Talk:2010 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I think USF1 changed their name again (or: just decide already!)

Let's run it down: USF1, then briefly USGPE so they wouldn't make Bernie angry, then Team US F1 once they officially signed up for 2010. Now I'm starting to see them referred to as US F1 Team. It's on their official website's splash page, but I think what is more notable is that F1.com's Q&A with Ken Anderson refers to them as US F1 Team. Not only that, but the freaking copyright notices on the images says US F1 Team.
Now, I don't think this necessarily trumps the entry list that was released awhile ago, but the FIA have been known to change little things without really telling anyone. Does anyone have the link to the press release that would contain this information? This would be ridiculous if they actually changed their name, we'd have to move the article for like a fourth time. Eightball (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been following Autosport and F1 Fanatic daily and a few others like James Allen, Joe Saward and Jonathn Noble intermittently. I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest it is true; if I had to guess, I'd say it was a slip of the tongue and Anderson said "US F1 Team" instead of "Team US F1". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I say we wait and see until the website is properly launched or there are official press releases etc. - mspete93 [talk] 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh absolutely we should wait, but I just felt like I should bring it up because otherwise we'd all be pretty confused if they did end up changing their name at the last minute. This way we at least have a heads-up. I don't think it's a slip of the tongue; maybe it's possible USF1's marketing people are just that incompetent Eightball (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Barrichello and Williams

Can we wait till we get a decent source, i.e. not a Brazilian newspaper, before adding Barrichello as a Williams driver? Sure, it's very likely, but these reports are premature. No word from either driver or team, and nothing on any of the usual sources. More importantly, a spokesman for Barrichello is denying the very reports that people keep adding [1] Let's be more careful with our sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of us are waiting, but the majority of people who are editing them in are not regular users; tey're only listed by IP address. And it's not just Barrichello who is being edited in, but Nico Hulkenberg at Williams, Nico Rosberg to Brawn and even Pastor Maldonado at both Virgin/Manor and Lotus. I think we should request semi-protection so that only regular users can edit it in once more; the raft of changes we've been getting have been worse than when Pedro de la Rosa was expected to be announced for Campos. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

some fool is deleting it.here is proof http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rubens-barrichello-joins-williams-gp-team/story-e6frf9if-1225786106144 8 million pay package from williams confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The fools are the ones adding hopeless sources like that one, and ignoring all the sources like the one I posted above, in which Barrichello's spokesman is denying the story. If you can't judge a source, then it'd be better if you just left it alone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not proof, that's newspaper speculation. Eightball (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A Brazilian newspaper with insider information is not proof. That's as rumor as it comes. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The proof is when Williams, Barrichello or Brawn confirm it. - mspete93 [talk] 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

It's happened again: someone else has added Rubens Barrichello to the table. I was going to wait until I had feedback on the idea, but as it has happened a dozen times today, I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection without waiting, similar to what we had back around the European Grand Prix. If all goes according to plan, regular users - ie the ones who keep undoing the changes - will be the only ones able to edit. My preference is for indefinite protection as Barrichello is the third such person for whom this has happened - the first two being de la Rosa and Alonso - and so it is likely to happen again in future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This page must continue to be protected. We're already getting people adding car numbers before any kind of confirmation, and that's just the registered users. In case anyone is in any doubt: Button will carry #1, but we aren't sure who he's driving for yet. If he moves, all the numbers will shift around. We'll do what we did last year and wait for the official entry list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we put it into constructors order after Abu Dhabi or wait 'til an entry list? - mspete93 [talk] 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because we still won't know the numbers - not until Button decides what to do, and we hear the numbers for the new teams. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One person adding the numbers once so far isn't reason enough for alarm. Just wait and see what happens to the page, don't predict this as a sign of what's to come. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's anything like last year, it'll need protecting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what two, three weeks away? We don't even have to think about it until then.

There is so much impatience... it is not a race to finish the edit first. --Falcadore (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia doesn't have to cover relatively insignificant information immediately, especially when there is doubt. Not only do we not know who Button is driving for next year, or the numbering of the new teams, we don't know whether Sauber would keep BMW's championship position if they were to gain a place. At best, we can number the teams above BMW once Button has decided his future - and NOT before.--MartinUK (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Monaco Grand Prix

The WMSC article on fia.com (reference #69) says the Monaco GP will be on May 23rd. Why is it listed here as May 16th, one week earlier? Merlin83b (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The date was later changed and no one added a reference for the new date. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hulkenberg and Barrichello at Williams

[2]

According to Wili Weber, Hulkenberg's manager, he said Hulkenburg would be a match for his new team-mate Barrichello. That all but confirms it doesn't it. --Troggy3112 ^(talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Confirmation will come from Williams. This is the same man who said he was 200% sure Schumacher would not agree to a return to F1. He isn't Barrichello's manager anyway. - mspete93 [talk] 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation may also come from Barrichello himself, but that's moot point - if it's not from someone who is directly invovled in or with the team, it doesnt go in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Williams and Cosworth - it's confirmed

I just had to reverse an edit that removed a reference to Williams using Cosworth engines, claiming that it was unconfirmed. However, a reference was provided to an article that makes it very clear that Wiliams will indeed use the Cosworth engine for 2010 at the very least. I know the article in question, because I included it in the table ages ago, as soon as news of it broke, so that makes twice that it has been removed. Would someone mind explaining to me how an Autosport article written by Jon Noble - one of the single most reliable F1 journalists - entitled "Williams confirm Cosworth for 2010" an containing the following lines "Williams will switch to Cosworth engines next season, AUTOSPORT has learned" - that's a direct quote, by the way - is NOT considered to be confimation of the engine deal, because it's really beyond me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I imagine because it isn't an announcement by Williams. --Falcadore (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to come from Williams - it can just as easily come from Cosworth, since they're a part of this. I can't access the article at the moment because of a really sh!tty internet connection, but I'm sure there will be something there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't come from Cosworth either. Eightball (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's here [3]. I'd say it's a fine line. It's not confirmed, but Autosport is a good source. It looks like it's a general deduction made from the idea that they've dropped Toyota and won't be working with Renault. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's happening again

First it was de la Rosa and Campos. Then Alonso and Ferrari. That was followed by Barrichello and Williams. Now it's de la Rosa and Senna at Campos. Perhaps we should make a case for the page getting an indefinite semi-protection? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest they're not making it up. They see stories like this [4] and try to enter this into the table. When media says that someone has done a deal, some people take that as confirmation. - mspete93 [talk] 12:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think whining about it is much prefered.

