Jump to content

Talk:Max Verstappen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split (2023)[edit]

Split Max Verstappen into Max Verstappen and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen. As the driver with the 5th most wins of all time, above Ayrton Senna, well on the way to becoming an all-time great, I feel its only right that he gets a win list article of his own. There's already a detailed draft at Draft:List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen. I understand that the creation of this article has been requested and denied multiple times in the past, but a lot has changed. A third consecutive championship is almost certain following a record-breaking 10-race win-streak, and he is rapidly approaching 50 wins. If agreed, I cannot do the split. MaxLikesStuff (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has been demonstrated very clearly through a number of deletion discussions that this topic does not satisfy Wikipedia:LISTN. Amount wins or world titles is irrelevant, and he hasn’t done anything that no-one did before on those subjects. Tvx1 10:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but if amount of wins and championships are irrelevant and "he hasn’t done anything that no-one did before on those subjects" then why does someone like Sebastian Vettel have his own list of wins? He wasn't the first person to get 53 wins, he wasn't the first person to win 4 WDC, he wasn't the first person to win 13 races in a season, etc. He WAS the first person to win 9 races in a row, but Max Verstappen beat that recently.
And if stats DO matter, Ayrton Senna has his own list, yet he has 7 less wins than Verstappen right now.
We're talking about a guy (Verstappen) that is being talked as one of the greatest of all time and the best talent on the grid by many journalists and old F1 drivers for the last years, yet he doesn't have a list? It makes absolutely no sense and no offense, but I'm very sure you do not watch F1 if you don't consider Verstappen relevant enough for a list of wins. 181.22.153.220 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone just boldly created these and no-one bothered to have them deleted (yet). People don’t “deserve” these articles on achievement. The subject needs to adhere to our notability guidelines and this just doesn’t. That was discussed multiple times and this article was deleted just as often. Also see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Tvx1 08:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support the split. Having read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd say that is hilariosly inapplicable. It would be applicable against arguments like 'a list of American Idol winners exists'. "Boldly created" and "not deleted (yet)" is equally inapplicable: HAM's and VET's pages are 6 years old, Schumi's page is 9 years old, and the pages for Prost and Senna are 4 and 8 years old, respectively. If notability was half an issue, those pages would have been lone gone by now. Then, there is tons of articles about VER's dominance and the discussion of some or all of his victories as a group (just a random example. You want a hundred more, no problem and you know it) qualifies the list page per "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" on said Wikipedia:LISTN. And personally, I find it interesting to know which races or circuits are likely to see records broken the next time MV gets in a car but that's me. Finally, I do find it astounding that 'crashstappen' as a redirect is considered notable and this isn't, and I'm not at all certain the opposition to the split isn't partial for some reason.LRataplan (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have little understanding of these guidelines. Redirects don’t have anything to do with notability. Besides, you can nominate everything for deletion that you believe shouldn’t exist Tvx1 23:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't get is what is the criteria to create or not create such pages. If Hamilton/Vettel/Schumacher/Senna etc have their separate articles with wins, why shouldn't Verstappen? You say there isn't an understanding of these guidelines, so I would like a clarification for what exactly the guidelines are. Doesn't seem to be a very clear distinction. SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to the split, and delete the other articles listing wins. There's no objective criteria regarding which drivers should get lists of wins and which shouldn't. Such glory pages are way beyond the remit of an encyclopedia: there are dozens of crappy low-rent websites for this stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, this is encyclopedic content that should be covered by WP. The fact that other websites already cover the subject is irrelevant. Aparecidas (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not irrelevant. It seems you don’t understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not. It certainly isn’t a fansite.Tvx1 22:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No to the split. While his accomplishments are many, by themselves, they do not warrant a split and it does not seem to follow what is being done for other drivers like him. For these reasons, I do not support the request for a split. Jurisdicta (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "it does not seem to follow what is being done for other drivers like him"? There are already similar lists for Prost, Senna, Hamilton and Schumacher. Aparecidas (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of which should probably be deleted per consensus. Stop mentioning WP:OTHERSTUFF. Tvx1 22:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to the split because it is a notable subject. Existing lists for other drivers' wins are all featured lists. "Featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists on the English Wikipedia" so it is nonsense to claim that these existing lists should be deleted, you don't delete the best content of this encyclopedia. Aparecidas (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose to decide which drivers should have a glory page list of wins and who shouldn't? What about Alonso, Lauda, Piquet, Fangio, Clark etc? Also, literally every scrap of the information in this "best content" is already available in other articles, so how on earth this stuff got to featured status is beyond me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there is no consensus on the notability of cross-categorization lists (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Notability). As a general rule we can say that a list of wins is useful. If the list if shorter than 40 wins it can be kept in the driver's page. If longer than 40 wins it should be split to avoid long articles in accordance to WP:SIZESPLIT. Aparecidas (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don’t understand the guidelines you cite. A list of 40 items does not warrant a split in any conceivable way. Tvx1 22:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s not a notable subject. Full lists of wins are rarely discussed in the sources. I honestly do not know what I have to do to get this through to you.Tvx1 22:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We always have to apply the guidelines. Just show us the guidelines explaining that the list is not notable, it's as simple as that. Aparecidas (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Show us the guideline or consensus that says 40 wins is the cut-off? Why not 35, or 30, or 25? Fangio won nearly half his WC GPs yet doesn't qualify? Clark won more than 1 in 3 of his GPs. Both have a better win ratio than Verstappen, yet are apparently unworthy? Give me something that suggests you're not just making it up as you go along. Also WP:SIZESPLIT is the wrong idea, because an article's size will not always correspond to the number of wins a driver has. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, forget about the 40 wins. Still, it would be valuable and useful to have a list of wins for Fangio and Clark and other notable drivers, this is encyclopedic content. And you are absolutely right, the decision to keep such lists in the main article or to split should depend on the article's size and not the length of the list, sorry for the confusion. Aparecidas (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that none of these driver articles actually include such lists, don’t you? The contest that you want to split off isn’t even here. And you know why? Because these detailed lists of wins are JUST NOT NOTABLE. Things like victory margins are just not important. The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN. That was actually established through an AFD. His number of wins was NEVER the argument.Tvx1 23:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max was born in Belgium, yet he's listed as Dutch-Belgian.[edit]

