Talk:Tom Pryce

The Video

Who is this guy on this video: [1] (Pause it at 1:27) Is it Van Vuuren or Pryce? --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 11:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Response : The guy at 1.27 in that video is Pryce.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.30.196 (talk • contribs)

Nationality of UK drivers

There is a discussion on how to represent UK drivers in F1 articles going on at WikiProject Formula One. It looks as if the consensus is going to be to stick with the current agreement, which is that all drivers from the United Kingdom are referred to by their passport nationality of British, both in their articles and in race results. This maintains consistency with the official results and avoids the project having to judge whether or not a particular driver considers themselves to be English, Irish, Welsh or 'independent Truronian'. Birthplace and place of residence will of course be included in the article as well.

Editors who have an objection to this are encouraged to raise theirs views over at WP:F1.

Meanwhile I'm going to leave this article as it is until the 7 December before changing it to whatever the final consensus is. Continual back and forth isn't going to get us anywhere. 4u1e 17:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited this article whilst you were writing the above comment, so apologies for that, but surely this is a forgone conclusion? Bretonbanquet 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. However, I wouldn't want to be accused later of having rushed it through without allowing time for anyone to object. It the wider scheme of things it's no problem to wait a few days. Me not reverting this article again is a personal thing. I've got no objection to anyone else doing it - it's just that observation of a recent series of edit wars (guess who!) makes me think that sometimes it's useful to let things cool off a bit! 4u1e 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazon links

Hi. Just a thought, but ought we really to be providing direct links to Amazon pages for reference books? The ISBN system links through to book seller searches, and I don't think that it is Wikipedia's place to be indirectly advertising Amazon's (admittedly first class) service. After all, as the BBC might say, other book traders are available. Pyrope 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been picked up on that one as well at FA review. Apparently we shouldn't link to Amazon - I picked up the habit from other articles, and should now be removing them all. Another task I'm not looking forward to. 4u1e 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Formula One

• In Pre-F1, what series did Pryce first race in? Currently it just says that he won a prize, but not what he was racing. We may need to work on this bit to make it clear and interesting for non-motorsport nuts.
• I'm stumped - what's Formula 100, in this context? 4u1e 07:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers:

• After taking a bit of a read on this part of Tom's career. He "started" his racing career running in a few single races before entering a championship called the "Daily Express Crusader championship, which was ran by Motor Racing Stables (MRS) and open only to teenagers, the cars that they were running in were Lotus 51s. A interesting footnote from the final race was that it was raining, and Jack Pryce (Tom's father) remembered that his son was rubbing his hands with delight at the prospect of racing in the rain.
• Formula 100, or Formula F100, isn't a single seater category. It's a twin seater, sports car event which Pryce won in, what was described by David Tremayne as, "embrassing ease".

I'll have a go at putting this into the article.--Skully Collins ^Edits 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This line needs changing

In 2007, it was annouced that Pryce would have a statue of himself erected in his home town of Ruthin.

Considering that he died in '77, it would be a bit difficult to erect his own statue. Needs to be fixed to mean that the town council (or whatever) is erecting a statue in honor of him. Coradon 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another line is that it says at the bottom part of the section about itself it says that the teenage marshal, van vurden could not be found. this is in correct because on videos you can clearly see van vurden's body, as disturbing as it is summorsulting into the concrete barrier. --leemyster (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Overall this is pretty good, just wondering if there was a way to add the helmet information somewhere into the article, seems somewhat out of place in its own section.--Wizardman 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. I originally had it down under his career section, like I did with Damon Hill's article. I believe Pyrope moved it. Anyway, I'll move the section under his career and thanks for the review, I was personally looking for the words: POV, Weasel Words, etc because this is an article I'm a bit attatched too, if you know what I mean.--Skully Collins ^Edits 16:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I think you id pretty good for prose and style, that didn't seem to be an issue.--Wizardman 14:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternative sources

Skully, A couple of reviewers have raised the question of the reliance this article places on one source. I'm not sure it's really a problem, the source you're using is probably the best one, but I'll try and subsititute some of your references from a review of the 1975 season which I have. My first attempt to do this has raised a couple of points:

1. The article says that Pryce didn't get a DN5 until South Africa in 1975. Typically this contradicts what my source says - although www.oldracingcars.com confirms your version. Can you confirm that TLG says that it was South Africa? Thanks.
2. Does ref 26 (TLG page 158) cover both the RoC result and Pryce being the first Welshman to win an F1 race?

Cheers. Good article, by the way. 4u1e 15 March 2007, 13:00

Thanks for the praise 4u1e. From memory, since I'm currently in college at the moment and don't have TLG with me, I can remember an image caption of the DN3 at the first round of the '75 season which supported the claim that Pryce didn't drive the DN5 until the third round. Curiously though, I do remember reading in the book about a Shadow and the name on the side being: Ronnie Peterson. Perhaps this should belong in the first '75 paragraph, but I'll try and work it into the article once I get the facts right.

What about the second round (Brazil)? The 1975 Motorsport yearbook lists Pryce in a DN5 at that race, although that's contradicted by oldracingcars.com. Apparently Peterson came very close to driving for Shadow at the first race of the '75 season, so I wouldn't be all that surprised to see such a picture. 4u1e 15 March 2007, 15:21

Doug Nye's History of the Grand Prix car (1965 - 1985) also confirms that Pryce drove a DN3 in both South American races. Chassis DN3-3B, which was DN3-3A with some DN5 bits, which may explain the confusion! (p.233-234) 4u1e 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the second claim, I think they can both be covered by a single image caption of Pryce celebrating his win at Brands Hatch. The last part of it read something like, "the first Welshman to win a Formula One event", so I'm guessing that's the same as "an F1 race". Although shouldn't the article say that a Welshman has yet to win an Official Formula One championship race?--Phill ^{talk Edits} 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering whether to reference the race from the book I'm using, which has a short report on the race. I might expand the detail of the race a little, appropriate as it was his only F1 win, and add my ref. I agree, you could mention that a Welshman hasn't yet won in the championship. 4u1e 15 March 2007, 15:21

I've expanded it a little bit and ref'd from another source. 4u1e 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lotus 79 image

I question the inclusion of the Lotus 79 image in this article. Whilst I don't doubt what the caption says, it's a bit of a moot point, isn't it? I mean, given the nature of the accident, Pryce could just as easily have been killed driving a Lotus at Kyalami in '77 as a Shadow, in which case he still would never have driven the Lotus 79. DH85868993 (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point, one I think was raised during one of the reviews. A more appropriate free use picture has become available in the past few days, which could possibly be used to replace it. I see the only free use pic we have of Pryce is already being used in the article. It's either the L79 picture or no picture. AlexJ (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for "no picture". DH85868993 (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; it's pure speculation. Pryce never drove for Lotus, much less in that car. Flanker235 (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. DH85868993 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Token

I'm a bit confused about the 1974 section, specifically about Token. "The team itself was created by Tony Vlassopulos and Ken Grob after the original Token team closed down in 1973 due to a lack of finanicial backing; which lead to the end of the Rondel Racing outfit." was this original Token team an F1 team, and was it related to either Rondel or the new Token team? AlexJ (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A Welsh racing driver

Tom Pryce was a Welsh-speaking Welshman, who drove with a Welsh flag on his helmet. Numerous reliable sources describe him as Welsh e.g. BBC, ITN, Guardian, WalesOnline, Welsh Racing Drivers Association, Tom Pryce Memorial Trust, Classic and Performance Car magazine, Auto Evolution, Formula One, A and Formula 5000 in America.: Race by Race by Wolfgang Klopfer, Racing at Oulton Park in the 1970s by Peter McFadyen and of Formula One: the definitive illustrated guide ... by Bruce Jones, Damon Hill. He should be described here, as he is elsewhere, as a Welsh racing driver, and his nationality in the infobox noted as Welsh. Any objections to making the change? Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes (sorry!). He was undoubtedly Welsh, and the article lead says so clearly as it stands, but the infobox represents the nationality under which a driver officially competed. In Formula One, like the Olympics, but unlike say football, nationality is officially defined at the level of the UK and all home nations drivers are officially recorded as driving for the UK. Look at all F1 footage - Irvine, Coulthard, Hamilton and the rest are all listed in the results as British, and the Union Jack is the flag used for them on the podium. This is a very longstanding and thoroughly tested convention at WP:F1 - if you feel it is wrong you will need to change the consensus there. Regards. 4u1e (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See [2], for example. Several Englishmen, an Ulsterman and a Welshman, all listed as British. 4u1e (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, even though Pryce was undoubtedly a Welshman, the flag raised when he appeared on the podium was the British flag, and the F1 infobox always shows the podium flag. It's the same for Englishman Jenson Button, Scotsman David Coulthard and Ulsterman Eddie Irvine, for example. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the infobox. However, it is disingenuous to say the article lead clearly says he is Welsh. What it says is “Thomas Maldwyn Pryce (11 June 1949 – 5 March 1977) was a British racing driver from Ruthin, Wales.” As you say, he is undoubtedly Welsh. This should be noted in the Lead. As, for example, the article on Jackie Stewart. Daicaregos (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say "he is the only Welsh driver to have won a Formula One race" in the next sentence is pretty unambiguous, so accusations of falsehood on my part are perhaps inappropriate. He was of course also British, so the statement as it stands is not wrong. I do agree that the wording in the first sentence is awkward at best - it was an attempt to avoid the problem when people see Welsh (or Scottish, or whatever) in the lead and a British flag in the infobox. You tend to get an infinite loop of edits as people drive by and try and make them consistent. The wording, which is widely used, was an attempt to have our cake and eat it. That too is the current consensus although a much less strong one and I for one am open to better suggestions. 4u1e (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We had a bad problem of editors often claiming that a driver was specifically "English" or "Scottish" simply based on their birthplace. That not being acceptable or remotely accurate in a lot of cases, the "British driver from X" was our solution, helped by the fact that all drivers are considered British in the eyes of the FIA, the sport's governing body. If any better solution was proposed, I'm the Wikiproject would be open to it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When searching for reliable sources above, I also searched for "Tom Pryce British". Most of the "British" hits related to the British Grand Prix, rather than his nationality, or to lump him in with 'other' British drivers. He is invariably described as Welsh, in newspapers, magazines and books, as well as other sources. It is one of his defining factors. It would be hard to find someone more Welsh than Tom Pryce. The Lead (the beginning of the Introduction) should read "Thomas Maldwyn Pryce (11 June 1949 – 5 March 1977) was a Welsh racing driver from Ruthin, Wales". In my experience, the 'problem' of editors changing nationality is solved by inline references to reliable sources. And in this case, they are plentiful. Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In Pryce's case, I'd be inclined to agree - a really good inline cite after "Welsh" should be enough, leaving the infobox as British. The problem then is avoiding people changing the flag in the infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Good sources for nationality at that level aren't always available, would be my only concern. Obviously in this case, it's not a problem. Your definition of lead is wrong, by the way, it's the whole of the section above the table of contents, not just the first sentence. In any case, thinking of the wider picture, your proposal would be that all home nations F1 drivers would start with the phrase "X is/was a (former) English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish Formula One driver"? Quite a lot of articles already use that formation. Mostly the Scottish ones, as they seem to be most militant over this (personal opinion!). I would like to get a standard wording agreed at WP:F1 however, since it's much easier when we have an agreed line across the whole project. Are you happy with that? 4u1e (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just read the link you provided to lead, 4u1e, and I owe you an apology. Sorry. I was mistaken. If you want to propose an amendment across the WP:F1 along the lines mentioned above I would support it. I have had no previous involvement with project (I arrived here while working on the List of Welsh people article). While I do not agree with it, I understand the rationale for noting British in the infobox. Nevertheless, the intro should be amended here. I understand that consensus at individual articles overrides Wikiprojects. Daicaregos (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not sure whether or not agreement at individual articles does override a more general agreement (but would be really interested in seeing the guidance on it). I'll propose an amendment at WP:F1 and we'll see where it goes. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I read through a couple of the nationality discussions at WP:F1. They appear to relate to infobox content. I propose that no change be made at this time to the infobox, which I understand to be an F1 infobox template. Consequently, agreement at WP:F1 seems unnecessary. Also, as this article is of interest to several Wikiproject groups, WikiProject guideline, particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Inter-WikiProject coordination#WikiProjects do not own articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages may be relevant. Bearing in mind the quality and quantity of reliable sources describing Tom Pryce's Welsh nationality, I propose that the Intro be amended to read "Thomas Maldwyn Pryce (11 June 1949 – 5 March 1977) was a Welsh racing driver from Ruthin, Wales." followed by the Tom Pryce Memorial Trust (which notes his dates and places of birth and death, and his nationality) and BBC (which notes his nationality and place of birth) references. Daicaregos (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that as long as we don't let other articles follow the same route, without references verifying the nationality. In Pryce's case, I think it's fine. I'll leave a note at the F1 WP for anyone who might want to come over here and have their say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. For the sake of good order, I've left an identical note at WT:WALES. Daicaregos (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It has now been over a week since the notes were left. As no objections have been made to the proposal, I have made the changes as agreed. Daicaregos (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "He was a British racing driver from Ruthin, Wales". Kittybrewster ☎ 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? Daicaregos (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is the nationality under which he raced. And I think that is the way we treat UK drivers. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But if he was born in Wales, it would automatically make him Welsh, no? If his parents were Welsh, he self-identified as Welsh, he also had an obvious Welsh surname, then it would look out-of-place to call him British. Would Oscar Wilde ever be called British even though he was technically born under the Union Jack as Ireland was still under British rule then?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jim Clark. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The nationality under which he raced is clear in the F1 infobox. A discussion took place here where an editor suggested a change to the lead sentence and nobody objected. Yes, it is a change from the way we normally treat F1 drivers, but the change was made under the proviso that clear referencing was included, and the infobox flag remained as the British one. However, "if he was born in Wales, it would automatically make him Welsh" is false. Cliff Richard is not Indian. There are endless examples of people born in a country who are not citizens or identifiers of that country. This is why nobody is advocating a blanket change from British to English/Welsh/Scottish etc. Similar changes to the one on this article could be made, with the right discussion and referencing, and providing it's clear that the driver in question self-identified as English/Welsh etc I don't see the problem. Individual discussions should be had at the relevant articles though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You cannot compare Pryce to Cliff Richard. The former was born in Wales to Welsh parents and self-identified as Welsh. Cliff Richard never claimed to be Indian, neither has Julie Christie, who was born in India to English parents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to your sentence "if he was born in Wales, it would automatically make him Welsh". You'll appreciate that many editors will describe an English-born person (for example) as English, regardless of parentage or anything else, based simply on birthplace. It is incorrect. Bretonbanquet (talk)

If you had read my entire commentary you would have seen that I went on to add that his parents were Welsh, he self-identified as Welsh. I don't really think there can be any doubt that Pryce was Welsh.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I did of course read your entire post, and I did make it clear that I was only referring to that sentence and the sentiment within it. If you had read my first post in this discussion, you'd know that I'm well aware that he was a Welshman. Again, I am talking about the wider issue, not about Pryce specifically, and I have never opposed the change that has now been made. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"A Welsh racing driver from Ruthin, Wales"? isn't that like saying "A red chair that is painted red"? Ya's could've decided on "A racing driver from Ruthin, Wales". GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You can be "from" somewhere without being a citizen of that country. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, being from the place he was born, it doesn't read right. British race driver, fitted better with from Ruthin, Wales. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that personally, but others don't like "British racing driver from Wales". We have yet to work out a piece of phrasing that everyone likes... :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"A racing driver from Ruthin, Wales" would suffice. But I reckon it's best to avoid the unionist/devolutionist preferences fights. Anyways, it's up to you Formula 1 editors. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You've touched on it right there! I'm sure you know how ugly those fights can get, usually with very little progress made. Sigh... Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I do. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph says: The opening paragraph should give:

• Name(s) and title(s), if any;
• Nationality;
• What the person did;
• Why the person is significant.