Just revert and ask for references. --Falcadore (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A Spanish IP keeps adding the Campos / Senna "deal" using a Spanish newspaper as a source. I'm getting near 3RR so can someone else help out? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll just have to deal with it. Senna himself confirmed the deal (though in not as many words) on his Twitter field. It can't be added as he doesn't mention the team name so it would be Original Research, but in all likelihood he will be at Campos next year. I'm monitoring the page so if I catch it I'll revert it. I can definitely see why users are confused though, because for most of WP, newspapers are reliable sources. This article is just one of a handful of exceptions. XXX antiuser 23:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's unconfirmed, it's news-worthy and therefore edit-worthy, and so I've added a part on Senna under the Driver Changes sub-heading. He may not have confirmed his team, but he has confirmed he'll be racing in 2010, which is good enough for an edit into that section. I did the same thing with Nico Rosberg announcing he'll leave Williams - he didn't say here he's going, only that he's leaving Williams. I'm not too sure why I'm making such a big deal of this one ... probably because I don't want some over-zealous editor checking the history page and automatically undoing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro

" Jenson Button will enter the 2010 season attempting to defend his World Championship, after he secured his maiden title at the 2009 Brazilian Grand Prix." Surely this needs reworded it's entirely speculation Jenson Button is yet to get a drive for next year confirmed. Stupidstudent (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. He just has to choose where to go. It's somewhere near impossible that the world champion could find himself unwanted for the following season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(Pardon my jumping in here, but try telling that to Giorgio Pantano - he won GP2 last year, but never got the call-up to F1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

If he tries telling me he was ever World Champion, then I'll willingly have that argument with him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats almost certainly the case but is still speculation and wikipedia isnt the place for speculation. See above discusion on exactly that Stupidstudent (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is mere speculation that Button will be on the grid next year. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly likeyly he will but is still speculation. If you disagree cite a source. Stupidstudent (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not contentious - to say it's "likely" is frankly an understatement. No source is required. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And look at us contesting it. WP:CBALL "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative". It would be like talking about bolt defending his title at the 2012 olympics before any qualification etc has happened. Stupidstudent (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Only you are contesting it, I don't see anyone else here. Nobody is predicting sports team line-ups so that does not apply. He doesn't need to qualify for anything. Button will be on the grid next year, the only thing that is speculation is which team he will be driving for, and nobody is trying to speculate on that. Adding a source to this article saying he's still undecided as to which team he will drive for is overkill. Or why don't you just take it out if it's so monumentally important. How constructive that would be. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact remains, Button is not confirmed for any team in 2010. It's about 99% likely that he will drive for somebody, but if McLaren signs someone else and he fails to secure a deal with Brawn, he might simply be left out because nobody believed he was on the market. It almost certainly won't happen but until he is confirmed for 2010, he simply is not... confirmed for 2010. Right? --Chrill (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said he was confirmed, and I think people are taking WP:V to ridiculous degrees. But as I say, anyone who thinks that Button won't be around next year, go ahead and take the sentence out, but it will be one of the most petty, unconstructive edits I'll ever have seen. I'll add that nobody anywhere has ever suggested he'll miss out, making such a removal of information rather misleading. If people are so bothered by it, why don't they simply reword it? I find this whole thing bizarre. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it speculation to assume that there is a chance Button won't get a seat for next year? And even if he doesn't get a seat, wouldn't that still count as attempting (and failing) to retain his title? Eightball (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a while now. How about changing it slitley to be about brawn retaining there title. As there is no question of them not competing next year? Stupidstudent (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

They could go bust in the close season. It'd be speculation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Now were just being silly. Maybe button will get hit by a bus and maybe the world will end. Stupidstudent (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's about as likely as him getting ignored for 2010, honestly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood tells us that the world will end in 2012, so stop this 2010 nonsense now. Hollywood is always right.

User:Stupidstudent: the line is fine how it is once the less than relevant 2009 specific information was removed. The length of discussion over such minutiae is making my head hurt and is ridiculously overlong. --Falcadore (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Semi-Protection

There has been a wave of edits that have vandalized this page since the ending of the 2009 season. I feel a semi-protection is in order to slow/stop such vandalizing. Ironically, one of my edits was reverted for being vandalism, when all I did was re-add the unknown flag icon to a TBA reserve slot so it would match the table structure. Elliott B (T | C) 22:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It should stabilise soon enough. The season has just ended, and people seem to think it's clever or funny to vandalise. The bigger problem comes from people adding drivers to the table as soon as rumour pops up - we've had it done for Alonso and Ferrari, de la Rosa and Campos, Barrichello and Hulkenberg at Williams, Senna and Campos, and today someone has put Nick Hedifeld into McLaren - but it's not really vandalism. It's people who want to add to the table or contribute, but don't really realise what is expected (even when we post messages in invisible ink (I have no idea what it's really called)) and take rumour and supposition as confirmation and fact. The Spanish press might have run stories on Alonso at Ferrari as early as Bahrain, but he wasn't confirmed until recently and Ferrari said he had only just become an option for them. That doesn't make the Spanish press right, though. Anyway, like I said, it will stabilise soon. The driver market will fall into place and everything will be right with the world. Williams have said they'll announce both their drivers today, so that's another step closer. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there's been a spate of vandal attacks. I'll go request page protection ... again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

I've protected the article until 14 March 2010. I was minded to protect this before the issue was raised at RFPP but was unsure of the wikiquette in doing so, which is why I posted at WP:ANI to ask about it. The question is moot in this case as protection was asked for, but it'll be interesting to see what the position is from an admin's point of view re acting without a specific request. Any IP's who wish to make changes to the article are welcome to propose them on this talk page. If they are seen to be beneficial they will be implemented. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mj. I know March 14th is a long way away - over 130 days - and I wholly expect that the spate of vandalism would have dropped off in a few days, but given the history of premature and unsourced edits and vandalism, I was fairly certain it would be a problem in the future. I don't think the March 14th date is 100% necessary since the driver market will be sorted out by then, but there's no defined date as to when the market will be finalised. As the first race of the 2010 season is on March 14th, it was the only point of reference I had as to when it would be done for certain. We can always request unprotection once it's finalised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like my judgment was a bit early, but spot on. Good to see the protection up. Elliott B (T | C) 15:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem guys. If you feel that the article is in a position to be unprotected then I'm happy to do that, or for any other admin to do so (you can quote me on that) if I'm not around at the time. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This can only make life easier :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sauber et al.

The article should have a table of "reserve" teams for next season. Afterall, reserve/test drivers are already listed. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reserve list. Just because Sauber/Qadbak get first crack at the 13th spot does not mean there is any sort of list of reserves. All the known teams who applied are already listed and written in text. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And Sauber are the only known reserve team, anyway. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Attn: Dineshedl92

Your repeated vandal attacks are neither wanted nor welcomed. If you continue with this, you will be reported to the Powers That Be for vandalism; they have already been alerted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the edit note for that section of the article. Addition of OR is vandalism and should be reverted on sight, with warnings issued. Repeat vandals should be reported at WP:AIV. Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He's done it again just now. Reported at AIV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Toyota

Not to be entered into the article until an official announcement is made

Looks possible that Toyota could withdraw. Announcement due on 8 November. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks ominous. As does the fact that nobody wanted to sign for them. We should definitely wait for clarification / confirmation before putting it in anywhere though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling that we won't have to wait long. Rumor is that official word could come within hours. Eightball (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the newspaper Manichi is reporting it as fact for the time being, but I wouln't take that as being gospel truth. If Toyota are indeed withdrawing, there is still a lot that could go unsaid - they could be pulling out completely, or they could already have a buyer lined up. They could be staying on as an engine supplier for 2010 to avoid a repeat of Honda and Brawn. And one newspaper is hardly confirmation; there were reports that USF1 was in serious trouble around the time of the Japanese Grand Prix, but this actually a misquote. Reuters unfortunately picked up the one newspaper in all of Japan - and I suspect it may have actually been Manichi, but that sounds a bit too poetical here - that mis-reported the story.

