Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

British nationality changes

Over the past two weeks or so, there have been widespread edits to change various driver articles leads and/or infoboxes to say English/Scottish opposed to British. This can be primarily seen on Damon Hill (-> english), Graham Hill (-> english), and Jim Clark (-> Scottish).

The infobox issue is easily revertable as vandalism; it is the parameter for their racing license, not actual nationality. However, I have looked and am unable to find a convention for differentiating from Scottish/English and British in lead sections. I assume that this is an unwritten precedent, but I am bringing this up for two reasons: 1) Is there a specific MOS, policy, guideline, consensus or written precedent that deals with this, and if not, 2) what is the right way to approach this besides reverting for vandalism and citing unwritten precedents? Should we try to achieve consensus here?

If this was an isolated incident I wouldn't really care, but it's been happening more and more recently and is frankly somewhat hard to justify constant reversions besides for edit warring, in my opinion. I could be massively overthinking this, but I atleast wanted to bring this to the WikiProject talk page. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It is WP:F1 convention to say British in the leads and infoboxes, followed by "from England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland" in the lead. Generally, I have not included "from England" when writing leads as it sacrifices concision for something that is not contentious; just a lone IP being disruptive on the Hill articles. The precedent otherwise is a good one, as each of these drivers are notable for being British athletes. Clark has been a recurring issue. Semi-protection for articles such as Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart may be in order. The only exception to this has been Eddie Irvine, where the consensus—albeit an old one—is to omit British from the lead. MB2437 23:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, missed this somehow. Pretty much clears this up. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's make something very clear. Changing infoboxes to English/Scottish is not vandalism. Because they are English/Scottish. In the first instance it is a good faith edit. If they continue to do it it becomes disruptive. But at no point would it be vandalism. Claiming it is vandalism is both WP:BITING, and a failure to assume good faith. And when you do request protection, the admin may subconsciously not assume as mych good faith as they should. SSSB (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

You are right, I was using the wrong term. I meant it more so in a way that can be easily justifiable to revert, as there has been a written precedent for infobox to represent sporting nationality. Saying that it was vandalism was just a misphrasing on my part. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Note The convention only applies to drivers. Whilst I'd argue "British" is preferable for Ron Dennis, it isn't worth edit warring over. MB2437 23:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

IFEMA and Spanish Grand Prix

As pointed out by @Asqueladd on Talk:IFEMA Palacio Municipal - the future Madring circuit will be at Recinto Ferial de IFEMA (a large fair complex in Campo de las Naciones), and therefore the IFEMA or IFEMA Palacio Municipal should not be used. I've pointed the Madring circuit pipe to the Recinto Ferial de IFEMA location for the moment. Turini2 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Red Bull Racing test and reserve drivers

Who are Red Bull Racing's current test and reserve drivers? The infobox at Red Bull Racing says "Test drivers: Yuki Tsunoda" but {{Formula One reserve drivers}} lists Sebastien Buemi and Jake Dennis. (I'm mindful of the fact that the situation may change before the Japanese GP, but I'd like to get the article and navbox consistent). DH85868993 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe Buemi and Dennis are the test drivers and Tsunoda is the reserve—at least to my knowledge. The "test drivers" parameter in the constructor infobox should probably be renamed to "reserve drivers"—or separate parameters for both—as that is all it is used for. MB2437 19:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

At Template_talk:Infobox_F1_team#Test_drivers_vs_reserve_drivers, I've proposed changing the label to "Test and reserve drivers" and listing both test and reserve drivers in the field. DH85868993 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure that the template covers all reserve/test/development, and not just reserve drivers (despite the name). If we remove Buemi and Dennis, we would have to remove Vandoorne, Juncadella, Yelloy, Fuoco, Rigon, Arthur Leclerc, Stevens, and Turvey. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The template should probably be updated to note which drivers are what, as there is a clear distinction between a test and reserve driver. MB2437 15:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, however not sure how this could be done without substantially redoing the template (assuming footnotes/asterisks aren't used). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Footnotes would probably be the smartest way about it, rather than expanding the template to 2–3 sections. Could place (T), (D), (R), (TR), etc. next to drivers to signify their role. MB2437 16:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, I may as well bring this up here, should we be classing Daniel Ricciardo as a "reserve driver" for Red Bull in 2023? Their chosen branding of "third driver" was both sensationalist and confusing, whilst being no different to a standard reserve role, which is the widely accepted term. It was only really used in the initial reports, which parroted Red Bull's press release, after which he was widely referred to as the "Red Bull reserve driver".[1][2][3][4][5] MB2437 16:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

If we take precedent from Valtteri Bottas this season (Mercedes is labeling him as their "third driver"), then yeah, Riccardo would be classified as reserve for 2023. As you said, it's pretty much just a glorified title for the team's primary reserve driver. Pretty interesting that both Bottas and Riccardo were both 2nd drivers (kinda( who left their team on bad terms before coming back a few seasons later, and both received third driver branding.

Going back to the footnotes, I think that could work, but we should wait for additional consensus. The only issue that I could possibly foresee is that it's not always clear what the exact title is for some drivers. (ex: besides a team themselves, what's the difference between development and test?) GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can scrap Tsunoda as a Red Bull reserve driver… Tvx1 09:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Haas Lola

Our current convention regarding the 1980s Haas/Lola team is that references to the Haas/Lola team link to Haas Lola, but references to the "Lola" cars link to Lola Cars (sometimes via the redirect Lola Racing Cars).

