on John Hogan, the head of Marlboro's motorsport sponsorship program from 1973 to 2002. The draft is available for your consideration at Draft:John Hogan (motorsport executive). There is a rather long disambiguation page for John Hogan, so the parenthetical is necessary.

Hogan is on WP:F1's list of article requests for good reason: he was heavily involved in the rise of McLaren and the Schumacher era at Ferrari, and played a central role in the rise of tobacco sponsorship in Formula One. I haven't submitted this draft for review yet. I realize I am technically not required to submit a formal AfC request, but given that this is my first draft article, I would welcome any comments and questions from the members of this WikiProject before publication. I am also cross-posting this draft to WP:American Open Wheel Racing.

I would particularly appreciate comments on (1) did Hogan have a middle name (surprisingly hard to figure out?), (2) did he go to university (all I found was that he planned to apply to Cambridge) (the only source I found for him attending university (Cambridge) is Italian, albeit a reliable Italian source), (3) did he play a similarly involved role with Team Penske's IndyCar team as he did with McLaren, (4) how relevant are Marlboro's minor F1 sponsorships, like Alfa Romeo, Arrows, and Scuderia Italia? Namelessposter (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Gaelicbow in particular, since they originally put Hogan on the article request list back in 2023 (diff). Namelessposter (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’re live. The article’s available at John Hogan (motorsport executive). Namelessposter (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, writing here as I think we need more editorial oversight on the Lewis Hamilton article, as a GA of top-importance to this WP. There has been a WP:SPA re-writing just about every section of the article since September—many parts of which did not need changing—which has consistently plastered the article with neutrality issues and finger-pointing, at least to my eyes. It's starting to read as promotional in places, with opinions stated as encyclopaedic fact in several places, often given as "x led to y" or similar. The user does act in good faith, with respect for the MOS and general guidelines, but a lot of the framing feels like advocacy. MB2437 01:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that that article on such a high-profile active sportsperson got GA status to begin with. Such an article changes so drastically so frequently that the GA certified version never lasts long. This particular article has changed so much since its GA version that I believe the GA certification no longer applies to its current state. A GA review is called for.

And while the SPA might be operating in good faith, I see a worrying trend of them showing little tolerance to other peoples' edits to the article.Tvx1 14:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest concern is the brevity with which his Formula One career is discussed, which has resulted in season summaries being opinionated and necessitated the finger-pointing in places, rather than addressing facts/events/results neutrally and chronologically. A lot of the contentious claims are also poorly sourced. Undue weight is all over the place; we have a longer prose on his 2007 rivalry with Alonso than his four consecutive titles, for example, with some seasons having under 100-word analyses. This was the original good article nomination, not sure when the consensus changed to cut out all of the content. MB2437 19:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has recently been adding esports results to articles. So far, I have deleted all the ones I have come across for being unsourced. Putting this aside (as I am sure sources can be provided), is this appropriate? What is the affiliation between the real life Formula One team and "their" esports team/results (if any). Because unless (for example) Sauber Motorsport are themselves officially credited with the the results of the esports drivers competing in the Sauber cars, it is inappropiate for us to list those results as it implies Sauber are officially credited with those results (i.e. do these results belong to Sauber, or a seperate entity of Sauber esports?) SSSB (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would need proper sim racing championship articles to justify this. MB2437 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think esports is really worthy of coverage, but assuming it passes the GNG, I think it's reasonable to include those results on a team's article somewhere under a separate section. After all, it is an activity undertaken by the team, and if the esports team isn't independently notable, then putting it on the parent organisation's article is the next best thing. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my inital question of "is the real team actually the parent of the virtual team?" has been answered as yes, time for a follow up:

How WP:DUE are these results. Because I think a complete matrix of results, similar to the results of real life Grand Prix, is completely undue. This feels a lot like an activity that Formula One teams are contractually obliged to deal in. And to be completely frank, does anyone care that the 2023–24 Formula One Sim Racing World Championship constructors champions were Ferrari, or that the drivers champion was in a Red Bull. Espically as the cars are given identical perfomance (its not a case of Ferrari virtually out developing or out designing their cars). I think that these results should stay with the drivers, with a sentence or two on the contructor pages that they have won x number of virtual championship. Entire tables detailing an a completely breakdown of results feels completely WP:UNDUE to me. SSSB (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying the WP that a user has brought up concerns with the WP:GA status of Mario Andretti. MB2437 01:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The GA concerns have been resolved. Many thanks to @Mb2437 for their helpful comments on reorganizing the article and for alerting the WikiProject in the first place. Namelessposter (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant job! MB2437 05:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scuderia Toro Rosso, Scuderia AlphaTauri and Racing Bulls/RB in 2024 season are all the same team, they just chose to rename the team between seasons. Why do we have 3 separate articles instead of one for the whole team history? