Talk:2025 Formula One World Championship

Semi-protected edit request on 06 March 2025

In the 'Protocol for damaged cars' section of the Rulebook changes, the 2023 Canadian Grand Prix is linked when the described events and linked source article are referring to the 2024 Canadian Grand Prix instead. 178.25.93.111 (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done SportscarFan2004 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2025

Mercedes and Mclaren are level on points in Constructors, it states on the page Mclaren is leading the championship, this is not accurate. 82.45.249.208 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: McLaren lead the championship on countback (their best result is 1st, Mercedes' best result is 3rd). This practice is clearly explained in 2025 Formula One World Championship#Scoring system. SSSB (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2025

Update stuff about DRS parameter as rear wing flexibility tests will be made more stringent form the Chinese GP onwards as reported by The Race. These changes are keep the section up to date. 2A02:C7C:A01:3E00:7023:9BF4:932D:DD95 (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Please add additional updated information in the DRS parameters section to include information about more stringent rear wing flexibility tests that will take place from the Chinese Grand Prix as reported by The Race in the source shown below:

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-to-introduce-tighter-rear-wing-tests-after-australia-flexing-evidence/ 2A02:C7C:A01:3E00:7023:9BF4:932D:DD95 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

"Change X to Y" means that you need to provide the exact, word-for-word change you are proposing to the article.

For example: "Please change '2/3 inch wrench' to '3/4 inch wrench'."

PianoDan (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Alpine entrant name

Per both entry lists AUS and CHN released so far, the Alpine entrant name is BWT Alpine Formula 1 Team. As entrant names are automatically copied for table results, that is not the case for Alpine, who changes to BWT Alpine F1 Team, as here for example. What's the most logical solution for the Alpine entrant name in Entries table, first name or the latter? Island92 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• As we have tried and failed to agree in the past, any mention of "Formula 1" or "Formula One' in an entry's name can and should be abbreviated to "F1" for the purposes of our tables. This was consistently applied up until a few years ago when a few users arbitrarily decided not to apply it to McLaren because – get this – "Formula 1" was spelt out in their logo. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Shall we move to BWT Alpine F1 Team then? Island92 (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's what I'm saying. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

“Kimi” or “Andrea Kimi”?

I’m going to go out on a whim here and assume this might have already been discussed but would it be an improvement to refer to the Italian as Kimi Antonelli utilising his middle name as a de jure nickname? The use of Kimi rather than the full A. K. seems more commonplace, especially in the last couple of years - I cannot remember how to cite here but for example the F1 website’s driver profile page title uses Kimi, his middle name is emblazoned on his race suit, he is referred to (at least directly) in the media pen solely as Kimi… I could go on but will refrain for sake of brevity. Would this be a “valid” alteration (at least in subsequent mentions after the team and driver details)? Just a thought. 180.150.112.73 (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Andrea Kimi Antonelli is listed by FIA, including table results. Island92 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We should be following the WP:COMMONNAME, as indicated by the article title. This "follow official sources" stance you've got it completely pointless. SSSB (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

We should follow common name, and there was consensus not long ago that Andrra Kimi was the common name. That being said, we totally ignore that for Alex Albon, despite the fact his article was moved by consensus... Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion about Albon a while ago, and there seemed to be enough support for keeping "Alexander" in the table such that nothing was changed. To me this is nonsensical; the argument for keeping the longer name was that the FIA documents use it, but in that case the table should say "Fernando Alonso Diaz" and "Carlos Sainz" without the Jr. The table should use the article titles. Jestal50 (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The table should use the names they are entered under for formality, in my opinion, which generally follow COMMONNAME anyway. COMMONNAME solely applies to article titling; the policy itself has little relevance to this discussion. If Jaime Alguersuari's COMMONNAME became "Squire", would we use that in the tables? I can't remember Alonso being entered under "Diaz" recently, and "Sainz Jr." is simply a disambiguation from another notable driver. We should be following the sources used, which—in the case of World Championship results—are official FIA documents. MB2437 10:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Your argument is fundamentally flawed because Wikipedia doesn't excusively use FIA documents, we use a variety of sources. Are you suggesting that if we choose to use a secondary source to cite our tables (This would be completely legitimate and reasonable. There is no reason why we should be using official documents. In fact secondary sources are prefered within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) then we could use "Kimi Antonelli" and "Alex Albon"? And why should we "use the names they are entered under for formality" anyway? What's the point of doing that?