Prompted by this discussion on my talk page, which highlights that Haas "Lola" cars had very little to do with Lola Cars or Eric Broadley, I propose that:

• references to the Haas "Lola" cars should link Haas Lola instead of Lola Cars, and
• the THL1 and THL2 should be removed from Template:Lola, Category:Lola Formula One cars and the results table in Lola Cars.

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead of Haas Lola states Lola however earned the team's points towards the Constructors' Championships as the team's designated constructor. It depends if we are classifying Lola as the constructor or Haas Lola specifically. MB2437 16:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Falcadore, who initiated the discussion on my talk page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Engines in infoboxes

Just wondering if we could get a consensus for what we should do regarding the engines parameter in infobox F1 driver. This has been used inconsistently across the board and oftentimes serves little value as a WP:DIB. For me, the parameter should only be used when the engine suppliers are noteworthy to their career e.g. a factory-backed driver such as Takuma Sato, or the driver only used 1–2 across their career. Interested to see what people think. MB2437 16:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This has already been discussed previously. The engine manufacturers do always have a direct and significant impact on drivers' performance and results (see e.g. this source), and otherwise have notable effects on drivers' careers even when they are not factory backed (see e.g. this source). Carfan568 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Where has this been discussed? The point is that having a comprehensive list of engine manufacturers does not always add to the reader's understanding of their career: it is often overdetail that is given in their results list anyway. The performance of the engine impacts the team as a whole, which is already listed directly above. If engines are important to a driver's career, they belong in the lead where relevant. It is hardly one of the most important points of Ayrton Senna's career that he once raced with Hart engines, for example. It convolutes his infobox without adding any reading value to his list of teams. MB2437 17:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It does more or less always help the reader's understanding of their career. E.g. Senna having raced with Hart engines implies that he did not have the most competitive engine at one point. The above source even says that a team insider tended to think of Senna "as a Honda driver with a McLaren chassis". This was previously discussed here. Carfan568 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

So what? It's trivia. MB2437 18:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the sources, it clearly is not. Carfan568 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Those are very specific examples that do not justify a comprehensive list of engines. As I said above, if they are that noteworthy, they belong in the lead anyway. MB2437 18:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

A team with a front-running engine is a very different proposition to a team with an uncompetitive engine. This universally applies to all drivers. Carfan568 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The teams are already stated in the parameter above. MB2437 18:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but that's hardly obvious from the infobox. How is the reader meant to know if a driver was using a competitive engine or not? From the name of the engine alone? Is there something inherent about them that indicates how successful they were? Maybe you can say the reader should know them by reputation, but no supplier has consistently been at the back or the front – Ferrari, Honda, and Renault are all immediately obvious examples of engine suppliers that were either very very competitive or not depending on the time period. That's a shaky argument and doesn't plausibly hold up. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The same thing applies to the list of chassis makes as well; the point of these fields is more to provide a quick snapshot of which chassis and engine makes influenced the driver's results. And the infobox does also mention the years in which the driver competed, which allows the reader to deduce the reputation of the manufacturers at the time the driver competed. Carfan568 (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The teams parameter isn’t there to indicate whether or not they raced for a competitive one, it just runs through their career path. The list of teams a driver raced for is of interest to a lot of readers, the list of engines is not. Google Trends shows over 12-times more interest in Michael Schumacher’s teams than his engines.[6]

Again, I believe we should only be using it where the engines are noteworthy to their career itself e.g. Takuma Sato, Jules Bianchi, Mick Schumacher, and Kazuki Nakajima. Current drivers with noteworthy engine paths include Charles Leclerc, George Russell, Lewis Hamilton, Oliver Bearman, and Jack Doohan. MB2437 16:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any convincing argument why engines should be listed seperately in any drivers' infobox. Someone like Leclerc is notable for driving for Ferrari. He used that engine throughout his career because Ferrari has always used their own engines. The engines are thus not seperately notable at all in that case. All that has been brought here so far is personal sentiment of importance. Tvx1 17:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Leclerc also used a Ferrari engine at Sauber, where he was funded by Ferrari in his status as a Ferrari junior. I disagree that Mick Schumacher's engine is not noteworthy, as he was also at Haas as a Ferrari junior, who facilitated his move—his entire F1 career revolved around his place in Ferrari. Takuma Sato is certainly not personal sentiment: he was a Honda factory driver from kart racing and has never left. Forgot to add Yuki Tsunoda to the examples of current drivers.

That's my view anyway, I can also see a case for deprecating the parameter altogether, but certainly not for universally applying it. MB2437 17:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the engines are certainly noteworthy in the above cases per Mb2437. Roughly half of the current grid have notable engine manufacturer connections besides being impacted by their performance. And a big reason why the chassis makes are there is because they affect performance, as evidenced by the chassis being listed instead of the team in cases where a driver drove for a non-works entry. Google Trends also shows that there is more interest in Michael Schumacher's engines than e.g. his fastest laps. Carfan568 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Fastest laps fall under general stats, which are of far more public interest than his engines.[7] (Michael) Schumacher's engines are not particularly noteworthy and just clutter his infobox. A big reason why the chassis makes are there is because they affect performance is not true; it is simply of interest to a lot of readers which teams a driver raced for. It is a poor indicator of performance for Fernando Alonso and McLaren, for example. We don't have years at specific teams included (unlike French Wikipedia) so using it as a performance indicator is irrelevant.

