Talk:Formula One

Women in Formula One

There is a lengthy section on the page about women in Formula 1 that claims to list all of the female drivers, f1 academy, race engineers and team principals. This is too weighted. Please consider WP:Undue weight. It's honourable to try and be inclusive but inclusivity isn't the main priority of the page otherwise we should have section headings on ethnicities in F1, LGBT+ (Mike Beuttler and Ralf Schumacher for example), atypical nationalities, political relationships etc. and this is more about individuals than F1 itself. I don't understand why my edit to link the 'five women' to 'List of female Formula One drivers' has been reviewed. If anything we should rename that page to 'Women in Formula One' and have a page there that includes all of the info already on the 'Formula One' page about F1 academy, race engineers and team principals, and then we might also be able to remember to include Claire Williams. JohnBomma231 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Since Formula One has for so long been a male-dominated sport, I think the section on the changing roles of women in the sport is welcome. In time, it may be trimmed, but let's see what others think. There could be a case for a Women in motor sport article, but I doubt a Women in Formula One article would be helpful at present. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

To clarify - I'm not saying eradicate the section heading completely. I think a small summary explanation under the section heading (including the increasing involvement of women, their changing roles, and F1 and the FIA's recent approach) and then a redirect such as "Main Article: Women in Formula One" would serve the same purpose and give an entire page dedicated to the subject which can be expanded upon. We might as well trim this page now. I also think a 'Women in motorsport' page is too broad for the purposes of F1 when a lot of motivation for including this on the page in the first place has probably been influenced by F1 and the FIA's recent push of the subject, but I don't think it's out of the question anyway i.e Michelle Mouton, Danica Patrick, Lyn St. James, Iron Dames etc. JohnBomma231 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

But there is (currently) no separate article Women in Formula One. It would have to be created before a "Main article" link could be added (is there much more that could be expanded upon currently?). That's the process in Wikipedia. As I said, I'm not sure an article Women in Formula One would be worth doing at this stage. Having said that, from my point of view, if someone wants to... Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggested to rename 'List of female Formula One drivers' as 'Women in Formula One' and transfer over the additional information on this page (under the section heading titled 'Women in Formula One') that is about female engineers and principals etc. JohnBomma231 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Female F1 drivers are already included in List of Formula One drivers and what's the point of having a page called List of female Formula One drivers when those drivers are listed on this page and this page doesn't link to it in the passage. We have pages referring to drivers of a certain nationality, and they're titled such as Formula One drivers from Italy and not 'List of Italian Formula One Drivers' so, considering it be would be ridiculous to call a page 'Formula One drivers from a chromosomal XX combination in utero', I think 'Women in Formula One' would be fine as it also allows scope for women in other roles - engineers team principals, and maybe even a section on the history of grid girls and how F1 has moved on, perhaps... Tangost1 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Formula One/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MadelynnSienna (talk · contribs) 19:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 09:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello MadelynnSienna and thanks for all your improvements to this article. However, despite the improvements, the article fails criterion 2b since there are too many unreferenced paragraphs. Examples are the paragraphs starting with "Results were mixed, as the lack of mechanical grip", "Drivers from McLaren, Williams, Renault (formerly Benetton)", "McLaren also announced that it was to reacquire", and "To compensate for the loss of manufacturer teams". According to criterion 2b, these and similar passages require inline citations "no later than the end of the paragraph". This was already a problem in the last GA review. I suggest that you add all the relevant references before a renomination.

A few other observations

• WP:EARWIG detects two potential copyvios with https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2020_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_iss_8_-_2020-05-27_0.pdf and https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2021_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_iss_5_-_2020-12-16.pdf . After a short look, most of the detected passages seem to be stock phrases, but it might be good to check more thoroughly to be on the safe side.
• The article has a readable prose size of 14190 words, which is very long for a Wikipedia article, see WP:SIZERULE. I would suggest trimming it down to below 10000 if possible. The article is only supposed to cover the most important aspect and all other details can instead be discussed in child articles dedicated to specific subtopics.
• The article often uses the expression "During [year]", as in During 2006, Renault and Alonso won both titles again. The more standard expression would be "In [year]".
• After revised aerodynamic regulations were introduced, the 2017 and 2018 seasons featured a title battle between Mercedes and Ferrari.</ref> remove the wikicode </ref>
• seen an increase in car manufacturers presence apostrophe after "manufacturers"
• Medium (https://luke-beggs.medium.com/visualising-f1-performance-and-budget-f7ad71460ec , reference [238]) is considered an unreliable source
• There is a maintenance tag "who?"