I don't think that your Alguersuari comment is as strong as you think it is. It is a perfect example that we should be pragmatic and not just blindly follow sources. It also has minimal applicability as ALG (I can't spell the name) would be known as ALG for WP:NATURALDIS purposes (making it little different from Sainz Jr.) ALG would still be his commonname within F1 circles as it is a stage name he gained after his F1 career. And we can always have exceptions around stage names. But, we aren't talking about stage names (F1 drivers don't have them), we are talking about MOS:HYPOCORISM and use of middle names instead of first names. The surnames have stayed the same and there is therefore no risk of confusion. SSSB (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It would also undo 75 seasons of precedent throughout F1 season articles, where names entered under officially have clearly been preferred and have been briefly mentioned as WP:F1 convention for several drivers. I feel as though it seems logical to use the name they are competing under for the encyclopaedic account of their results. Independent WP:RS are fairly split on usage, although FIA documents have been primarily used to reference both season and Grand Prix articles: [1][2][3][4][5] MB2437 12:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

"names entered under officially have clearly been preferred" have they? Most of our season articles have not been sourced by official documents, so I don't know how you can possibly make that asertion. For most of our drivers, I would be interested to know how Lauda was officially entered, as his legal name was not Niki.

You also seem to under the impression that I am going to insist on changing all the historical Formula One articles, this is not the case. I will stress this again (first time in this discussion, but we have had this discussion repeatedly for years - with no consensus) I am not suggesting that all our articles need to be rectroactively changed. I am merely arguing that we can use Alex or Alexander within articles (consistently within any given article, but doesn't need to be consistent across articles) as there is no reason for us to stubornly copyedit every article because god forbid an editor decided to use an established alternate name for a driver. SSSB (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Lauda was entered as "Niki":[6] I just think it makes more sense to use the names they are actually entered under, which are all condensed anyway, for our entries/results articles. MB2437 13:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That you think makes sense has very little meaning, as I think the opposite makes more sense. SSSB (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That was my thought otherwise, but then again it's not like all Wikipedia articles address their subjects using their legal name, I suppose? Or is that a bad example.

Interestingly enough, the provisional grid order for tomorrow's race addresses him as "Kimi Antonelli" - I mustn't have noticed that last week. However, other decision documents seem to act vice versa.

I'm not sure what the policy is, I would just have presumed at large that in the public sense the vastly predominant addressal of Antonelli is using his middle name. I wonder if a clip persists on the web of what he actually prefers being addressed as.

Hmm. 180.150.112.73 (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia article titles do not use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs. It was decided here that Antonelli's WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources is Andrea Kimi, although this could very well change in future. MB2437 10:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Antonelli is now entered under the name "Kimi", so my view is the season and Grand Prix articles should be changed to reflect this. I would also restore the efn in the entry list to specify that he was entered as "Andrea Kimi" at rounds 1–2. MB2437 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

All of that is completely unnecessary. Call him Kimi Antonelli going forward, sure. But to put in an efn or make changes to old GP articles (a practice that would contradict the reasoning behing adding the efn in any case) is a pointless exercise and is more confusing that anything else. Would you also like to add an efn to Carlos Sainz Jr.'s entry to specify he was entered as Carlos Sainz without the Jr? Give me a break. SSSB (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Was just a suggestion for clarity. In this case, we have an encyclopaedic account of the official entry list; he was not entered as "Kimi" at the opening two rounds. This is no different to a team name change, for which we have used efn's in the past. Sainz wouldn't have an efn, as he was never entered as "Jr"—I support retaining the Jr for dab purposes, but I am fairly indifferent. It's a different case to an informal hypocorism. MB2437 18:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not the role of Wikipedia is reflect every change in the entry list. Becuase Wikipedia is (as you said) an encylopdia, not a directory. Secondly, I would argue that teamname changes should not have an efn either, for this exact reason.

Finally, it actually is different from teamname, the teamname is distinct to the construtor, which is why it matters what the team is called. To (historically) distinguish between multiple teams that use the same constructor. We had a discussion on the relevance of the entrant column some years ago, and the only reason it was kept in the articles for modern seasons was to for consistenncy with the older season where multiple teams could enter the same construcor, and the entry table needed to distinguish between those teams. This has, for reasons beyond my comprehesion, deformed into the pedantic and pointless activity of "the entry table must reflect every minor change to the official entry list". This issue of distinction for muliple teams using the same constructor has no relevance to the drivers. It is the same person we don't need to distinguish between how he was entered (and I would like to point out, that there is no formal consensus with doing this for teams either, someone started it and no one challeneged it. Well, I am challeneging it now. It is unnecessary detail that belongs in a directory, not an encylopedia.) SSSB (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Points

