Talk:2023 Qatar Grand Prix

Brief Descriptions

@Island92: Why did you remove the (very) brief descriptions for qualifying and the spring shootout here and here? The formats are confusing, and having a few words clarifying better serves our reader than having to go to the parent article, which isn't even linked within that section. The article is quite short currently and certainly has room for expansion. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Because this is not the right page to explain how the format works when does the weekend consisting of the sprint take place. There is the dedicated page for that, which are 2023 and sprint. Island92 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to explain the format fully. I want to add two brief phrases that are a clear improvement in clarity to your average reader who doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge on the varying weekend formats. There is no harm in doing so and plenty to gain. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Never made in previous Grands Prix consisting of this format (I know if not made in the past it does not mean cannot be made now) hence I don't think this one has to be an exception. Island92 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Normally, those sections are more linked to time scheduled session. Island92 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Things being done differently before is no argument at all. That would mean the standard Grand Prix articles could never improve. These sections could and should be improved with greater amounts of information that better serves a reader without prior knowledge of the subject. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

For those sections, how things went and by what they were determined (the format specifically used in this case) they can be explained in the following section, which will be Qualifying report, Sprint shootout report and so on. During Qualifying, which determined the grid for Sunday's Grand Prix... Island92 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying we should let the article be deficient until the events have occurred and the results can be added? Why not let them be better in the meantime? This is going to be a recurring issue every week leading up to every race. A brief explanation of the format would serve the articles well. Some level of redundancy is encourage by Wikipedia's guidelines. See WP:SPINOFF, WP:RELAR. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Why such an interest in doing so only for this Grand Prix? Island92 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I want brief explanations in every Grand Prix that doesn't have results yet. I think all the sprint weekends could use a bit more explanation probably, I haven't looked yet. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding those explanations was sufficient only for the 2021 British Grand Prix, the first ever to adopt this format, or the 2022 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, where the format changed compared to 2021, but not for the following races, which was and is a ripetition explanation. Island92 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You expect everyone to read every Grand Prix race article in chronological order in order to have an understanding of the format? The 2022 Emilia Romagna article is a prerequisite to this article? Redundancy is good, articles need to stand alone as an adequate explanation of the event. It could become overly detailed but we are so far from that right now that its only holding back the article, and the mindset is holding back all the Grand Prix race reports. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

All pages should follow a similar baseline. The substance is always the same regarding these events. Island92 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If they should follow a similar baseline than they need to include explanations. If you seriously can't see why these obvious improvements shouldn't be integrated, I will ask for 3rd opinion. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The improvements can be made in report prose sections, not exactly there, in sentences more linked with time scheduled session, as made normally. Island92 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The explanation about what the Sprint shootout is shouldn't be in the section titled "Spring shootout"? Why can those section be ONLY for a single sentence with the time of the event? It's completely illogical. You are forcing your personal preference without reason and the article is worse for it. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but explaining what the Spring shootout is is not linked with the edition of the Grand Prix itself. The dedicated page-explanation has already been made and written for what it is. Island92 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi Hi there, I'm here in response to this discussion being listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion. The descriptions are very useful to have in these sections. You should not have to go to a dedicated article in order to find out what is being mentioned. The descriptions are short and not overly detailed- just enough that someone can get an understanding of the point and go to a dedicated article if they wish to know more. @Cerebral726 is in the right here in my opinion, @Island92 you should let these descriptions stay. GraziePrego (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC) GraziePrego (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The Lead (again)

@Island92: The lead is supposed to be redundant. It's a summary of the article. You need to read WP:LEAD, you cannot continue to completely ignore the MOS. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes you should be more elastic and logical-thinking rather than following MOS at all costs. Island92 (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous. There is nothing so exceptional about this article that we can just completely ignore the MOS. You don't get to force your personal preference over the longstanding format of the lead across all of Wikipedia. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not personal preference but logical thinking! It is not worth reading something repeated twice close to each other. It makes no sense at all. Island92 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:LEAD is quite logical with it's explanation for the reason the lead is crafted the way it is: In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I tend to follow these parameters, but not too much as your case, with respect. That's why I think being precise is not always the maximum required in everything we do on this encyclopedia. Island92 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi there, I'm here in response to this discussion being listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion. @Cerebral726 I think you're absolutely in the right here- WP:LEAD backs your position up. The lead can have redundant content in it as a way of introducing what will be discussed in greater detail later on. I will also add here- both of you appear to be engaging in edit warring behaviour- edit warring is edit warring regardless of who's in the right. GraziePrego (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC) GraziePrego (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinion. Fair enough, I should've been a bit more cautious. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Race vs Sprint race