Where a person was born is excluded from the guideline. If editors think “Thomas Maldwyn Pryce (11 June 1949–5 March 1977) was a Welsh racing driver.” scans better, I would support. Daicaregos (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"British race driver born in Ruthin, Wales" is better. But since that's off the table, excluding place of birth would make the intro read better 'then' it currently does. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

British is too vague. It's fine to use for people born in British overseas colonies (to parents who are UK nationals or origin) and Loyalists from Northern Ireland; but in Pryce's case, Welsh specifies his nationality. Wales was his birthplace, and Welsh his ethnicity and the nationality to which he identified. GoodDay, you cannot force people to adopt a nationality or identity based on the passport they just happen to carry. I agree with Daicaregos that the article should read : Thomas Maldwyn Price ..... was a Welsh racing driver.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the ...from Ruthin, Wales is fine with me, as it would read better. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, as agreed. Daicaregos (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A Welsh racing driver (2016)

Transcluded from User talk:Daicaregos

With all due respect, I don't see a clear consensus for using only Welsh in that talk page discussion at all. I see many users disagreeing with your stance. Note that you as the discussion's initiator should never have made an attempt at closing the discussion in your favor. I will post a request to properly close that discussion. Tvx1 13:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please respect WP:BRD. The current text has been stable on this WP:FA since 14 January 2011 and was the version used for Today's featured article on 11 June, 2014. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (per WP:RS). Reliable sources describe Tom Pryce as Welsh (including those references cited at the end of the first sentence) and that is how he should be described on his article. I have transcluded this discussion to the article talkpage and will reinstate the cited text. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I note the longstanding consensus text in the Lead has been reverted once again, citing some spurious consensus at Wikiproject level. Firstly, this article is noted to be of interest to several Wikiprojects; WikiProject Formula One has no more rights of ownership of this page than has any other Wikiproject. Secondly, please read WP:WikiProject, which states WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. And third, the reverting edit summary states “Again, a local consensus cannot override WikiProject consensus. His Welshness is adequately pointed out regardless. His British nationality is factually correct as well. Discuss instead of edit warring.” I have checked the edit history of this Talk page, Tvx1 has never discussed anything here, ever, let alone on this subject. I have reverted to the cited text. Daicaregos (User talk:Daicaregos) 07:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have protected the page for three days, probably in the wrong version of course. Discussion rather than reversion, please (a general comment, not aimed at anyone in particular). Diolch yn fawr / thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I've lived in Ruthin for nearly 40 years, and I know that if Price's family read that he is described as being 'British' they would be offended. In their eyes (and everyone else who lives in this little town) he is Welsh first, British second. WP can accept dual nationality, unconstrained by passports. The top part of the Infobox F1 driver is about the person; it should include 'Born in' and a Welsh flag (or dual Welsh and union). The lower part of the infobox is about the racing driver, and should have 'Representing:' and an union flag. But the text of the opening statement surely must read about the person, and then his job i.e. in the sentence 'Pryce is a Welsh racing driver from Ruthin, Wales' the word Welsh is an adjective which describes the person (Pryce) not his driving. I totally agree with User:Daicaregos on this. The Welsh language Wicipedia has him as Welsh, as do many others, including Italian, Catalan and Spanish. If English Wikipedia can not cope with dual nationality - the first where a person is born, the second what's on the passport - then God help enwiki! It will become the voice of the totalitarian Big Brother Establishment we are slowly slipping into. Wikipedia in other languages are free spirits - somewhere we can enjoy, live and let live, and flow our kites in the wind. I suggest this article be changed as described, and the new format be similarly changed on all sports infoboxes throughout enwiki, so that this narrow mindedness (that a person can have but one formal nationality) does not occur again. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It's great that both of you have Welsh nationalistic pride, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. Nor is Wikipedia a place to right great wrongs. I'm a Belgian from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, but I do not go around changing the nationality information in every wikipedia article on a person from that geographic location to "Flemish" (nor do I change it to Walloon for people from the French-speaking part]]. The simply reason for that is that their legal nationality is Belgian and nothing else. The same applies, with some exceptions to, Brits. Contrary to what is stated above Tom Pryce did not possess a dual nationality. He wasn't a legal national of two independent states. He was a legal national and citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only. Despite sometimes being referred to as simply a nationality, Welsh is actually an ethnicity. Pryce's Welshness wasn't legal in any form. He did not possess a passport or any proof of identity stating his nationality as Welsh, because those simply don't exist.

More to the point, he was only notable as a race driver and during his career he has always driven under the UK flag and when he won his only F1 race, it was celebrated with the waving of the Union Jack (and not the Welsh Flag) and the playing of the God Save the Queen (and not Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau). There are of course sports in which the players represent Wales rather than UK (both in national teams and individual), players like Gareth Bale, Terry Griffiths, Jonathan Davies, Ian Woosnam, Richie Burnett and many more (although the are also examples of players, like Ryan Giggs, who have represented both Great Britain and Wales), for whom it is appropriate to introduce them as simply Welsh. Tom Pryce does not fit into that category because sportsmen from his sport represent the entire UK. It is therefore entirely appropriate to introduce him as "British" and "from Wales" in the opining sentence. None of you have presented any argument why that "from Wales" and the following sentence explaining him to be the only Welsh winner of a F1 race insufficiently express his Welshness.

Lastly, regarding that "reliable source" claim. None of the presented sources refer to Pryce in a different manner as for other British race drivers. Yet, we introduce all of them as British. Crucially, no reliable source has been presented that quotes Pryce directly expressing his desire not be referred to as British. This is why I see no good reason to make an exception for him over all other F1 Drivers. Tvx1 16:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1's points are all sound. In the same way that we describe Pryce as British we also describe Graham Hill as British, David Coulthard as British and John Watson as British, despite them being most firmly an Englishman, Scotsman and Irishman, respectively. This because, in all cases, their primary notability was gained on the international stage as representatives of the United Kingdom. This reasoning is used outside WP:F1 articles also. Note that the only Welshman to have been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to date, David Lloyd George, is introduced in the opening line of his Wikipedia page as a "British Liberal politician and statesman." Nobody would dare suggest that Lloyd George wasn't Welsh (a Welsh-speaking man, born to Welsh parents, who, apart from the first few months of his life, grew up within Caernarfonshire, and represented Caernarfon for the entirety of his political career) but his principal notability was as a member of the British House of Commons, a member of the British government, and as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who led the British people through the trials of World War I. In terms of introducing a person to a reader on Wikipedia (who could be from any country in the world) establishing the article subject's context is the prime concern, not nationalistic niceties. Pyrope 17:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I am very offended by what you both have said. You have not understood my points, or you don't want to. I will not in future edit English Wikipedia; your attitude is very anti-diversity, bullyish and ignorant. I just hope (with all the connotations of the word 'nationalism') that Tom's family doesn't take your words too personally. Until things improve on enwiki, I shall NOT be editing in future. Good bye! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Really sorry to hear that Llywelyn2000. I hope you reconsider. Daicaregos (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Why would they be? His Welshness is still expressed on multiple occasions regardless. Tvx1 13:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That is because he is Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, I understood perfectly, I just disagreed with you. That is all. Pyrope 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course Welsh is an ethnicity; it is a nationality too. The two are not mutually exclusive. The OED defines 'Welsh' as (2a.) Of, from, or belonging to Wales or its people and a Welshman as (1b.) A person who is Welsh by descent, birth, or residency; (typically) a man born in Wales or to Welsh parents. Tom Pryce was a Welsh-speaking Welshman, who drove with a Welsh flag on his helmet. There is no reason his country should not be described as Welsh, per WP:OPENPARA, which tells us The opening paragraph should usually have: 1 Names... 2 Dates of birth and death 3 Context (location or nationality); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. In Tom Pryce's case that country was Wales and Tom Pryce was already notable before becoming a Formula One driver, winning races at Formula F100, Formula Three and Formula Two. That other pages have chosen to ignore WP:Verifiability to describe drivers is no reason to do so here. Indeed, numerous reliable sources describe him as Welsh e.g. BBC, ITN, Guardian, WalesOnline, Daily Post, Motor Sport Magazine, Getty Images, Welsh Racing Drivers Association, Tom Pryce Memorial Trust, Auto Evolution, Triumph and Tragedy: Welsh Sporting Legends, by Peter Jackson, Racing at Oulton Park in the 1970s by Peter McFadyen, A Chequered Life: Graham Warner and The Chequered Flag, by Richard Hesseltine, Lost and Found: From Racecar Driver to Pilgrim, from Soweto to Findhorn, by Geoff Dalglish, Legends A Chequered History, by Simon Read, The Richard Burton Diaries, Gilles Villeneuve: The Life of the Legendary Racing Driver, by Gerald Donaldson. This page had had a stable Lead for over five years. I see no compelling reason to change it now. Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, we are not ignoring WP:V; his Welshness is mentioned many times on that page, both within the lede and the main body text. Second, nobody is denying that he was Welsh; that sort of straw man argument is not helping you. As far as national context goes, re-read the text you yourself pasted here, it describes it as "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident". Citizenship and permanent residency are legal statuses that have well defined meanings. Neither apply to Wales, as there are no special immigration conditions for Wales other than those that affect the entire UK. Nationality is a fluid concept and is where most of these arguments start. What isn't uncertain is that Tom Pryce was both a British and Welsh national. As you say, they aren't mutually exclusive. However, in a global context, Welsh is a subset of British, in the same way that English and Scottish are.

As far as his notability goes, he had a small amount of that before he entered Formula One, but we aren't living in 1973 any more. That was a while back. These days, here in the 21st century, his principal, indeed only international notability, is as an F1 pilot. In terms of international motorsport he was a British representative and I can't find a single stats listing that doesn't use the UK flag or the abbreviation 'GBR' next to his name. Interestingly, this is very well shown by your citation of Getty Images. The one, single, only time that Getty (a US-based company) describe him in a caption as a "Welsh racing driver" is in an image from 1970, well before his entry into F1. In all other images from his international career, in every single one that mentions any form of nationality for Pryce he is only described as being "of Great Britain". You didn't fancy linking to those?

So, let's expand on the theme of context. Wikipedia is an international resource, created and read by users from all over the planet. Your links to establish your view of his context hail, in order, from sources in: UK, UK, UK, UK, UK, UK, US (Getty, see above), UK, UK, Romania? (based on UK TPMT website), UK, UK, UK, UK, UK, UK, UK. See a pattern there? The one source definitely not UK-based is Getty, and that one we have already seen dominantly refers to Pryce as being "of Great Britain", so hardly supports your thesis, does it? The reason that all the sources that support your position are from the UK is that in that context, seen from within the UK, calling someone Welsh helps to clarify their origin; British people have normally heard of Wales and have a good mental picture of what being Welsh implies. This isn't true worldwide. So what do non-UK sources say? What's the perspective from, say, the US? Well, as shown above Getty refer to him in his British context in by far the majority of cases. The other major US-based source of F1 historical information, ESPN, refer to him as British in their profile of him, and also in their story on his death. Hmm. Right, so what about non-English-speaking nations? Well the StatsF1 site, from France, describes him as a pilote britannique. Hardly an exhaustive survey, but clearly there are reliable sources that describe Pryce as British as well.

As things stand, Pryce is only specifically described as a British driver right at the top of the page. From there on down he is described as Welsh. This pattern establishes context in the proper order: broad first, then specific. If you are arguing that we should expunge the only major mention of his British status then surely you are actually arguing to exclude this fact, and yet you claim that British and Welsh are not mutually exclusive? Pyrope 19:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I already addressed the reliable sources claim in my previous reply. They deal with all the British drivers in that manner, but we list all of them as British regardless. That's not enough to make an exception for Pryce. Moreover, the more I look into this the less your claim seems to hold up. I have quite easily found both non-British and British reliable sources referring to him as British. From outside Britain I found Germany who call him British and Belgium who call him both British and Welsh ("Gallois" in the lead sentence and "Brittanique" in the article's body). From inside the UK I found his GrandPrix.com profile, a Motorsport Magazine article on Britons who could have won the world championship had they lived and F1 Fanatic. It looks more and more like you have selectively linked the sources who describe him as Welsh while consciously not linking the equally existing sources describing him as British in order to skew the discussion in your favor. Tvx1 21:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

We should go with "..was a British racing driver...", since Wales is (last time I checked) within the United Kingdom & the UK is the sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia convention in respect of Britain is to use Welsh or Scottish if that is how the individual self-identified. So most of the above arguments are irrelevant. Has anyone got a source as to his own position? ----Snowded ^TALK 22:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The Wikipedia convention is to use whatever they were notable for. That's why for instance Mark Williams is introduced as Welsh and someone like Thomas Davies is introduced as British. Tvx1 12:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There isn't a solid convention on this at all. The choice of using British/Scottish/English/etc to describe someone from the United Kingdom is almost entirely down to the whim of the editor who created the article, occasionally changed by the drive-by edits of a nationalist of whatever stripe. This is a subject that comes up almost daily on Wikipedia, and if there is a guideline that doesn't amount to "figure it out yourself" for each individual article, I've yet to read it.