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-GA-review discussion

Many of the modest suggestions in the above review have been dealt with. To reduce the size of the article, the history section could be significantly trimmed (there is a child article), as could the media coverage section (ditto). At the same time, there are many statements which are unsourced, and if no sources can be found, they can be removed. I know this is largely stating the obvious, but it's something that could be worked on. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

MadelynnSienna - I agree with your edit summary comment that we should hold off deletions until sources are found, or at least looked for. It might help to tag them citation needed so they can be easily identified. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the history section would be a good place to start trimming. Personally, I would aim maybe at a total of 8-10 paragraphs for the history, which would mean summarizing each subsection in about 1-2 paragraphs. But there are no fixed rules here. The removed material could be moved to the child article History of Formula One if it fits there. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I did just want to check, there are a couple sentences in the article which while true are nearly impossible to find citations for because they are so old. For instance there is this section in a paragraph under 'grands prix':

Over time, the F1 championship gradually expanded to other non-European countries. Argentina hosted the first South American Grand Prix in 1953, and Morocco hosted the first African Grand Prix in 1958. Asia and Oceania followed (Japan in 1976 and Australia in 1985).

While it has no citations, the individual races have been linked. If you go to them, it corroborates that there it was the inaugural race. Additionally, if you compare the yearly championship pages, it is clear that this is, in fact, the year it was introduced.

As such, would it be fine to keep it as is, or should I err on the side of caution and delete it instead? MadelynnSienna (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, all claims in a passage should be supported by references. However, this is not always feasible for passages that summarize information from many sources. If some of the information is rather trivial, it's usually acceptable just to provide references for the most important claims in the passage. For example, you could try to find sources that connect the Argentine Grand Prix to 1953, the Moroccan Grand Prix to 1958, etc. Chances are that the linked articles have the sources you need. But the sources need to appear behind the passage in this article. It's not sufficient that another article has sources that support the passage here. If there are really no sources for the most important points then removal would be better per WP:V. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

To find out which paragraphs need citations, you could try the script User:Phlsph7/ListUnreferencedParagraphs, which highlights uncited paragraphs in red. Most detections are correct but the script is not perfect so don't trust it blindly. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! This is all incredibly helpful. MadelynnSienna (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham I completely agree. Over the next few days, I'm going to try and tackle each section of the article and add citations where possible, and remove any content that is either too vague, outdated or unable to be corroborated by a reputed source. I have already completed the history section but I fear it still errs on the side of being too long, so feel free to remove any content you believe to be irrelevant from there, if you want! MadelynnSienna (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Formula One/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MadelynnSienna (talk · contribs) 00:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Fwedthebwead (talk · contribs) 12:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fwedthebwead! Thank you for your review, and for putting the article on hold rather than outright failing it. I've gone through it and attempted to fix all the points you brought up. Just a few things to note:

1. I checked citation 143 and the URL appears to be working for me.

2. You mentioned that citation 244 has no mention of the quote regarding nelson describing racing in Monaco like riding a bicycle around your room, however, the cited article opens with the sentence "Nelson Piquet described driving a Grand Prix car in Monte Carlo as like trying to ride your bicycle around your living room", so I'm slightly confused as to what you meant there.

3. You mentioned that citation 174 only lists the number of wins by British drivers, not the 20 world championships, however, the cited link lists out the 20 world championships won by these drivers, so I'm slightly confused as to what you meant there.

4. Word count of an article, per WP:SIZERULE, is typically measured using the built-in page size feature under tools. I did double-check the article, and it is about 9,800, so I do believe it meets the requirement.

Could you please go over the article now that the requisite changes have been made. Please let me know if there are any other changes to be made to have it pass the review. MadelynnSienna (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Ack, it seems it's evident I was writing the review too late in the night.

1. For citation 143, it gave me a DNS error when I first checked it, although I checked it now and it seems that's resolved.

