Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

For the "World Constructors' Championship standings" Results for each constructor have been listed in an order which is inconsistent with the previous table for World Drivers' Championship standings, with the results not being displayed aligned with the drivers.

For example in Alpine, Esteban Ocon placed 11th (and therefore 2nd amongst Alpine), however his Win in Hungary is displayed on the first Alpine line entry. Later on, Fernando Alonso secured 3rd place in Qatar, and is similarly shown on the first Alpine line entry.

This implies the same driver secured both 1st and 3rd for Hungary and Qatar respectively.

My suggestion would be to re-order these slightly to show the first line entry for each constructor to be the result of their best placed finisher for the SEASON in order to keep this consistent and easier to read when comparing the Drivers Championship standings (i.e. it would enable easier to compare results between teammates within the same constructor team) Gurin jeimuzu (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It "implies" nothing of the sort, and this table's purpose is not to compare team mates. Finally, it is consistent with the driver's standings, in the sense that results are ordered best to worst. It is also consistent with how the FIA present their standings, and presented in the easiest way for readers to glean the information which this table is designed to convey.

If you want to compare the results between two drivers, you can use the drivers results table, the article's on the cars (which does have a separate row for each driver, though not for this purpose) or a specialised stats website (such as StatsF1. It is not fair to redesign a table so you can perform analysis beyond the intended scope of the table. SSSB (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Post-season events section

User:Democfest removed a line of text and a reference from this section, claiming it was unclear who an opinion was being attributed to. I have restored this line and the reference, with small edits to give clearer attribution, but have no strong opinion on whether or not this line's inclusion is actually warranted. Others who wish to discuss the matter are free to do so below and seek a consensus on the issue. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't neutral to have critism of the report without a defence (or specifying that no defence was provided). SSSB (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

We also risk WP:UNDUE emphasis on the post-race event which arguabely isn't relevant to the season at all, only the Grand Prix. SSSB (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting edits, and interesting edit comments. I haven't gone in and read the referenced articles, but this is more a commentary on the application of wikipedia policies and trying to get a balanced article. Was there a defence to the comments? If there wasn't how extensive does the original editor need to be to make it balanced? Also from the edit comment if we don't allow third party comments this needs to be something that is throughout WP, and a lot of WP is opinions from 3rd parties (there does need to be some level of notability) - a lot of WP is reporting commentary from different viewpoints and perhaps it does need some commentary on favour of the last lap decision. I would suggest that the referred article does refer to the season, as it was something that occurred during the season that the FIA report and the following report is based on. Looking at the original edit that is being referred to, the edit comment is odd as it is obvious which media said this. If there is an alternative viewpoint it is up to the deleting editor to present it I would have suggested. This can be seen in WP:NPOV, as well as some of the sub policies such as WP:POVDELETION and WP:ASSERT. Actually reading the WP policies, I see the point User:Democfest is making but the proper action was not to delete the statement as it is properly attested, but to write in the counter-argument. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• There are two issues here. Firstly, the content wasn't presented naturally, and secondly, the opinion of one journalist is not suitable for an encyclopedia, as explained in WP:UNDUE. Any one of these issues individually is enough to warrant it being taken out of the article, let alone both. Until a more neutral way to present this can be found, and it is an opinion which can be attributed to multiple people, it has no place anywhere on Wikipedia. SSSB (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Apologies, have been busy. I suspect it is all to do with what was said - and I said I'm taking this debate from a philosophical view, and to see how much weight was put on it. I am a relative anti-deletionist, and would rather have people edit and add, rather than remove content. You can probably tell I'm not that involved or interested in the exact point the original poster of the content made, rather than its done correctly. I have been tempted to cull some of this article previously, but then it would go against my stated anti-deletionist stance. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2024

First line says Max Vertstappen “won” the drivers championship for the first time. This is factually incorrect as he was given the title due to an error and this was explained by the FIA.

The first time Max Verstappen won the F1 World Drivers Championship was actually 2022 2A00:23C8:4B03:FD01:450B:F140:4DA4:3FBC (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You are unlikely to find those sources however, as it is well established Verstappen won. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2025

In the Driver's World Champion box, I would like to add "Max Verstappen controversially won his first title with..." or "Max Verstappen won his controversial first title..." Ultrabeast3020 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The controversy is well-covered in both the lead and in a separate section. The set of photos you're referring to are introducing the competitors and the basic facts of the championship and aren't the best place for editorial-like commentary. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not a place where whining people's opinionated statements are posted, it's been 4 years, I suggest you grow up. 160.238.76.218 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

same here 2603:8000:7D40:3CDC:A513:C697:AAAB:5F7C (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2026

Please correct the font color of Sainz's 3rd place in the Russian Grand Prix so it correctly shows up as black in dark mode - not sure why, but when in dark mode, it turns silver. This is located in the Drivers' Standings table. Arrendor (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• I believe this is an issue with {{F1 race position}}. It's best to report the issue there since those editors will probably understand what's going on better than whoever is watching this article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  That cell doesn't use that template, so it can't be an issue with the template. I switched on dark mode and for me there is no issue. SSSB (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)