@Island92: The agreed upon version by the 3O include the term Grand Prix. I agree that it isn't the best phrase since it can ambiguously refer to either the whole weekend or just the 305km+ race. However, we need to differentiate between the sprint race and just the race, since the sprint is also a race. It adds ambiguity not to allow it to be called the "full-length" race or any other term for clarification. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Sprint matches with "speed race", race with the full distance to be covered, Grand Prix with the whole event, starting from FP1. Island92 (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree the "Grand Prix" often refers to the whole event. I wanting to use a term to clarify that the Qualifying session determines the grid order for the full race. How should we accomplish this so there is no ambiguity for a reader not as well versed in the Formula One terminology as you? Cerebral726 (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The article consists of sections regarding Sprint, Race and so on. For each there is extra explanation for that session. There is no ambiguity being created. Island92 (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your desire to have less information in the article has been overruled above. Perhaps you should be willing to expand what you think is an acceptable level of detail and clarity. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Not my desire. It's not worthing repeating things twice. Island92 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Other editors and Wikipedia policies and guidelines disagree with that sentiment strongly. Plus I don't even want to state something twice. I'm just trying to differentiate between two similar and confusable terms. We need to err on the side of clarity, see MOS:JARGON. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Simply you don't have to put sprint race but just sprint. Island92 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

How named by official schedule. Island92 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@GraziePrego: would you be willing to weigh in on one more aspect of the 3rd opinion you offered? --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes sure :) GraziePrego (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

“Sprint race” is definitely clearer I think. GraziePrego (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on differentiating between “the race” and “the sprint”/“the sprint race”. I would like (when extra clarity is needed) to call the race on Sunday “the full-length race” if that distinguishing is needed. —Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The Sunday race is the Grand Prix or (if we use "sprint race") the "main race". "Full-length race" isn't great because the sprint race was full-length for a sprint. And if the GP is not as long as the scheduled distance (Red-flagged and not continued, or multiple formation laps like 2023 Italian Grand Prix, or time limit issues) it technically wouldn't be a "full-length race". SSSB (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a great point SSSB. I'm happy with "main race" for when it is needed to be distinguished. Cerebral726 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@GraziePrego, SSSB, and Island92: Do we have consensus to call the Sunday race "The main race" on the Qualifying section to distinguish between the main race and the sprint race. I believe it is needed to clarify and avoid assuming knowledge of our readers. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we put the official schedule in a bin then? Island92 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

example. Island92 (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

New York Times A Fox affiliate Autosport AP News Plenty of sources call it the "main race" in order to distinguish between the two. What's official is only part of the story. What Reliable Sources call the race, and the fact that they feel the need to distinguish between the two because they recognize it is confusing, is the other part of that story. If all that matters to you is f1.com, here is a story by Lawrence Barretto where he calls it the "main race" to distinguish the confusing names [1] and another that calls the sprint "the sprint race" [2] Cerebral726 (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Island92: we aren't throwing the official schedule. We are simply pointing out that the official terminology is vague and open to misintrepetation - and therefore we should probably deal with that. SSSB (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Leclerc demoted

It seems Leclerc has been demoted from 7th place in the sprint, & this has been shown on the main page in "Results & standings", but not here. I don't know what the demotion was but possibly a 5 second time penalty? I'm sure someone will tidy it up in due course when things are clearer.. Mickey Smiths (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

..& they did Mickey Smiths (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Section about Heat Exhaustion Issues

Where would a section about the issues from Heat Exhaustion and Dehydration after the Grand Prix be appropriate to put on the page? AddInfinty (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If sources exist for it, yes. SSSB (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hulkenberg started race from incorrect grid spot

As Hulkenberg erroneously began the race from Sainz's vacant 12th grid spot, instead of the 14th grid spot he qualified in, should the starting grid column be corrected to show this? Jamisram (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No, because his starting position was 14th. He then got penalised for starting outside of this. SSSB (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, now it actually wasn’t. He actually started from twelth position, not fourteenth. Our race results tables actually always reflect actual starting positions. Tvx1 13:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

' 24.210.72.37 (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Unverifiable information

@Island92: Please revert yourself. Per WP:V, Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. That content has been challenged multiple times, not only by myself. It currently is citing a source that shows two separate distances, and violates WP:SYNTH as nowhere does it state that a change was made. If there exists a source that explicitly states a change, you need to WP:PROVEIT, or you need to delete. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The source you just added is just the same graphic from the self-conflicting source, and does not state there was a change. Still violates WP:SYNTH and needs to be deleted or backed up with a better source. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