Anyway, the point is that I'm advocating wating until Toyota make an official announcement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If Toyota are pulling out, the team would be up for sale I suspect (or sold already), but whether that sale would include their place on the 2010 grid is anyone's guess. They did sign the Concorde Agreement, so any buyer of the team should theoretically get on the grid. But we could be burying something that's not dead - the only thing to do is wait for an announcement. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was Phoenix Finance's argument back in 2002: they'd bought the remains of Prost and attempted to gain entry to the grid that way, but but was ruled that they could not purchase grid positons. That said, I don't think they signed the Concorde Agreement, anyway, and it was jut a thinly-veiled attempt by Tom Walkinshaw to cannibalise the Prost team to keep Arrows afloat. After all, Honda sold their team to Ross Brawn with few objections and no difficulties. Bottom line: we'll have to wait and see. Prisonermonkeys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

One thing to keep in mind, if Toyota withdraws. Sauber should not be added to the chart of teams because they do not yet have an entry. They have first crack at applying for the 13th entry, but they do not have it until the FIA says they do. Hence Toyota should be removed but not replaced on the chart. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not unless they do a mass announcement: Toyota withdrawing, Qadbak joining and the FIA agreing to it all. You never know, they might just do it to get it all out of the way in one go ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BBC saids Toyota is to hold a press conference at 0800 GMT on Wednesday amid reports that it is to quit Formula 1.[5] 2728 (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been confirmed, Toyota is leaving Formula 1: [6] and [7]. They have already been removed from the table but there should be a mention that Qadbak is "First in line" for that 13th spot, or some other expression with the similar effect. --Chrill (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sauber/Qadbak are only first in line if Toyota finds no buyer for the team. If a buyer is found and they decide to get on the grid, then they have the priority over Sauber. XXX antiuser 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Marlboro/Santander

Didn't Ferrari end their contract with Marlboro? Isn't Santander a title sponsor? Fsarmony (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Santandar is not a title sponsor. Marlboro sponsorship runs to 2011. - oahiyeel ^talk 15:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Drivers Table

Please note: de la Rosa and Senna have not been confirmed as drivers for Campos. No matter how "likely" it looks, until they are confirmed as racing for the team, they do not go in the table. Full stop.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if people repeatedly add de la Rosa/Senna in, I'm going to request that this page be protected. I don't give a shit how likely it is that they'll be signed; until we receive official word, the table is remaining blank. I've half a mind to report anyone who updates it on counts of vandalism ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That'd be your call, but I wouldn't get too worked up about this, reversions are easy. Regardless, I doubt any admin would grant semi-protection on a page with this type or level of vandalism. Apterygial 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, it's been requested. I stuck an inviisble message at the top of the subsection, but i'm expecting people will ignore it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Prisonermonkeys here. Certainly reversions are easy, but they will always happen with a delay, during which time the uncorrect information will be displayed in the article. Apart from ordinary users who visit the article being given false information, recently major media have (somewhat worryingly) started using Wikipedia as a source with very little source criticism. If we have incorrect info here—even for a few moments—tomorrow it might be printed in a newspaper somewhere that de la Rosa has been confirmed to drive with Campos. IMHO we're better off being safe than sorry here. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit worried about that as well, hence why I raised it at WT:F1. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we'll just have to be diligent. --Falcadore (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, semi-protection has been approved. It'll last until the 23rd of August, the date of the European Grand Prix. I expect the announcment will come on the Friday (21st) or the Saturday (22nd), but at least the protection guarantees that there's not going to be some mad rush to update the table and have things get mis-represented. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Red Bull Racing today confirmed Mark Webber for 2010. Could some skilled person please include him in the drivers table? I would do it myself, but for some strange reason I can't find team Red Bull Racing at all (but they definitely exist!). Pleeeeze fix this. 89.247.21.207 (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that? --Falcadore (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, for instance: http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/07/23/red-bull-confirm-webber-for-2010/ 89.247.21.207 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that the FOTA teams are not included in the table at the moment, which personally I think is a bit strange. Until Red Bull go into the table, we cannot add Webber. Many other drivers like Hamilton, Alonso, Massa, Kimi etc. are also under contract for 2010. -MotorsportPete93 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead an added him. Vettel, too. If we're going to use the logic that if a team isn't in the table, then its driver changes cannot be included, the bottom half of the article is going to be left blank because there will be nothing to report. The teams are behaving as if they're in Formula One for 2010, Ecclestone and CVC are behaving as if the teams are in, and so is the media. The only people who say otherwise are the FIA, and even then, it's only Max Mosley. I don't even know why we removed the table in the first place; sure, Charlie Whiting told FOTA they had no say, but the fact that FOTA, the five other teams and CVC are currently working on a new Concorde Agreement suggests otherwise. Mosley will be gone soon, anyway. I'm actually going to lobby for the table to be expanded back to the full thirteen teams. A new Concorde is expected this weekend (or very shortly thereafter), one that the FIA will have to sign on to. The whole dispute is pretty much over. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed Mark Webber's contract renewal from the confirmed Driver Changes - a renewal of a contract doesn't seem like a driver change to me ;) Rafael 03:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's confirmation that he will remain with the team, information that is relevant to the drivers table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Drivers re-signing with existing teams has not been considered news previously, and has only appeared previously in such articles as confirmation references for drivers appearing in 2010, but as Red Bull have yet to appear on the table of teams for 2010, there is not yet justification for any addition to the 2010 article re:Webber. Refer 2009 Formula One season as a guideline as to what constitutes an addition to the page. --Falcadore (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add the other 8 teams to the table, because they were on the entry list that was last published by the FIA. I believe the only reason they are not 'officially' entered is because the final paperwork hadn't been done. I'm going to add them now in fact. -MotorsportPete93 (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Patience is said to be a virtue. And if it was down to just paperwork, there would have been an announcement. --Falcadore (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that Mercedes have signed Nico Rosberg. 82.38.97.148 (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotta reference? --Falcadore (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Order of teams table

