Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

McLaren points in 2007 (again..)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) Consensus for option D with efn. The efn consensus is to include the various possible point totals: 166, 203, or 218. Iseult Δx talk to me 08:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have come up again, so I am bringing this to project talk to avoid an edit war.

Relevant discussions: 2007 (1), 2007 (2), 2008, 2013, 2020 (most relevant and recent). I may be missing some, but this is what I could find (in addition to some localized discussion on the archives of the 2007 season talk page)

Impacted pages: 2007 Formula One World Championship, McLaren Grand Prix results, McLaren#Formula One results (possibly more?)

Editor @HwHrdCnItB1 changed the amount of points that McLaren were intended to score in 2007 from 166 to 218 on the 2007 article (diff), and from 203 to 218 on McLaren Grand Prix results (diff). To maintain consistency and to maintain precedence, I changed both to 166 and told the editor to bring it to talk if they disagree. They did not bring it to talk but still changed it afterwards, so I am bringing this here.

For context, this relates to the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy (spygate) and McLaren's exclusion from the constructors championship that year.

Without launching a full RfC, I want to seek additional consensus on how many points should be displayed in parenthesis. They obviously scored 0 because they were excluded, but the amount in parenthesis is disputed. It seems like there are 4 options, and I've explained the rationale behind each:

A. 218, as that's how many points Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso scored combined throughout the season (109 each).

B. 203, as that's how many points Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso scored combined throughout the season (109 each), but with 15 subtracted for McLaren's punishment during the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix (Hamilton scored 10, Alonso scored 5).

C. 166, as that's the amount of points that McLaren scored up until the 2007 Italian Grand Prix (McLaren were disqualified from the Constructors shortly afterwards on Sept 13).

D. Do not include points in parenthesis at all; McLaren was disqualified, and did not score any points. Including a number in parenthesis is arbitrary trivia, and it is not worth including if the number is disputed.

