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

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]

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]

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. TarnishedPath^talk 09:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

There is a discussion at Max Verstappen about a WP:SPAs (F1WDC2021) edits regarding the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, re-writing several sections of the article—including the lead—and writing full essays on how he was 'only the champion' because of blah, without citing any independent commentary. Tried to take this to ANI as this user has also done so at Michael Masi, Mohammed Ben Sulayem, and Abu Dhabi—was told to take this to the talk page instead and now I'm fairly sure I'm arguing with GPT. Need a consensus! MB2437 00:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past two weeks or so, there have been widespread edits to change various driver articles leads and/or infoboxes to say English/Scottish opposed to British. This can be primarily seen on Damon Hill (-> english), Graham Hill (-> english), and Jim Clark (-> Scottish).

The infobox issue is easily revertable as vandalism; it is the parameter for their racing license, not actual nationality. However, I have looked and am unable to find a convention for differentiating from Scottish/English and British in lead sections. I assume that this is an unwritten precedent, but I am bringing this up for two reasons: 1) Is there a specific MOS, policy, guideline, consensus or written precedent that deals with this, and if not, 2) what is the right way to approach this besides reverting for vandalism and citing unwritten precedents? Should we try to achieve consensus here?

If this was an isolated incident I wouldn't really care, but it's been happening more and more recently and is frankly somewhat hard to justify constant reversions besides for edit warring, in my opinion. I could be massively overthinking this, but I atleast wanted to bring this to the WikiProject talk page. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:F1 convention to say British in the leads and infoboxes, followed by "from England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland" in the lead. Generally, I have not included "from England" when writing leads as it sacrifices concision for something that is not contentious; just a lone IP being disruptive on the Hill articles. The precedent otherwise is a good one, as each of these drivers are notable for being British athletes. Clark has been a recurring issue. Semi-protection for articles such as Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart may be in order. The only exception to this has been Eddie Irvine, where the consensus—albeit an old one—is to omit British from the lead. MB2437 23:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, missed this somehow. Pretty much clears this up. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make something very clear. Changing infoboxes to English/Scottish is not vandalism. Because they are English/Scottish. In the first instance it is a good faith edit. If they continue to do it it becomes disruptive. But at no point would it be vandalism. Claiming it is vandalism is both WP:BITING, and a failure to assume good faith. And when you do request protection, the admin may subconsciously not assume as mych good faith as they should. SSSB (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was using the wrong term. I meant it more so in a way that can be easily justifiable to revert, as there has been a written precedent for infobox to represent sporting nationality. Saying that it was vandalism was just a misphrasing on my part. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note The convention only applies to drivers. Whilst I'd argue "British" is preferable for Ron Dennis, it isn't worth edit warring over. MB2437 23:05, 11 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).