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because officially they are different constructors, and therefore their results are officially distinct and it wouldn't make sense to bundle them in the same article. It is the same reason why Red Bull and Jaguar F1 have seperate articles. Personally, I think it is still debatable that RB and Racing Bulls have the same article as I am not convinced that they wont be considered as separate constructors this year. SSSB (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if we had different infoboxes in the same article for every constructor? Namelessposter (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be at odds with reality. Tvx1 23:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat conflicted on whether Red Bull's marketing department is a reliable arbiter of reality. Namelessposter (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Team" is not really a meaningful term as far as a competitor's status goes, it's really casual shorthand for a constructor's overall operation. What is significant is the entity that is the constructor, and STR/SAT/RB/RBs are different constructors. As SSSB mentioned we may well have to split the RB/Racing Bulls article if they are treated as distinct, but I personally do not think that will be the case. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As SSSB says. Toro Rosso and AlphaTauri are treated as separate constructors with each officially credited with one win. It's also obvious through the chassis names, with AlphaTauri restarting the numbering at 1. Tvx1 14:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they changed the entrant name between season, that doesn't make them separate constructors. What actual sources support this? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, that has always been the case. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, shat sources actually say that is the way? Wikipedia uses sources not people demanding outright that is the case. I see no evidence that any of the Toro Rosso --> Racing Bulls are actually different constructors and not just a rename of same constructor. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because no evidence has been presented in this thread, for either side. I can find and present secondary sources that support both sides of this debate. And I'm not sure where it is officially defined when we get a new constructor vs. when a constructor is renamed (or can be renamed) without it being considered a unique constructor. SSSB (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FIA does. Tvx1 23:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I alluded to in the prior discussion about moving RB to Racing Bulls, I would support merging the STR/AT/RB articles in a vacuum, as the teams all have the same corporate registration, ownership history, and senior leadership. (Surely Jaguar-Red Bull is apples and oranges? That involved a very high-profile, and very embarrassing, ownership change, and RB largely cleaned house.) Although we have created new pages in the past for every new constructor, the RB-Racing Bulls change suggests that consensus may be emerging to prioritize substance over form. That said, I agree with @SSSB that it is premature to make that decision right now. We don't really know anything about the constructor legalese except the entry list. Namelessposter (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want a different example of where a new constructor name means new article? Minardi -> Toro Rosso, Racing Point Force India -> Racing Point -> Aston Martin. Toleman -> Benneton -> Renault -> Lotus -> Renault -> Alpine (noting that between 1981 and 1985 Toleman and Renault both competed, before Renault left in 85. Renault rejoined in 2002 taking over Benetton, formerly Toleman, who Renault used to compete against. The so called Team Enstone). Yes, all these "changes" had varying amounts of change. But results are not awarded to the owner, or the team, but the constructor. I see no evidence that how much the organisation actully changed has any relevance. Now, I have no objection to the creation of "Team Faeza" (where STR/AT/RB were/are based, together with Minardi), nor an article discussing all the Red Bull owned team together. But I would strongly object to a complete merge. Even more so when we consider that there is no mention of a merge for Racing Point Force India, Racing Point and Aston Martin. Or Alpine and Renault. SSSB (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People should also think about the sheer length of a merged article when you're talking about three, four, five different identities in one article. Higher-ups would very soon mark it for splitting off. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the Team Enstone article, so I am quite aware of its history. But there were actual corporate changes of control involved every step of the way except Renault --> Alpine. I think we can draw a perfectly clear line between Minardi and Toro Rosso because of the change of control. I am agnostic about Force India/RPFI/RP/AMR because while we can draw a line between Force India and Racing Point, Racing Point --> Aston Martin is trickier because AMR has competed in F1 before and therefore falls into one of those auto manufacturer-related "Alfa Romeo in Formula One" / "Renault in Formula One" / "Mercedes in Formula One" snarls. (That said, I do think it is very weird that we have a separate article for RPFI...)