Full disclaimer, I have not done an extensive amount of research into this, I am just simply compiling the arguments from the 2020 discussion and the rationales behind each option. Heck, I wasn't even alive when this happened (sorry to make some of you feel old). I personally believe that option D would be the most logical option; the situation is complicated and having parenthesis causes further confusion since there is no definitive answer. Info can be left in EFNs. As I said originally, I do not want to get into an edit war, so I feel that just bringing this to talk and developing consensus here would be the best option. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively defer to past practice, but on a clean slate, would favor <0 (203)> with an explanatory efn. I normally like keeping things the way they were for Chesterton's Fence reasons, but the F1 website's constructors' standings list McLaren's points total for the season as 0, and StatsF1 doesn't list McLaren in the standings at all. 166 feels like an artificial cutoff since there is no reason why a points deduction can't be retroactive (but of course any cutoff in this situation will be arbitrary). The Third Turn and Racing-Reference don't seem to include the constructors' standings at all. Namelessposter (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think option C is the least helpful. If you consider the table, knowing they had scored 166 points prior to being disqualified is completely useless information. Where were they in relation to the other teams? How many points were scored across the season? Therefore, C (the option that is currently enforced) is my least prefered option. I'm going to use 2020 Formula One World Championship as a guide (in 2020, Racing Point were penalised 15 points). Because of this, I prefer option B over A. Show in brackets how many points they would have scored across the season without the championship DSQ. Then the footnote can explain why McLaren scored 203 points, but their drivers combined to 218. However, my prefered option is D (but for a different rational). D is the cleanest option and avoids these regular content disputes. A footnote can then be added to explain why it is zero and explain how (depending on the defintion used) they could be considered to have scored 218, 203 or 166 points over the season. It will be a longish footnote. But much clearer than arbitarily selecting option A, B or C. (and we are arbitarily selecting option A, B or C because I am yet to see a reliable secondary source that lists "would be" points in brackets). SSSB (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Option D, it should just say 0 with an EFN explaining the other three options. If we are going to include a score in parentheses, there are valid reasons for each of 218, 203 and 166. Therefore, rather than choosing one and causing confusion and edit wars, I think the best option is to pick none of them and just relegate it to an explanatory note. Jestal50 (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe A to be the most logical option, at least for the 2007 Formula One World Championship article, because Alonso and Hamilton are listed as having scored 109 points in 2007. Since they were disqualified from the Constructors' Championship completely anyway and as a McLaren fan myself, I believe having 166 and 203 is pointless (no pun intended), and McLaren in referred to in the segement just above the Constructors' Championship table, it states that their drivers scored the most points combined. I believe readers are entitled to know what that tally would've been. HwHrdCnItB1 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tally would not “have been” 218 absent the disqualification, and anyone interested in Hamilton and Alonso’s combined totals can just add the two together (or refer to a hypothetical footnote like the one included for 2020 Racing Point). I prefer 0 because it better reflects what happened as a matter of the rules. Namelessposter (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Option D - just 0 with an EFN, per SSSB and Jestal50. DH85868993 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, 0 with an efn. MB2437 22:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the options for a footnote, I would suggest stating when they were disqualified (after the Italian Grand Prix), why they were disqualified (espionage), how many points they were on (166, with a 23-point lead over Ferrari), and a short clause explaining the previous points deduction—similar to option C but without parentheses.
The amount they ultimately scored is irrelevant as they had already been disqualified by that point and were no longer actively competing for Constructors' points; we should not retroactively tally points that never existed in a classification, it is misleading. Past that point, McLaren and Ferrari both focused all their efforts on the WDC, which potentially altered the points outcome. It makes a false insinuation to readers that McLaren would have scored 218/203 points to Ferrari's 204. We do not and have never lived in that reality. MB2437 14:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point that absent the DSQ and any replacement penalties McLaren probably would have beaten Ferrari handily in the constructors’ championship. I accept the ancillary point that a non-DSQ would probably have been paired with an even more severe point deduction: Mosley was not the type to let McLaren win without a fight. I think it’s worth adding 203/218 anyway for efficiency’s sake: by leaving these totals in a footnote, we don’t completely deter future drive-by edits, but we likely avoid a full-blown edit war. Namelessposter (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we should base our decisions on appeasing disruptive editors. The best way to deal with that is to reach a well-reasoned consensus here and refer to this discussion in a hidden comment. MB2437 21:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe an editor making a colorable argument can still act in a disruptive manner, I am happy to use efn footnotes to acknowledge colorable arguments. I err on the side of overinclusion when the item is something less than material and something more than trivia. Namelessposter (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to option C and report the editor to the adminstrators should they continue their reverts. This has been discussed enough. This is not arbitrary trivia. This is the only maximum total we can back McLaren actually having been credited with at some point.Tvx1 23:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless GalacticVelocity08 missed the original discussion, this has hardly been discussed at all. Besides, consensus can change. SSSB (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion in 2007 and then the main one in 2020, which was five years ago. It is possible I missed others, but I would be surprised if I did. Even then, as you said, there could be different consensus over time; and the most recent discussion (to my knowledge) was five years ago. