Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

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

• Is there a workable solution? Do you have a macro to automate this? Namelessposter (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Not presently, although it cannot be too hard to run a search-and-replace on the instances of each constructor being mentioned. If not, just change our approach going forward and make changes when noted. MB2437 02:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I can run a WP:AWB that should tackle it all. SSSB (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Are you sure you are right about this? I’m not convinced that the two parts are actually full separate components here. The constructor name is one sole thing here. And there have been cases in the past were a constructor used more than one engine manufacturer during the season and and as such were classified seperately and thus the engine part in the name acted as a modifier. Tvx1 12:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it is compounding two separate elements. The chassis name would be the modifier in that format. If it were two compounded names to a chassis/engine, such as Mugen-Honda, then I believe it would be hyphenated. MB2437 12:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  How is it compounding two separate elements? It isn’t just because you say so. Constructor names are one entity. And in case like when Brabham-Honda and Brabham-Ford happened in one same season, the engine part is quite certainly the modifier. Tvx1 15:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I would hardly say McLaren and Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains are one entity. MB2437 16:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  They are two separate companies, sure. But Tvx1 raises an interesting point: are they legally considered as one entity vis-a-vis their entry into the World Championship? SSSB (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  They are definitely one entity as a constructor. Hence why there have been examples in the fast of more than one constructor with the same chassis manufacturer, buth different engine supplier, having been classified in the same championship. Tvx1 13:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  The F1 regulations are ambiguous on this point: they say “if the F1 Team fits a Power Unit that it does not manufacture, the F1 Car name must be the combination of the F1 Team’s name and the Power Unit Manufacturer’s name, subject to any changes made for branding purposes, with the former always preceding the latter.” This could cut both ways—is the unit in question the “F1 Car” or the combination of the “F1 Team” and the “Power Unit Manufacturer”? “Subject to any changes made for branding purposes” sounds like a rule to permit “RBR-Tag Heuer” but Tag Heuer is also a separate entity. In any event I don’t want to overthink this. Namelessposter (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Of the examples listed in the MOS, I'd say Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities covers it. Minneapolis–Saint Paul is a single legal entity with two independent constituents (such as a chassis and engine), where Wilkes-Barre is simply a single entity with no components (Wilkes and Barre are not part of the city). MB2437 14:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note I have notified WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors of this discussion here. MB2437 21:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

I think this would be an entirely pointless exercise. This is a complete non issue. When is there ever going to be an "accidental mishap" SSSB (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

fair point to be honest, but who knows F1fan00 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

With only three letters there are always going to be some abbreviations that are quite similar. I don't think readers are particularly likely to get "TUS" and "TUR" confused, especially if one appears next to an Italian flag and one appears next to a Turkish flag (provided alt text is working on the flagicons, at least). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

while that is true, if flagicons aren't used (e.g. Results on the page of a driver and/or team for 2020, it could get confused, but i see your point F1fan00 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the others that there is very little chance of confusing the two. However, on a related note, something I have thought for a while is that Monaco should be MCO (which is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 designation) instead of MON, which can easily be confused for Monza. Jestal50 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

"MON" was the preferred choice back in 2007 and another editor also expressed a preference for "MON" in 2021. DH85868993 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

but in F2, Monaco is MCO, and Monza is MNZ, and while the Monza GP doesn't exist, Monaco does, and it could be confused, i think we should do a new vote to decide, somebody make the tables that i usually see with these scenarios, and we will revisit this on Feb 28th? that way we have just over 3 weeks to mull this over, to confirm, the 2 options are:

MCO (proposed)

MON (current)

We will revisit this at a later date F1fan00 (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I dare say it should be F2 that should change if consistency is desired, rather than F1. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

wouldn't make as much sense doing it to F2, becuase Monaco and Monza are round names, hence the MCO and MNZ, it should be Formula 1 that follows it, so less confusion is caused F1fan00 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I thinking changing it would cause more confusion. Also, what F2 do is irrelevant. F2 rounds are named after venues, ours are named after the event. So arguing we should match F2 is an arguement of irrelvancies. We are never going to use MNZ for the Italian Grand Prix. Claiming potential confusion with Morroco is even more ridiculous. And despite MCO being the ISO code, you cannot possible try to argue that MON is perfectly reasonable and probably a more obvious reference to MON (unless you happen to be unusually well versed in ISO codes). SSSB (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