Looking at the most recent edit, see here, it looks like edittors here are re-ordering the list of 2010 teams for no other reason than for changes in the pointscore in the 2009 constructors championship. That strikes me as a lot of pointless changes, bordering on WP:CBALL. Can we please arrive at an order that will not change incessantly for no real reason? OPTION 1: Alphabetical order of team names, with the three new teams at the back, ie:
Brawn-Mercedes
Ferrari
Force India-Mercedes
McLaren-Mercedes
Red Bull-Renault
Renault
Toro Rosso-Ferrari
Toyota
Williams-Toyota
Campos-Cosworth
Manor-Cosworth
US F1-Cosworth

or OPTION 2: Numbers as they are now in 2009
McLaren-Mercedes
Ferrari
Renault
Toyota
Toro Rosso-Ferrari
Red Bull-Renault
Williams-Toyota
Force India-Mercedes
Brawn-Mercedes
Campos-Cosworth
Manor-Cosworth
US F1-Cosworth

and the leave it in that order until the season ends. --Falcadore (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the changes to reflect current 2009 standings are pointless. I'd suggest your first option, putting them into alphabetical order, but could we incorporate the new entries into the list too, instead of leaving them at the end? Schumi555 09:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They are going to be at the end once the list is re-sorted numerically and it helps to emphasise their status as new teams, but if we ewnated to alphabetise all of them, then sure why not. --Falcadore (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but to someone who is unfamiliar with F1, it may be unclear from the table that these three teams are new for 2010. There is a sub-section directly below the table illustrating the 'new entries process'. Maybe something similar to this would help, so that the new teams are separate in the table. Schumi555 10:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The table is fine as it is. It has always been written to reflect current constructors' championship standings in articles for future seasons, and it's worked out pretty well so far. There is no need to go alphabetically, or by the current line-up of driver numbers. In fact, if you do change it, I'm just going to go ahead and reverse the changes and report it as vandalism. At the very best, it's an unnecessary and confusing edit that serves no purpose. The reason why the system we use now works is because it reflects the constructor standings, which in turn reflects the numbering system. The only major change that might be needed would be if the drviers' champion switches teams, but even then, it's one change that is needed. Both of your proposals would require the entire table to be re-ordered once the season is over. So when Abu Dhabi comes to pass, the table will be in the order that will be used next year. Quick and easy to edit, rather than bandying about with useless changes simply because somone didn't like the order it was in three months before. The 2010 table might need a bit more extra re-editing than usual because of all the new teams, but what we have is good enough. It works. It does what it is supposed to do. There is simply no need to re-invent the wheel just because you don't like the way it stands now. So like I said, if you go and change it, I'll simply reverse it and report it as vandalism. It's not just good enough as it is, it's the best system we've got. End of story. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is you like pointless re-ordering for the sake of it? --Falcadore (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the system works and that there's no reason to change it. Sure, you could change it to reflect te current numbering ... but there's still going to be more of your "pointless reordering" after this season is over. It works. It doesn't need to be changed. So don't go changing it, understand? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then it only has to be done ONCE. In the meantime, it gets re-ordered after each race, for no real reason at all, because, as you say, but there's still going to be more of your "pointless reordering" after this season is over. Which is exactly my point. Why re-order it now? And what exactly do you mean 'it works'. You could leave it exactly as it is right now until the FIA announce 2010 numbers and it would still 'work'.

It is additional work, for zero extra benefit.

So don't go changing it, understand? That is exactly what I would like to be done. Until 2010. --Falcadore (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we do with the table, what we're not going to have is people saying "So don't go changing it, understand?" That is utterly out of order and it's not the way we do things. If there's a consensus to change something, it gets changed. Full stop. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is still no need to change it. The system works. If you go ahead and change it, not only are you pointlessly reinventing the wheel, you're just making thing more confusing: the 2010 table based on the final standings of 2008 when we're in 2009? Sorry, but I just see absolutely zero need to do that. It's a purely cosmetic change, and I still don't understand your problem. There's no fundamental flaw in the current system that renders it useless; as far as I can tell, your only difficulty with it is that it gets updated. And that's kind of the point of Wikipedia: updating things to reflect current trends. The current system has worked so far without complaint. And the provision of the extra teams makes your argument a little moot. We have no idea what numbers will be assidgned to USF1, Campos, Manor or the Team Formerly Known as BMW. If you go ahead and do it alphabetically or by 2008 standings or whatever, odds are that you're still going to have to make some of the changes that you claim you're saving us all from. There is absolutely no need to change the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, changing the table to reflect the current standings - which will influence the 2010 numberings - is not "no real reason". Nor is it speculation or a crystal ball: the standings at the end of one year determine the order for the next. If, for some reason, the championship ended today, that would be the running order for net year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental flaw. It's both Original research and Speculation. Very fundamental.

Te reason it's speculation is that you are assuming the status quo will continue when there is nothing to support that other than it is what was done last year. Additional: there was a variation when Brawn and Force India were swapped on the basis that Force India had already ordered its merchandise based on race number it was not finally issued with. It's based on assumptions and there is nothing official out there about the order of number for 2010. You say I want to change it simply because I want to? No, I want others who are changing it because they 'want to' and doing so without sourcing, to stop changing it. --Falcadore (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that neither of us are going to come to a resolution here. I'm going to put forth the case at the F1 WikiProject, and if they can't decide, we'll take it to a higher power. It's the best resolution I can give you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added an infobox marking the page as being relating to a future sporting event and therefore subject to change and possibly containing speculation (I'm surprised the article didn't have one sooner). I still feel that the table is not speculative because it does not denote 2010 numbers, and nor does it assume championship standings. I think that the infobox is enough for the time being. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"nor does it assume championship standings". How so? There are still five races left in the season and yet, by some... co-incidence they are ordered as if the championship ended right now. How is this not an assumption? To me it looks like the exact definition of an assumption, so I want to hear how it is not.

And for your information, the infobox did appear here previously, but was removed as it was deemed to be inappropriate as it is generally used for articles where information evolves in minutes and hours, not weeks and months. To quote from the guideline "This template should only be used on articles where future information is an issue in some way, such as information about an event/product that will change rapidly; an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic; articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is a future event/product; etc.". When a race occurs every two weeks, that is not rapid change at all. --Falcadore (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But information on driver moves may. A lot of people are expecting Alonso-to-Ferrari to be announced any day now, and Pedro de la Rosa is said to be waiting to see if Epsilon Euskadi get the thirteenth grid position before committing to Campos. If - and when - these annoucements are made, there's going to be a lot of activity on the page. And if the build-up to Valencia is anything to go by (the cirumstances that led to the page being semi-protected), not all that information is going to be immediately verifiable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read the template guidelines. 2010 F1 season really does not justify it. And certainly not now when no such rash of editting is occurring. The other thing you need to be aware of is that Wikipedia is not a news website. It should not behave like a news website, or like a chat forum.

There is no race to make sure news is placed up on Wikipedia before anyone else. It is far more important to, if neccessary, actually not publish for a day, in order to make the information is right. --Falcadore (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to all the non-regular users. Weren't you here before the article was locked? Dozens of people kept adding Pedro de la Rosa to Campos and Fernando Alonso to Ferrari; you'd remove them, only to find them there again an hour later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The order of the table has been changed to be in alphabetical order, as per consensus, but I have to ask if the order by team name is the best option here. I would think that the order would be better if we went by the constructor name, since that's what most people identify the teams by. It just seems odd having Williams first because of AT&T. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that this was what was intended. Especially as sponsor details are likely to change prior to 2010 season start it would in fact be now improvement on previous. --Falcadore (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact - the method of alphabetical order is clearly specified at the top of the thread. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks for fixing it :) - oahiyeel ^talk 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to disagree with this. What is the point of putting it in alphabetical order? You are guaranteed to have to change it entirely at the end of the year. It's going to be ordered by points in the end, why not just keep it ordered by current points? Alphabetical is just silly. Eightball (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But then it only has to be done, ONCE. What is the point of re-ordering it five times in the mean time when it will only have to be done again at the end of the season? To me re-ordering it five times, when it will just change again is silly. And bearing in mind that the final points order may not actually be the final order anyway, like last year for example when Brawn and Force India were swapped. It should not only be left alphabetical (which actually makes it easier for people who know nothing about the numbering system to find teams) but it should be left alphabetical until the FIA annonuces the 2010 numbers.