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option C, per the argument I made in 2020. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the camp of Option D with the addition of an efn to explain the other options. Something like "McLaren were disqualified for Spygate following the Italian Grand Prix. At the time of disqualification, the team had 166 points. The team scored 218 points over the season, with 15 points subtracted following the Hungarian Grand Prix." would probably suffice. It's fairly complicated but I would argue all of the notes regarding their points are relevant, or at least the first 2. QWisps (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a false statement though. Nothing was subtracted following the Hungarian Grand Prix. They were penalized before the race and were never awarded those points at all. That’s why those those totals of 218 and 203 should not be mentioned at all. They never scored such totals. Tvx1 19:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As more of the arguments have come in, I think that Option D with an efn about the points at the time of disqualification is the best way to move forward. QWisps (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option D, to keep the table clean. No need to mention the number of points in the footnote, just the reason for the DSQ. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning the points that would have been scored seems pretty important since they would otherwise have been champions... 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know for sure that they would have been champions? When McLaren was at 166 the season was not over. At the end of the season Ferrari had one more point than our imaginary McLaren (after the 15-point penalty). And that just illustrates how much speculation and arbitrariness are baked into these questions. Namelessposter (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not know that—that assumes both Ferrari and McLaren would have approached the remaining weekends identically with another championship available. It is simply misleading to state or insinuate that they would or would not have been champions had they not been disqualified mid-way through the season. The only fact we have is that they were 23 points clear at the point of disqualification. Anything past that point is inaccurate and irrelevant trivia that fails basic content policy. Their drivers scored a combined 218 points, but they never did. However likely it was that they would have won without the disqualification, we do not and will never know. The fact of the matter is they were never classified with more than 166 points. MB2437 02:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If memory serves me right a previous version of the note stated the total points scored by McLaren entries over the season, which was 218. I didn't suggest labelling them alternative champions or anything like that, but I don't see how you can say the points totals are unimportant to the reader. Even if they would have been second, or third, or whatever without the penalty is still vital information to understand the standings, and also the severity of the penalty. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Marbe166, Option D, the reason for the DSQ is enough. LesRoutine (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D with an explanatory footnote explaining the different possible points totals - It's perfectly reasonable and quite likely for people to want to know how many points McLaren would have scored if they hadn't been disqualified or penalised at all, but writing "0 (203) (218)" is confusing without context and is better communicated through an explanatory footnote. If we exclude this information entirely we're just forcing readers who want to know that information to add up the points themselves with little obvious benefit. The fact that they had 166 points at the time they were disqualified is utterly inane and unintuitive trivia so far as the table is concerned, but can reasonably be explained within an explanatory footnote. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D w/ explanatory footnote as per HumanBodyPiloter, except I can accept the inclusion of "McLaren had 166 points at the time of their exclusion". {{efn}} is very useful and resolves this.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it matters to have the points McLaren had at the time of their disqualification because if they were disqualified completely, why should any points be included? I really bothers me. HwHrdCnItB1 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the constructor did in fact score points, and their later exclusion doesn't change that. The points they had scored is significant (because they actually did occupy a place in the standings at that point), and the points their entries scored overall are also significant (as a relevant counterfactual). For those reasons, I am amenable to Option D as described by HumanBodyPiloter5. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The table shows the latest (or in this case, final) total points tally. Including anything other than "0" in the table itself is confusing and misleading, and the "166" tally is particularly confusing in that regard (given it would be temporally displaced from the rest of the table), but "218", "203", and "166" are all perfectly relevant values to bring up in an explanatory footnote that is distinct from the main table. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that it has been over 2 weeks since the last comment, if any uninvolved editor would like to "close" this then please do. I probably should not do it myself since I initiated it, but I do not mind doing so. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth listing this at WP:CR if nobody does. MB2437 20:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Revised McLaren points footnote in 2007 Formula One World Championship