STR/AT/RB/Racing Bulls is just one company repeatedly rebranding the same team to sell merchandise, get clicks, or drive engagement. Do we have separate names for Iso-Marlboro and Frank Williams Racing Cars and Wolf-Williams Racing? I don't even know what the constructor rules were back then, and it probably has something to do with the fact that customer chassis were allowed back then, but we do have to acknowledge that F1 history is much more complicated than we're making it seem, and prioritizing form over substance sometimes makes things worse. Namelessposter (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should remind you that I took your side in the RB-Racing Bulls move discussion, and we lost. I'm not saying it's time to give up just now, that wasn't an especially well-attended colloquy, but at some point if consensus emerges we have to move in the direction of consensus. Namelessposter (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We first and foremost move in direction of facts reported by sources. If facts would surface that contradicts this consensus, it will be invalidated. And the consenus only applies to the RB/Racing Bulls situation, nothing else.Tvx1 23:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet how do we really know whether the RB-Racing Bulls situation is any different from the AlphaTauri-RB situation? For consistency's sake, it would be best if you would promptly act to split out the RB and Racing Bulls pages in the event any reliable evidence emerges that Racing Bulls will be treated as a separate constructor - which also raises the question of what constitutes reliable evidence that a new constructor has come into being, since we never actually answered that question during the RB-Racing Bulls dispute. Namelessposter (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to expect such evidence to exist since Racing Bulls has yet to start collecting results since the constructor name change. We will know once the season starts.Tvx1 01:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On numerous articles infoboxes (Scuderia Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz in Formula One, Alpine F1 Team), reserve drivers who are ex-Formula One drivers have their last used number listed next to their name. Is there any precedent regarding this? While this is my opinion, I don't see why it should be included unless the driver actively competes in race as a reserve driver during the ongoing season. An example of this is Antonio Giovinazzi, who has not raced since 2021 (and therefore his number can be reused). Drivers who raced in 2024 (Bottas, Zhou, Colapinto) I am able to sort of understand, but I believe it can still cause confusion considering they are all reserve drivers for teams that weren't their 2024 team.