2. I have honestly no idea how I missed this that's my fault

3. Same for this, I was searching for the number 20 instead of counting the number of drivers haha

4. That's also just my fault, I didn't realize that tool existed until today and have been just copy-pasting the article in a google doc whoops

I checked over all your changes and it looks good to me! The only mistakes left are mine it seems (sorry for any confusion I caused you). I'll change the status to GA now, congrats!! Fwedthebwead (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll review this Fwedthebwead (talk)

Hello, I'm genuinely so sorry about answering to this so late, I got caught up in life matters.

Citations wise, the previous reviews called for more citations, and although there were many good changes made, I still found a maintenance tag for citation needed and the sentence starting with "They have also contended that established teams..." also remaining citation-less. I also found 2 citations that have URLs that do not work, those being citation 333 and 143. I'm new to reviewing GA articles, so I'm not sure if this would mean a quickfail due to not noting the previous GA review, so I have asked for a 2nd opinion. If I have done anything incorrectly please do tell me. Fwedthebwead (talk)

@Fwedthebwead: It depends on the number of citations that are needed. If it just these, I don't think a quick fail would be justified. A quickfail should be used only when there are major.changes to be made that would take a significant amount of time. The issues you have described so far can probably be rectified within an hour. SSSB (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to SSSB for replying to my issue, here's the full review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• "open-wheel single-seater formula racing cars " should be changed to "open-wheel, single-seater formula racing cars". Same problem in "Cars and technology" section.
• "They were briefly reintroduced in 2001 but were banned once more in 2004 and 2008, respectively." I believe the "respectively" is not needed due to not specifying which aids for which year.
• The use of oxford commas is inconsistent in the article, such as where "orange, brown and gold colours" and "Germany, Austria, Italy and Switzerland" don't have one while "electronics, aerodynamics, suspension, and tyres" and "Traction control, launch control, automatic shifting, and other electronic driving aids" use one.
• "created a 'two-tier' championship", quotations around "two-tier" should be removed
• "demanding physically. with drivers" period error
• "newer circuits; however, are" incorrect use of semicolon
• "covered with standardised Wheel Covers", "Wheel Covers" shouldn't be capitalised as it's not a proper noun.
• "used double wishbone or multilink front and rear" could be reworded to "used double wishbone or multilink at the front and rear"
• "first-ever female Team principal" I believe "Team principal" should be lowercased here
• "three power units per seasons" should just be "season"
• "with Lewis Hamilton, being" incorrectly placed comma
• "Drivers from the United Kingdom have been the most successful in the sport, with 20 championships among 10 drivers and 324 wins." Make sure to add an "As of 2025" or something similar.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• "Notably, the 75-year history of the World Championship has been dominated by European and white drivers" could be under MOS:EDITORIAL due to the source being just being Lewis Hamilton's biography that doesn't mention the racial and global inequalities described.
• "finding that 45% of emissions were from logistics and only 0.7% were from emissions from the cars themselves." I believe MOS:EDITORIAL may also apply here with the "only"
• "Currently, with 20 cars on the grid, Q1 runs for 18 minutes and eliminates the slowest five drivers." falls under MOS:RELTIME with the word "currently"
• "Most of the circuits currently in use are specially constructed for competition" see above
• "Hannah Schmitz currently holds the role of principal strategy engineer at Red Bull Racing." see above
• "The Autodromo Nazionale Monza, home to the Italian Grand Prix, is the oldest purpose-built track still in use today." see above, due to the phrase "in use today"

1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• Maintenance tag for citation needed
• "They have also contended that established teams..." needs citation.
• Citation 333 and 143's URLs do not work.
• Citation 45 is a note but is cited like it's a reference

1. C. It contains no original research:

• Spot checks!

