Talk:2011 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP:CRYSTAL on pretty much everything & needs fixes

I changed the section headers to reflect the nature of being future events. Normal sourcing simply isn't acceptable for low-probability events over 1 year away, especially types of information that can change on a day-to-day basis. WP:CRYSTAL explains how this page in general should exist and it certainly should be here because we do know of notable changes such as the Bridgestone contract. Things like the double diffuser ban technically shouldn't even be there, as the article states the teams are "closing in on". This kind of wording isn't at all acceptable in any article. Actually, the article gets away with a whole lot and has some articles that are outdated or later contradicted, but that's open to debate on conclusion.

I'll say now; could probably get away with only other minor fixes if the section titles are left ambiguous as I made them. Otherwise, see below:

Basically, unless we know, it can't be given as encyclopedic fact as Wikipedia is. This is why I changed the section names... because we do know a lot as fact per a signed agreement like the team listing, some drivers and a lot of circuits. Simply having a list of possible new tracks was just impossible with the old wording. We also know that for the most part, those sorts of agreements or contracts mean absolutely nothing at more than 1 full season away and they absolutely can't be given as fact without the standard official fall or winter release from the team proper stating it as final. See WP:HAMMER. Any drivers listed that are not under contract should be removed regardless per WP:BLP (unverifiable claims).

It's either the weasel wording for the sections as I changed, or information removal needed to make it encyclopedic with verifiable information. This is what talk pages are for! My view would be that anything only as speculation without a written agreement somewhere should be removed since in other areas of Wikipedia this is strictly enforced, and we're seriously stretching that. We have at least some notable and verifiable info for 2011... however, standard reference and citation rules apply everywhere. WP:PROVEIT or it's not time to be mentioned here yet. I welcome discussion about and I'm certainly not going to remove any dubious or unverified content without some talk first. Sources using words like "could" or "wants" as straight fact aren't to Wikipedia standards, so any of that should go (my view). Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, anything that is not referenced should not be included in the article. As for driver contracts, currently at 2010 Formula One season drivers have not been added until they are confirmed by either the team, or themselves, so none of this "could" and "wants", and it should be no different here. The contracted Grands Prix table is a mess, with some referenced well, but others not, so non-referenced races should go until references are found. The double diffuser sentence should go, as this isn't comfirmed, and I feel the bits about Czech and Rome GPs should go also. Schumi555 14:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If it were totally my call wipe the entire driver grid since this year proved that even drivers signed for tens of millions of dollars can up and disappear... however, it is still notable if they're under contract. Also technically a BLP issue and I should double-check that on the drivers' articles. The teams are signed under Concorde until 2012 which is a legal contract with the championship itself so I'd call that "confirmed"-- they're then required to show vs drivers who are requested. Anyway, all easy to keep track of and the only things here that should likely change in the next several months on this article would be extreme FIA proposals (causing scandals) and signed FOTA arrangements. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've begun tidying the page but come across a couple of queries... All teams, except BMW Sauber and Toro Rosso, were listed with the engines that they are to use in 2010. However, there are no references to support this to be the case for 2011 also. For the moment I have added Ferrari to both BMW and Toro Rosso, but should engines be 'TBA' until they are confirmed? As we saw with Williams between 2009 and 2010, engines can change between seasons.

The first two references in the 'Planned and possible races' section are non-English, so therefore I am unable to see what they actually say. Anyone able to help out there? Thanks, Schumi555 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe now only the Planned and possible races section requires attention, as there are several possible races listed in the prose, many of which have foreign references. Also, not all races in the table are referenced as having been confirmed for 2011. Schumi555 22:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

2011 Drivers

Fisichella

I have removed the rumour of Fisichella retiring - it is directly refuted here. Kevin 02:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Heikki Kovalainen

Why do people continue do add his name on the list?! He´s got only a 1year contract at Lotus, not for 2011 (only optional). The reference isnt correct either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Now again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Liuzzi