I'll note here that I have typically replaced chassis makes with actual teams for non-works entries, as it directly links to the team itself rather than a general unrelated article and the parameter is "teams" not "chassis"; I have retained "non-works" and "privateer" for teams who do not have their own article. If users are interested in their performance during these time periods—which will include engine information—then they can head to those articles, which is the purpose of an explanatory wikilink. MB2437 18:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

A lot more than fastest laps fall under general stats, so that is not a fair comparison. Overall Google Trends shows that there is a reasonable amount of interest in engines, even if not as much as teams. If you are concerned that including engines might somewhat clutter the infobox, we can always rectify that by using a template like collapsible list. Carfan568 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If they aren't noteworthy enough to be shown in full then they should be removed altogether. MB2437 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

They are noteworthy, as evidenced by the sources and them receiving more interest than e.g. fastest laps. And you should not have replaced chassis makes with actual teams for non-works entries before gaining consensus, as this was against WP:F1 convention. Carfan568 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Your sources are very specific and do not prove that a comprehensive list of engines is noteworthy.

I was unaware this was convention until recently. It seemed pointless to maintain links to unrelated articles, especially when it is not a "chassis" parameter. This has been uncontested for six months. Why—in the example of Stirling Moss—would we put "non-works Cooper, non-works Lotus, non-works Ferguson", when we can simply put "Walker", which is a far more detailed, concise, and relevant wikilink? It becomes a WP:DIB, as it also would if we had his full list of engines. MB2437 19:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You cannot ignore that they receive more interest than e.g. fastest laps after using this as the metric for inclusion. The first source is also not specific because it shows the importance of engines in general.

Teams are not included in those cases because they do not directly impact results and performance like chassis and engines. Carfan568 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Fastest laps is one of the primary statistics underpinning a racing driver's career, thus very much falls under "stats". Teams are not included in those cases because they do not directly impact results and performance like chassis and engines—what? The team's field chassis and engines, which are clearly explained on the wikilinks...

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the parameters. They are not there to indicate performance. MB2437 19:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I already explained to you above why that is not a fair comparison. Seems like you just WP:DONTLIKEIT. "They are not there to indicate performance" is only your opinion. Carfan568 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Two other users above have also disagreed. Seems like you just WP:LIKEIT. MB2437 20:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Except that I have provided data and sources to support their inclusion while you have not. It also received support in the previous discussion and others have added it to articles. Carfan568 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I literally provided data. Which previous discussion? MB2437 20:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did the work for you. Both this discussion and this discussion were primarily people disagreeing with you and do not support your argument. I'm counting two for inclusion—including you as the OC—and six against. MB2437 20:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You did not apply consistent logic to your data by ignoring that they receive more interest than e.g. fastest laps. And the general stats thing does not explain it away because a lot more than fastest laps fall under general stats. I also already previously stated that the discussion was held here at WT:F1. Carfan568 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

They are one of the eight base "stats" of main concern, that we also use consistently throughout F1 articles. Either way, the data—which is limited—does not support your statement that engines are of wider concern.[8]

The discussion you are citing did not support inclusion... MB2437 21:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Also see WP:Consensus is not a vote. Carfan568 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, but when there are three-times more people going against something, that generally means there is a pretty clear consensus amongst them. All three other users in this discussion do not believe a list of engines is crucial to state in the infobox, and two have disagreed with your notion that they should be used for the reader's understanding of performance. MB2437 21:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

In the first discussion one editor was neutral, one argued they "don't seem" relevant but did not offer a disapproval after their relevance was explained, one opposed including *both* chassis and engine, and two supported it. Especially considering that others started adding it to articles, I think there was some consensus to include it. In this discussion, Tvx1 based his argument on incorrect information by ignoring Sauber, and I think your logic for ignoring that engines receive more interest than e.g. fastest laps is questionable. Carfan568 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Tvx1 expressed concern with the parameter universally, not just for Leclerc. Your argument was fundamentally flawed given it was built on an incorrect usage of data.[9]

This conversation isn't going anywhere, let's leave it to other users; I have explained thoroughly why I disagree, and you are the OC of the parameter. MB2437 21:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If you do the same search with Lewis Hamilton and use the widest time period, you can see that there is clearly significantly more interest for engines than fastest laps. I will also note that lists of engine makes can easily be verified by sources like this. Carfan568 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If you look back, Lewis Hamilton is one of the few examples I listed that could be worth noting. The Google Trends shows there isn't enough data to be considered statistically significant; there is no data between 2017 and 2020.[10] It is also inappropriate to use such data for an active driver, as engines are typically of discussion during seasons—note the spike around the 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix and the 2021 São Paulo Grand Prix. They are unlikely to be searches for the list of engines he has competed with. MB2437 23:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Doing the search with the terms "Senna engines" and "Senna podiums" again indicates generally more interest for engines. I think it is clear now that your claim that there is no interest for a list of engines is not backed up by data. Carfan568 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

You're using data that clearly does not have enough entries to be remotely significant. The data I used above does. Why the change to podiums and not fastest laps or poles? MB2437 00:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to show that engines not only receive more interest than fastest laps, but doing it with fastest laps or "senna engine" and "senna pole" also shows that engines often receive more interest. Carfan568 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I literally just showed that this is not the case in the previous comment. MB2437 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The site appears to display different graphs depending on what kind of device is used to access it. Carfan568 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

So your argument is that Google randomises its data? MB2437 01:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1 and support the removal of the field entirely. The argument that some drivers are notable for their association with an engine supplier has some merit, but the nuance of "Mick Schumacher was associated with Ferrari throughout his career and drove for their customer team Haas as part of this arrangement" (for instance) is never going to be adequately communicated in a statement that says nothing more than "Engine: Ferrari". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