In the absence of sitewide convention, the Motorsport WikiProject some years before I joined made the decision to describe every racing driver as British, and use the British flag in all appropriate places. This was based upon the fact that all racing drivers from the UK holding a racing licence issued by the FIA or its affiliates are British, and represent Britain in international motorsport. This has generally been uncontroversial, as it uses cold, hard facts in place of the murky and often-unverifiable world of self-identification. In Pryce's case, while he may indeed be a proud Welshman, that does not overrule the fact he is a British citizen and represented the UK in motorsport. QueenCake (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, editors choice is always the root of these disputes. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been the convention on political articles for as long as I have been editing wikipedia and it is a simple rule. Self-Identification has to be sourced like everything else in wikipedia ----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with User:QueenCake about the difficulty of looking simply to self-identification (there often won't be evidence, and even the subject themselves may look at it differently in different contexts) and about how these things work generally, for better or worse – often for worse, since, as ever, this should be about clarity and consistency in the presentation of information above anything else. As for political articles, I've never been aware of any firm convention: if anything, the convention is similar to the one being relied on here, in that MPs would usually be described as British, MSPs for example as Scottish. Finally, it seems a little odd for people to being getting so worked about Pryce's Welshness supposedly being downgraded, when the first para runs as follows:" Thomas Maldwyn Pryce ... was a British racing driver from Wales ... Pryce is the only Welsh driver to have won a Formula One race and is also the only Welshman to lead a Formula One World Championship Grand Prix: two laps of the 1975 British Grand Prix." N-HH talk/edits 09:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Getty Images (a US-based company) describe Tom Pryce as a "Welsh racing driver" in a caption of an image from 1970, as highlighted by Pyrope above, demonstrating his notability before his entry into F1. As WP:OPENPARA (3.1) requires us to state the “context (location or nationality)” that is where “the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.”, it is clear that when Pryce became notable internationally it was as as a Welsh racing driver, which is how he should be described here. Daicaregos (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We know he is described as a Welsh racing driver, as he is on this page too. But citing one instance when it has happened is not some trump card that determines what the opening sentence of a page should say. Relying on the fact that it comes from a pre-F1 image is really weak logic I'm afraid and twists the meaning of that part of OPENPARA, which is rather obviously about when people move from one country to another. He did not move from Wales to the UK. N-HH talk/edits 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And I'll add that when he became notable he was a British national, British citizen and British resident as well. Again, one doesn't exclude the other. His is situation is unlike someone like Nico Rosberg who started his motorsports career being Finnish, but had become German by the time he became notable. That's the sort of example the cited guideline caters to. Tvx1 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Daicaregos, please don't go putting words in my mouth, especially as you know full well that my view is that Getty Images actually disproves your theory. If you want to make a statement do it on your own, and don't try to misrepresent the views of other participants in this debate. In 1970, prior to his international career Pryce had limited, local notability in national-level Formula Ford (the lowest formula at the time), insufficient to pass the normal WP:Motorsport notability test let alone WP:GNG. Interestingly, you'll note that the photographer for the image was Norman "Speedy" Quicke, who was staff sports photographer for the Daily Express in 1970. Hence, this is a Daily Express photo that Getty have subsequently bought, and it is highly likely that the caption came with it at the time. Therefore this is a UK-sourced citation, again! Pryce's current principal notability, the thing that he is known for internationally, is as an F1 driver, and in this context Getty only ever refer to him in a British frame of reference. Pyrope 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks to be simple misinterpretation of the guideline by Daicageros. After all, again, Tom Pryce was a British national, citizen and resident as well even in 1970. Tvx1 21:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Death

There appears to be some evidence that Van Vuuren's death was not as gorey as is commonly described, but can someone do the deeper research to find the actual sources needed to show it? See:https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Xo7LDsOHquSnhaaThoRTE3V0U/view?pref=2&pli=1 Above link sourced from youtube video comments here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q99k2r6GeS4 The picture link itself is not source grade, but I see little reason to doubt the authenticity of the Van Vuuren body picture seen. Can someone find solid sources here for this? Supplemental: This pdf document was where the jpg images via drive.google came from: https://www.docdroid.net/NvSrcZQ/frederik-janse-van-vuuren-death-photos.pdf.html but even though it looks like it came from a contemporary newspaper, there is still no primary source referenced. Can someone please get on top of this? 104.55.4.109 (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)P.A.M.104.55.4.109 (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.55.4.109 (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Memorial image

The text at Death#Aftermath refers to Pryce's memorial in Ruthin. I've found two suitable images of it. here, from Wikimedia Commons (licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license) and here, from Wicipedia Cymraeg (licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license). Would either of these be suitable for this article? Daicaregos (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the first one. --John (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I cropped it and added it to the article. I think it looks good. Thank you. --John (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Pryce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224044122/http://www.neildalrymple.com/tom-pryce-memorial-commission.html to http://www.neildalrymple.com/tom-pryce-memorial-commission.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tom Pryce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521120513/http://www.formulaspy.com/features/classic-f1/934-the-tragic-tale-of-tom-pryce/934-the-tragic-tale-of-tom-pryce to http://www.formulaspy.com/features/classic-f1/934-the-tragic-tale-of-tom-pryce/934-the-tragic-tale-of-tom-pryce
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819235223/http://www.motoringwriters.com/Tom_Pryce_Trophy/Tom_Pryce_Trophy.htm to http://www.motoringwriters.com/Tom_Pryce_Trophy/Tom_Pryce_Trophy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205102952/http://tomprycememorial.com/the-memorial to http://www.tomprycememorial.com/the-memorial

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox

There seems to be a push to add the Welsh nationality/flag to the infobox of this article. Seeing as this is a FA article, perhaps seeking a consensus for such an addition would be a better route, rather then a slow edit-war. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The 'push', once again, is by the Big Brother Unionist Brigade (otherwise known as 'Keep the Status Quo, and get in line you F**n Minorities!' gang. Here's the 'push' you refer to:

7 November 2017 Flag of Wales and the Union Jack were placed in the infobox, as Tom had two nationalities: Welsh and British. A consensus for this was reached in the previous months.

BOTH flags stayed on for 6 months.

8 May 2018‎ Welsh flag taken down by User:Marbe166. This is the 'push' you refer to. Rather than discuss on the Talk page, he pushed his Unionist opinions by deleting the Flag of Wales.

The whole point of having two flags is about being inclusive, and more importantly, about respecting the importance of sources, which User:Daicaregos listed (see above). To quote:

Tom Pryce was a Welsh-speaking Welshman, who drove with a Welsh flag on his helmet. Numerous reliable sources describe him as Welsh e.g. BBC, ITN, Guardian, WalesOnline, Welsh Racing Drivers Association, Tom Pryce Memorial Trust, Classic and Performance Car magazine, Auto Evolution, Formula One, A and Formula 5000 in America.: Race by Race by Wolfgang Klopfer, Racing at Oulton Park in the 1970s by Peter McFadyen and of Formula One: the definitive illustrated guide ... by Bruce Jones, Damon Hill. He should be described here, as he is elsewhere, as a Welsh racing driver, and his nationality in the infobox noted as Welsh.

End quote

Following several users in the past 'pushing' their own extreme unionist BBUB pov on this Talk page, I stopped editing the English Wikipedia, for well over a year. A majority over-ruling a minority, without taking their account into consideration, is nothing short of bullying. A majority should respect minority rights, and respect the fact that sources should trump any political agenda. This is the back bone of all our Wikimedia projects. Either respect what the sources say, or walk away. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the standard for the infoboxes of other Formula One racers? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

British only in the infoboxes. Examples: Eddie Irvine, Jackie Stewart, Lewis Hamilton. Lead sentence of the articles are "is a British racing driver from N. Ireland/Scotland/England". There is no reason to treat Pryce any differently. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The convention is to go with self-identification - in sports in general you will find Welsh, Irish and Scxottish used extensively. There isn't any reason to restrict the precident to Racing Drivers. Per the above the sources are pretty clear and common use alone (which is a wikipedia policy while conforming minor issues on racing car drivers is not) says he is welsh -----Snowded ^TALK 21:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

"Sport in general" isn't relevant. Formula One has a very clear policy. All British F1 drivers have the British flag in their infoboxes because that is the flag they raced under, and the flag which was flown when they stood on the podium. No other reason than that. It is very unhelpful to claim an "extreme unionist BBUB pov", when we are in fact merely reflecting the FIA's policy on British nationals. The FIA is the only arbiter of an F1 driver's sporting nationality. No driver had two flags at the same time, and no driver had the English, Welsh or Scottish flags on the podium. You can have as many sources as you want to back that up. There can be every relevant mention of Pryce's Welshness in the text, where it actually matters. As far as flags go, Pryce's flag in F1 was the Union Jack, and the F1 infobox should reflect that. If it matters, I am part Welsh, and I am not a unionist. I would love British drivers to race under the flags of their constituent countries, but they don't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If I compete in a sport which is British based then of course I compete under the Union flag, but my nationality is not restricted to that sport - its a part of what I am. In this case he went out of his way, even in that sport, to identify as Welsh so its relevant -----Snowded ^TALK 21:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In some sports, for example football and rugby, it makes sense, since England/Scotland/Wales/N. Ireland have separate national teams on the international level. In most sports, including motor sports, British athletes compete under the British flag, and therefore are listed as British in the infoboxes. In many cases, including in this article where within the UK they come from is mentioned in the lede of the article. This is the standard for British racing drivers, and there is no reason for having this article differ from the standard. If you want to change the standard, seek consensus for it in an appropriate place. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The point I am making is that something agreed between people interested in FI driver articles cannot overide wider use, common use etc. You are not addressing the fact that this particular driver went out of his way to identify as welsh, and the fact he did so its notable in its own right.-----Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It is covered in the article text. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I know and the information box should reflect that given the strength of his convictions. If we have to determine the matter elsewhere then why not project Wales rather than project FI? We need some common sense here - the strong self identification is distinctive and notable (all critical aspects of wikipedia policy)-----Snowded ^TALK 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not a Wales only issue, it is an F1 driver bio issue. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that the F1 bios are going with just one nationality & flag in the infoboxes, we should do so here. Otherwise, an Rfc should be opened at the appropriate WikiProject to decide for all F1 bios. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

See above -----Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

His notability is entirely due to his Formula One activities. He is notable because he was a Formula One driver, not because he was Welsh. Therefore the F1 wikiproject members are the editors who reached the consensus when they did, and it has held up pretty well over the years. The infobox is concerned with his F1 career, and his nationality in F1 was British – his self-identification had no bearing on the FIA, and the F1 infobox just reflects that. If his self-identification as Welsh was distinctive and notable, why isn't it clearer in the text, where it can be explained properly? It can be driven home far more effectively in prose than by anything else. It can even go in the lead paragraph if people agree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The facts are that he was born Welsh and competed in F1 under a British motor racing licence (possibly the only licence available to him as there is no Welsh equivalent). Luckily though, there is room in the infoboxes to accommodate both. The primary infobox (Infobox person) has a nationality field which can be filled as "nationality = Welsh" and the embedded template (Infobox F1 driver) has one which can remain filled as "nationality = British". Note though that although it is normal to use a flag icon in a sporting template, it is explicitly ruled against in the other - see Template:Infobox person and WP:FLAGCRUFT. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That sounds sensible -----Snowded ^TALK 06:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Very sensible. There are two parts to this Infobox: the top part contains personal details, not relevant to his driving i.e. date of birth, dod, nationality as a person, languages spoken etc. The second part shows why he is notable - that's the 'Template:Infobox F1 driver'. This is also a good compromise. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: Saying that your version is the "last good version" is just absurd. The fact that you changed it without any discussion does not make it the "last good version". In addition, the WP:F1 lists only one nationality and that is British since that is the licence under which he competed. Furthermore, linking nationalities is against the WP:OVERLINK policy and flag is only listed in the driver's career part of the infobox. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sabbatino, are you saying that because there is no such thing as a Welsh racing licence, Pryce must be considered to be British - despite apparently self-identifying as Welsh? Please read this, then please reconsider whether, given the unique situation present in the UK, a reasonable compromise might be to fill the {{Infobox person}} nationality field with "Welsh" and the {{Infobox F1 driver}} nationality field with "British". -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I am not saying that something should not be included and I am not going to reconsider anything since there is no need for that from my side. I just stated a fact that WP:F1 lists the racing licence of the country under which the driver raced. In my opinion, discussing this in the project would get more opinions. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sabbatino, thanks for the clarification. Presumably you don't object then to the addition of his Welsh nationality to the personal infobox that is not related to his F1 life. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I must oppose using two nationalities & two flags here, unless it's adopted for all Formula 1 racer bios. GoodDay (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well that response was very predicable - you've opposed many a practical compromise around issues relating to sub-state nationalities on oh so many articles over the years - even in the face of evidence. I think the principle here for 'two' flags links the level of self-identification so is the nationality notable or note. That gives an objective criteria -----Snowded ^TALK 12:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, two nationalities is quite normal in the UK, please read this for a more detailed description. If you identify as Welsh and your sport's body only operates at the UK level, as with motor racing, then you cannot get a licence to represent your preferred nationality. That doesn't mean you therefore become British for all walks of your life. And there shouldn't be two flages, because they are generally not used in the {{Infobox person}} (see WP:FLAGCRUFT). -- DeFacto (talk). 19:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But, my position on this bio article's infobox won't change, unless a consensus is reached for dual nationalities/flags across all F1 bios. PS: Are you recommending an exception for British drivers? GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, but the personal nationality of this Welshman isn't a general question or one specific to WP:F1 (unlike his racing "nationality"), it's a question specific to this particular article. And no, I'm not recommending an exception for British drivers, I'm supporting the inclusion of "Welsh" as the nationality of this Welsh driver in his personal ID (but without the flag!). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Making this 'one' bio article an exception, out all the others? I won't go for that. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, an exception in what way do you think? I think you'll find that most biographies contain the person's own nationality rather than the different one of an organisation they were required to get a licence from as part of their professional life. I think it would be an exception if we deny that courtesy to Tom Pryce here. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm speaking of F1 bios. Recommend you get a consensus at WP:F1, for an exception for British F1 bios. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, an exception to what? I'm not even proposing that we change anything related to F1 or in the F1 driver infobox. This is purely about what nationality we put in his personal information outside of the F1 stuff. -- DeFacto (talk). 05:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I won't agree to such additions to Pryce's infobox, unless a consensus of such additions is reached for all British F1 racers. Note: I narrowed my requirement to British racers instead of every F1 racer, due to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Still, it would unnecessarily make this article stick out in comparison with those on other racing drivers. This thing thing as whole is still the biography of a racing driver, who most importantly drove in Formula One. The personal information in the infobox is nevertheless that of a deceased notable racing driver, not merely a deceased person. No other biography on a racing driver has multiple nationalities in different parts of their infobox (unless they actually represented different nationalities during different parts of their careers). So adding Welsh here anywhere would very much make this article an exception. Surely you can see that?Tvx1 10:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand why so much discussion is going on here. The case is very clear. F1 articles give the nationality of the drivers licence (see Jochen Rindt for a particular example). That is British in this case. His Welsh heritage is covered in the lead, all good there. Llywelyn2000's behavior in this discussion is certainly not helpful. Wikipedia is not the place to fight out seperatist or unionist policies. We accept political situations as they are. There is no discrimination in this. As long as Wales is part of the United Kingdom, that is what the articles will reflect. The opinion of any editor does not play into that fact. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