And just so you know what is silly and what isn't... to predict the numbers ahead of the announcement is crystal balling. --Falcadore (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"You are guaranteed to have to change it entirely at the end of the year." So what's the point of re-arranging the table after every race weekend? This would be "just silly". :) - oahiyeel ^talk 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is just that if you keep it in the championship order after each race, you're only making minor changes and it is correct in terms of the current standings. There's no crystal balling involved because you're not putting in numbers, you're just ordering a table. Personally I think that if the order of the table doesn't matter, and frankly it's pretty arbitrary in this case, you might as well try to keep it consistent. Alphabetically order is absolutely not consistent because once the season ends the entire table changes. It makes far more sense, from a usability standpoint, to make the table order as close as possible to the final order than sticking to alphabetical for no reason other than an overly strict interpretation of the crystal ball policy. Eightball (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether you put the numbers in or not, you are still anticipating the end result. That is the nature of Crystall ball, predicting an outcome that has not been achieved. Removing the numbers does not insulate the edit. The numbers themselves are not the magic bullet, it's attempting to order them at all.

And it is still the difference between re-ordering five times and re-ordering once. A re-order is a re-oder, there is no major and minor it's exactly the same amount of work. --Falcadore (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If the chart is in alphabetical order, reverse alphabetical order, or random order, it's never "wrong". It's a listing of teams, it's silly to state that it's "wrong" because because it does not match the 2009 constructor standings. Number order is our consistant way to display the chart, but with a lack of numbers alphabetical order is the only way that makes sense. I fail to see how the table is lacking in "usability" because it is in alphabetical order. It's meant to be informative about teams and drivers, which it is, not information for the 2009 constructors championship standings. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, if you have a standings table, where there is nothing seperating two drivers, not even by best placing, then you would order them alphabetically. If there is nothing to differentiate between the teams (i.e. numbers) then you list them alphabetically. - mspete93 [talk] 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that the season is over, can we make the team order reflect the same pattern that the previous seasons were ordered? 9:36, 10 November 2009

When the FIA announce what the order is, yes. That 'pattern' you refer to has not been applied consistently, so to apply any variation of it would be a guess, and we don't do guesses. So we ewait for the FIA to announce the numbers. That probably won't be until the new year. --Falcadore (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Teams and Drivers

I think we should change the order of the teams according to the slots they're having in the 2010 season. Wild mine (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't know what order they will be in. See earlier discussions. - mspete93 [talk] 18:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We won't know for awhile, really. I mean, we'll know what order the current teams will be in after Sunday, but we won't know who gets the #1 until Button signs a contract, and we have no idea about the new teams. Eightball (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion, and it actually got quite heated. We decided we're going to wait until the results are made official, and then we're going to change them. Not sure what we'll do about the new teams since we won't know the running order for them, but I figure they'll just be placed alphabetically at the end of the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical (for the new teams) is good because that's how the FIA lists them in their press releases (like this one). I would assume that Lotus will be last but I doubt there are any sources to support that. Eightball (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't add any numbers until the FIA produce a full list. Otherwise it's OR. Having half a list based on what we think it'll be is not acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there was never any consensus for waiting until after Abu Dhabi. The consensus was to wait for the FIA to publish numbers. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm for removing the column - it'll just nip all the impending problems in the bud. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there's two sides to the argument: on the one hand, we can't have a table half-filled with numbers. But at the same time, Jenson Button will carry the number one with him, and that, I think is a pretty important addition to the table; after all (and correct me if I'm wrong here), the point of editing Wikipedia is make bring the page in question as accurate as possible. It's known that Button will carry the one; that's indisputable fact. It's also known that the numbers are assigned based on finishing order in the championship. That is not changing for 2010, though the order is subject to confirmation. I wasn't around when the 2009 season page was still relating to a future season so I don't know how the page was ordered then. However, we don't know how the new teams will be numbered. As a halfway point, perhaps we could have two tables? One for the nine teams that are presently in the championship, numbered accordingly once Jenson Button signs a contract. The other would be for the new teams, set aside and with the numbers listed as TBA or simply without a column. The division would also make an easier, visual representation of who the new teams are. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, all the numbers would be TBA except Button and his as yet unsigned team-mate, so what's the point? Nobody knows whether Vettel or Webber will be #3, and it's the same for every team. Massa and Alonso? We'd be guessing. Half the drivers aren't even signed yet, and we'd be here giving them numbers. Last year it was a nightmare of IP editor craziness, until we ditched the whole column, which is what we should do now before the weekend's race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There isn't two sides. No specualtions, wait for the FIA to announce. Just one side. --Falcadore (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, lets take the initiative and remove the numbers column. Nobody seems to have any objections, and if they do, they haven't said anything, so speak now or forever hold your peace (though the definition of "forerver" may only last until the next edit). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you guys want to order the drivers? Even without numbers you still have to choose between the two spots in each row. I would suggest just putting in them in the table in order of when they are confirmed, and if they are both confirmed at the same time (e.g. Webber and Vettel) then put them in the same order as last season. Eightball (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the numbers column is gone, it's not going to matter too much. We'll have to do some editing later on down the track, but we also have to include drivers as they're signed because someone is always going to keep the page as up-to-date as possible. For now, I'd say the first driver listed should be the first driver signed to the team. Even if someone is announced to drive for Brawn before Button. The driver numbers probably won't be confirmed until the full entry list is published, because the teams have to nominate which driver will run which number. Lately, they tend to either give the driver who finished higher in the championship the "better" number (ie Vettel would get #3 instead of #4), or they let that driver pick which number he wants to run with (ie Vettel gets to choose and Webber takes whatever Vettel doesn't). For now, I'd say we just edit drivers into the table in the order they are signed, and we correct it once the numbers are made available. In the case of drivers being confirmed at the same time - like Red Bull - I'd order them based on championship standings, but as it's a purely cosmetic thing, basing them on this year's numbering, or alphabetically, or randomly pulling a name and an order out of a hat are all good. I can't really see any option other than that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

People I think you know the order that Ferrari, McLaren and all the other old teams had in 2009, so we'll make them in that order. Then with the new teams we make a note that we do not have exact position in slots Wild mine (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Get ready for a new wave of edits. News sources are now saying Pastor Maldonado got the second seat at Campos. No word from the team yet. [8] XXX antiuser 19:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Team changes section

I've re-ordered the new teams sectionso that it's chronological in the order the teams variously joined and left the grid. If BMW Sauber make the grid, they won't be known as BMW Sauber. It will be the same team, but since they did not sign the Concorde Agreement and had to je-join, they'll be considered a new team. So when the time comes, they'll get their own bullet point at the bottom of the list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. Recent changes to Red Bull F1 Team. British Formula Three champion Daniel Ricciardo (an Australian) will be Red Bull's test driver (please cite http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/11/10209.html). Go Aussie!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody59 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Then add it to the article, not to the talk page. --Falcadore (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added it. Darth Newdar ^talk 08:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not a test driver, he's participating in a one-off young drivers test. No RBR contract involved. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Team Base column

Someone added a column to the driver table showing where each teamhad established a base of operations. I've removed it since I don't think it's really necessary, but I'm adding this discussion here to see what others think. If we decide for it, then my edit can always be undone.