And I’d say that Mick is more associated with the Scuderia Ferrari F1 team than with the Ferrari engine blocks. He was a Scuderia Ferrari junior driver and THAT is what helped him get that seat with Haas. The coöperation between Haas and the Scuderia is also much more comprehensive than just an engine supply. Haas buys every car part they are legally allowed to from Scuderia Ferrari. The situation with Hamilton is very similar. He is mainly notable for driving for the Mercedes F1 Team rather than merely for using their engine blocks. He’s literally in his first season not associated with Mercedes in any way. There just is no meaningful separate notability for the engines drivers use.Tvx1 09:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources like this and this indicate otherwise. Carfan568 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hamilton was (emphasis on the past tense) very unusual for having a long, successful career with a single engine manufacturer, which was the product of a set of historical coincidences (being backed by the Mercedes works team, which became their customer team, and then switching to their factory team). Even setting aside what Tvx1 has already explained, "Engines: Mercedes, Ferrari" does absolutely fuck all to explain Hamilton's history and connection with Mercedes. Likewise, Alonso's disputes with Honda and the consequences (which also affected McLaren's later entry into IndyCar) cannot possibly be expressed by "Engines: Cosworth, Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda". It's completely implausible to imagine that that is helping the reader. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The same arguments apply to the list of chassis makes as well. Listing "Teams: McLaren, Mercedes, Ferrari" does not explain Hamilton's history and connection with the teams because it does not differentiate between a single race or numerous seasons. Carfan568 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Correct, and I said that four years ago. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

But chassis are different. Drivers are signed and drive for the chassis constructor. A direct relationship exists there. There is no direct relationship between engine and driver (the only counter-examples are drivers who are sponsered and/or supported by engine suppliers who were not also constructors). That is why I would argue that engine manufactors should not be in infoboxes, but chassis constructors should be - there is a direct relationship between drivers and construcors, but not between drivers and engines. SSSB (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree up to the point where drivers do have a direct relationship with the engine manufacturer e.g. Takuma Sato. MB2437 17:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sato is the exception rather than the rule, and my comment makes it clear that I am aware these exceptions exist. So I can only guess that you disagree about a removal for these drivers. Listing engine providers in infoboxes only for drivers like Sato would just be confusing as the infobox wouldn't explain this relationship. Not to mention that Sato's relationship with Honda is very different to a driver's relationship with a constructor. This sort of relationship should be limited to the prose, in the same way that a drivers link to a constructor via a driver academy is solely explained via prose. Because let's face it, Sato's relationship with Honda is more similar to a relationship with a driver academy than a constructor. Sato drove for the Constructors and was supported by Honda. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It would explain that he was always associated with the company during his F1 career via the engines. Carfan568 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it was via the Honda motorsports company. He even drove for two of their works teams in F1. Tvx1 18:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

That is not correct as Honda Racing Corporation was solely involved in motorcycle racing at the time. Carfan568 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Not my point. Tvx1 20:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sato’s case is actually very similar to the others named here. His relationship was with the Honda Racing Organisation, not just their engine department. Honda does more than building engines, they most importantly build cars. And their motorsports division enters cars and bikes in a myriad of competitions while indeed also supplying engines to some. In function of this they also have a funding programme for young drivers, Sato being one of them. After passages with others he actually ended up with the works team in F1 and later with their de facto junior team Super Aguri. That’s what he was notable for. Tvx1 18:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with the proviso that this logic is more applicable to the modern era where teams must be constructors, and that MB2437 is probably right to include privateer racing teams in lieu of chassis constructors for older entries. Namelessposter (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is another relevant source. Carfan568 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Nobody’s arguing that engines don’t impact performance, rather that the reader cannot reasonably deduce that from the infobox and the information isn’t critical to the driver’s career path in the way a team/constructor is. In many cases, it is overdetail that sacrifices readability. MB2437 15:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

If we follow this logic I don't see why we should include the chassis makes in the infobox. If Hamilton's infobox states "Teams: McLaren, Mercedes, Ferrari", the reader cannot meaningfully deduce how they affected his career. For example, he may have only driven a single race for McLaren, or he may have only driven one season for McLaren and later rejoined them. The rest of the article does a better job of providing this information. Carfan568 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

As shown above, teams competed for are of significant public interest,[11][12][13][14] and are listed universally in athlete infoboxes. Drivers also compete for teams/constructors/chassis, not engine manufacturers. You are still misunderstanding that these are not listed so the reader can meaningfully deduce how they affected [their] career, it is simply informational.

The infobox lists the career span and teams, which should all be expanded upon in the lead and body. If engine performance/reliability is noteworthy enough at certain points, it will also be mentioned. I don't see any solid basis for including a comprehensive list of engines in the infobox. MB2437 17:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

We should include constructors because the drivers compete for constructors. They don't compete for engine manufacturers. Stop comparing apples and oranges. SSSB (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The above comment applies even if we ignore the engine manufacturers. The rest of the article is better suited to providing the information. Drivers are also not employed by chassis constructors in cases where they drove for a non-works entry. Carfan568 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

By your logic, the rest of the article is better suited to explain all of their career stats as well. It is a quick career summary; it is not there to give a comprehensive guide to the reader, just note down key facts and metrics i.e. they competed in x years, for y teams, and achieved z. Drivers are also not employed by chassis constructors in cases where they drove for a non-works entry. Which is part of why I changed non-works entries in infoboxes to link to privateer teams where possible. MB2437 17:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing vague about the career stats, so your comparison does not apply.

Which is part of why I changed non-works entries in infoboxes to link to privateer teams where possible. Again, you should have sought consensus before doing this, as it was against WP:F1 convention. Carfan568 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing vague about a list of teams.