On the second nationality field: I must agree with GoodDay and oppose this, at least for now. Looking at several articles on Welsh people, I cannot find this field being used anywhere. And we certainly don't use it in WP:F1, so that would be a change that would need to be discussed on a broader foundation. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You have decided not to answer my point that this is a biography. This article is about a real person, and the top part of the infobox is for that person. But you know this well, as you have created a large number of articles on cyclists, and the top heading of each one states clearly: Personal information e.g. Marcel Wüst, John Degenkolb and Emanuel Buchmann. This should also be the case for this infobox (Template:Infobox person). And as regards to the lower part, I suggest substituting Nationality with Representing. Take the sting, the provocation out of it! This would be accommodating and inclusive. His nationality is not = to an union jack, but he certainly did represent Britain (or wasn't it the UK?). It's really sad that we're still arguing these points, which were clearly made two years ago. Can we now move on to my suggestions:

1. Add 'Personal information' as a header

2. Add: 'Nationality: Welsh' under it

3. Under 'Formula One World Championship career' header, add: 'Representing: Britain' (or 'UK', whichever the sources refer to). End of. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, if the driver's licence nationality isn't the one that the driver normally identifies as, who are we to insist they should nevertheless be labelled thus for their personal ID too? Sure, for the {{Infobox F1 driver}} template we are forced to use the sport's formal definition, but for the {{Infobox person}} template we are free to use the nationality that the person identifes with, so why not go with that? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can discuss that. But not here, WP:F1 is the place to do so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, there is fine for discussing the content of the {{Infobox F1 driver}} template, but the content of that isn't in question here. Here we are discussing the content of the {{Infobox person}} template, and WP:F1 is the wrong place to discuss that. Do you have a policy-based objection to putting "Welsh" as his nationality in the person box? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The four nations of the United Kingdom have never been recognised by Formula One or it's administrators and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. --Falcadore (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, this isn't about anything the F1 administration need to "recognise", it's not about his official racing nationality or anything in the F1 driver infobox. This is purely about what nationality we put in his personal information. -- DeFacto (talk). 05:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. You are talking about the infobox at top right of page which is specifically about his Formula One racing career. This is whaty I mean about disingenuous. You are attempting to spin some sort of nationalist agenda on a infobox that represents a man's Formula One motor racing career and doing so under the pretense of "personal information" when a list of motorsport statistics is nothing of that sort. So please. On topic. --Falcadore (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This issue seems to have been continually debated for the last six years or more. We come to a consensus, and then the consensus is broken, so we start all over again. I have only a limited time to contribute to Wiki articles, but I'm now using some of that time to contribute to a 6k+ word argument about whether Maldwyn was Welsh or British, again! Wouldn't the effort put into this argument be better utilised in creating new articles? I knew Maldwyn (Tom) Price, personally, I know many members of his extended family, they would be hurt by this spat over his memory (as I am). I know that personal issues shouldn't be part of the debate, but can I respectfully suggest that the debate is taken out of a person's biography talk. This is more than a discussion about the subject of this article and more than an F1 article, but a general issue about people who have sub nation state national identities. Many of the arguments objecting to people being described as Welsh, Ukrainian, Basque etc seem to be made by people who's only contribution is to make identity arguments on talk pages. I am not familiar enough with the English language Wikipedia to suggest where the whole issue should be discussed, but there must be a better place than here, or on any other individual's talk place. This issue should be discussed in a neutral space as a general argument about all people with sub nation state national identities and not be argued over the bones of my friend! AlwynapHuw (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

AlwynapHuw, with all due respect, this discussion isn't about whether he is Welsh or British, or about any general F1 issue, it is about whether we can add details about this specific driver's personal ID in addition to details about his professional ID as a racing driver. The F1 infobox (where his F1 ID correctly records his use of a British racing licence) is nested inside the personal ID infobox where his personal (private life if you like) details can be recorded. It is in the latter place where it was added that he identified as Welsh (and reverted), and which this discussion is about. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

DeFacto This has nothing at all to do with F1. It is to do with the political opinion of people who refuse to accept that some of us have a sub nation state nationality. It is an attempt, in general, to argue the same inane points on a person by person, subject by subject basis in order to try and wear people from minority backgrounds down. As is noted below the same issue arises for cyclist Geraint Thomas (who complained about GSQ rather than Land of my Fathers being played after he won the Tour de France) and singer Tom Jones; a couple of months ago a similar argument was being made about the nationality of ?Catalan / ?Spanish politician Carles Puigdemont. It is a site wide issue that needs sorting on a site wide basis.AlwynapHuw (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Yes, I do have two objections to adding "Welsh" into {{Infobox person}}. 1) As stated above, I cannot see that this is being done for other Welsh people (see Tom Jones (singer) or Geraint Thomas for instance). 2) Wales is not an independent nation, so it makes no sense to list it as a nationality. And if the nationality (British) is the same for the personal information template and the F1 driver template, then let's leave it in the latter, where it has been by convention for the past few years. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am very much open to Llywelyn2000's suggestion of discussing changing the wording in the F1 driver template to "representing", but that should be done either on the template talk page or on WP:F1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

DeFacto, the facts are not that simple. Just as anyone else born in the UK to UK parents, price was born British. That's the legal nationality and citizenship he held for his entire too short life. His passport has only ever said British in the nationality field. Even though confusingly enough Wales (as well as England, Scotland and Northern Ireland) is sometimes called a "nation", Welsh is legally speaking an ethnicity. So even in personal regards, he can very easily claimed to have been British.

Zwerg Nase, it's no a simple as you state. F1 articles don't just "give the nationality of the drivers licence" like you claim. The FIA regulations have changed through the years. Since some point through the mid-nineties the FIA regulations have stated that drivers have to represent a nationalities they legally possess (=passport nationality). Before that point they went by racing license and we did too (as you correctly pointed out with Jochen Rindt who represented Austria without ever being a citizen of that country). However, it changed somewhere during the 90's. Eddie Irvine had to compete under the British flag even though he requested to do otherwise at some occasions (do that was merely inspired by some of his shameful countrymen who took some much offence to the Union Jack that they saw it necessary to issue death threats to Eddie and his parents), whereas Bertrand Gachot was allowed to represent Belgium during the early nineties despite never holding that country's nationality. Drivers who possess multiple legal (passport) nationalities have to pick which one they want to represent. Examples of current such cases are Max Verstappen, Lance Stroll and Romain Grosjean.Tvx1 10:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A major error here of fact here Tvxl - Wales is one of the four countries that make up the UK (estalbished by the EU and multiple otherreferences). That has been extensively debated on wikipedia and the fact that it is a country has been established. A country does not have to be a soverign state. I don't where you get the idea that it is legally just an enthnicity It is therefore a nationality and used as such in many articles as is Scottish etc. For the F1 information box then the racing designation is fine, but this is not just an F1 article it is about a person who self-identified as Welsh and the earlier compromise suggestion seems eminantly sensible.-----Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really. While Wales is a country (technically a principality), it is not a country in the sense that the vast majority of countries are countries. I think what Tvx1 might mean is that it's not legally a nationality in that you cannot be a citizen of Wales, and Welshness has no legal foundation. Anyone can claim to be Welsh and there is no way of proving it or disproving it – no legal documents etc. Likewise English, Scottish etc. In that sense, it is not a "legal nationality", i.e. in a sense of law. That is why the FIA don't use those nationalities. I can claim to be Welsh, or English, or even Scottish, but I cannot prove any of them. Pryce was indubitably Welsh and the article should absolutely ram that home with sources. But waving sub-sovereign flags in the infobox is neither constructive (it will cause endless arguments) nor is it ok with WP:MOSFLAG. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong again, it was (now rarely) sometimes called a pincipality but it hasn't been one ince the 14th Century. The meaning of 'country' is not synomimous with that of 'state'and wikipedia has for a long time used English, Welsh & Scottish as a nationality on many articles. There was a long debate over the use of 'country' resolved following an extensive review of the sources under mediation, helped by the formal designation of 'country' by the EU supported by multiple references as such by the British Government. Flags really don't have a place in the info box but the word 'Welsh' does.-----Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Still, Welsh is not a a legal nationality appearing on any sort of official ID, let alone a citizenship. The nationality that appeared on Pryce's personal official legal ID's was British. A "personal nationality" field would be just as confusing and debatable as the one we currently have.Tvx1 11:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to remember our role as Wikipedia editors; it isn't to decide whether Welsh should be considered to be a legitimate nationality, it is to impartially and verifiably document the salient facts and major points of view about the subject of the article and to give them due weight, based on their prominence in the secondary sources. And one very prominent fact in the sources is that Pryce self-identified as Welsh, so that needs to be given due weight in the infobox.

And no Falcadore, I am not trying to "spin" any "agenda", I'm just attempting to broker a compromise, whilst keeping to policy, and therefore to hopefully diffuse the current situation and reduce the likelihood of further future disputes over this same point.

Also, for this article, as we will be using sources for this subject, it does not matter Zwerg Nase what happens in other articles about other people with respect to nationality.

I agree too with those who think the caption for the 'nationality' field in the F1 template should make it clear that it is the nationality of the chosen racing licence, and not necessarily the nationality that the driver identifies as. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, his self-identification needs to be given due weight in the article, not the infobox. The infobox is not the place for it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I agree with Bretonbanquet on this. We are getting ourselves into a whole lotta mess if we start to include self-identifications in infoboxes. As the reactions of some editors here prove, this can get very political. And I do not think that Wikipedia is the place for these kinds of debates. And another thing, DeFacto, of course it is important how this is dealt with in other, comparable articles, because there is a reason why Wikipedia has a MOS and other guidelines because consistency is something that we strife for here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. I thought Pyrope had already given the most sensible response regarding his Welshness in the previous discussion. It's mentioned comprehensively early in the lead. It's already given its due weight as it stands.Tvx1 11:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This has been debate before multiple times. Unless there is something new to be brought to this debate it should be closed and reverted to previously established consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean, it should be reverted? The article current reflects the established consensus. There is nothing that needs reverting.Tvx1 19:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue is no longer debated on articles in wider wikipedia where there is self-identification. Those of you involved in the F1 articles may or may not be aware of this but we need consistency over multiple articles. We've also had a series of false statements about country and national status which indicate a lack of knowledge of the field - the idea that nationality is only valid if it is printed on an official identification document being the latest one. the compromise proposed conforms the article with wider practice in Wikipedia, while not compromising the F1 information box. That will avoid future conflict. -----Snowded ^TALK 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How on earth is that a false statement? Your nationality is only valid if it is shown on an official, legal document. Otherwise we could all pretend to be something we're not. "My passport says I'm French but I feel German, so I demand to be accepted as a German." Yeah, that's not going to create any future conflict. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox - convenience break #1

As there doesn't appear to be any movement towards a consensus yet, can I ask those whose main objection to the compromise proposal (which is to keep the F1 licence nationality as flagged British and add the personal nationality as unflagged Welsh) is based on the belief that "Welsh" is not a legal, valid or real nationality, to read WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, and based on that, to reconsider their objection, with a view to, perhaps, embracing the compromise in the spirit of reaching an amicable consensus here, and thus reducing the likelihood of continued conflict.