[edit]

All, following the close at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#c-Iseult-20260127080700-McLaren_points_in_2007_(again..) and its subsequent update, I've removed the 166-point parenthetical in the table. I also rewrote the footnote to follow the closure consensus, covering the arguments for 166, 203, and 218. The efn is clunky, so I'd appreciate any advice or edits you could give. Of course, if you disagree that including 166/203/218 is the consensus feel free to dispute the close. Namelessposter (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that is a bit clunky, but it makes sense and adequately provides information. The last sentence seems like it could be cut, but I personally am not sure how to maintain readability.
Also, are you going to update McLaren#Formula One results and McLaren Grand Prix results? I don't mind, but I am curious if you/others think the same efn should be used for consistency or if it should be phrased differently for different articles (I don't see why that would happen though). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should settle on a common wording before editing other articles, but I don’t feel strongly about it. I feel more strongly about deciding how to color in the podiums and points for McLaren in the table. The current color scheme implies 166, and I think all the cells should all be in the no points color. Namelessposter (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Chassis-Engine' convention

[edit]

Within infoboxes, entry lists, and results, we presently hyphenate constructor names e.g. "Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT". MOS:ENBETWEEN is clear we should be using en dashes (–) to separate independent proper nouns. Irrespective of this, constructors with chassis/engine names composed of multiple words should always be separated by en dashes, per MOS:PREFIXDASH and MOS:SUFFIXDASH. The example above reads as Red Bull ... Racing-Honda ... RBPT, not to mention the classic "Ligier-Mugen-Honda". Sat on this for a while as we had a few discussions going at once. This was previously discussed with no consensus in March 2011; I imagine this part of the MOS has been further clarified since. MB2437 23:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a workable solution? Do you have a macro to automate this? Namelessposter (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not presently, although it cannot be too hard to run a search-and-replace on the instances of each constructor being mentioned. If not, just change our approach going forward and make changes when noted. MB2437 02:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can run a WP:AWB that should tackle it all. SSSB (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you are right about this? I’m not convinced that the two parts are actually full separate components here. The constructor name is one sole thing here. And there have been cases in the past were a constructor used more than one engine manufacturer during the season and and as such were classified seperately and thus the engine part in the name acted as a modifier. Tvx1 12:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is compounding two separate elements. The chassis name would be the modifier in that format. If it were two compounded names to a chassis/engine, such as Mugen-Honda, then I believe it would be hyphenated. MB2437 12:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it compounding two separate elements? It isn’t just because you say so. Constructor names are one entity. And in case like when Brabham-Honda and Brabham-Ford happened in one same season, the engine part is quite certainly the modifier. Tvx1 15:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hardly say McLaren and Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains are one entity. MB2437 16:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They are two separate companies, sure. But Tvx1 raises an interesting point: are they legally considered as one entity vis-a-vis their entry into the World Championship? SSSB (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They are definitely one entity as a constructor. Hence why there have been examples in the fast of more than one constructor with the same chassis manufacturer, buth different engine supplier, having been classified in the same championship. Tvx1 13:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The F1 regulations are ambiguous on this point: they say “if the F1 Team fits a Power Unit that it does not manufacture, the F1 Car name must be the combination of the F1 Team’s name and the Power Unit Manufacturer’s name, subject to any changes made for branding purposes, with the former always preceding the latter.” This could cut both ways—is the unit in question the “F1 Car” or the combination of the “F1 Team” and the “Power Unit Manufacturer”? “Subject to any changes made for branding purposes” sounds like a rule to permit “RBR-Tag Heuer” but Tag Heuer is also a separate entity. In any event I don’t want to overthink this. Namelessposter (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the examples listed in the MOS, I'd say Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities covers it. Minneapolis–Saint Paul is a single legal entity with two independent constituents (such as a chassis and engine), where Wilkes-Barre is simply a single entity with no components (Wilkes and Barre are not part of the city). MB2437 14:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Change the Abbreviation of either Tuscany or Turkey

[edit]

TUS and TUR are too similar, i feel, to prevent any accidental mistakes between the 2 (ik one is Turkish and 1 is Italian but still), i think it would be better to change Tuscany to TSC, it looks quite different and will prevent any accidental mishaps, tell me your opinions, but i think it will be better to change Tuscany to TSC since there was only 1 Grand Prix, so it will be very simple. F1fan00 (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be an entirely pointless exercise. This is a complete non issue. When is there ever going to be an "accidental mishap" SSSB (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
fair point to be honest, but who knows F1fan00 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With only three letters there are always going to be some abbreviations that are quite similar. I don't think readers are particularly likely to get "TUS" and "TUR" confused, especially if one appears next to an Italian flag and one appears next to a Turkish flag (provided alt text is working on the flagicons, at least). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
while that is true, if flagicons aren't used (e.g. Results on the page of a driver and/or team for 2020, it could get confused, but i see your point F1fan00 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others that there is very little chance of confusing the two. However, on a related note, something I have thought for a while is that Monaco should be MCO (which is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 designation) instead of MON, which can easily be confused for Monza. Jestal50 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"MON" was the preferred choice back in 2007 and another editor also expressed a preference for "MON" in 2021. DH85868993 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
but in F2, Monaco is MCO, and Monza is MNZ, and while the Monza GP doesn't exist, Monaco does, and it could be confused, i think we should do a new vote to decide, somebody make the tables that i usually see with these scenarios, and we will revisit this on Feb 28th? that way we have just over 3 weeks to mull this over, to confirm, the 2 options are:
MCO (proposed)
MON (current)
We will revisit this at a later date F1fan00 (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I dare say it should be F2 that should change if consistency is desired, rather than F1. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't make as much sense doing it to F2, becuase Monaco and Monza are round names, hence the MCO and MNZ, it should be Formula 1 that follows it, so less confusion is caused F1fan00 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One&oldid=1336767790"