Actually, there is no written convention against it and—as explained above—it is more detailed, concise, and relevant. MB2437 18:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It is vague without specifying the seasons and number of races. It is like saying Hamilton won races without specifying how many. And looks like the convention was recently changed to reflect your edits, but it still would have been appropriate to discuss it first before making the changes. Carfan568 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing vagueness with contextlessness (is that a word?). There is nothing vague about saying Hamilton drove for McLaren, Mercedes and Ferrari. Meanwhile career stats are as contextless as listing teams. Sure we can say that Hamilton won 105 Grand Prix, but that doesn't tell us how we won them. We can say that Hamilton drove for McLaren, all that tells us is that he was employed by McLaren. We can say he used Mercedes engines, all that tells us is that his employer choose to use Mercedes engines. All of these lack context on some level. Frankly, arguing that we should include/exclude information based on context is a dead end and will lead to one exteme or the other. We should be making judgements on relevance to a drivers career. In the absense of context, listing constructors is effectively listing employers - a direct link to the driver, the subject of the article. Listing engine manufactors is listing who that employer outsourced parts to (or didn't outsource parts to) and has an indirect and frankly fringe relevance to the driver. Some relevance yes, but very little without addition context. SSSB (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1 with respect to Mick Schumacher and echo that the reasoning applies to a lot of academy drivers who get placed with engine customers, like Charles Leclerc and George Russell. Very few drivers (Senna and Hamilton) have had relationships with engine manufacturers that go beyond the ties incidental to membership in a driver academy. But even then, I do not know why Senna's relationship with Honda or Hamilton's relationship with Brixworth should go in the infobox specifically when they can be addressed in proper depth elsewhere in the article. In Senna's case, having an engine section in the infobox might actually create more ambiguity on the Honda point because he also had a very good relationship with Renault, which powered him at Lotus, helped broker his move to Williams in 1994 by paying Prost to retire, and has been dining out on that relationship in Brazil ever since. Namelessposter (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with removing per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Makes sense for teams yea, less so for drivers. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Failed verification

Can someone explain to me why we must have failed verification in Template:F1 Drivers Standings and Template:F1 Constructors Standings. Failed verification of what exactly? What better source other than that? Island92 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it does not include sprint points/positions, although this can be inferred from the total points for the weekend. Also doesn't include poles and fastest laps. MB2437 17:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. A better source to replace failed verification, definitely? Island92 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

We could just recite the sources from the other tables in addition. Tvx1 17:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's do it. Island92 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I stated the reason in the template I added that you removed without fulfilling. "Does not list finishing positions of those who DNF, does not mention DNS, does not mention drivers' countries, does not mention pole position or fastest lap". Cerebral726 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't list finishing postions of those who DNF and are unclassified. They DNF'd, they DON'T HAVE finishing positions. There is no case of DNS mentioned in those tables, so that issue is moot. Driver nationalities are already sourced earlier in the articles, so I don't see why that should be repeated here. It's easily verifiable. Likewise for the poles and fastest laps, which are already sourced in the article. All it would need is a source for the sprint results.Tvx1 15:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources being available somewhere in the article is not adequate to verify the table. The table should be directly cited, which should be easy enough if they're already in the article. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I thought the DNS was in there earlier (when I originally added the template) cause of Hadjar's DNS which there seems to be some ambiguity around. That seems fine now to me. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No. You need to read Wikipedia:VERIFY. There is no requirement whatsoever for the same information that is repeated to be repeated with the same supporting source each time. Information needs to be verifiable, not verified. Sections within an article are also not completely independent. Tvx1 00:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see an issue with repeating refs if we can’t find one comprehensive source for this. MB2437 02:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no issue, but there is no obligation as Cerebral suggests either. The information is properly sourced sowhere in the article. Tvx1 08:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

What I don't understand is: wouldn't it be a better use of @Cerebral726:'s time be finding and inserting sources, rather than debate whether it is a requirement or optional bonus? SSSB (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Sourced. Can we all move on now, or would you like to debate this for a few more days? SSSB (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Andrea Kimi Antonelli move discussion

Notifying the WP of a move discussion to move Andrea Kimi Antonelli to Kimi Antonelli. MB2437 17:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hadjar in Australia

We currently have some inconsistency over Isack Hadjar's result in Australia: Ret or DNS:

• 2025_Formula_One_World_Championship and Racing_Bulls#Complete_Formula_One_results show it as "Ret", whereas
• 2025_Australian_Grand_Prix#Race_classification and Isack Hadjar show it as "DNS"

As for external sources:

• The Australian GP race result at formula1.com shows the result as "DNF", as does
• the FIA race classification, but
• StatsF1 shows Hadjar as having 2 starts (thereby implying that he did not start in Australia)