fair point, but i feel we do need some way of getting some extra buffer room, besides, by that logic, Bahrain should be BRN instead of the current BHR, Saudi should be KSA instead of SAU, MAS for Malaysia instead of MAL, MAR for Morroco instead of MOR (which already is too close to either iteration of the Malaysian Abbreviation) and SGP for Singapore instead of SIN. The argument that we should use IOC codes contradicts the current usage, and MCO has always been the ISO code for Monaco, this also allows wiggle room on the unlikely but possible chance of if a 2020 situation was to occur (yes, very very unlikely but) and FOM decides to go for 2 at Monza, this will help significantly since the code for Monaco would be MCO, which would prevent confusion with Monza, while this scenario may never happen, I would say we go off what is the more used 'trend' of using ISO codes, such as MCO. Sorry if it sounds like me rambling, just trying to get my point across. F1fan00 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I just realised I made a typo. I should have said "...you cannot possible try to argue that MON not is perfectly reasonable and probably a more obvious reference to monaco. I honestly think you have invented a problem where none exists. I see no evidence that people are confused. I see no benefit to changing any of our abbreviations. I see only an incredible inconvenience to the person who has to change them. And the arguement that MAR is too close to MAL or MAS is ludicrous. R doesn't look like L or S. And MAR is clearly not Malaysia. And MAL and MAS clearly not Morocco. SSSB (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

MON is the IOC code for Monaco, and the IOC codes are the most widely used ones in sports. No need to change. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

but not always, and as seen here, IOC codes aren't always used, mainly bc F1 isn't affiliated with the Olympics F1fan00 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

F1fan00 (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Reason for change proposal:

MCO is the ISO Code for Monaco

MCO is used for the F2 & F3 rounds of the same name (also uses the Monaco name)

To prevent any potential confusion with Monza

To prevent any confusing with Morroco (MOR)

MCO is the better one overall due to being more unique which means a lower chance of something having a similar abbreviation to MCO compared to MON

tell me if you are for, against or abstain from this and I will edit the table according this

This will be revisited on February 28th 2026 F1fan00 (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't get to decide when a subject will be "revisited", that's not how discussions on Wikipedia work. Nor is this an exercise in vote-counting, decisions here are made on policy and with the goal of consensus. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

ah k, sorry about that F1fan00 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

i'll remove them but if possible i'll keep the table, just to see who is for and against if thats ok F1fan00 (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You should also usually avoid editing a comment that others have replied to. In this case I have restored the two lines you removed and struck out that text. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

ahhhhhhh, thanks for letting me now, i'll take that into account in future F1fan00 (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing confusing between single letters being different. Nobody will read "TUS" and think it means Turkey, nor will they read "MON" and think it means Morocco; it is a non-issue. The only concern I see with "MON" is that it could be confused for Montenegro or Mongolia, both of which are not applicable in the context. The only way this becomes a real issue is if the Italian Grand Prix is renamed. I feel that "MCO" would be ideal, but it is not confusing enough to warrant a change. MB2437 20:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

fair point, to be honest, the Tuscany-Turkiye situation has been dropped but i see your point for Monaco, i also feel it would be ideal for MCO to be the abbreviation, especially if Monza has a Sao Paulo or Mexico City GP situation F1fan00 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If Monza has a mexico city or sao Paulo situation we could use MNZ. Worst case scenario we can change abbreviations then. But going into hypotheticals is ridiculous, because I can invent a GP name. I can easily see a world like in Nascar where the commonname of an event is a sponsership. SSSB (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

and in F2, it is MCO for Monaco and MNZ for Monza, so if a Monza GP does happen, we would be able to use F2 abbreviations to prevent confusion, and yeh, i see your point with my hypotheticals there F1fan00 (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

To me, it would make maximum sense to use TOS for Tuscany (Toscana). But I guess it is fully irrelevant anyhow. Heck, we could even use TÜR for Turkey to make it ultra ultra clear and to please Turkish nationalists.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I see your point there, but I am unsure whether non-standard characters such as ü, ä, ö, etc. should be used, i don't think this WikiProject would allow it tbh F1fan00 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

