Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

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 {{tq|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)

:It was FORCE who designed and built the cars, not Lola. Carl Haas, the team owner, was the American importer of Lola Cars and that's why it was named. The Lola Cars wikipedia page even states this. Lola effectively is a sponsor rather than a constructor. --Falcadore (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

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 {{ping|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)

{{od|:::::::}} 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)

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

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:

• [https://www.formula1.com/en/results/2025/races/1254/australia/race-result The Australian GP race result at formula1.com] shows the result as "DNF", as does
• [https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2025_australian_grand_prix_-_final_race_classification.pdf the FIA race classification], but
• [https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/gp/nombre.aspx 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 [https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/database/races/2025-australian-grand-prix/ Motor Sport magazine database] and [https://motorsportstats.com/driver/isack-hadjar/summary/series/fia-formula-one-world-championship 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, [https://www.chicanef1.com/class.pl?year=2025&gp=Australian%20GP&r=1&type=res Chicane F1] lists a DNS, [https://www.grandprix.com/races/australian-gp-2025-race-results.html 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)
• :::*{{tq|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 [https://x.com/visacashapprb/status/1901152951588319440 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 ({{dagger}}), but it was reverted by you. I think we can close this discussion now, since the only one opposing is {{u|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: [https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/13330964/f1-rookies-2025-new-drivers-rollercoaster-australian-gp-after-crashes-isack-hadjar-tears-kimi-antonelli-recovery][https://www.planetf1.com/news/lewis-hamilton-dad-isack-hadjar-what-he-said-australian-gp][https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1065720/1/isack-hadjar-targets-first-f1-points-put-melbourne-misery-behind-him][https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/what-the-teams-said-race-day-in-australia-2025.3rgmndV9TFD1fAoP88lrvz][https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/how-did-hadjar-compare-to-tsunoda-in-first-f1-race-start-at-shanghai/10707177/#:~:text=A%20crash%20on%20the%20formation,a%20week%20later%20in%20China&text=For%20Isack%20Hadjar%2C%20Australia%20doesn't%20count.]. 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.) [https://www.fia.com/contact-0 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: [https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2023_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_2_-_2022-09-30.pdf 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)

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)

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, [https://thethirdturn.com/wiki/Emerson_Fittipaldi/Results/FIA_World_Championship_for_Drivers/1978 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 [https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/december-1979/31/formula-one-scene/ 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)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Notes on season articles when race winner didn't win on track which might interest some editors. SSSB (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)