What's the consensus, so that we can make all our articles consistent? DH85868993 (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Further, the Motor Sport magazine database and Motorsport Stats (the official FIA database) both list Hadjar's result as a DNS. Of the other sources listed on WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results, Chicane F1 lists a DNS, grandprix.com lists a retirement, and Forix requires a login. This is clearly a disputed result amongst sources. What is not disputed is that Hadjar was not present for the start of the race. By definition, he did not start, and should be listed as a DNS. I am happy to overrule the FIA on this one. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Forix lists him as "Not started". DH85868993 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Our eyes and ears tell us he did not start the race, so we shouldn't ignore that. The official F1 race report says he didn't start, yet the classification says DNF. Technically, though, a DNF isn't the same as a RET. You can't retire from a race you didn't start, but arguably you did fail to finish. I can't really understand why the sources differ – it's as clear a DNS as we've ever had in F1. If this isn't a DNS then there really isn't any point in having a DNS option in the tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I fully agree with you, but the reality is that the FIA officials have credited him with DNF as a result. No matter how we turn it, that’s the official result he’s credited with. Or hands are tied, even though the stewards most likely made a human mistake. Tvx1 14:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Our hands are not tied, which is why we have a disputed results page. We're not obliged to take any source as gospel and follow it religiously. We've never done that and Wikipedia does not suggest doing it. Particularly in cases such as this, where everyone concerned agrees on a particular point. Choosing to use a source we all agree is wrong is ridiculous and unnecessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Fully agree with @Bretonbanquet. Marbe166 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  They are very much tied. An official result is an official result. Period. We don’t choose a source, we reflect the official results. And a bunch of Wikipedians don’t get to decide what result a sportsperson is actually credited with. The best we can do is include a footnote to explain the discrepancy. Tvx1 21:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  That simply isn't true. We are not restricted to any one source, and we never have been. We've overruled the "official" results before when they've been wrong. Nothing on Wikipedia demands we choose a source that is palpably incorrect. We aren't "deciding what he's credited with" – we are deciding what is shown on Wikipedia. Not the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  • FIA officials have credited him with DNF as a result. No matter how we turn it, that’s the official result he’s credited with. What are you talking about? That's only how he's listed in the classification. He's "credited" with nothing as far as the WDC/WCC are concerned because he's not classified. The FIA don't publish a statistics set anywhere else. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It is clearly a procedural error that is contradicted by several RS. The FIA document also gives no indication of what "DNF" means, and his lap counter is still given as zero—I am aware they have used "DNS" in the past. I support using "DNS" here, which is easily verifiable. We can avoid blatantly erroneous results where other sources contradict it. MB2437 17:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

DNF is self-explanatory. Did Not Finish. You can always contact the FIA to have them change the result. Until such time, the official results as credited by the governing body in charge of crediting are the official results and we must reflect them. It sucks, but the situation is what she is. The only thing we can do is to add a footnote. Tvx1 21:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Or we can take an Wikipedia:Ignore all rules approach, as we all agree that the FIA obviously made an error. Or we could just follow secondary reliable sources, like we are supposed to. SSSB (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Is the team a primary or secondary source for race results? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Secondary. The primary source for results would be the official documents. SSSB (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The point being if you did not start then you inherently did not finish. MB2437 21:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Mb2473 and Bretonbanquet to have it set as DNS. Not sure why the FIA has done this, but it is very clear (and backed by sources) that Hadjar did not start the race. I don't see how you can retire from a race that you didn't start. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

What we think happened is irrelevant. Our job is to report results as they are actually credited. Tvx1 21:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

No, our job is to report what reliable secondary sources say. There are reliable secondary sources which list him as DNS. SSSB (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Official results are reliable sources. We cannot unilaterally overrule official results. We have to report results as they are actually credited. There also secondary sources which don’tlist him as DNS. We cannot just discard some sources because we don’t like them.Tvx1 09:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that we reflect that reliable secondary sources are divided - in line with WP:BALANCE SSSB (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It is an obvious DNS, and should be listed as such. If we add a hatnote spelling out the error in the FIA result list, it might actually help the FIA to rectify their mistake. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

An efn could be a good solution for clarity. MB2437 21:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

So I had a private discussion with @Bretonbanquet and I think we should just go with "DNS". We shouldn't solely rely on the FIA, as they're very mistake-prone when it comes to their classifications. And the Hadjar case is an obvious DNS. I think an efn is not necessary.

We also had a similar case with Norris at the 2024 Austrian Grand Prix, where he is shown as "20" in the standings table, even though he retired, which should show him as "20†". All thanks to a mistake in the classification of the FIA. BryOn2205U (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I had changed that to the correct (†), but it was reverted by you. I think we can close this discussion now, since the only one opposing is Tvx1. So I will go ahead and change Hadjar to DNS and Norris to include the dagger. Marbe166 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I know, because I originally thought the standings tables are purely based on the final classifications of the FIA. Then when I saw someone change Hadjar's result back to "Ret", I changed Norris's result with it. Sorry for that, but I agree with changing it back. BryOn2205U (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Having a private conversation behind the back of community discussion is an incrediblly poor attitude. I’m not opposing, the official results are. We just cannot ignore the official results of a sports event. We have no authority whatsoever to do that. No policy allows that. That would mean us acting as a primary source. We have no right whatsoever to decide ourselves which result was achieved. This situation is akin to a football match during which a goal is mistakenly awarded for instance when a ball hadn’t fully crossed the goal line. The goal is awarded and counted in the official result and thus we report it even though it’s a clear mistake. We don’t just change the result ourselves. The only correct encyclopedic approach is to report the official result and use prose or footnotes to explain the opposing views in the sources.Tvx1 09:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, @Tvx1 – the discussion between the other user and myself was before this discussion had started. You'd know that if you had looked before throwing accusations around. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are opposing, everyone else involved in this discussion are arguing that we should recognise and rectify an obvious mistake, as done by several other reliable sources. We have the right to select the most appropriate source of information when there are sources providing different information. Marbe166 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Tvx1, your example is not an accurate reflection of what happened. A more accurate example would be if the official results show the penalty scorer as being Harry Kane, but it was actually Phil Foden. You say "The only correct encyclopedic approach is to report the official result and use prose or footnotes to explain the opposing views in the sources." - I disagree. I think an equally correct encylopedic result would be to show the opposing view in our results and use footnotes to report the official results. SSSB (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect, and there have been several precedents for this within WPF1. Community consensus is unanimously against you. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflicting sources is a helpful resource here. There is clearly plenty of sourcing to list DNS. On top of those listed above: [15][16][17][18][19]. Consensus seems to be (and I agree that) he should be listed as DNS, and including a note that he was officially listed as retired is a great solution.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I understand Tvx1’s concerns and that we probably shouldn’t avoid the official result altogether, so a footnote to the DNS could be a smart solution here. MB2437 13:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