As previously stated, I am unsure if there is a precedent or opposition regarding this, so I just wanted to ask first before doing any bold edits. Thank you in advance. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a driver actually enters an event, the number they would use seems irrelevant, so I'm not sure we should even be mentioning Zhou's number, as it is unlikely to be used at all during the course of the season. I am strongly opposed to listing the number for drivers like Giovinazzi who don't have a career number anymore. Because my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that teams are allocated numbers to use in the event than need to enter a last minute substitute or enter a free practice driver. Therefore, Giovinazzi would not be running #99 at all, so including this number in the infobox is at best WP:OR, (impling the FIA would allow him to use his old number) and at worst this is a downright lie. SSSB (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this - all we really have is the FIA entry list and the driver numbers listed there. That is the only evidence that is conclusive. I do note that Mercedes' website lists Bottas as No. 77 and Vesti as No. 42, and McLaren's website lists Pato O'Ward as No. 5. But I think that actually undermines the utility of team websites since Bortoleto is already the official No. 5, meaning that O'Ward will not be No. 5. Namelessposter (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercedes website makes this tricky, but in this situation, I think it should be disregarded for consistency and per SSSB in regards to substitute/FP numbers. In regards to Pato O'Ward, #5 is his number in IndyCar, so I believe that is just an overlap. The McLaren (formula one, not indycar) article's infobox does not have his number, so I don't think there's anything to be concerned about there. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F1 driver numbers are reserved for two seasons;[1] in the case of Giovinazzi, 99 is no longer his number, regardless of whether he is entered in free practice sessions under that number or not. With the example of Zhou: 24 is still his number, and he would be entered under that number should he step in for someone—per Button at the 2017 Monaco Grand Prix and Hülkenberg at the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix—where drivers like Giovinazzi and Vesti would be entered under the team’s reserve number. It is appropriate to number Zhou, Colapinto and Bottas, but not others. MB2437 00:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a full list of reserved driver numbers. MB2437 14:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch. Namelessposter (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that free practice doesn't reserve a number? List of Formula One driver numbers says so: "The FIA have also issued temporary numbers to drivers that are exceptions to the career numbers rule; for example, if a driver withdraws from a race and a reserve driver takes their place, they receive a team-allocated number. This is also the case for free-practice–only drivers." But the statement is uncited and the two sources @Mb2437 provided don't discuss FP's impact, if any. Namelessposter (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Motor Sport: [2] The rules are different for reserve drivers. Each team is allocated numbers to use in the event that one or both of their permanent drivers need to be replaced temporarily. In 2023, Liam Lawson used the number 40 when he stood in for the injured Daniel Ricciardo for AlphaTauri. Several further examples have verified this practice: Bearman's 38 (Ferrari) and 50 (Haas), de Vries's 45 (Williams), Giovinazzi's 36 (Sauber), Doohan's 61 (Alpine), Aitken's 89 (Williams), Fittipaldi's 51 (Haas), Hartley's 39 (Toro Rosso), di Resta's 40 (Williams), Rossi's 42 (Marussia), Stevens's 46 (Caterham), Lotterer's 45 (Caterham), etc. They are typically identifiable as being in the 35–55 range, however there have been exceptions. Notably, Mercedes were able to enter Antonelli under the number 12 last season, which appears to have been a request made to the FIA, although that is purely speculation. MB2437 16:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I support your position to number Zhou, Colapinto, and Bottas, but not others. Namelessposter (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this- if you still have a valid, full time number issued then it can be listed. If not, just have the flag by itself. Only outlier of this (to my knowledge) was Gio, so I don't think anything needs to be adjusted. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making a suggestion here regarding infobox statistics. For the average reader, a lot of these numbers and their value are relatively meaningless. To aid understandability for readers with little subject knowledge, it may be worth considering adding "nth all-time" next to the stats so it is clearer without having to navigate the respective lists.

In the example of Verstappen given, this would only apply to wins, podiums, poles and fastest laps. I have not included points as points systems have changed drastically over time—and continue to change—nor have I included entries and championships as to not overcrowd. This should only apply to the top ~20–25 drivers in each stat, although this is up for discussion; extending it further would make it subject to constant updating.