• "Three-time World champion Nelson Piquet famously described racing in Monaco as "like riding a bicycle around your living room"." Citation 244 has no mention of the quote.
• "Notably, the 75-year history of the World Championship has been dominated by European and white drivers" Citation 306 doesn't mention these problems.
• "Under the current regulations, circuit layouts and lap distances may vary considerably, provided that each Grand Prix covers a total race distance of 300 km (190 mi) to 305 km (190 mi)." Citation 237 has mention of 305 km but none of 300 km.
• "Previously, the circuit owners controlled the income of the teams and negotiated with each individually; Ecclestone persuaded the teams to "hunt as a pack" through FOCA." Citation 20 matches
• "The cumulative television audience for the 2001 season, which was broadcast to 200 territories, was calculated to be 54 billion" matches citation 337
• "Each driver is limited to four engines during a championship season unless they drive for more than one team." No mention of this in citation 274
• "For most of the 21st century, Formula One cars have used double wishbone or multilink front and rear, with pushrod operated springs and dampers on the chassis, though there have been some notable exceptions. In 2009, the Red Bull Racing RB5 used a pullrod suspension at the rear." Most of this is not supported by citation 259, only supporting the last sentence.
• "Each driver is allotted four sets of intermediate tyres, three sets of wet-weather tyres and thirteen sets of dry-weather tyres for each race weekend. All unused tyres must be returned." Citation 103 matches the text.
• "For much of the sport's history...conditions later on." Matches citation 104
• "Drivers from the United Kingdom have been the most successful in the sport, with 20 championships among 10 drivers and 324 wins." Citation 174 only states that there are 324 wins but I couldn't find where it states there's 20 championships among 10 drivers and 324.
• "A major rule change in 2014 saw the 2.4-litre naturally aspirated V8 engines replaced by 1.6-litre turbocharged hybrid power units." Matches citation 62.
• "In 2019, 20% of the total Formula One viewership was female, and by 2022 this number had increased to 40%" Matches citation 315.
• "As of 2025, a driver must complete at least 90% of the race distance in order to receive points. Therefore, it is possible for a driver to receive points even if they retired before the end of the race." Matches citation 136, although it says "As of 2025" even though the source is from 2015.
• "It is estimated that the major teams spend between €100 and €200 million ($125–$225 million) per year per manufacturer on engines alone." This one also matches citation 139, but it's from 2007 and should be updated to reflect a more recent number.
• "Driving in Formula One is highly demanding physically. with drivers typically burning around 1,000 calories per hour and losing 2–4 kg (4–9 lb) of weight per race." Matches citation 175 and 176, although I'd recommend to change "weight" to "fluid" to match the source.

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

• As the previous GA review has said, the article is quite long for a wiki article. Although it has improved since the last GA review by being only 11,000 words rather than 13,000, it would still be best to shorten where you can and trim it to less than 10,000 if possible. Check WP:SIZERULE

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

2. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

3. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

• See 1B (ignore the weird formatting issue I have no idea why that occurred and also don't know how to fix it...)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If i've made any mistakes or anything of the sort do tell me!

Fwedthebwead (talk)

• Fwedthebwead and MadelynnSienna, what is the status of this review? It has not been edited since early November and we are inching toward 2026. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Passed last month. Ctrl+F for "Ack,".--Launchballer 12:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. However, since I've pinged - MadelynnSienna, if you see this, the WP:GARP page indicates you have some pledge reviews oustanding for this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 05:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Formula One drivers experience forces of up to six and a half times their body weight when cornering during a race?

• Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/video-analysing-2017s-massive-rises-in-g-force.vX8IhGjqmsaCoyy2uKKOi

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by MadelynnSienna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

MadelynnSienna (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC).

• Wow, great job getting such an ambitious article as your first GA! The hook is quite interesting, is cited in-article, and checks out in the source. Article is an eligible GA and in good shape, with no signs of copyvio. No QPQ needed. All looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Primary unit

Hello Pyrope (talk · contribs). Regarding your reversion of my edit, I believe a formula one vehicles would classify as an automobile for editing purposes on Wikipedia, it even has "Automobile" in the title. Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, based in Paris, France.

The definition of an automobile is "a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor. Most definitions of the term specify that automobiles are designed to run primarily on roads, to have seating for one to six people, typically have four wheels, and be constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods”. Hence use: WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions/Units

You should read: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_247 Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV. Which discussed basically the same issue, moderated by Robert McClenon.