One moment. How can you assume there was not a change? Look at the drs detection poin on 2021 track and then on 2023 track. Are they both in the same position? No. It's a change as it was the case for the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix and many other events of 2022. Island92 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It certainly appears there was a change, but it is also distinctly possible there is an error. The official formula1 page on the race is self-conflicting, and the only sources you have is violating WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia guidelines exists for a reason, and if you can't find a source that actually states there was a change, then you need to remove the content until such a source exists. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

And let me find this source which explains there was a change. For the time being to me is visible comparing the two tracks data because maybe I take care of tracks details. Removing the information at all is not a good solution. The change is there, a better source is just needed. Island92 (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If a source exists WP:PROVEIT. I have looked, and wasn't able to find one. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I did my due diligence before deleting. As it stand now, you are edit warring and violating WP:SYNTH and WP:V. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those track images do not say there was a change, obviously, but comparing both track data points a difference is noticed. Island92 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That is definitionally WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research.. You are synthesizing two sources to come to a conclusion that neither of them state. I will also point out that the Race Director's notes found here do not mention a change. There is reasonable doubt and you have yet to provide a source that directly supports the material. I again ask you to remove it. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I will not remove it as I did not do it with the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix. Race director recognised the track as "new" from 2021. In any case, in those documents DRS points variations are not reported. Doubt is just being created by yourself because you are too focused on following policy (which is a good thing though, but not too much depended on it). Compare both images (everyone can do that if looking for the change mentioned) and the difference change is noted and the doubt disappears. Island92 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Had there been a change in the DRS zone (for example shortening it) a source would have been more easily found. This is a slightly different case and sources reporting the move of the DRS activation point are never documented. Island92 (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have decided to post to WP:NORN to get further opinions, especially since you seem to believe you have a right to ignore Wikipedia's policy whenever it suits you. You'll notice on the numerous occasions above that you have thought it was acceptable to ignore these guidelines, other editors agreed they should be followed. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@GraziePrego and SSSB: No response from my posting to WP:NORN, and it seems the board is not particularly active. Happen to have any thoughts on the discussion above? Cerebral726 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have had this discussion with @Island92: multiple times. Unless a single source talks about the DRS moving, it fails WP:OR. Comparing two images to reach a conclusion stated by neither is WP:SYNTH. This claim need to be properly cited or removed. The same is true for all other articles where we are comparing two sources (usually the old track map and a new one) to support the claim that DRS moved - remove the improperly cited claims when you see them. SSSB (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but whether you back it up or not it's in any case a change from the previous track data. How was this change made? Look at the source reporting track data and it's noted. This is the only proper thing to do and the proper source is only track images, because the online source stating the "DRS was moved" is unfindable, unfortunately. Island92 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what is WP:VERIFIABLE, not what is the WP:TRUTH. If a single source showed the move using a diagram, that would also be fine. But using two sources and drawing your own conclusions is unacceptable. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

To me it's a change! And not only for me! And that's why the information should be present in any case. This is the first time no external website took care of this detail by writing a piece of news reporting "the drs activation point was moved...", source which I would have added once found. Was it not found? Use track images source where the change is detailed because the point is not located in the same place as 2021! You could not wait to remove it. Island92 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree it appears there was a change, but we are unable to verify it with a reliable source. What would I be waiting for? There is consensus the inclusion of the information as sourced is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and no RS has been found. Wikipedia has a higher standard than something just being true, well summarized at WP:TRUTH. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be too set in your ways, very much depended on policies. Be open sometimes. The reliable source exists, you just don't want to make it happen because policies are rules written on stones in your opinion. Click on the track map source and it will tell you what there is in the text. We don't necessarily need written sources. What does happen when you report a goalscorer in a football match? Name player and when the goal minute was scored, as said in the link report. Written source? No. What am I saying here? DRS detection point being positioned 40 m after turn 15. What does the track img source say? DRS detection point 40 m after turn 15 and clearly moved because in 2021 it was 125 m before turn 16 as reported. We are talking about the same thing. This was my last comment because I've enough of it. Going on is just dealing with a wall. Island92 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not open to violating one of Wikipedia's core WP:POLICIES, WP:Verifiability, and will continue to be inflexible on the subject, as it is a non-negotiable to contributing to Wikipedia. I am very open to flexibility on other aspects of Wikipedia guidelines, when an adequate reason is presented. You'll find that everyone of our policy-based discussions has ended in consensus on the side of the change I was trying to make. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

To me it's a change! what you think is irrelevant.

This is the first time no external website took care of this detail by writing a piece of news reporting "the drs activation point was moved...", source which I would have added once found. - its not the first time. This is the case most of the time. The fact that no news sources has picked this up is usually because they think it is an irrelevant trivial detail, not worthy of mention. Really, we should be following their lead - like I said, what you think is irrelevant, we follow the sources and no source can be provided to prove this change (unless we delve into WP:OR). SSSB (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)