How was it actually done, when we had similar situations like this? The only examples I have is the Norris case last year, when his result didn't have the dagger for a long time up until it was changed yesterday. And there was exactly the same situation with Goethe in F3 in 2023 as with Hadjar, where he "did not start" the feature race of the Monza round after stalling his car on the formation lap, but was listed as "DNF". Both Hadjar and Goethe were listed as "DNS" in the provisional classification, but in the final classification they were listed as "DNF" without any reason given by the FIA. And in all these situations we used the results of the final classifications. So in my opinion, when there is a conflict, we either copy and paste the final classifications into the standings table like we did before or we compare different official sources (f.e. social media accounts or websites of F1, the F1 teams, or the FIA) and look which result is more frequently used.

But I think calling the FIA document as the only official result is not right, so is the addition of a footnote. If the FIA keeps doing mistakes, we will have a standings table full of footnotes for conflicting results by the end of the year. BryOn2205U (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The FIA document is the only official document (you know what "official" means, right?) There is no thing as different official sources. Social media accounts are not official sources, Formula One is not an official source, F1 teams are not an official source. The only official source is the body which awards the results, the FIA. And they only award results through one channel, official documents. Any other source is unofficial. I don't have an issue with using unofficial sources, but it would be unofficial. I think, for now, we should add a footnote, we can always reassess the footnotes if we end up needing to add multiple ones. SSSB (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

So I tried to look for a better solution and I realised something, which changed my opinion slightly.

I realised that after the Chinese Grand Prix, Hadjar and Gasly both had an 11th place finish, while Gasly had a DSQ, and Hadjar a DNF (based on FIA's final classification). As a DNF is more valuable than a DSQ, Hadjar was ahead of Gasly in the standings. However if Hadjar had a DNS, Gasly would be in front of him, as a DSQ is more valuable than a DNS.

Now let's imagine a very unlikely, but technically possible scenario: If Hadjar and Gasly would be fighting for first place in the championship, and after the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix they would have the same amount of points, same amounts of first, second, third places and so on. If they had the same amount of every finishing position, except the DSQ and DNF, Hadjar would win the championship. If Hadjar had a DNS instead of a DNF, Gasly would win the championship. Even though this is quite unrealistic, if there are similar situations like this in the future, they might have a big impact on the championship, which makes everything more complicated. So, even though the results might be obviously wrong, it would still be logical to use these wrong results, which the FIA recognises. BryOn2205U (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely hate it when the FIA makes mistakes in the classifications, but if it possibly has an impact on a championship position, it's not worth it to use the results not recognised by the FIA (or in other words: the correct results). BryOn2205U (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

DNF, DNS, and DSQs are all non-classified results that do not count towards the championship. MB2437 19:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Another point worth remembering is that we don't actually use "DNF" at all, so we are already deviating from the FIA's classification by changing it to "Ret", which is not always technically the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

DNF, DNS and DSQ don't count towards the championship, but they might be taken under consideration by the FIA if two drivers don't provide any other differences in their results.

Even if they don't, if the FIA makes a mistake in the future again, for example a driver retired, but still was classified by the FIA (for example "16†"), even though in reality he didn't complete 90% of the race distance (so actually "Ret"), the 16th place could make a big difference in the championship position. Now even if we use the "correct" results which don't have an affect on the championship, the standings table would be very inconsistent with all the disputed results.

And about the usage of "DNF": I think we use it because there are two kinds of DNFs. A driver can DNF and not be classified (in this case "Ret", and can DNF and be classified (which is pointed out with "†"). As the FIA uses "DNF" in both cases, we don't use "DNF" in the tables as it has two different meanings and should be better differentiated. BryOn2205U (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

"DNF, DNS and DSQ don't count towards the championship, but they might be taken under consideration by the FIA if two drivers don't provide any other differences in their results." In the incredibly unlikely event that two drivers do have identical results apart from nonclassified results, and the criteria that the FIA use to distinguish the championship standings is the status of non classified results. We can always reassess where we stand. If we take your WP:OR ("DNF is more valuable than a DSQ ... DSQ is more valuable than a DNS" says who? The FIA may decide different) to be true. And this did make a difference in the championship, I'm sure the FIA will go back and review once the results have been protested. (so far they have not been protested, because what would be the point, it makes no difference if it was a DNF or a DNS.) Now, I have contacted the FIA and will see what they say.