In a nutshell, the Manual of Style does state use SI as the primary unit except for strong ties to the USA or the UK where it lists other options. What the mediator did not like on this Dispute Resolution was “cherry picking” units from a source you prefer. The bar (unit) might be used in the source publications you read, but there are English speaking countries (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and most of English speaking Africa) where they have their own publications where the unit kilopascal is used. It was agreed that cars produced prior to 1980 can use the units in use at the time of construction. After that date SI units will be used with non SI as the secondary unit. Avi8tor (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe the regulations stipulated a maximum pressure of 4.0 bar, so that's what we write. Reliable sources use bar for turbo-era F1. Your blanket insistence on SI hinders understanding.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It does not state? I beg to differ. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Numbers: The main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI. It then gives exceptions. Scientific, USA, UK. The way things are written should follow the manual of style or in this case the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. The bar and multiples are not SI units and are deprecated. Avi8tor (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Formula One cars are automobiles but that does not put Formula One articles within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles and therefore there is no reason for us to blindly follow your conventions. You are also cherry picking from MOS:UNIT. The main point of MOS:UNIT is "The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances". It then precedes to say "engineering-related articles, [...], generally use the system of units in which the subject project was drawn up". I would argue that we are discuss an engineering aspect of F1. As Mr.choppers points out, the Formula One regulations use bar, and therefore so should we. SSSB (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is read worldwide by anyone who cares to read in English. If an article is specifically about the USA or the UK, the MOS states use the local unit. Everywhere else use SI because that's what the MOS states. Formula One is an international organization headquartered in Paris. By both the MOS and the Wikiproject Automobiles the primary unit will be SI. This article has no SI unit, if you want bar it needs to read 400 kPa (4.0 bar; 58 psi). Avi8tor (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:MOS is guideline, not policy. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:UNIT also does not state that we should use SI. SSSB (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does. Avi8tor (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a guideline and policy.

MOS: Units of measurement: The main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI.

Exemptions for the USA and UK. Avi8tor (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You are blantantly deliberatly misquoting the guideline. If you don't cut it off, it reads (I've added the second emphasis; the first emphasis is in the giudeline): "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, mass and luminosity of the Sun etc.)". Another such example would be bar for tyre pressures in F1. SSSB (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Where are the SI units for the edit in question? The bar is deprecated, it is not SI.

You should read the above quoted dispute resolution. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_247 Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV. The moderator didn't like cherry picking. Avi8tor (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I have skim read the dispute resolution and I don't see how it is relevant. The key point there (that does not exist here) is that the SI units are widely used in that context. In the context of F1, bar is by far the most common unit for pressure, not kPa (which I have never seen used in a F1 context). I am also not cherry picking. I am simply interpreting the Mos guideline in a different way to you. The mos guideline states that using the "units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic" as the primary units are acceptable. In this case, that would be bar. Unless you can provide sources that dscuss tyre pressure in F1 using kPa? SSSB (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to find out, I know someone who works in Formula 1. Regardless of the source, the MOS requires SI units primary plus any other units you deem necessary. I updated the article. Avi8tor (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, out of date, or insufficiently sourced, the best practice is to improve it if you can, rather than deleting salvageable text. It still does not have SI units per MOS either primary or secondary. Would you like to fix it? Avi8tor (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The Mos does not require SI units, as I explained here. "someone who works in Formula 1" is not good enough. Let me show you some sources: the F1 technical regulations which, as I am sure you will agree, the rest of the F1 world should defer to for units. You want to look at article 80. Looking at some other sources, there might be a legitimate argument for having psi first: [1], [2], [3], [4] (and before you accuse me of cherry picking again; these are the first four articles which specificed the pressure after I googled "F1 tyre pressures") SSSB (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Mos does not require SI units, so I won't be fixing anything. You can add kPa as a third conversion if you wish, I have no objection to that. SSSB (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with @SSSB's interpretation of the MoS on this. Specifically, from MOS:UNITS, that we should adhere to using units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists the reasoning for having different units. The exceptions being the USA and the UK. Under MOS:UNITS it states "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units". This article forms one of those "other articles" being international in nature. Avi8tor (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for somewhat kicking this off and then disappearing for two weeks. Work travel, I'm afraid. I think the discussion above has summarized my view pretty well. The MoS absolutely does not require use of SI units where those units are not those used in the majority of reliable sources on a topic. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is a general use encyclopedia that is aimed at the non-specialist reader. Therefore, our content should integrate with external sources as seamlessly as possible, as our readers are likely either to use us as a starting point from which to explore the specialist sources, or as an augmentation that they turn to to gain additional insight. Either way, for us to use SI units in all cases where the external sources don't isn't a help to our audience. For this topic, bar and psi are the units used in the vast majority of external sources, therefore this is what we should use here. Pyrope 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)