I don't really see the need for it because it doesn't really add anything to the table. And it only serves to confuse it; for example, Force India is listed as competing under the Indian flag, but their base is in Silverstone. And Lotus is Malaysian, but is setting up in Norfolk. It looks as if it contradicts itself by saying the team is from one place, but has set up in another. It has ever been included on a Formula One season overview page before, and I think it's fairly telling that one hasn't been added.

The point of the table is to present the grid in visual form. Team, drivers, chassis, engine, tyres and number are all important, but if people want to know more about each particular team, there's more detail on the individual pages. If we include too much information in the table, all it does is make the individual team pages redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. The table gives information about the 2010 season specifically. This is not relevant information for the 2010 season. Bases do not regularly change from season to season. - mspete93 [talk] 16:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree the table is already pretty crowded. The whole point is to convey key information quickly and simply. Too many coloms and you might as well replace it with text. On another note about the table is it wortg removing the rounds colum and only replacing it if somebody doesn't compete in a round. Same with the tyres. I don't see point conveying this info in a table when it is the same for every body on the table. Stupidstudent (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd think that after Bridgestone announced their departure people would quit trying to get rid of the tires column. Eightball (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That data belongs in the team articles, not season articles. --Falcadore (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The most exatly list of teams and drives con mail to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.185.202 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes GP or Mercedes Grand Prix?

I think the team is Mercedes Grand Prix. I've seen the statements on autosport/pitpass/planetf1; the statement says Mercedes Grand Prix instead of Mercedes GP. - oahiyeel ^talk 12:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Officially Brawn GP was Brawn Grand Prix. It will be commonly referred to as Mercedes GP. Nothing to worry about. - mspete93 [talk] 13:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind you - Autosport is now referring to it as Mercedes Grand Prix. Hmm. No need to take urgent action though. We can wait for a few days and see what it is commonly referred to as. - mspete93 [talk] 13:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Brawn GP is officially Brawn GP Formula One Team... :) - oahiyeel ^talk 13:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I reckon they should have named the team Pure Mercedes. It sounds a lot more exciting, and it's a reference to the Brawn team - Pure Racing was a name they considered, but dropped because they felt Pure-Mercedes (as they would have been referred to) would have overstated their relationship. Anyway, that's just opinion and has no bearing on the actual article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again with the mediterranean GP

Somebody keeps adding speculative information about the name of the GP in Valencia. This time with a reference to a locked Autosport article [9]. I have just looked up the official press releases from the FIA, and there is nothing indicating that Valencia does not have its name European GP secured. (See e.g. [10].) I don't know if it was TBC in August when Autosport wrote their piece, though. What I do suspect is that that article is just the same re-iteration of the same anglo-centric rumors that for some reason seem to suppose that Donington's legal rights to the name of a race they can't hold should be stronger than those held by a Spanish organizer that actually does hold its race.

Can somebody with a subscription please check the Autosport article? Unless it has a very clear reference to something official, I believe the whole section about naming speculations should be removed (for what, the 4th time in a couple of months). Thanks./Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Numberings

I know it's easy to say that brawn will have the numbers one and two next season and Red Bull the three and four, but that's not the case. We have to wait until a) the season is over and b) Button is confrmed to be driving for a team because he will take the numbr one with him. If he stays at Brawn, that's all well and good, but if he goes somewhere else - like Hill going to Arrows in 1997 - then that team will have the nubmers one and two while Brawn will take the three and four and Red Bull carry five and six. Because the table will need to be reorganised in keeping with the policy of awarding numbers based on championship finishig positions, it's best that we do everything in one go, at least for the reguar contenders. It's a bit difficult to say what the newomers will carry, though I'm reasonably certain that Lotus will have the numbers 26 and 27 on account fo their being the last team to join. But that's moot point; lets just wait until - as stated - the season is over and Button is confirmed to be driving for a team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that even if Button re-signs with Brawn, you can still only assume that Brawn will have 1-2 and Red Bull 3-4. If you put in the numbers after that, you either then have to fill in all the others numbers (which aren't yet confirmed) or leave the rest of the table alphabetically organized (which is just plain confusing). Eightball (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How is an alphabetical list confusing? It's just a list of teams. It is only confusing if you are apllying certain expectations on what a list should look like.

Leave as is until FIA release a list. Anything else, even when applied per manufacturers team order (because it was not followed this year) is speculation. Don't guess. Be able to prove it. --Falcadore (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's always been policy to wait until you've got information that is actual and whole, however, given the presence of the new teams, I think we can get away with having them listed alpabetically and their numbers as TBA when the FIA makes the 2009 standings official. My point in writing all of thisand the above is largely to address both IP users and regular editors - and I won't name them, even though I know who they are - who persist in adding the numbers. Ideally, the entire page would be protected until everything is released from driver numbers to team rosters, but we can't have that. The point is that if you can't prove it, don't say it to begin with (though I do confess my doubts that aforementioned IP and regular users will see this, much less read it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If we can't prove it, then we shouldn't have any numbers until an entry list is published. The constructor's championship standings doesn't prove anything. Not only does it not address the new teams, but it's not been entirely concrete (see: Brawn's changing numbers before the season started) nor can it be used to determine which driver gets which number, something that is left to the teams. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What I was saying is that it'd be confusing to have a list where the first two teams were ordered by points and the rest were alphabetical. Eightball (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading the comments, we're all coming at the same problem from different directions. The short version is that the table should remain as is until the championship standings are made official, Jenson Button is confirmed to be driving for a team, and possibly once the FIA reveals the numbering of the 2010 grid (though this may come at the same time as making the standings official). Any edits that add nubmers in should be considered valndalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall for 2009 that we simply removed the column so that it was not available for people to easily start adding numbers. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever works. I noticed on te 2009 season page that the column in the reults table for race reports is missing ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That was removed by someone who noticed that there were two links in each row to the race report. The initial column with the flag also links to the race report. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed that. The initial column isn't supposed to link to the race report, it's supposed to link to the main article about each grand prix. Eightball (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we know it partially but I agree we put the numbers when they are all set. Fsarmony (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Renault considers Formula 1 exit

Looks like renault are going to be the the fourth manufacturer to quit F1 in a year.[11]2728 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the FIA are still figuring out whether Toyota's pullout was actually legal, so maybe Renault will wait to see how that turns out before any decision on their own pullout is made. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And Renault are still discussing options: stay in, pull out, or remain on the grid as an engine supplier. It doesn't matter how "likely" a withdrawal is looking; you don't edit the page until they say they are out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's even that likely. Their managing director, Jean-François Caubet, said the budget for 2010 has already been approved. [12]

That was after Reanult's meeting. It's not like he said "the meeting is nothing to worry about; the budget has been approved". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the text that said that Ferrari would be the only manufacturer to own a team because Mercedes-Benz will race after Brawn GP buyout. Fsarmony (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Jenson Button to McLaren