The inspiration for this came from golf and tennis articles, where career titles for top players are also given in terms of their all-time rankings (see Andy Murray and Tiger Woods). MB2437 12:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do like the thinking behind this suggestion but I don't think it really helps the reader understand a driver's achievements. A lot of very highly regarded drivers from the first few decades in the sport are quite low on the all-time lists, because, as I think everyone is aware, seasons have consistently grown in size as time has gone on. Most people talk about the significance of win rates or pole to win conversions, not absolute numbers of wins. I don't think these statistics are necessarily suitable for the infobox, and a ranking alone is potentially more misleading. Because of this I don't believe this would be a useful change. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Such value can be inferred from the relatively low entries number, but I do agree that is a concern. The ranking has an explanatory wikilink to the full tables, which could clarify these values. Only the polesitter and podium tables have entries/percentages tabulated, not sure why the others do not. It seems odd to have articles that expand upon the driver records lists, whilst containing less detail. MB2437 13:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would assume that this discrepency is due to the entries/percentages being added later to some lists. And nobody bothered to add it to the other lists SSSB (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would oppose such a change, primarily because it is misleading. I also think that golf/tennis are fundamentally different from Formula One. Firstly, in golf and tennis, all competitors are on an equal footing. Secondly, those infoboxes only list the ranking for titles and prize money. The Formula One equivilant would be wins and points respectively. This thread seems to have ruled out points because the points system has changed drastically over the years. The same is true for tennis and golf prize winnings (let me be clear, I think that this is an argument why tennis and golf shouldn't mention winnings, not a reason that we should). Secondly, tennis and golf are individual sports. Formula One is not. As an example, Bottas is 10th in podiums, tied 31st in wins, 16th in poles, tied 16th in fastest laps. But I don't think you would find any person (apart from those with extreme WP:RECENCY bias) who would put Bottas in the top 20 greatest drivers of all time, probably not even top 50 (for context, at time of writting, there have been 777 drivers and 34 world champions). Therefore to mention his ranking is misleading. It implies he is better than he is. Lets be honest, he only ranks so hughly because he did 101 races with a dominant constructor. The whole point of these stats is to provide a quick overview of their career, not to compare drivers to each other. The point of "list of Formula One winners" or similar is partially to compare drivers to each other, sure. But the difference with these is that we are actually comparing drivers to each other not blindly giving a contextless ranking (the first win, last win, % of wins etc. columns provide at least some of the context in the lists). The drivers articles (should) provide even more. SSSB (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is common knowledge that Formula One is not contested on equal-footing, but I agree that is a concern when ranking drivers by any metric. Factually, Bottas is amongst the top-20 most successful drivers of all time, regardless of how we perceive his greatness. His team history is mentioned earlier in the infobox, from which it can be inferred that he competed for Mercedes during their dominant run, which is expanded upon in the lead. I'll note that the rankings aren't contextless with the explanatory wikilinks, which should expand upon the ranking with those additional metrics. MB2437 15:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's only common knowledge amongst those who understand how F1 works. For those encountering F1 for the first time, it is not common knowledge. Nor can it be infered from the infobox that Bottas competed for a team who was dominant at the time unless you are aware of which team is dominant at the given time (i.e. I suspect very few non motorsport fans will remember that Ferrari were the dominant team in the early 2000s, and so will not recognise that Barrichello is ninth in the podium ranking because he drove for the dominant Ferrari and secured 61 of his 68 podiums in this time.) And I am of the opinion that having the context appear by clicking on a wikilink is not good enough. Most people will see the rankings for Bottas and assume that this makes his one of the best drivers in F1 history because of his success. I fully recognise that this is an issue with all statistics, but I believe that the rankings will worsen this effect not better it. And therefore this practice would be nothing other than misleading. SSSB (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, particularly the 'Career points' category, Halmyre (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SSSB; these sorts of career ranking stats are horribly misleading, and by putting them in the infobox, we risk implying to readers unfamiliar with F1 that practically all the best drivers in F1 history are recent ones. Far from informing the average reader, we risk misleading them, as they (by definition) won't know how skewed the various stats are. Career points (as has been stated) is a particular cause for concern. Also, we need to refrain from using the lazy American "all time" term – all time includes future time, after all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing the WikiProject for a second opinion before initiating a merge request. Why do we have separate templates for the Ayrton Senna navbox (Template:Ayrton Senna) and sidebar box (Template:Ayrton Senna series)? Most of the material in the sidebar box is duplicative of the navbox. Also, I'm generally not a fan of sidebar boxes since they're obtrusive and mesh poorly with long infoboxes. However, if there was previously a question about this I'm happy to defer to prior decisions. Namelessposter (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).