Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

BWT Mercedes engines

We currently have some inconsistency regarding the "BWT Mercedes" engines used by Racing Point in 2019 and 2020. We include them in the tables at Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains#Formula One engine results, Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains#List of Formula One engines and power units and Mercedes engine customers' Grand Prix results, but we distinguish between "Mercedes" and "BWT Mercedes" in List of Formula One engine manufacturers and we don't include BWT Mercedes' achievements in the "Mercedes" calculations in {{F1estat}}, which means they aren't included in the statistics in the "Mercedes as a Formula One engine manufacturer" infobox at Mercedes-Benz in Formula One or the "Mercedes" win count at Formula One engines#Most World Championship Grand Prix wins by engine manufacturer (noting however that this does make that table consistent with the quoted source, StatsF1, which also distinguishes between "Mercedes" and "BWT Mercedes"). Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we should make a distinction because in some years the Mercedes engine was made by Ilmor, but the stats and figures were attributed to Mercedes. ~2026-46102-52 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Trivia

What happened to the reduction of trivia in Formula One Grand Prix reports from a few years ago? Not only are they all back again just with the name changed to "Notes" there are now more than ever it seems. Just looking at 1980 German Grand Prix by way of example it was somehow important to note it was the fifth "start" for Osella and the 10th victory for a Cosworth DFV at the German Grand Prix. How is that not WP:TRIVIA? --Falcadore (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It is trivia and I deleted it as such. I also did some investigating. In this specific case, it was added in September 2024 by @DAADB. He seems to have added trivia to race articles across the 60s to 80s in July to September 2024. But he hasn't added any more since. SSSB (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I have most likely used Wikipedia incorrectly in the past. I apologise deeply for that. You may therefore delete all the edits I have made.

I did indeed stop in 2024 (on the international/English-language pages, at any rate) because my contributions were deemed erroneous and were not well received.

I must admit, however, that I still do not fully understand when something is trivia and when it is a record. In my view, records are not simply trivia and should certainly be described as facts. If Ford-Cosworth wins the German Grand Prix for the tenth time as an engine supplier, that seems to me to be a noteworthy record. Especially if this record is broken or extended.

Having said that, everything I’ve edited may be removed, and I’d like to apologise once again. DAADB (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any need to apologise, there can be legitimate disagreement over what is trivial and what is substantive. If something is to be characterised as a record it probably needs to be something of the sort that is usually tracked and discussed in its subject area – I'm not sure if "X has won the Y Grand Prix the most times of any engine manufacturer" necessarily meets that criteria in F1, but I could be convinced. In any event, if it was going to be included it should really be explained, merely listing the statistic doesn't help the reader understand why it's being mentioned. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The point is that we don't bullet-point trivia. We put it in sentences and include in the story. If it's important enough. The Cosworth DFV's tenth victory in the German Grand Prix isn't that notable. The DFV is F1's all-time most famous racing engine. It has won a lot of races. If it's a record of any importance someone would talk about it in the media of the time. If it is a statistical quirk talked about 45 years later then it isn't important. Wikipedia works on what is notable. What was noted in media coverage back in 1980, not now. --Falcadore (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your criteria. But like I said, I profusely apologize for using Wikipedia incorrectly. You are free to remove all the erroneous information or information that is deemed as trivial. DAADB (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not my criteria. It's not erroneous. It's trivia. It's information that does not improve your understanding of the event. It is something that occurred at the race in question that had absolutely no effect at all on how the event proceeded or the outcome of it. Have a read of WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT for a guidelines of what should and should not be included in an article. This sort of trivia belongs in a Formula One wikia, like for example this Formula 1 Wiki.

And there's no need to apologise. --Falcadore (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Top Five

When I was a kid, I always carefully updated the driver standings after each race. Only including the top five is frustrating to me, have we ever considered changing this? The tables could be collapsible if size is an issue. I see the original discussion here, but a cursory search did not reveal anything additional. Thoughts?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if you want to see the full table, you should go to the 2026 Formula One season article, not the most recent Grand Prix article. The top five is only there to give an indication of how the championship was progressing at that time. Remember, race reports are there to portray that race and that race only. Season wide should be visited at the main season page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news source. The emphasis should be on sentences, not on tables. --Falcadore (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, for me the interest is in the standings at the end of each race for past seasons, not the current results.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:11, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of websites to look that up. Wikipedia doesn't do that level of WP:FANCRUFT. --Falcadore (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Monaco to Dutch GP points tables

The "Championship standings after the race tables" for the 2026 Monaco, Barcelona-Catalunya, Austrian, British, Belgian, Hungarian and Dutch Grands Prix have recently been updated to reflect Gasly's demotion from 3rd to 7th at the Monaco Grand Prix. I believe these tables should show the points standings as they were reported at the time, i.e. including Gasly being credited with 3rd place in Monaco, and that his demotion should only be reflected in the points tables from the Italian Grand Prix onwards. This would be consistent with how we handled the disqualifications and reinstatements in the 1976 and 1984 seasons. One justification quoted for updating the 2026 points tables is that StatsF1, used as the source for the tables, have updated their points. I believe our tables should show the points as they were reported at the time, and if necessary find alternative (possibly archived) sources. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Fully agree. We’ve always reported the standings at the time of the race. That’s how handled the constructors’ standings during 2007 as well. Tvx1 20:00, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Balenda, who made the updates (I should have done this in my initial post). DH85868993 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, surely the results we report are the results as they are in the final season classification? Otherwise the standings table wouldn't reflect the results reported in the race article. It's ridiculous on the face of it to show Gasly scoring 6 points in the race classification but his season total increases by 15. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

All points have been reverted as per Monaco Grand Prix, also the race result of Monaco has officially changed, see Monaco race result. So it would be odd to give Gasly 9 more points then. Also on StatsF1.com the results have changed and the points where the standings table refer to as well. If the tables don't match with the source then how? Therefore I am of the opinion if the source don't match with the tables then either don't mention the source or have the points reflecting the source. Kind regards, Balenda (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Including 1950s Cadillac entries on Cadillac F1 page

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Cadillac in Formula One#h-1950s Indy 500 DNQs-20260913182800 that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Namelessposter (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Emilia Romagna Grand Prix § Requested move 16 September 2026

An editor has requested that Emilia Romagna Grand Prix be moved to Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)