Looks like he's moving to McLaren on a 3 year contract at 6M per year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/nov/16/jenson-button-joins-mclaren-contract --roddie digital (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Button will sign a contract with McLaren in the next few days" and "The Guardian understands..." In other words, he hasn't signed anything yet, and there's no confirmation. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for any article that mentions The Guardian article, like the PlanetF1 referencehat was added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

He's waiting for a counterproposal of Mercedes GP, which will probably not arrive. Fsarmony (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this is different from what I would usually say but I don't think we need to wait for an annoucement now. It has clearly happened, we should stop deluding ourselves. The same with Rosberg - Autosport and BBC are saying they have signed him so they obviously have - Mercedes have just not announced it yet. Sometimes common sense should prevail. - mspete93 [talk] 12:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lucas Di Grassi / Manor

No where else, apart from the given BBC link, do I see any official confirmation or statement that Manor has signed Di Grassi. Isn't the policy to wait for official statement before adding drivers? - oahiyeel ^talk 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed him per this interview [13]. He says Renault is his main focus and his future in F1 depends on whether they pick him or Grosjean for the drive or decide to not enter the 2010 season at all. XXX antiuser 04:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Table

The Driver table looks a little wonky, it seems like moving Brawn down the list after the rename to Mercedes hasn't quite worked right.

I've had a look but I'm not great with Wiki Tables, and I can't see what's wrong, but I'm sure it's just a misplaced character or something! Brickie (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

After several attempts, I've already fixed it :) - mspete93 [talk] 12:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While I was typing that message, no less! Brickie (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Marlboro

With the Ferrari listing in the Teams and Drivers section, Marlboro currently leads to Marlboro, which is a disambiguation page. It should link to Marlboro (cigarette). 83.80.18.68 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up - I've fixed it. - mspete93 [talk] 13:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Numbers again

I've just reverted the addition of a numbers column to the drivers/teams table. As the FIA have not released driver numbers yet, they should not be added. I've also expanded the edit note on that section. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were that easy. I stuck a note into the table telling people not to edit Button in until there was a statement from Button or the team - everyone was using a speculative BBC article as a source - and less than five minutes later, someone had gone ahead and done just that. The don't read the messages - I made the original note at the beginning of the driver table large enough that you physically had to scroll down to reach the table; no-one paid it any mind - and they surely don't come in here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, should the Rounds column really be there? The whole article is in the future tense, but that column will be completely useless until there is a driver that misses a race or is fired. That is not likely to be announced ahead of schedule in most cases, and if any change happens before the first race, it shouldn't be in the rounds column anyway. I.e., 5 months until it might be meaningful. As it is now, it is just an invitation to editors (with strange priorities) to be the first to modify it once a race weekend has started. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Raikkonen on Mercedes

Despite anything that was said to "The Independent", Raikkonen signed with Mercedes for the 2010 F1 season. You heard it here first :) 18-11-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.55.9 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you haven't yet figured out what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is NOT a news service. IT records what definately has occured, not what might occur in the opinion of some people regardless of reputation.

If you want to be first with the news there are hundred of chat fora you can blog to. --Falcadore (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't go on the article until it is confirmed, but Brazilian journalist Lito Cavalcanti has already said a one-year deal is in place for next season. Cavalcanti was one of the first to leak Button's contract info and was correct about most details, so I would take it as a very likely possibility. Manager statements aren't always reliable - remember Willi Weber adamantly saying Schumacher was not making a return this season? XXX antiuser 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, he is? --Golbez (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He was going to until his neck troubles prevented him from doing it. But his manager said there was no chance of that happening, and then it did. XXX antiuser 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it never was and neck injury excuse was concocted to shut up the journalists, we're not in a psoition to be an authority. Regardless its speculative. When Mercedes announce it, it's good. --Falcadore (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lotus should be Lotus F1 Racing, not Lotus F1 Team?

I've started a discussion regarding the name at Talk:Lotus F1 Team#Team name. - oahiyeel ^talk 06:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nico Rosberg Confirmed for Mercedes

Nico rosberg has been confirmed for Mercedes GP as per the bottom of reference 21 (the same one that is confirming Jenson Button is with Mclaren) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8363892.stm "Now renamed Mercedes Grand Prix, the team have already signed the German Nico Rosberg as one of their drivers."

That's not a confirmation, that's a news source stating it. If that counted, Button would have been in the table for about 3 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.67.24 (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

F1 2010 page needs updating SD311 (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this definitely confirms that Rosberg has been signed by Mercedes? Interview with Nico himself... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80263 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikaraa (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence says he's not confirmed yet. So it hardly confirms anything, does it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Attn: Joel Macey1995

Please stop editing driver names in and then changing the title of your source so that it appears to back you up. We're not stupid - we know exactly what you're doing. Wikipedia is not a competition to see who can edit a driver's name into the table first. I know this better than most: I jumped the gun myself when Mercedes GP was announced, but I had been misled by a German news article and edited them back out myself. You, on the other hand, persist in trying to pass speculation off as fact.

I see you have plainly ignored my warning on your talk page, and you have been reported to the Powers That Be as a vandal. I'm putting this message here so that everyone can see why; hopefully it will discourage anyone else from trying it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Users have talk pages for a reason... The³5₉ (Talk) 06:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And add to his talk page I did. I wasn't the only one, either - two others told him to stop it as well. He has plainly ignored it, and his actions are clearly deliberately because there's no way he could have accidentally posted old links to an article named "McLaren extends Hamilton's contract" and inadvertently re-named it "McLaren etends Button's contract". He knows exactly what he is doing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

At last we see a warning being issued. There have been many additions on non-RS sourced names to the table. Unfortunately, most of the editors who added the names despite all the edit notes do not get warned. Admins cannot act unless warnings are issued and are then ignored. Another possible avenue is full protection of the article, but I'm sure that nobody would want that to happen, would they? Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk pages are for warnings. Not article talk pages. If he was warned on his talk page then it didn't need this topic here. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 British GP

I thought he British GP was comfirmed? It is confirmed to take place but still has to have a place attached. It should be confirmed not unconfirmed but with a note of the fact that it might not happen. Chubbennaitor 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I find the Grand Prix list is terrible, all speculation, no dates - possible Grands Prix - there are 26 GPs listed, there is no way there are going to be that many the list should at the very least be pruned by to just the likely races not those in which some has said somewhere that it would be nice if they built a race here. Any 'possible' race without a source should definately be deleted.

I believe that a calendar should not be attempted until the FIA announce a calendar. --Falcadore (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the British Grand Prix, I can't imagine Formula One without it. At the moment, we cannot be certain that the 2010 season will include the British GP, the French Grand Prix, OR Scuderia Ferrari. Unbelievable. I cannot understand why Bernie does NOT want Silverstone as a Plan B. It's a grand facility; I see nothing wrong with it (except he apparently prefers Donnington Park for the money). But even so, since Donnington is not yet ready, why risk having no British race at all? It's lunacy.