Just to be clear: the emerging compromise proposal does not include removing the British flag and does not include adding a Welsh flag. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe that employing a separate, constituent country nationality in the infobox will increase the likelihood of continued conflict – in other F1 driver articles. You'll never be able to stop editors randomly adding whatever they feel like, based on next to nothing (usually birthplace). It's a horror story. Let's not encourage it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that even though the use of "Welsh" as the personal nationality is justified and verifiable in this particular case, that you oppose it for fear of what might happen in other articles as a result? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No. I am saying its entirely unwarranted presence in the infobox will encourage that. People will add English/Scottish etc in the infobox and make no attempt to justify or verify it properly in the text. Making Pryce's Welshness clear in the text with all the necessary referencing will not encourage poor edits in other articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

To agree that his personal nationality is Welsh, but to object to that fact being added to the person infobox flies in the face of what a infobox is for, which is to summarise key features of the page's subject - as there aren't many features in this case which are more key than his Welshness. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

My advice would be for you to open up an RFC on Formula 1 bios. Concentrating on this one racer, isn't going to get you anywhere. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

But GoodDay, the issue here is unrelated to F1 - there are no plans to change any of his F1 data - and the issue is unrelated to any other article. That is why it is being discussed her. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I doubt you're going to get a consensus for adding Welsh with a Welsh flag to this individual's infobox, without going through the F1 route. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, there's no flag in the current proposal being dicussed and no change to the F1 template. Will you support that? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Only if you get a consensus for such additions for all British F1 racer bios. I won't support singling out Pryce. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm sorry, DeFacto, that's simply not true. His Welshness is not key to anything at all. His notability lies in his F1 career. His nationality (either of them) is incidental to that, and merits only a basic description in the infobox. That's what an infobox is for. Basic information in the infobox, details in the text. Always. There's no such thing as a "personal nationality" – Pryce was British in the eyes of the sport in which he is notable for competing, so it's there in the infobox. Any more personal details belong in the text. And GoodDay is right. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Nationality is almost always included in the person infobox in biographies, why do you link it is less important for this individual than for others? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

And a nationality is included here a well. Namely British.Tvx1 11:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not in his person infobox, that's only his F1 licence nationality in his F1 infobox, it's his actual nationality for his person infobox that this proposal addresses, please don't confuse or conflate the two different concepts. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You should rather stop making false claims. There is only one infobox in this article. Sure, it consists of two sections, but there is only one physical infobox. And there is no policy or even guideline that encourages to include two or more nationalities in one physical infobox unless for people who multiple citizenship (e.g. Pierce Brosnan or for sportspeople what represented different nationalities at different points in their sports careers (e.g. Bertrand Gachot). Pryce's Welshness is given its due weight in the lead and the body of the article. It's absence in the infobox isn't a problem in any way and surely doesn't make the article unacceptable.Tvx1 23:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

So, Tvx1, it sounds like you think it's true to claim that if, as here with infoboxes, we put a red box inside a blue box - we end up with just one box - the red box! That is nonsense. -- DeFacto (talk). 05:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it think it is true to claim that our readers see just one rather small standard style infobox. Even though it’s coded as two nested infoboxes, the readers see one which doesn’t look any different to an infobox which is just coded as one. The distinction you speak of is not clear at all. That’s why adding a second nationality field in such close proximity creates unnecessary confusing.Tvx1 11:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, is an essay, not a policy or even guideline. It doesn't oblige us to do anything. Secondly, even so it has a section labeled sport and that section encourages us to follow the nationality as used by the national teams/governing bodies in the sport in question. In motor racing, they do not go beyond British so per the linked essay we shouldn't go beyond that either. We already do this person quite the courtesy by referring to his Welshness prominently in the lead. It doesn't need a second nationality field in the infobox, which, as already explained, can construed to have to show British just as much as Welsh. As Pyrope explained once on this talk page, we shouldn't forget that we are writing this article for every English language speaker in the world. This not UK Wikipedia. There many English-language (even native one) from countries far away from the UK who have little knowledge or care about the British sub-nations. We should not go and make things unnecessarily confusing for them. In that respect, I really don't think it's a coincidence that two of the users strongly pushing for the inclusion of Welsh flag in this article identify themselves as proudly Welsh (one of them even supporting Welsh independence). We really should leave politics out of this.Tvx1 13:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Addressing your two sections in turn:

Firstly, sure it's an essay, one that I thought might help you understand why "Welsh" is a perfectly regular nationality - a concept you, and others, seemed to be struggling to grasp. And sure, we're not obliged to add nationalities to person infoboxes nor DOB nor DOD nor much else, but the idea of person infoboxes is to capture the essential essence of the subject - not to suppress or withhold part of it. Nationality is every bit one of the subject's key attributes as DOB or DOD.

Secondly, his sport nationality is already adequately covered in the F1 infobox, and correctly given as British (and accompanied by the British flag) based on the nationality of his racing driving licence. However, as we know from the discussions above, outside of his sport he identified as Welsh, not British, which is why we need to make the distinction clear in the infoboxes. And no, I don't agree that we need to dumb-down the content as you suggest, in case people who have never heard of the Welsh nation (it is a nation, not a sub-nation) read it, anymore than I would suppress the use of the Belgian nationality for that reason. And I think you should avoid insinuations about peoples motives for supporting the proposal here and keep to the issues of content. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I also support Welsh independence, and I am part Welsh. That is why I want it made perfectly clear that Welsh is not a perfectly regular nationality. Do not pretend that Welshness is on the same level as any other nationality because that is not true. It is a nationality with no basis in law, and it is misleading to present it as otherwise. It may be a "nation" but Wales is actually a constituent country of a sovereign nation. Therefore Welshness simply does not carry the same weight as a citizenship nationality. Again, to present it as otherwise is misleading. Comparing it with Belgian nationality is a nonsense. Belgian nationals have passports with "Belgian" or "Belgium" on them because Belgium is an independent sovereign nation. Pryce's passport did not mention his Welshness because his Britishness trumped it, whether he liked it or not. Whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not. That's life in the UK, don't ever pretend to hide that. DeFacto, you're getting pretty close to saying Pryce was Welsh not British, is that what you think? You know that's legally impossible, right? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wales is, as you correctly pointed out, a nation. Welsh is the nation-ality of the people of that nation. Check oxforddictionaries.com if you have trouble believing that. There is no distinction between one nation and another where the definition of nationality is concerned. If you are from Wales and you identify as Welsh, then of course your Welshness has exactly the same weight as your Frenchness or Japaneseness does if you identify as French or Japanese. To suggest that Welshness has less weight than other nesses is surely discriminatory. I'm not sure what your point about Belgium was, mine was that the nationality "Welsh" is no less a nationality that "Belgian" is, and we don't suppress the use of "Belgian" in person infoboxes in case some readers have never heard of it, so why use that as an excuse to banish the use of Welsh? And no, Welshness does not trump Britishness, it compliments it. Passports are a red herring in this discussion, they are not synonymous with nationality. Pryce chose to identify as Welsh outside of his professional life as a racing driver, and that should be respected. That he was also British is irrelevant to this discussion and another red herring - you could say he was European too, but so what? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've explained to you why the Welsh nationality doesn't carry the same weight as Frenchness or Japaneseness; France and Japan aren't ruled/subjugated by larger, independent nations – if you don't understand it, then I can't do anything about that. How can I discriminate against myself, what utter rubbish. If Welsh was a nationality like any other, I would have a Welsh passport. But I have no choice because Welshness is not a nationality like most others. My point about Belgium was written in plain English, and had nothing whatsoever to do with people never having heard of Wales, as you well know. Passports are not a red herring – they denote citizenship which is verifiable within an international legal framework. Nationality as you describe it is completely arbitrary. People can claim whatever nationality as their own. If you think that carries as much weight in an encyclopedia as legal nationality, then you're in the wrong place. Pryce identified as British whenever he went through customs or whenever he voted in a general election; times when being Welsh carries no weight. Saying that his Britishness is irrelevant is a joke, surely... European isn't a nationality either. Be serious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You didn't explain it, you opined about it, and your reasoning is flawed. Nationality means being of a particular nation, so is not arbitrary, can be verified, and none are inferior to others because of the circumstances they find themselves in due to history. Pryce's Britishness is irrelevant to this discussion as I said, because he identified as Welsh, so why would we override that in his person template? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's quite clear to me, what Breton's explaining. In a nutshell, Wales isn't a sovereign state (i.e independent country) & therefore is not equal to France, United States, Canada, Japan etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, GoodDay. DeFacto, if my reasoning is flawed, then international law is flawed, and your ideas obviously override it. It is arbitrary, because you can choose your nationality from Welsh, English, Scottish or whatever, simply based on whatever you feel like. You can't prove it and you don't ever have to, because it doesn't officially mean anything. There is nothing more arbitrary. Pryce was as Welsh as he said he was, and nothing can change it, but he would have been as unable to actually prove it as everyone else is. The only thing that can verify it is his own point of view. It has no place in the infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, the article content shouldn't be based on your (or any other editor's) interpretation of "international law", it should be based on reliably sourced secondary sources. It is those sources which tell us his nationality is Welsh. If the consensus of the sources is that he is Welsh then how can we be justified in suppressing that? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Who is suppressing it? Why so much ridiculous histrionics? Put it in the damn prose. It doesn't belong in the infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Because the consensus of the sources is actually that he was British. That's something Pyrope already pointed out a long time ago.Tvx1 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

DeFacto, stop saying the issue is unrealted to Formula One. As has been pointed out to you already, you are attempting to change details in a Infobox which specifically covers his Formula One career. So please, end this insistance it has nothing to do with Formula One. --Falcadore (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, we could put it another way: the change being proposed here has no impact whatsoever on any F1 data in the article and the entire contents of the F1 infobox would be left completely unchanged. To me that means the proposed change is unrelated to F1, or surely we would need to change something in the F1 infobox too. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything @DeFacto, Llywelyn2000, and AlwynapHuw: have said and I 'embracing the compromise'. Some of the above comments about the legal status of Wales and Welsh nationality show the complete ignorance of the editors (User:Bretonbanquet, GoodDay et all). They obviously don't want to move away from the miopic view that might is right, that the status quo is more important that minority rights and what has been written in solid, neutral sources. Let's embrace the fact that Tom had two nationalities: he was born Welsh, and the other nationality - thrust upon him. Sources, source, sources! Sian EJ (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd advise you to assume good faith. You're way, way off beam with that. 'Let's embrace the fact that he had Britishness thrust upon him' - just total, utter rubbish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually Falcadore, his Britishness wasn't limited to F1 at all. He was a British motor racing driver in general, not just a British F1 driver. The FIA uses legal nationalities from sovereign states in all motorsports classes it governs. It's not something exclusive to F1. In short, Pryce drove under the British flag in all formulae (Formula 5000, Formula three, Formula two, etc) he drove in.Tvx1 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Certain editors who are getting a bit carried away with things rather above poor Tom Pryce's article should bear that in mind.

The beauty of wikipedia is that the largest part of any article is the prose. You can use that to explain his Welshness instead of corrupting an infobox with a specific purpose. Is that somehow unachievable? --Falcadore (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The nationality field in Template:Infobox person is intended to be used for a person's legal nationality. That is how it is used across Wikipedia, or at least how it should be used according to the template documentation and consensus, and we cannot decide to use it differently on this article.

It presents an indisputable fact, and indisputable facts from undeniable evidence are preferable to undefinable opinion. And ultimately while anyone may quite rightly be a proud Welshman, it is something that cannot be defined. When we defer from this principle and try to identify someone at a sub-sovereign state level, problems always arise. Sometimes we can find references to support a certain designation, but very often we cannot. When we cannot, the decision is made based upon a birthplace (which is solely defined by the location of the mothers womb upon birth), or the reports of the local rag (which have a tendency to claim people as local who aren't), or simply the decision of the editor creating or editing the page, the problems of which are obvious.

Unlike many other parts of Wikipedia, the F1 project has had no recent problems with the British issue outside of this article, and the stability of our articles is why I oppose any deviation. If I could impose the British thingy from Wales convention elsewhere I would, simply to stop the endless edit wars, but alas I fear doing so would cause as much aggravation on the discussion spaces as it would save from the articles. QueenCake (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is trying to right great wrongs or get into an argument with Bretonbanquet on nationality or other issues. There have been a series of statements here that have already been agreed with Wikipedia. Those include the fact that Wales is a country and a valid nationality if self-identification is there. For some reason this simple convention is creating a problem for FI interested editors but FI concensus does not trump wider wikipedia practice and agreement. A perfectly sensible compromise has been suggested that leaves the FI box pristine in its Britishness, but follows wikiupedia convention on all such articles in the other info box. There are no endless edit wars on articles about politicians, academics etc. etc. as the practice has long been agreed. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

However, those other groups of people you mention do not have two nationality fields, if they have even one, in their infoboxes. The Wikipedia convention you speak of just doesn't exists. None of the posts produced here have produced any guideline, let alone policy, that forces us to have two nationality fields in the infobox of a biography of a British person. In fact none of the post have even explained in any way why detailing his Welshness in the body and the lead isn't sufficient in any way.Tvx1 18:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed QueenCake, there does appear to be an attempt to 'right great wrongs'. I do wish though, that those who are pushing for Welsh to be used in the infobox, would open up an Rfc & try & get consensus for such type of additions for all British F1 racer bios. Trying to make this one article stand out from all the others, is just not going anywheres. In fact, I'm going to (today) open up such an Rfc at WP:F1. Folks are free to link the Rfc to as many other related WikiProjects as they wish. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Just letting yas know, that an RFC has been opened at WP:Formula One in relation to this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Nationality under "Formula One World Championship career" seems anyway illogical if it refers to the racing licence. In this case it should say "Racing lincence = British" and move the nationality up under birth/death date/place, which in this case is Welsh. We have similar problem with rally drivers - Elfyn Evans for example, over 90% of the cases the person is reffered as Welsh rather than British. There are numerous cases in other motorsport series where for example New Zealander drives under Italian racing licence - no thinking person is gonna write "nationality = Italy". --Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

FIA World Championships do if differently though. They don't use "racing license nationality" but actual legal, passport, nationalities the drivers possess.Tvx1 23:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There are cases in the world where a nationality does not have their own country(passport), even besides UK. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yet these cases do not apply to motor racing drivers who participate(d) in FIA (and actually FIM as well) sanctioned motorsports. Those limit nationality to the definition by nationality laws of sovereign states.Tvx1 18:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've suggested changing 'Nationality' to 'Representing' on the F1 infobox Template talk:Infobox F1 driver#Change 'Nationality' to 'Representing'. The 'Infobox person', however is about the person, and should show: Nationality = Welsh (as @Pelmeen10: and others have shown. We need both. This is a good compromise. Sian EJ (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No we do not need both. Some people would like that, but that doesn't mean we have to do so. Suffiecent arguments have been brought to demonstrate it's a bad idea. The current situation with his Welshness in the article's lead and body is a good compromise as well.Tvx1 18:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should raise an RfC on the Wales project while we are at it. No one is arguing about the FI info box, GoodDay is persuing is long opposition (in the face of all evidence and prior consensus) abolish or reduce the impact of all countires and nationalities which are not soverign states. The info box about the person is about the person. Honestly guys the use of Welsh, Scottish etc is very common throughout Wikipedia the F1 Interest groups has no special rights over this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) Revision as of 2018-10-21T18:52:38 (UTC)

And the Wales Wikiproject does have those special rights? This seems like a request to go Forumshopping. The United Kingdom Wikiproject has just as much to say about this, if you ask me. As has been sufficiently explained, while there are technically two infoboxes in the coding, the readers sees only one. The distinction is not clear at all to the reader. Therefore a “personal nationality” field would just not be appropriate. And as has been explained countless of times, his Welshness is mentioned more than adequatly in the article. It isn’t necessary in the infobox at all.Tvx1 21:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't neither does the F1 group - I must remember not to use irony when there is a risk of US editors being involved :-) As has been explained countless times there is established practice on this over multiple articles - nationality is based on self-identification -----Snowded ^TALK 04:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No it isn’t. You’re wrong. Self-identification is sometimes looked at when there is doubt, but is not remotely the only thing which matters. Especially regarding sportspeople, the system the sport in question uses is much more important. In fact, the idea of listing both types of nationalities in the infobox has been raised multiple times on the talk page of the linked essay and never had garnered much support.Tvx1 09:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You may want it to be wrong but the most basic of checks on multiple articles - politicians etc. will show you that Welsh, Scottish etc,. is used where there is self-identification as such.-----Snowded ^TALK 06:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