This should probably be fixed ;) 31.50.88.113 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean; in the opening paragraph he is stated to be Belgian-Dutch. Pyrope 20:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Max has both the Dutch and Belgian nationality (("Dit is waarom Max Verstappen niet onder de Belgische vlag rijdt"., "Max Verstappen: Nederlands paspoort aangevraagd op 18-jarige leeftijd".) On his 18th birthday, he officially filed for Dutch citizenship but technically, he has had both nationalities since birth ("Verstappen over Vlaamse nationaliteit: Ik ben trots om beide nationaliteiten te hebben"., "'Belg' Verstappen vroeg direct toen hij achttien jaar werd Nederlands paspoort aan".) However, he races under the Dutch flag exclusively. In my opinion, that makes him a Dutch driver who also happens to have some Belgian paperwork but I disengaged from that discussion a long time ago. Dutch-Belgian it is.
As for the place of birth: both The Netherlands and Belgium have ius sanguinis, meaning the nationality of the parents decides the nationality of the child. Verstappen has a Dutch father and a Belgian mother. In countries like the USA, the rule is ius solis, meaning that being born in that country gets you that nationality. This does not apply to Max. LRataplan (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using the normal convention of 'adjective-substantive' (e.g. Irish-American) the current form of words does conform to the "Dutch driver who also happens to have some Belgian paperwork" model. No? Pyrope 19:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Belgium uses both jus sangiunis and jus soli. Tvx1 10:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Max Verstappen identifies as Dutch, he has stated in several publications. Therefore calling him Dutch-Belgian would seem more appropriate to me than the current 'Belgian and Dutch'. The latter seems to suggest he is more Belgian than Dutch, which is not the case. Similarly, Lando Norris is called 'British and Belgian', which does justice to the fact that Norris identifies more as a Briton than as a Belgian citizen. Jeroen1961 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The order in which nationalities appear in an article has nothing to do with the personal order of importance they have for the subject. Your just reading to much into things. Tvx1 08:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what is the order supposed to be based on? It clearly isn't alfabetical, nor importance as you say. At the moment of speaking, Max does not even have a Belgian passport and hasn't for multiple years (as he wouldn't be allowed to under Dutch law, and as far as I know neither would he under Belgian law). Ouroboros777 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? B comes ahead of D in the Latin alphabet that our language uses, so this looks very much alphabetical to me. And why on earth would he not be allowed to have a Belgian passport?? He was born and declared in Belgium to a Belgian parent. He has every right to their passport, that’s how birth right works. Dutch nationality law doesn’t even matter because that has no saying about the issuing of Belgian passport. And this isn’t even relevant, because holding a valid travel document booklet is not required to have that nationality. Looks like you actually don’t know those laws that well.Tvx1 21:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lando Norris is stated to be British and Belgian, as far as I know E comes ahead of R in that same alphabet that you are talking about, so if it is alphabetical, that should list Belgian first as well.
According to Dutch law, if you get Dutch nationality you must relinquish your old nationality if that is possible. Birth right might change that normally, but he requested Dutch nationality aged 18, as is stated here [1]https://www.nu.nl/formule-1/6221291/belg-verstappen-vroeg-direct-toen-hij-achttien-jaar-werd-nederlands-paspoort-aan.html. In a case like that (i.e. a case where he didn't have both to start with), he would be forced to give up his Belgian nationality in order to get the Dutch equivalent. As Belgian law lets him (some countries don't allow you to relinquish your nationality), he is very unlikely to still have Belgian nationality. Ouroboros777 (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn’t a case of not having both to start with. He WAS quite patently born with both, because his parents each have one of his nationalities and the legal status of their relationship when he was born meant he automatically received these two nationalities. He quite patently was already Dutch prior to turning eightteen, because he already raced in F1 under that nationality when he was seventeen. So what he acquired when he was eightteen was most definitely NOT a nationality. Acquiring a passport≠acquiring a nationality.A passport is nothing but a travel document. It’s not a requisite for having a nationaility. Not in his countries at least. I myself don’t have a valid passport at this time, yet a very much still have my nationality and my citizenship. This is because I live in the EU and you only need a passport if you leave that EU, which I rarely do. I think I had to acquire a passport three seperate times already during my life, but I didn’t acquire that nationality each time. There is no legal reason whatsoever why Verstappen wouldn’t be Belgian anymore. Heck, the source you cited actually refers to his dual nationalities multiple times and quotes him directly stating how happy he is with both of his nationalities.Tvx1 16:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Belgian-Dutch would be the most accurate way to describe him. It's true he passes as both Belgian and Dutch, however Max himself has said he feels more Dutch as he grew up around Dutch people and went to school in the Netherlands, and living near the border, he only came back to his home in Belgium to sleep. Similar to how a person with Chinese parents born and raised in San Francisco would be Chinese American, Max Verstappen is Belgian-Dutch. The first person is American, and Max is Dutch, but the first descriptor provides clarity on what kind of Dutch/American/etc. person you are. Verstappen is Dutch - Belgian Dutch to be exact. Therefore, I propose the opening to his article be reverted back to Belgian-Dutch. SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2024[edit]