We use NÜR in WP:MOTORSPORT for the Nürburgring. The issue is that Türkiye is not the common name in English. MB2437 23:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

we do? Could you show me which article NÜR is used? F1fan00 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Not hard to find a season/driver/team article involving the Nürburgring. MB2437 23:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

but normally, it would and should use the current abbreviation of GER, EUR, LUX or EIF, depending on which year we are talking about, right? F1fan00 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hence why I said WP:MOTORSPORT, not WP:F1. MB2437 23:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

oh ok, now I see, but still, in WP:F1, the quote, unquote 'special characters' are not used for Abbreviations, unless it comes to it needing to if there was to be, say, a race under the name of the Nürburg GP, but yeh, it's all to be decided tbh F1fan00 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm planning to update {{F1estat}} for the new season sometime soon. Which begs the question - should we aggregate the statistics of this year's "Red Bull Ford" power units with those of the "Red Bull Powertrains (RBPT)" power units of 2022, e.g. will the 2026 Australian Grand Prix be "Red Bull Ford"s first race or "Red Bull Powertrains"' 23rd race? Noting that the Red Bull Ford DM01 engine is described at Red Bull Powertrains#DM01, but "Red Bull Powertrains" and "Red Bull Ford" have separate entries at List of Formula One engine manufacturers#Engine manufacturers. DH85868993 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

As someone who thinks Tag Heuer (RBR era, not McLaren era) and Mecachrome should be folded into Renault, and “Honda RBPT” is not a standalone thing, I think I’m going to sit this one out. I am quite far off from the consensus and I would likely drag the discussion into weird places. Namelessposter (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The 01 in the engine designation suggests it is the first of a new manufacturer. Tvx1 16:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Good point. For maximum flexibility, I'll create a new entry for "Red Bull Ford" and if we subsequently decide to aggregate the stats, we can just write {{F1estat|RBP|xxx}}+{{F1estat|RBF|xxx}} where appropriate (in the same way we added "Stake F1 Team"s stats to Sauber's stats in various places). DH85868993 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

There is also the argument that RBPT did not develop the 2022–2024 engines, just maintain them. If anything, they should be folded under Honda, although I imagine this was discussed before. MB2437 22:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

During the most recent spate of vandalism on Nicholas Latifi, I collected a list of F1 driver page protections to identify precedents in case I needed to bring it to WP:RFPP down the road. I expanded the list into a table in one of my sandboxes, but I'm happy to relocate it somewhere more stable if anyone prefers. The link is at User:Namelessposter/sandbox4 and I'd appreciate any advice or comments.

A few notes:

• To be honest, it seems that only current WDCs, "big four" drivers, Latifi, and Stroll actually need long-term protection.
• Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hamilton, Verstappen, Alonso, and (why?) Piastri all have indefinite protections.
• Russell and Latifi are at 3 years.
• Leclerc's 1-year protection expires this August. At which point it will probably get extended to 3 years within a month.
• No protection for Antonelli or Hadjar. Any bets on how long that lasts?

Namelessposter (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to the vocabulary and names in the area. I started this page and GalacticVelocity08 expanded it (and pointed me to this talk page). I would appreciate if you could expand it in next 1-2 days:

• n:Formula 1 season opens at Australian Grand Prix
• n.b. docs: 'inverted pyramid' article structure at the site

Possibly CC Island92 and DH85868993 as edited some page here about related topic.

Many thanks.

Regards, Gryllida 03:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Should probably establish some convention over the presentation of drop rounds in the results tables. The points system section in almost all seasons that use drop rounds states "Numbers without parentheses are championship points; numbers in parentheses are total points scored.", however a significant amount of articles had mouse-overs telling the total points. Mouse-overs are useful for providing context for tables, but the importance of drop rounds in the first 40 years of Formula 1 should really be demonstrated, especially when they have decided the results of a championship more than once. In many cases, the tables themselves had a footnote making the same statement while not actually showing total points in parentheses. I've gone through and made changes to all the Season pages through the 1980s, but I feel a convention should be established so that the information can be clearly conveyed.

Additionally, I've noticed a lot of older seasons use Template:F1 driver results legend 4 when most modern seasons, including the current season, use Template:F1 driver results legend 6. The WikiProject page points to the former in its templates section, but most use the latter now.

Many thanks, Monocles (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Adam Parr article. DrThneed (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)