When did I claim it is never used? I just pointed out that self-identification is the only criterium. And that is a simple fact.Tvx1 18:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note that Tvx1 has, despite my personal request to them, removed the "infobox person" template from the article even though this discussion is still ongoing. That template had been in the article for 11 months, and its presence is mentioned in several places in this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly though, the coding was included back then by one of the users involved in this discussion who identify as a strong Welsh nationalist. It was added in defiance of the convention for infoboxes in racing drivers' biographies in a clear push to promote Welsh nationality in the infobox. The second nationality field was later removed. It stays out until the aforementioned user reinstated it again seven days ago which is what triggered this discussion in the first place.Tvx1 22:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox - convenience break #2

I've notice an inconsistency across these British F1 racer bios. Some of them have the United Kingdom in their birth/death sections, while others don't. Either way, this should be taken care of. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably. But that’s not something that should be discussed on Tom Pryce’s talk page.Tvx1 12:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I find it quite disappointing that this issue has absorbed quite so much otherwise productive time over the last couple of weeks, especially given the vast amount already expended over the years. The major problem is, and ever has been, that the word 'nationality' has many different meanings. There are internationally recognized nation states that can bestow citizenship, and at the other end of the spectrum there are nebulous nations of peoples who are bound by self-identity only (e.g. Nation of Islam). Wales falls somewhere in between. Note that nobody engaged in this discussion has ever, now or in previous iterations of this same discussion, argued that Pryce did not have Welsh nationality. However, as 'Welsh' has no internationally defined meaning (unless you are trying to sell lamb, or somesuch) this poses difficulties when set alongside Pryce's claim to international notability. From this perspective, the only reason he has a Wikipedia page, the applicable international forum is professional motorsport. The governing body for international motorsport is the FIA, and they have clearly codified definitions of the word 'nationality', and related terms, that are simply stated in Article 9 of their International Sporting Code. That is the word they use; that is the word that the vast majority of third party sources use; therefore, that is the word we use here in Wikipedia. Hence, when presenting a thumbnail sketch of the article subject in the infobox, as an international racing driver, that is where the focus should be. The more complex issues of British sub-citizenship nationalities are not appropriate topics for an infobox, but are far better tackled in the prose section. In this portion of the page, Pryce's racing nationality is mentioned once – one single time – at the top to provide context, and thenceforth only his Welsh identity is even mentioned. Far from hiding his Welsh identity this page celebrates it ("...the only Welsh driver to..."; "...the only Welshman to..."; "...the first Welshman to..."; "The Tom Pryce Award ... to Welsh personalities..."), but does so after having established his context on the international stage. Pyrope 13:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Pyrope, as you so eloquently say, his being Welsh is one of Pryce's key features. Now according to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purposes of an infobox is to summarise key facts that already appear in the article and to make that data machine readable for third-party use. That surely dictates that Welsh needs to appear somewhere in the infobox as it is certainly a key fact in the article which should be made available for automatic processing. Luckily though, it is easily accommodated as person meta data in the "Infobox person" template, with all the key data related to his F1 career kept separately as F1 meta data in the "Infobox F1 driver" template. There really is no apparent rational or Wiki policy reason why this elegant solution should be so vehemently opposed and plenty of good reasons why it should be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a Formula One specific Infobox. It needs to be consistent with his Formula One career in which he was officially regarded as British.

A generic infobox like Template:Infobox person this would be much less of an issue. --Falcadore (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this is clouded by terminology. The United Kingdom is, to my knowledge, the only country in the world that calls its sub-national divisions "nations". People grasp that blurring of terminology and make it so much bigger than the actuality. That is a whole other arguement that does not have a place here. --Falcadore (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, having spent the last 10 years living in Canada I am well aware that Canadian First Nations are accorded nation status within the country. Quebec also considers itself a nation within Canada. However, to the best of my knowledge when travelling abroad most Quebeckers and First Nations people are happy to be considered Canadian in the wider international scheme of things. Pyrope 00:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Spain uses the term nationality for a couple of its sub-national divisions as well.Tvx1 18:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you read what you want to read DeFacto, but nowhere in there did I mention it as a key feature with respect to the infobox. In terms of his notability, and hence the reason for having a Wikipedia article at all, his key nationality is British. Including a second nationality field is simply unnecessarily confusing to the readers. Pyrope 00:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of that you are ignoring the very simple fact that the convention of multiple wikipedia articles is to accept Welsh, Scottish or English as an alternative to British if there is self-identification. You can't exempt F1 articles from that which is why the subject will keep coming up and a compromise makes more sense. And in response to Falcadore the country status of England,Wales and Scotland is formally acknowledged by the European Union. We went through this at length in a mediated discussion over the various UK articles years ago (as GoodDay is well aware but constantly chooses to forget as his view was not supported by citation). -----Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The European Union has no involvement in Formula One! Each country has its own relationship with Formula One and does not involve the EU. The European Grand Prix when it is held, goes through the relevant sporting body of the country it is being held in regardless if that is the UK, Italy, Germany, France, Belgium or Azerbaijan.

Wikipedia's prefered method of explaining more complex ideas has always been prose, not infoboxes. Why is it so difficult to explain the difference between Welsh and British in Pryce's case using prose in the article proper? What is the apparently immense outstanding difficulty that cannot be overcome with a few sentences? --Falcadore (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As has been explained to you before. Self-identification is NOT the only thing looked at for article on UK nationals. As has been pointed out as well, the concept of including both varieties of the nationalities in infoboxes of such articles has actually been discussed multiple times on the talk page of the linked essay and has not received much support whenever it was raised. Pyrope sums the situation up very well. This the biography of a racing driver, not merely a "F1 article", which exists because the subject is an internationally notable British racing driver. While his Welshness is worth mentioning, it is not key and isn't warranted in the infobox. Pyrope has demonstrated more than enough that his Welshness is "accepted" in this article.Tvx1 18:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pyrope: should immediately strikie out his provocative "Welsh" has no internationally defined meaning (unless you are trying to sell lamb), as it is offensive. Please keep to the debate. Secondly, he is wrong. International meaning of our identity has been accepted over at least a thousand year. These can be found above at the start of this thread AND on the English Wikipedia, as has been pointed out. We are not dealing with Canada or any other countries, we are dealing ONLY with Wales. A best fit attitude does not work on any Wikipedia project. Correctness, truthfulness and dependancy on good, solid, neutral sources is much, much more important than attempting to rough brush, one size fits all, the diversity of life! Lastly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#British_racers before discussing this matter elsewhere, it is considered good practice to ping all those involved, or leave a note on their Talk page. Sian EJ (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a consensus for making such exceptions for British drivers. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And I see no consensus to exempt F1 articles from the general approach used on wikipedia (of which GoodDay you are very well aware. I'm beginning to regret supported the removal of your topic ban on all things to do with British Identity :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want to revert to backhanded bullying of me, again? that's your choice. I'm not the one here though, that you have to convince for British exemptions on these F1 articles. Best you concentrate on the others who are against using Welsh, Scottish, English & Northern Irish in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually this article does follow the general approach used on Wikipedia for sportspeople from the UK.Tvx1 20:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No, Sian EJ, that sentence is not provocative, just a statement of fact. Aside from what one person feels, there is not a universal definition of Welshness. There are people born in Wales who do not consider themselves to be Welsh, just as there are people born outside the country who do and people with Welsh ancestry born outside who do not. There are people born in Wales who think of themselves as Welsh, but at the same time there are other people who would not consider them so. People are free to choose. It is a matter of personal choice, and that's fair enough. By contrast, there is a clearly defined and unambiguous definition of nationality within an international motorsport context, and those definitions apply to all competitors. Competitors are not free to choose, and nor are we within that context. Pyrope 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, to be completely precise, competitors are allowed to choose, even forced to, a nationality if and ONLY IF they posses multiple legal nationalities from sovereign states. Examples of these are Nico Rosberg, Max Verstappen, Lance Stroll,etc.Tvx1 20:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether the sentence was provocative or not its incorrect. Wales is acknowledged as a country and it is a national identity. IN respect of the colours under which someone races - yes its British. In respect of their nationality - that is about self-identification. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that nationality is a fluid and many-faceted concept. One individual can have multiple nationalities based on many factors, and which is or are applicable are based on context and circumstance. Pryce was both Welsh and British, but in an international motorsport context it is his British nationality that applies. This isn't couched in terms of 'representation', or the colours they use, but is specifically termed his 'nationality' in the regulation documents. Pyrope 16:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Pyrope You forgot to add that there are people in England who do not consider themselves to be English (quite a lot in fact!), there are people born outside the country who do and people with English ancestry born outside who do not. What on earth has this to do with this discussion??? You're completely out of line! The definition of Welshness, Englishness, Scottishness, Luxemburgness (!) is defined by sources, and sources is Wikipedia is sources. Your statement that 'Welshness' is defined in a reference about sheep is totally out of line! Please retract before this is taken further! And keep to the discussion: whether Wikipedia is about sources or based on your political affiliation to the status quo. Infoboxes can state two things, please open your eyes to the world around you, to the diversity within that world, and respecting the right of minorities, of which Tom Pryce was one, and a very proud one at that. If you have no sources which 'prove' that he was not a Welshman, then please provide. Sian EJ (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobody has ever argued that he wasn't Welsh. If you want to take things further then please feel free to, that is your prerogative, but I would caution you to actually read what I wrote first. As far as sources go, I have provided plenty both here and in previous discussions that show that not only was Pryce regarded as a British national in his sport, but the status and terminology of that nationality is encoded in the rules of that sport. I find it quite amusing that you use a diversity argument while simultaneously trying to deny the diversity inherent within one human being. Pyrope 17:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

But Pyrope, this isn't only about his sport, it's about the person too. What is wrong with giving equal weight in the infobox (as per the current compromise proposal here), to his Welsh nationality as a person - there is room for both. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, this quite blatantly only about his sport. The only reason of existence of this article is that this subject was an internationally notable sportsperson. Aside from his sport, there is nothing justing the existence of this article. That's why his Welshness is just no important enough to be included in the inbox.Tvx1 19:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

To quote the page you have linked to below, the "less information it contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Having two separate nationality fields is not just including more information than needs to be there, but it is potentially very confusing without some degree of extended explanation or fancy semantics. His location of birth is already included, so his Welsh origins are there to be seen and digested in a straightforward and familiar manner. As I have explained already, in terms of his notability the key fact to convey is the nationality that he is most widely associated with within his professional activity. Pyrope 01:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course though, it doesn't mean to leave the key facts out of the infobox, of which his Welshness is eminently one. It means to leave out less notable stuff, based on the person, but maybe shoe size, eye colour, etc. in this case. The place for clarification of any potential confusion is in the prose, but straight key facts all belong in the infobox - or the article will come across as non-neutral where summaries are extracted automatically, or even just lazily read, from the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Then you are boiling this down to what you consider to be a key fact, your own opinion. Wikipedia doesn't deal in opinions unless supported by sources, so lets have a few of those. I cannot find anywhere a source that, when presenting an abbreviated thumbnail sketch of his career in the manner of our infoboxes, does not list the UK/Great Britain/United Kingdom as his most important nationality. This is true around the world:

• UK: Motor Sport - Nationality: British
• UK: Forix (subscription) - Great Britain
• UK: Autocorse Grand Prix Who's Who (hard copy) - GB
• France: StatsF1 - Nation: United Kingdom
• Russia: 4mula1 - Great Britain
• Russia: All F1 Info (sadly no longer updated) - Union Flag only
• Netherlands: F1 Fansite - Country: Great Britain
• USA: ESPN - Great Britain
• USA: Racing Reference - Union Flag only
• Sweden: Driver Database - Nationality: British
• Germany: F1 Statistiker - Land: Großbritannien

Do you see the pattern? Even in those sources that are of British origin, which previous discussion showed were more likely to reference his Welsh identity, list his nationality as British. Those sources that go on to discuss his Welsh identity do so in a subsequent prose section, as we do here. It is very clear from his portrayal around the world that being Welsh was not at all key to his notability. It is an interesting and important additional piece of information, but is not one of the very most important parts of his worldwide identity. Pyrope 13:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Surley the key facts are those that the balance of reliable sources agree upon, not those that particular editors choose. Talking about choosing, are those sources you quote from a random sample or are they cherry-picked to support your personal opinion? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That was basically every such page from the first four pages of a simple Google search. This is the point where you stop casting aspersions and go away and find your own sources. Pyrope 21:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And his Welshness is more than adequately dealt with in the article. It does not have to be explicitly stated in the infobox to be considered to be acknowledged in the article. It's clear from some of the above comments like "International meaning of our identity has been accepted over at least a thousand year.", that some of the pro-Welsh contributors in this discussion are not here to ensure an appropriate depiction of the subject of this article, but to quite blatantly simply promote their own national identity. And they are so obsessed with it that they appear utterly unable to accept that some born in Wales can have British nationality. There is a point were such a discussion reaches a point of no meaningful progress.Tvx1 20:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion on the motives of contributors is irrelevant here. Please give your Wiki-policy-based reasoning for objecting to giving equal weight in the infobox to his Welsh nationality. As it stands, it seems reasonable to make his Welsh nationality, as a key characteristic of his, as available in the infobox for automated processing as his F1 nationality is - per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting such additions to infoboxes of all the British F1 bios? GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No, this talkpage is for this article only and this person is the only subject here as far as I'm concerned. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't support your proposals then. I will not agree to making this one article different from the other British F1 racer articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

So far, everyone agrees with one thing: that Tom, as a person, was Welsh. No one has disputed that. We also have agreement that he drove under a British driving licence and therefore his citizenship is British. Then we disagree: one group want both bits of information in the Inofobox, and the second group only wants the infobox to show one part of the information. The first group base their reasoning on sharing unbiased, information with the reader, Wikipedia good practice, self-identifying as Welsh and the second group want uniformity, consistency and to show only information relevant to him as an F1 driver (but still accept some elements of him as a person, such as place of birth, dob etc). So do we show all the information, or only part of the full story? Do we have a ballanced infobox, or one that is unballanced and therefore sensored? Do we show Tom as a person and a driver, or only as one of these? I certainly know what the reader wants: the sum of ALL human knowledge. No reasons have been given by the second group as to why they want to sensor some of the information. My suggestion, therefore, is that the infobox states clearly BOTH bits eg

Nationality = Welsh

Representing / Passport held / Driving licence / Citizenship (any on of these) = British.