And on top of that, the United States Grand Prix may or may not return (until after Bernie passes on). 97.125.96.132 (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen on the ITV-F1 website that it [Doninngton] still has a 50-50 chance of hosting a F1 race next season, prehaps rewording the F1 British GP Notes section again? http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=47468 (194.165.29.74 (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Confirmed Car Numbers (sort of)

I'm not suggesting that it's time to add the car numbers back onto the drivers + teams table, because...well...it's not, but there are certainly some car numbers that we 'know' will be assigned to specific drivers.

Obviously Jenson will get number 1, and whoever turns out to be his team-mate will get number 2. This then means that Sebastian Vettel, who was second to Jenson in the 2009 championship, will be assigned the number 3, and Mark Webber will be given 4. Rubens, who was third, will be given the number 5, and Nico Hulkenburg will therefore be assigned car number 6. From here on it gets a little bit more difficult. The 4th placed driver from 2009 was Mark Webber, but as he has already been assigned the number 4, car number 7 will be given to Lewis Hamilton, as he finished 5th after Webber. Hamilton's team-mate will be given the number 8. And from this point on, it's impossible to continue, because no-one knows where Rosberg, Kimi and Trulli are going.

So, I think that we should soon be able to add the car numbers back in. The key drivers here are Button, Rosberg, Kimi, and Trulli. Once they've been confirmed at a team, we should be able to assign numbers to more than half of the eventual grid. Bolmedias (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Button being #1 and his team-mate #2, the rest of it is all speculation. No numbers should be entered until such time that they are confirmed by the FIA. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to know the numbering system in Formula One, which is based on the constructors standings rather than the drivers standings. However, four teams for next year were not in this year's constructors standings because they will be new. Therefore we cannot enter their numbers until an entry list is announced from the FIA. We should not enter numbers until we know all 26 numbers. - mspete93 [talk] 18:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If Button moves to another team #3 will not got to Vettel, but to the new Brawn lead driver and Vettel would then be #5, unless Red Bull decide to assign #5 to Webber. Teams get given two numbers and they assign them as they wish. So no, we don't know any numbers apart from Button, and we don't know what team he will drive for, so we don't know any numbers at all. We wait until the FIA announce. I know it must hurt not being able to add in what ever guesses you like, but you will have to just wait. --Falcadore (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we able to add numbers in now, seeing as how Button has signed for McLaren and Hamilton is assured the number 2; or do we need ALL of the lineups complete before confirming driver numbers? J man708 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Button deal has not been officially announced. Even if it were, we should hold back on adding in the 1 & 2 as the other numbers are unknown - as stated above. Last I remembered, last season when the nos 1 & 2 were assigned, there were insane number of edits/reverts of people adding numbers for the other teams - something impossible to know for the 4 new teams, until the FIA announces them. - oahiyeel ^talk 06:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's only been said a few dozen times, but because User:J man708 asked so nicely... WAIT FOR THE FIA TO ANNOUNCE. Anything else is speculative. --Falcadore (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the problem is we still only know numbers 1 and 2. We don't even technically know Mercedes will be 3 and 4, they may be asked to take numbers at the end of the pool just as Brawn had to. Even if we did know that we don't if Rosberg or his teammate would be 3. There's just no way to have enough concrete info Duds 2k (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nic Jonsson

Niclas Jönsson, or more known as Nic Jonsson. Is signed to be a testdriver for USF1. This was announced during the STCC round at the pressconference in Mantorp.

Use Google Translate if non-Scandinavian.

Swedish Radio: http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/jonkoping/sport/index.asp?programID=91&Nyheter=&grupp=3831&artikel=3120146

Aftonbladet (Biggest newspaper): http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/motor/formel1/article5265551.ab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to have an announcement from the team before it can be added really, plus it seems so incredibly unlikely that a supposedly serious F1 team would employ a 42 year old driver with no F1 experience whatsoever. I suspect it's some kind of promotional contract. No motorsport source has covered it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There isnt a announcement from Toro Rosso that Alguersuari have signed for them, yet it´s listed as official? http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/091126103305.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Campos Entry

When the entry list was announced, the Campos entry was listed as Campos Grand Prix (I have already created the page), rather than Camps Meta 1 as was previously said. Therefore the table should say Campos Grand Prix until we hear otherwise. Also this article says that the cars will be built by Dallara. Do we list the constructor as Campos or Dallara? Petera93 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The entry list says the constructor is Campos. Even though the cars will actually be built by Dallara, doubtless there is a deal in place whereby they'll carry the Campos name, so we should stick to that unless we see a decent source that says otherwise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This article, published within the last few hours, reports the team name as being Campos Meta 1; this one reports it as Campos Meta, but I suspect it's a typo, as the original article that reported Campos fielding an entry also described the team as being 'Campos Meta 1'. The aforementioned second article describes the Meta part of the name as referring to Meta Image, a Madrid-based sports agency that seems to be Campos' solution to acquiring sponsorship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See this. Campos Meta 1 is the company and Campos Grand Prix is the team name. ^LeaveSleaves 15:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That article now says the new teams are Manor F1 Team and Campos Meta, so I'm changing the article as such. I can only assume the FIA updated the press release at some point since the initial release. Eightball (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But is Campos Meta not the same as Vodafone McLaren Mercedes or Panasonic Toyota Racing? I say we wait and see. mspete93 [talk] 10:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Thought you were talking about the Campos Grand Prix article rather than this page. Doh! mspete93 [talk] 10:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The entry list says the constructor is Campos Dallara. So why does the article say it's Campos, while the source says Campos Dallara? 91.155.238.81 (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List of teams: required?

I know we had it this year, but I do not see the point of listing the teams just before the teams and drivers table. What does everybody else think? - mspete93 [talk] 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point to it, especially since there is a more comprehensive version in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if the list is only appearing as a list of FOTA teams, then it should go on the FOTA page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jaime Alguersuari

Jaime Alguersuari seems to keep appearing and disappearing from the table. I know he has said he'll be racing for Toro Rosso in 2010, but this article from the Canadian Pres suggests otherwise, particularly the following line: "Motor racing's governing body has released the Formula One lineups for next year, revealing that Spanish driver Jaime Alguersuari's position at Toro Rosso is uncertain and new team Manor GP will drive as Virgin Racing." Please don't edit Alguersuari into the table until te situation is resolved. For the full article, follow this link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hLEMxrxbGy0zf1lZRU4aqwyEZUbQ Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That also agrees with http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80377, which only lists BUEMI for Toro Rosso.

Jaime has confirmed it himself with http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/091126103305.shtml, though no official announcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.203.120 (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the fact we had an entry list with drivers released yesterday I would say we could let it in. It wasn't even a very good announcement from him - nothing on his actual website. Just an interview with the Spanish media. - mspete93 [talk] 18:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From Toro Rosso's twitter: "The FIA lists our second driver as "TBA." We hope to announce him fairly soon. Can't say more than that for now." - mspete93 [talk] 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC Sport includes Alguersuari in their 2010 line-up table, with an asterisk note explaining that he has yet to be announced by the team. Could we do something similar, considering we have a similar system with the Lotus No.1 and Lopez. We would not be saying that he has been confirmed. In fact I'm going to do it anyway. - mspete93 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)