Can Max‘s photograph please be updated to something from 2024? The photo currently being used on his profile is from 2017 and very outdated. 2A02:C7C:2F39:1000:E81F:ADF9:5BFD:FE20 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. PianoDan (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024[edit]

To add on to the '2024 season' under the Formula One career section:

Change this:

2024 season Verstappen began the 2024 season with his fifth career grand slam at the Bahrain Grand Prix and followed this with another pole and victory at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. He took pole again at the Australian Grand Prix but was forced into retirement with a brake fire, ending his nine-race winning streak and marking his first retirement in two years.[255]

To this:

2024 season Verstappen began the 2024 season with his fifth career grand slam at the Bahrain Grand Prix and followed this with another pole and victory at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. He took pole again at the Australian Grand Prix but was forced into retirement with a brake fire, ending his nine-race winning streak and marking his first retirement in two years. Verstappen continued to dominate at the next race, the Japanese Grand Prix, with a pole and victory. 116.14.76.213 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why update photo?[edit]

This one is from 2017 109.38.134.1 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When update his photo?[edit]

This one is from 2017! 109.38.134.1 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024[edit]

Last win: switch to "2024 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix" from "2024 Chinese Grand Prix" Mkucherenko (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DH85868993 (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wins Discussion (2024)[edit]

This discussion will surround multiple articles and rules regarding lists, and list sensibilities. This is a long read and focuses on the disagreements with the denied split by one user, Tvx1, whom I previously tried to reach out to. Unfortunately, due to no reply, I wanted to lay the case down here regarding list notabilities and the split to draft list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen

User Tvx1 asserts a consensus has been reached that the draft list is not notable, however, whilst not wishing to use WP:OTHERSTUFF , there is a strong precedent for this type of list for Formula 1 drivers as 5 drivers of similar notability have featured lists in this format. If not for the pattern of featured lists here then I would not write, however, due to this I believe that Tvx1 is wrongly asserting there is a consensus against such articles. Aside from Tvx1 and user Bretonbanquet whom have strong dissent, this has featured list precedent and seemingly a consensus in favour of this submission on the 2023 split discussion. Tvx1 has a history of being overruled for their opinions on such lists, as evidenced in the talk pages for the featured lists for existing F1 driver wins (and some history of accepted deletion requests). It is worth noting that historically these list pages existed for the top 5 drivers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_winners , however now only one of the top 6 does not have such a list: that being Verstappen.