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already addressed this point above, but to reprise in short, what you suggest is misrepresentation. He was not just "representing" the UK, that was his registered nationality within the sport. In addition, that was one of his nationalities in life. This may not accord with your own preferences but it is an indisputable fact. So what you are proposing is that we show two fields labeled "nationality" in the infobox and hope that a new reader (from possibly any country in the world) is already well informed enough about internal British country politics and national identities to work out what is going on. That's not in the slightest "best practice". His most significant public identity is as an international racing driver, and therefore, yes, that is the direction that the infobox should be targeted. No infobox can contain every piece of information about an article subject, that's what the prose is for. Pyrope 13:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your first two sentences, 'Missrepresentation' is too harsh, it was done in good faith. You say that his registered nationality was 'British, for the duration of the race. I would like your sources here; the actual document please. If what you say can be proved by solid sources then it should say so in the infobox i.e.

Registered nationality = British

and it should also have 'Nationality by birth' = Welsh. The rest of your text is nothing less than drizzle. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already linked to those documents before but, at the risk of irking Snowded ;-), here is the main one again. I don't know or care whether your misrepresentation was done unintentionally, but you have certainly been corrected in these matters on multiple occasions in the past and yet you persisted with this spurious logic again here. If unintentional, please take the time and have the courtesy to read responses made to your previous comments here and elsewhere. Also, you are continuing to try and qualify his British nationality, despite many lines of evidence presented by myself and others to show why this is not a true representation of either his official standing or his dominant portrayal in the media. He was not 'registered' as British, he was simply British. He was also Welsh, the two are not mutually exclusive. However, in his professional life one takes precedence over the other in terms of its communication importance to an uninformed reader. Pyrope 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said Missrepresentation is too harsh; what I suggested is a good compromise, done in good faith. The "misrepresentation" is all yours. Regarding my request for references to solid sources that Tom's registered nationality was British: you have failed to deliver. The link is to the current (2018) International Sporting Code and not the code Tom signed up to. Your sentence 'I don't know or care...' up to the end of your last sentence is ad hominem, please refrain from political waffle and stick to Wikimedia stuff. Sian EJ (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks Sian. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The article as it stands is a good compromise too. His Welshness gets quite a lot of credit in the body and is even celebrated in the lead. There is no policy or even guideline forcing us to including it in the infobox at all. It is not necessary at all.Tvx1 19:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Llyewelyn, but that is a very poor and respectless summary of the other side's stance. The other group actually wants an entirely balanced article. They acknowledge that there is more to an article than the infobox and that the infobox is not a collection of all sort of information from the article. His Welshness is celebrated quite sufficiently o your accusation of censoring (which you can't even spell correctly) are completely of the mark. An infobox without "Welsh" in it is not in any way unbalanced.Tvx1 19:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, the motives of contributors are very relevant here. They are a key factor to the value of the arguments of some of the contributors. Moreover it's clear that the pride some of the contributors carry over their own Welshness massive clouds their judgement. As for the policy or guideline-based reasoning, enough arguments have been provided at all. Confusion, sources, etc. Many good arguments have been brought forward to justify the current situation. It's quite hypocritical to go asking for "policy-based reasoning", when you haven't brought any policy are even guideline based argument whatsoever. The only things you have is an essay, which this article even follows with regards to UK sportspeople, and some coding you keep desperately clinging even though it is no argument by itself.Tvx1 19:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No, motives are definitely irrelevant, it is the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy that counts (per WP:CONLEVEL). That's why I suggested that you concentrate on that, as the arguments I've seen supporting the suppression of this key data in the person infobox seem to mainly rely on the misconception that the preferences of the F1 project community trump any other argument. WP:PROJ explains it thus: WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this response DeFacto. I have been one of the more active participants in this discussion and previous ones and I have never invoked any sort of Wikiproject F1 community trump card. I always debate an issue on its merits and am very skeptical when others use an argument based purely on consensus or existing practice. I would also add that I have not only provided tightly reasoned justification for my stance, based on Wikipedia policies and guides that I assume you endorse, given that you have linked to some of those very pages, but I have also provided many third party sources over the years in support of my position. That you have chosen to try and trivialize these (above) without actually providing any evidence of your own is not really my problem. Finally, you state that motivations behind people's stances are irrelevant, yet you then go on to use a fairly seriously pejorative accusation ("suppression" is never usually seen as a positive move, unless you are buying cough syrup...) that casts aspersions and directly questions the motives of those who are arguing against you. There is a contradiction here, and you would do well to think on it. Pyrope 21:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused you Pyrope. I did use the word "mainly" rather than "totally" in acknowledgement of the points not falling into that category - including yours. I think there is a middle-ground we should be striving to reach, which allows for the unique circumstances of this person to be available in the infobox for automated extraction, and I'm not convinced we have seen a sound Wiki-policy-based argument to prevent that happening yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fact is though, that the motives of these users actually define the quality of their arguments and their judgement. That's why they are very much relevant. At this point I'm feeling that there isn't much constructive discussion taking place anymore. From your latest comments, it appears that you are unwilling to admit any merit in the other side's arguments. Pyrope has actually provided sound reasoning and supported their stance with valuable reliable sources.Tvx1 23:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If the sorces at the time do actually state 'Registered Nationality', then that's what the infobox should state, together with 'Nationality by birth'. End of. It all boils down to sources. Anything else is political. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And what we have trying to point to you the entire time is that Pryce had British nationality at birth as well. Being Welsh does not in any way exclude one from having British nationality.Tvx1 15:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

See DeFacto I made my claims, that their motives cloud their judgement, for a good reason. It has emerged now that some possible sockpuppeting, very like meatpuppeting took place among the pro-Welsh contributors to this discussion.Tvx1 17:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1, what "good reason" did you have on 25th October for trying to imply that their motives had any bearing on the quality of the argument? The argument was good regardless of motive. And it seems that SPI (raised on 26th October) is being closed without any further action, so perhaps you need to apologise for not assuming good faith. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Even though they weren't blocked, they admitted during the SPI making edits to this discussion using both accounts. So, no I'm not going to apologize. I did not break any policy. And I have given my explanation on the relevancy their motives more than clearly enough. They affect their judgement and as such the discussion. The recent strings of responses prove that yet again. They are utterly unable to accept/admit that "British" is a nationality. If you choose to remain naïve that is your problem.Tvx1 15:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1, a quality argument is a quality argument, regardless of what motivates one to make it. And it is the argument we need to consider here, and not try to analyse people's motives. I'm sure you have a motive for your stance, but that is irrelevant too. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A quality argument is not a quality argument if does not possess quality. And arguments which deny British being a nationality don't have much quality. And motives are very relevant when they negatively effect the quality of the arguments.Tvx1 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Trying to get somewhere

We are going round in circles as far as I can see the position is as follows

• That he self-identified as Welsh is not contested
• That the convention for the FI information box is to use the team (which is generally a nation state)
• There are very few use cases for British F1 drivers where this would come into play so no real precedent
• Self-identification is used to determine nationality for people from the UK on many other articles

So I think it comes down to two questions

• Is his only notability as a Racing Driver? If not, then Welsh would be OK per normal practice
• If he has no other notability, does the team he drove for determine the nationality or can we have both

Overall it looks like it boils down to the second and we should simply RfC that.-----Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where the team identity enters in to this. Pyrope 13:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see what you did. The nationality of a competitor in Formula One (or any other FIA sanctioned World Championship event) is determined by the nation of which they are a citizen. It is laid down in the rules and is nothing to do with teams. In fact, the team with which Pryce is most dominantly associated is Shadow, which was a USA-registered team for his first two years with them, and then a British-registered team for his last 18 months. It might be a good idea for you to thoroughly read back through these various discussions and understand the points being made before you raise any RfC. Pyrope 14:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I read back through it - I'm trying too sort out what the issue is and stop constant repetition of the same points - something you just did :-) Part of the problem here is that some people are framing it as an F1 interest group issues, others as a wider issue of nationality which in information boxes which is established over multiple articles. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well aware of that problem... *sigh*... but as there are folk who fly-by and drop comments that have already been addressed elsewhere sometimes it is necessary to repeat replies too! As ever in Wikipedia, and life in general, humans should be dealt with on their own merits, and trying to apply solutions that do not fit their particular circumstances is always dubious. Treating a Formula One driver in an identical manner to, say, a footballer ignores the regulations (FIA vs. FIFA) of their sport, the culture of the sport, and its portrayal in the media, etc. A particular sporting hero of mine, Big Norm, is listed in the intro to his page as an "English-born Welsh footballer", which I find quite amusing as he's about as bluff and gruff a proud Yorkshireman as I've ever met. Nevertheless, he played for Wales on multiple occasions and is seen on the wider international stage as a Welshman. Fair enough, that's how football works. If we apply that logic to Pryce we should be describing him as a Welsh-born British racing driver, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some engaged in this debate who would not be happy with that form of words. Pyrope 16:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That wording is just plainly confusing. It suggests that he was born with Welsh legal nationality/citizenship an dropped it in favor of British one at some point in his life. Quite like someone born in Northern Ireland have the birth right to request Irish legal nationality/citizenship if they wish and in the process, but not mandatorily, drop the British nationality/citizenship they received at birth. Moreover we all know that Pryce was born British just as much (and from a legal perspective even more) as Welsh. Lastly such wording would be extremely confusing which other examples like an Italian-born Belgian racing driver. As it stands, the current form of the article is the least confusing we can have.Tvx1 19:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I never said I was in favour of it! Pyrope 21:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Any proposed RFC on this matter, should cover all British F1 racers, not just Pryce. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are other British F1 drivers who self-identify as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish then there might be a case GoodDay. No one is disputing the F1 intro box, its the wider wikipedia use of nationality and its application which is in question here. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not active enough to keep up with a big discussion like this, so I'll repeat my earlier post. My understanding of the nationality field in the person infobox - when it is required, as the field is often not necessary - is that it is meant to be used for legal nationality only. Apart from other sport-specific fields, I can't actually find any other articles using sub-British identities in the infobox. So where is this "normal practice" actually practised? QueenCake (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of examples, try this politician for starters -----Snowded ^TALK 09:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And this one doesn't even have one nationality field in his infobox. So again NOT a general practice at all. NOT an obligation in any way. His Welshness is given its due credit in the prose and in the lead.Tvx1 15:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Nationality isn't always present, when it is the convention is self-identification.. In fact that may be a way forward - just get rid of it as a field -----Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

But such a convention isn't written in stone & it's never constructive to attempt to force something into an article or its infobox. PS: I've no objections to completely deleting the entire 'nationality/flag' stuff from all these Motorsports bio infoboxes. Though I must say, doing so (just because one can't get Welsh nationality & flag into one article's infobox) is quite a drastic measure. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Again not true in any way for sportspeople. They only use whatever nationality they are associated with in their sport. For instance Steve Redgrave, Robbie Grabarz, Nicola Adams, Luke Campbell, Jade Jones and many many more. The general practice you keep gong about just doesn't exist.Tvx1 22:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "infobox person"

On a side note. Can the people arguing in favor of Welsh in the infobox please stop disruptively and authoritatively adding the infobox person code in the infobox. It was added here 11 months ago by Llywelyn2000 in a desperate attempt to find some justification to include Welsh in defiance of the general practice for racing drivers' biographies. There is no WP:MOTOR nor any general consensus in favor of it nor is there on emerging here in this discussion. Please respect Wikipedia conventions. This discussion can be continued without the controversial code. At can be added if a consensus emerges in favor of it, but at the moment that consensus doesn't exist anywhere.Tvx1 20:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1, having been in the article untouched for 11 months the "infobox person" code is, despite your disruptive edits, the current consensus. See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. You should revert your change, and if you still think the code should be removed, then you need to seek consensus before removing it as it is clear that there are other editors who disagree. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And the article was without the code for years, in respect of the convention for motorsport biographies, before that. It was added by one of the pro-Welsh editors in a clear attempt to push Welsh in the infobox. It was not supported by consensus and still isn't. Therefore the continuous addition is what actually is disruptive. The identical infobox can be created using just one infobox template, instead of using two nested ones. Adding the code for no visual change for the readers is just plain stupid. It's not a surprise that it took some time before it was noticed since it's only visible in the coding. That's what I've been trying to explain the entire time. The distinction between person/F1 driver infobox isn't clear to the reader at all making it utterly inappropriate to rely on it. Why is it so difficult to admit that?Tvx1 23:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If its been there for 11 months then it is the default position - until there is a consensus to change it. It can equally be argued that your rejection of a wikipedia convention on self-identification is disruptive. The whole point about the 3RR rule is not to edit war while things are resolved -----Snowded ^TALK 09:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Conventions need to be respected and the convention for motorsport biographies is without the controversial coding. Also, no rejection of a wikipedia convention on self-identification has taken place. You're just making that aspect more important than Wikipedia does.Tvx1 15:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