The fact that they made a similar "error" with Goethe in F3 in 2023 made me think. Is it possible that the FIA have changed the definition of DNS, from "does not start the Grand Prix" to "does not start the formation lap"? SSSB (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

They probably didn't change the definition, because Stroll started the formation lap, but didn't start the race at the 2024 Sao Paulo Grand Prix. He was still listed as DNS. And the fact that both Goethe and Hadjar were listed as DNS in the provisional classifications, makes your theory less believable. BryOn2205U (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The FIA does not mention types of retirement in the sporting regulations: article 7.2d leaves it to the stewards’ discretion to decide how ties are broken in the case of all classified results being even. I have doubts they’d run to use number of DNS’s immediately; it seems more likely they would use the most recent result. MB2437 15:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

A DNF/DSQ/DNS or whatever might have no impact on the championship, but as I said before: "if the FIA makes a mistake in the future again, for example a driver retired, but still was classified by the FIA (for example "16†"), even though in reality he didn't complete 90% of the race distance (so actually "Ret"), the 16th place could make a big difference in the championship position". So even if we decide to use "DNS" for Hadjar, we could do it for now, but we might have to change it later anyway when a situation like the one I described happens. BryOn2205U (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a completely different case though? MB2437 18:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that we would be setting a precedent. And in some future hypothetical case, this precedent could mean that the we and FIA would end up with a different end of season classification that the FIA. However, I think this is comparing apples and oranges. As BryOn2205U points out, DNF, DSQ and DNS have the same weight in the championship. A not classified and 16† are not, and therefore these things are going to be subject to more scrutiny are there is less likely to be a mistake (espically as I suspect that this part of the classification is automated the same way the lap counter is) SSSB (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I imagine the result would be disputed anyway if it were used as a tiebreaker. As you say, it would be highly unlikely the system used to determine it is both manual and operated by someone incapable of basic multiplication anyway. MB2437 22:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right. The only thing I believe is done manually is listing a driver as DNS or DSQ. Because in the F2 or F3 live timings, every driver, who is out of the race is shown as either "STOP", "RETIRED", or the color of the position number changes. I guess F1 does this similarly. So I'd assume all drivers who didn't cross the finish line are therefore automatically listed as "DNF", and the FIA have to adjust some results to either "DNS" or "DSQ". So they did it in the provisional classification, but forgot it in the final classification.

I just hope the FIA give us an answer. I also contacted them. BryOn2205U (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:F1R2025

Side question to the discussion above. The template Template:F1R2025 is used for the Constructors championship table, but not for the Drivers championship table. Why this difference? If the same template is used in both it would mean less updates required after every race? Marbe166 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• It's because of the transclusion limit, which we have previously hit on the season article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Copersucar/Fittipaldi

Our current convention is to identify the cars run by the Copersucar-Fittipaldi team as "Fittipaldis", not "Copersucars". An IP editor has added the following statement to Fittipaldi Automotive: "The cars were officially called Copersucar until the end of 1979 and Fittipaldi from the beginning of 1980 onwards." Does anyone have a source to confirm or refute that statement? Here is the discussion we had in 2009. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your statement from that time – "it looks as though the "in-period" sources refer to them as "Copersucars" from 1975-1979 and "Fittipaldis" thereafter, whereas the "retrospective" sources refer to them as "Fittipaldis" throughout" – sums it up perfectly. My sources back that up. The excellent David Hodges book, The A-Z of Grand Prix Cars, merely says "the name Copersucar... disappeared at the end of the 1970s". His examination of each car doesn't mention their nomenclature. The implication is that the Fittipaldi name was used on the F7 onwards, i.e. the reworked Wolf cars, but he doesn't actually come out and say it, annoyingly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I checked out some results tables (as you might expect, generally "retrospective" sources in DH85868993's terminology), which are frustratingly inconsistent:

• The Fittipaldi Automotive Wikipedia entry says that the team name changed from "Copersucar" to "Fittipaldi Automotive" between 1977 and 1978, but cites a dead link from formula1results.com. The Third Turn (T3T), a general motorsport database, also puts the change at the start of 1978.
• Formula One's website and David Hayhoe's Kimberley GP Data Book (1989) just call the team "Fittipaldi" throughout.
• StatsF1 says that Copersucar raced from 1975 to 1979 and Fittipaldi raced from 1980 onwards. Keith Botsford's The Champions of Formula 1 (1988) says the same thing.
• Gordon Kirby's 1990 biography of Fittipaldi suggests the name change took place between 1977 and 1978, not 1979 and 1980, and that in 1980 the team was dubbed "Skol Fittipaldi Team".
• The Daily Telegraph F1 encyclopedia (2000 ed.)'s year-by-year results tables suggest the name change took place between 1978 and 1979, but its race-by-race results tables suggest the name change took place between 1977 and 1978.
• Tim Hill (2014 ed.) and Bruce Jones (2010 ed.)' respective F1 encyclopedias have limited tables to save space, which include only the top 10 drivers for each season (plus, Hill's constructor standings include only the top 3) and therefore omit any mention of either Fittipaldi or Copersucar entirely for 1979. Jones called the team "Fittipaldi" in 1978.

Namelessposter (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

A rare on-point contemporary source, Denis Jenkinson's December 1979 column in Motor Sport, indicates that there was a name change and that it took place between 1979 and 1980: "Fittipaldi Automotive is the firm owned by the Fittipaldi brothers, Wilson and Emerson, who have been racing with the backing of Copersucar, the Brazilian national sugar corporation. This contract has now terminated and the brothers have closed their factory in Slough and moved into the ex-Wolf factory in Reading ... The Reading cars were called Wolf and the Slough cars were called Copersucar, but now neither of those names can be used." Namelessposter (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just turned over a copy of Autosport from March 1977, featuring the ill-fated South African GP. It notes the single entrant for the team, Emerson Fittipaldi, driving a "Copersucar-Fittipaldi FD". The car is referred to throughout the race report as a Copersucar. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The Internet Archive's Autosport archives inconveniently run out after January 1978, but the Jan 12 and Jan 19 issues both call the team "Copersucar-Fittipaldi". The Jan 19 issue also calls the car the "Copersucar FA5". Namelessposter (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)