Previously, the top 5 drivers by wins all had lists of their wins, and whilst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Damon_Hill (a Tvx1 request) is clear that less notable drivers (of whom in this list only one is in the top 10) do not deserve such lists, sitting at third in all time wins it becomes harder to accept this argument and it is implied from Tvx1's logic in this request being limited to just these lists that the other more notable lists listed below of top 5 drivers are notable. A similar argument was made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen on the original deletion. However, a WP:CRUFT argument is made here which is an argument to apply to all such lists hence if this fails for fancruft, I believe an AfD should be created to delete all below for the same to bring consistency to the group.

Tvx1 also advocated for deleting these featured lists, and whilst I disagree with these being facruft and believe them to be notable, I do agree that there should be a consensus on the lists as a group and a clear definition of what counts as notable in Formula 1 listings. Personally I believe that Senna's 41 wins are often discussed as a benchmark set of wins, with the notable moment of Schumacher crying when asked about how he compares to them, and the article for deletion of the Senna list strongly agrees. As such my proposal is that with this discussion we set the notability criteria to be 41 or more wins where the wins have at least 2 articles discussing them as a group using the Ayrton Senna list as the benchmark. This creates a clear benchmark for notability for any future discussions and will keep the lists consistent without over spilling into non-notable drivers, and would include this Verstappen draft.

I will add, I believe at now 60, the list of wins for Verstappen is unwieldy to look through on his racing record and at 3rd of all time and as of writing this, and also in newspaper headlines globally for winning, I believe this is a notable article for both all time achievement and current cultural zeitgeist. The draft article is regularly updated and maintained like an active list with user Tvx1 still contributing to keeping it of a high standard. If this draft is never to be published this is immense wasted effort for all involved, as such I am re-opening this discussion with the intent to get a definitive answer, establish a proposal of notability criteria, and propose for deletions all articles and drafts which are considered not notable as any inconsistency could become perceived as a dislike or favour for one particular driver over another if a driver with 10 wins had a list and a driver with 100 did not.

For notability of Verstappen's wins as a set, I present the following articles from racing related media to add to the existing draft which has its own source. https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/235892/how-many-wins-does-max-verstappen-have-in-formula-1.html https://www.topgear.com/car-news/formula-one/max-verstappens-top-10-f1-wins-so-far https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/ranking-verstappens-10-f1-wins-so-far/ https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/21/max-verstappen-dismisses-boring-label-after-red-bull-f1-dominance https://www.espn.co.uk/racing/story/_/id/39974862/who-test-max-verstappen-f1-dominance-chinese-gp-win https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/oct/08/max-verstappen-rewrites-rules-of-f1-dominance-in-cruise-to-third-title

Whilst I don't believe these are the worlds highest quality sources (although The Guardian is a newspaper of record), as part of defining criteria I propose we also define what articles count when discussing wins as a grouping for notability - of the sources in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton#Bibliography none are explicitly about the wins as a grouping so this should be considered also for updates with more sources (and considering the notability of Hamilton, should these lists remain, this list I would expect is a gold standard as a featured list)

This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this is an argument of notability and fancruft and my inclusion of these other articles and discussions serves to bring those new to this discussion the previous discussions about these lists. Whilst I do not know if there is a larger motorsport or Formula 1 project to cross post to, I believe this should be considered a discussion on all such lists and if possible linked to there.

Finally for this Verstappen article WP:SIZESPLIT implies the need for a split, which can be done in this split by moving some discussion of his wins over to the list and WP:LISTN states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

So here is my attempt to get us to find a consensus on the grouping itself. Please discuss if the GROUPING (List of wins by driver) is notable, and if so what should be the notability criteria. Once you have proposed these, then discuss if this split should go ahead based on your opinions and let us try and reach consensus to delete such articles or keep them.

The featured lists of all other drivers above 40 wins for precedent are below, implying a Wiki-wide consensus that such articles are in fact notable and that this denial is worthy of being discussed to find what the notability criteria are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Michael_Schumacher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Alain_Prost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Sebastian_Vettel 86.135.32.32 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Max_Verstappen&oldid=1228278971"