11 months without being reverted and a current discussion on the talk page in which your view is contested? 3RR is clear - leave it until resolved even if you are convinced you are right -----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, It's not a surprise that it took some time before it was noticed since it was only visible in the coding. So we have to cut some leeway here. And even then, the Welsh bit of it was removed well less than 11 months after the inclusion. The inclusion of the code is thus not that uncontroversial at all and is in breach of convention no matter how you turn it.Tvx1 20:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And Tvx1, another reason to leave it in (as if it still being the current consensus wasn't enough) is that it is referred to in place in the discussion above. Your removal of it adds another level of disruption and confusion to that discussion. So one more time, please revert your non-consensual change as it is completely contrary to the Wikipedia ethos of collective collaboration and improvement. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No it is not and I have explained that to you days go. The omission of the coding doesn't prevent or confuse discussion in any way. The readers can't see it anyway. The infobox doesn't look different in any way without it. The only place it is mentioned is on the talk page. Focus your efforts on discussing rather than provoking a revert.Tvx1 15:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1 yes, it is the integrity of this ongoing talkpage discussion that you have violated. I introduced the point about the (then existing) infobox person here and the code was referred to on several occasions following that. Your removal means that editors following this discussion will not be able to see the significance now. Perhaps that was your motive, I don't know, but your removal of it and subsequent edit warring to keep it out is not acceptable behaviour, and I think the honourable thing for you to do is self-revert and await the outcome of this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And the absence of the coding doesn't prevent the posting of comments regarding it in any way, so please stop banging on that. It would say that the admitted sockpuppetting and probable meatpuppetting has violated the integrety of the ongoing discussion much much more.Tvx1 17:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No Tvx1 it doesn't prevent it, but it makes it less likely to be understood if the code referred to is no longer there. More importantly though, your repeated removal of the code, especially as it was challenged by more than one other editor, is a blatant contravention of the WP:EW policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your repeated reinstating of the code is just as much contravention of the WP:EW policy. Don't be hypocritical. Just because it wasn't included once doesn't mean it has stay forever. That's just not how Wikipedia works. It was my good right to remove it when I noticed it was against the convention for motor racing biographies. And that its removal makes the discussion less likely to be understood is just your personal thought. The discussion itself demonstrates otherwise.Tvx1 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1, have you read WP:EDITCONSENSUS? Why do you think it doesn't apply here? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes have. But also use common sense instead of applying that as a strict law. Editconsenus is not free ticket to edit war to keep content on the sole justification of "it was included once". Just because content was added it doesn't mean no one can ever remove or tweak it. You should also no be so strict. This article doesn't generally have a lot of activity. In fact the original inclusion of the controversial code was partially reverted on just the ninth edit thereafter. It is safe to say that the user who made that revert did not realize that more was added than they removed as the coding is not visible to the general reader. And not every editor compares previous edits by default. So you really don't have a strong case for an edit consensus here.Tvx1 17:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure consensus can change, but editconsensus confirms what I said, that the current consensus is the long standing version that was in place for 11 months until you removed it. As your removal was challenged (by more than one editor) you should have accepted that and engaged in discussion. Only if a new consensus for it is achieved should that removal be actioned. That principle is included in one of the key Wiki policies. The first sentence in WP:CON reads: Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. The current consensus (pending the outcome of this discussion) is that the article contains the person infobox - do you now understand that? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As I explained before the editconsensus you keep claiming is not that clear. The edit did not go entirely unchallenged in its entirety at all. Stop being so pedantic and use some common sense please. No matter how many replies you are going to make it does not change the fact that the infobox look utterly identical to the reader without the code. So please stop making such a drama and focus what we really set out to discuss here.Tvx1 19:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The stuff you removed had been in place for 11 months, so the consensus per editconsensus could hardly be clearer. I explained earlier why it should stay whilst this discussion is ongoing, and only be removed if a consensus develops to remove it. Please do the collegial thing and comply with policy and revert your change and wait to see if a consensus for change develops. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1, what convention? The current consensus in this article is that it stays in, and we know that projects don't trump local article consensus. If that local consensus is changed by this discussion then it should be removed - but not before. That is how Wikipedia works - as you should well know. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The convention evidenced by how any other motor racing biography is formatted. Absolutely none other uses the infobox person coding. And they certainly don't to justify including English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh in the infobox.Tvx1 15:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Absence doesn't imply "convention", it just means it has never happened yet. Anyway, project conventions do not trump local consensus (per WP:PROJ), so that is an invalid argument is this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's the exact contrary of what you claim. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, THAT doesn't trump more general conventions in any way. And it doesn't even matter, because there isn't even any consensus in favor of that coding.Tvx1 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1, you are confusing local consensus, as in a consensus formed on an article talkpage per normal Wikipedia policies and conventions (as is the case here) with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS referring to project consensuses. The latter explicitly says that participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. That means the project does not trump the normal talkpage process. That is what I've tried to explain to you. And yes there absolutely was a consesus for that code of 11 months, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS as described previously - so please stop trying to defy that policy too. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm against using that 'person code' in this infobox, as it doesn't add anything to it & AFAIK, it's not in any of the other British racer bios infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, it adds a great deal. Lazy readers and machine-read automatic extractions would get the full, neutral, picture. That's got to be worth the single extra field, surely? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not present in the other British F1 racer infoboxes. I oppose having this article treated differently. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not refer to project consensus. It refers to local consensus formed by a small group of people at one place on one time trying to overrule a wider convention. That's exactly what you're trying to do. No WikiProject is trying to override generally accepted policy or guideline here. No generally accepted policy or guideline dictates us to have that code or to include Welsh in addition to British in an infobox. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. A small group of editors on the talk page of a specific article trying to override a wider convention is an exact example of what that policy states is not acceptable. So please stop warping these words in your favor. On side note, please don't ping me in every reply you make. It's annoying and unnecessary. I'm active participant and I see when there are new contributions.Tvx1 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong, read it again. The first sentence says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Then sentence two gives an example in relation to a consensus (among a limited group of editors) from a WikiProject: For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Then the third sentence hammers home the point: WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay. Did you get that: WikiProject stuff has "no more status than an essay." To put it another way, the normal policy and guideline stuff about consensuses applies, regardless of whether it contradicts output from the limited group that is WP:F1.

And stop trying to confuse this point about your disruptive removal of content against the current edit-consensus (the subject of this sub-section) with the other point about including another field in the person infobox (being discussed in other sub-sections). The specific point here is that you removed content (the infobox person) which is the current edit consensus here, despite the objections of other editors here and despite this discussion being ongoing. It is that which goes against Wiki policy and which cannot be justified on the grounds that it doesn't exist in other F1 articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing of which is the case in the situation. What happened here is that a select group of editors attempted to override a greater consensus and you claimed that to be normal practice that's just not the case. There is no WikiProject trying to claim that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply here. Quite on the contrary.Tvx1 19:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have explained multiple times that this article doesn't have a lot of activity and that the presence, let alone addition, of the code wasn't clear at all. You can't go and claim such a strict edit consensus for that. That's a fact and it's not going to change no matter how many replies you post.Tvx1 18:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Continually repeating old rebutted and discredited "explanations" doesn't cut it. Consensus isn't dependent on the amount of activity an article has, and per WP:BRD you should not try to force your will on the article without a new discussion and consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. You're not going to achieve anything here, no matter how many replies you're going to post.Tvx1 13:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What's in the infoboxes of the other British F1 bios? GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Anything from "infobox racing driver", "infobox F1 driver" "infobox WRC driver", "inbox Le Mans driver" and so on. Something infobox for multiple racing classes are combined in the coding to form one infobox for the reader when a driver competed in multiple major classes. The "infobox person" coding is only included in this article and it is dead obvious this is done to create a justification for including Welsh.Tvx1 15:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well then, to conform with the other racer bios, the 'infobox person coding' should indeed be removed. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You are arguing about conventions when the clear convention all along has been that Formula One drivers are refered to as British within the sport. Has the irony struck anyone else? --Falcadore (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And another clear convention is that nationality is determined by self-identification. We have two communities, each using different valid presidentsprecedents - so we need to find a compromise rather than rehashing the same arguments -----Snowded ^TALK 13:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A compromise for all British F1 racers or racers-in-general, depending on the size of the scope. Not just Pryce. PS: By "presidents", I assume you mean precedents. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing like predictive text:-) corrected. If there are other F1 drivers from the UK who strongly identify with one of the four nations then there would be a similar argument: know of any?. But there is no reason for an F1 convention to override another convention in wikipedia. We deal with cases as they come up. What we need here is a little pragmatism -----Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

On a larger scale, the convention across bios-in-general is that sovereign-state is used for nationalities, though British bios have been given an exemption. Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem to give exemption to Motorsports bios infoboxes, allowing them to use only British, for their British racers. An exemption for a group within a larger exempted group, is allowable. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a mis-statement GoodDay, most nations are also sovereign states, but that is not the case in the UK and a couple of other examples where nationality is not necessarily aligned with citizenship. Wikipedia works with that despite your long standing opposition over multiple articles. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

F1 doesn't use Welsh, English, Scottish & Northern Irish. It uses British, for its British racers. A compromise is already in place for these Motorsports bios - E/W/S/NI is used in the prose, though not in the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As a have stated many times self-identification is NOT the only thing looked at. In so far UK sportspeople are concerned this article adhered to the essay perfectly. And please stop downplaying British to solely a citizenship. It is a nationality as well in many ways. Most importantly, the legal definition. It appeared in all nationality fields on any personal ID Tom Pryce ever used to identify himself officially. Most importantly, whenever he crossed borders while traveling for his motor racing duties. Since this person was thus associated with his legal nationality in his sole notable professional activity (which has been substantiated with sources), the current version of the article is perfectly acceptable. None of you have made even a measly attempt to explain why celebrating his Welshness in the prose is insufficient.Tvx1 15:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is down playing British - if that is the self-identification fine, then it coincides with citizenship; if Welsh or Scottish it doesn't. If there is a nationality field then its Welsh in this case - if you remove that field (as is the case with cyclists etc) then no issue with it just being in the text -----Snowded ^TALK 19:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So in other words, you are simply offended by the Union Jack in the infobox?Tvx1 21:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would I be offended? If the individual self-identifies as British it is appropriate, if Welsh then dragons work better. -----Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact is though, as Pyrope has explained and proven, we go by what reliable sources do primarily and the vast majority of them identify him as British. He was personally proud of being Welsh and we celebrate that adequately. None of your contributions have even tried to demonstrate why it is necessary in the infobox.Tvx1 21:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As explained by GoodDay the compromise is already in place. British is referenced and supported by several editors is what is used by Formula One. Formula One is Tom Pryce's primary (indeed it could be suggested only) subject of notability. We have a Formula One specific infobox. Now as has looooong been held, the explanation of complicated concepts in wikipedia is to use prose, not to attempt to force the issue in data representations like tables and templates. So, British in the infobox, but explain the Welsh and British in prose in the article lede. Seems simple. Can we move this towards case closed now? --Falcadore (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Or alternatively explain why a Flagicon succeeds as a compromise and prose description fails? --Falcadore (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, the compromise proposed does not include a flag. The compromise is to put Welsh (with no flag) into the "Infobox person" to complement British (with flag) in the F1 infobox. Sure prose will continue to be used, as it currently is, to expand on those facts - no-one is asking for that to be removed, but the one extra field is required in the infobox to ensure any machine-read automatic extraction becomes neutral and includes both too. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep claiming that the proposed compromise does not include a flag, yet all of the proposed edits do include the Welsh flag. Moreover, on the pro-Welsh editors has just stated the Welsh dragon should be the only flag in the infobox. It appears that you don't even agree among the set of you on what you really want.Tvx1 16:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Normal convention is words no flag -----Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Again just not true. Not in the least for sportspeople.Tvx1 19:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I keep reminding you that the proposed compromise does not include a flag, because I know it doesn't. Those old diffs you give weren't related to the compromise proposal here. I thought you said you were following this discussion. I first challenged the inclusion of a Welsh flag at 06:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC), and that received positive feedback from two of the editors supporting the inclusion of Pryce's nationality in the person infobox (here and here). I reiterated it here and Snowded said something similar here. Then I created a new section break here to concentrate on this compromise proposal, and reiterated it here. The proposal is to add one field to the person infobox and no new flag. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You get a consensus for all British F1 racers & there'll be no problem. You gotta expand your interest in this topic to beyond this 'one' article. That's why those of you who are pushing for Welsh in the infobox, 'should be' participating in the Rfc at WP:F1, instead of here. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Are there any other British F1 racers who self-identify as Welsh, Scottish or English? If not its an issue here and the wider aspect is the one of nationality which cannot be determined by one sports interest group. GoodDay you are reverting to an old habit of dropping comments onto British articles -----Snowded ^TALK 05:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Look, you're not going to get a consensus on this one article for what you want. Your best chance is to go to the Rfc at WP:F1 & plead your case there. Jeez, I'm trying to help you out & all you do is put me down. If you can't get a consensus there? then take the hint & drop what you're doing here. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If you read several of the comments you will see that part of the argument is the jurisdiction of the F1 interest group to override general principles established elsewhere in Wikipedia. Suggesting that 'pleas' need to me made is hardly helpful. The idea of the talk page is to try and formulate the issue so we can resolve it - I tried that above and just got the standard responses. I've even suggested removing nationality ( as has been done elsewhere) might be a solution. No one is putting you down, but reminding you of a prior sequence of events where a lot of us tried to help you but you ignored us. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No there is intention from the "F1 interest group" to override a general consensus. Quite the contrary. There is an attempt of select group of pro-Welsh editors to make this article an exception to the general practice. As explained right from the start and reiterated multiple times, Pryce's British nationality applies to his entire motorsports career, not just the F1 part, and this article currently complies perfectly with what the mentioned essay suggests regarding sportspeople.Tvx1 18:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The F1 interest group without a doubt define the information box material relating to that sport. However the nationality of people from the UK is based on self-identification. That is long established and it would be better to try and work with one of the compromises. For you its an exception to make it Welsh, for me it would be an exception to make it British. So stop the silly conspiracy theories and see if a compromise is possible -----Snowded ^TALK 15:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet the facts don't support your claims. It's not at all general practice to have British and another nationality, even when there is some self-identification, in the infoboxes of sportspeople. I have provided more than enough examples to substantiate that. We've been discussing for weeks now and you have achieved little support for your stance. I think it is about time to invoke WP:STICK here. The current state of the article IS a very good compromise. Both British and Welsh are incorporated in the article in the most appropriate manner.Tvx1 13:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

My advice

Whatever the result is at WP:F1 Rfc, adopt it for this article. Otherwise, open up a separate Rfc for this article 'only'. Anyways, I've grown tired of the near daily jabs toward me, by one of the editors in this discussion & so I'm departing. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this (old or very old) FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria.

• There is some uncited text.
• There are incomplete citations (sample, who is the publisher here ? "The Tragic Tale of Tom Pryce". Archived from the original on 21 May 2014. Retrieved 21 May 2014.)
• There are a number of sources that may not be reliable, or high-quality for an FA: formulaspy.com, carkeys.co.uk, oldracingcars.com, and more.
• A MOS review would be helpful (Sample, MOS:ALLCAPS Matthews, Gethin (7 April 2014). "PRYCE, THOMAS MALDWYN (1949-1977), racing driver". )

Hopefully these items can be addressed so that a Featured article review will not be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)