In the 2025 season, a point is no longer awarded for the fastest lap. Do we think the article should reflect this change? I'm indifferent, but thought it might be useful information that's currently missing 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:9470:357D:A6FC:DF2F (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The article does reflect this change. There is an entire section about it 2025 Formula One World Championship#Fastest lap point SSSB (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that as visible enough, it should be a short sentence near the scoreboard. 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:9470:357D:A6FC:DF2F (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It is. The Scoring system states how points are won. There is no mention of a fastest lap point because there is no such point. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Sprint Race Results missing from driver's and constructor's tables

Maybe I'm blind but the latest results for the Chinese Grand Prix exclude the sprint race results, even though the sprint gives points to the drivers and teams. JamesHoadley (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The sprint race results are displayed as superscript numbers in the table. Jestal50 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Dead Heat

According to Article 7.2 of the F1 Sporting Regulations:

"If two or more constructors or drivers finish the Championship with the same number of points, the higher place in the Championship (in either case) shall be awarded to:
a) The holder of the greatest number of first places in a race
[...]"

Following this rule, Ferrari should be ranked above Williams after the Chinese GP for winning the Sprint race. Hugo L. López (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sprints do not count towards this. Williams are ahead as their best result is 5th, and Ferrari's is 8th. SSSB (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

What part of the sporting regulations supports that argument?

Has there been any precedent where a Sprint race win was not counted?

I couldn't find any section of the regulations that excludes the Sprint race from the dead heat criteria. And if Sprint points count towards the championship, then the positions that generate those points should also be considered for tiebreakers.

I understand that at this stage of the championship, this discussion might seem irrelevant, but it's important to have a clear criterion in case this rule needs to be applied at the end of the season. Hugo L. López (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It is pretty clear from reading the sporting regulations that "the race" refers to the Sunday event. The Saturday event is simply referred to within the regulations as "the sprint" or "the sprint session". Take for example article 5.4 which says "all races [...] exceed a distance of 305km" (only Sunday races are that long, sprint race lengths are defined in 5.3 where it says "the distance of each sprint session [...] exceed a distance of 100km.") Another example, section 42 is titled "The grid for the race or the sprint". The presence of the "or" suggest distinct, not overlapping, concepts.

Not that any of this is relevant. Your attempted analysis of the regulations is technically WP:OR. We can not make our own classification based on our interpretation of the regs. We have to follow the classification shown in published sources. The cited source shows Williams above Ferrari, and we must reflect that (unless you have an equally reliable source which shows Ferrari above Williams?) SSSB (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your very clear explanation.

I hadn’t noticed the difference between the use of "session" (for the Sprint) and "race."

Sorry for my mistake. Hugo L. López (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok fair enough JamesHoadley (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2025

in the orther of the points in the constructeurs the results from the two drivers are not right Wildav 112 (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It all looks correct to me. SSSB (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2025 (2)

In-season driver changes

Yuki Tsunoda and Liam Lawson swapped from their original seats from the Japanese Grand Prix onwards. Tsunoda is promoted to Red Bull and Lawson demoted back to Racing Bulls. --2A02:C7C:A01:3E00:F06E:D1F2:4F2:9F41 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC) 2A02:C7C:A01:3E00:F06E:D1F2:4F2:9F41 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

 Already done Page has been edited to add the driver swap. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Change the standings table

Hi, would it be possible to display the points columns first, right after the driver/constructor name, instead of it being on the last column? It would made it much easier for mobile readers. Diegocbarboza (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unfortanetly, we had this discussion, and the consensus was that the points should be in the last row of the table. SSSB (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know it was already discussed. But that's ok, thank you for the reply. Diegocbarboza (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Why? Points on the right is standard in almost everyone on Wikipedia and the rest of the Internet? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

So you can see the points total and the names at the same time without having to scroll miles across the page. It is an accessibility thing. SSSB (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Not trying to get too deep into an futile discussion, but maybe other places on the internet should also change their's standards to make it easier for people on mobile AND show the most important information before everything else. Diegocbarboza (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is against it. Either start a new centralised discussion to overturn that decision or let's drop it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that this was part of a wider problem concerning tables and mobile devices, rather than being specific to the tables in this class of articles. Some attempt to improve the situation here was attempted by making a "sticky" points column, but with mixed results. It seems to work on the mobile version of this article fairly well, but I guess your mileage may vary. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Change the teams standings

instead of putting the highest position finished for a team first, can you make it that the driver who is currently in the higher position in the team be in the first row? Sorry if that didn't make sense. DexDaRacer (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• This has been discussed several times and there is a consensus against that proposal. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)