John Hogan draft article

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]

Reserve driver numbers?

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]

Demystifying infobox stats

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. 5225C (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]

Ayrton Senna dual templates

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]

Formula One racing

User:Pksois23 has questioned the title of the Formula One racing article. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Formula One racing#Requested move 19 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Formula One racing#Requested move 19 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Newey AMR25 involvement

Started a discussion here regarding whether or not we should consider Newey's involvement in the AMR25 in his career results. This should also have implications in the AMR25 infobox, where he has now been added as the technical director. MB2437 19:41, 4 March 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).

Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:F1
No tags for this post.