Liuzzi is confirmed for 2011 at Force India - http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=374320&FS=F1 (Zeoace (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Some one has removed him from the list of drivers, there are several Ref's including one from his own Wikipedia page;

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74694&type=news&id=74694

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=374320&FS=F1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitantonio_Liuzzi

http://www.planetf1.com/news/18227/6221008/Liuzzi-dreams-of-driving-for-McLaren

http://www.crash.net/f1/News/160873/1/liuzzi_happy_at_force_india_but_dreams_of_mclaren_future.html

Wish me to go on... I'm undoing that IP address edit. (Zeoace (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Well one of those refences is Liuzzi's wikipedia page, not even remotely useable as a reference, but three of the remainder are convincing. --Falcadore (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He is under contract, although he is not actually confirmed. There is a difference. Kimi Raikkonen had a Ferrari contract for 2010. - mspete93 23:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing. Why are you using a different name in your signature to your actual username? - mspete93 23:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 Teams

Teams and drivers

All of the stuff in that section is rubbish

They have only comfirmed 5 drivers for 2010 yet. It all should be deleted aa soon a possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z6q.jmr (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Brawn GP

Should Brawn now be changed to Mercedes ? (Zeoace (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

Yes. It's been changed. DH85868993 (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sauber

Should Sauber be added to the list now they have been granted an entry back into F1? (Zeoace (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

Sauber has been allowed to drop its BMW Title but will remove it AFTER the 2010 season so it should be noted the change in name for 2011, the ref is; http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84697 (Zeoace (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

Hispania

The engine will be a Cosworth for 2011 until further notice. Please do not change that the engine will be a Ferrari unless you have a source. --66.176.181.238 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

13th New Team

I've just read on ESPNF1 that The team picked by the FIA to enter F1 in 2011 will have to pay a £16 million deposit, Bernie Ecclestone has revealed. http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/23107.html Would it be worth mentioning this anywhere in the artical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeoace (talk • contribs) 09:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lotus

source needs to be edited here it is http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8808856.stm don't how to yet that why I haven't done it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.134.26 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Premature. The deal hasn't been done yet, as the source says. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, from what I've read around the news sites Lotus has no confirmed drivers and hasn't confirmed whether they're using Cosworth or Renault engines yet. Shouldn't all of the above be TBA until confirmed by the team??--Brody59 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

2011 Races

Indonsia

There is no news about Indonsia having a grand prix. So i took it off since there is no reference or news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattav2 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Other Races

Like Indonesia, there is no news of any of the following coutnries having races: America, America West, the Czech Republic, Russia, Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, Switzerland (motorsport is banned there), Greece and Egypt. Where the hell do you guys come up with this stuff!?

Bernie Ecclestone didn't rule out a London GP earlier this week, though it's likely to replace Silverstone and a Parisian circuit is likely to replace Magny-Cours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.1.214 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

venezuellla gp

IT' problaby that venezeuella have a gp in 2011 or 2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.7.19 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And your reference is? --Falcadore (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

the question is wath's yoru reference tath it isn't any reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.6.49 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't work like that. You need to provide a reference from a reputable source to prevent to addition of speculation or to make up something that is not true. --Falcadore (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

you don´t understan en english I'll explian you in spanish (concretelly in andlusian) COJONE QUE LO PUJE PO'QE ME DA LA GÁNA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.140.202 (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The way it works is that the editor inserting material is responsible for quoting sources, a concept Falcadore seems to grasp quite well. We don't need lectures on the quality of our English from you, judging solely from the English you employ in that post. Also, please sign your posts (four tildes, hash key and shift x 4). Also, although I do not speak Spanish, if the word "cojone" means what I am told it does, please moderate your language to that suitable for civilised discussion. Britmax (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

the traduccion: (coloquial expression) i had put it because I want it see how the engilsh people react at the post. thanks you for your patient and have a good day :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.74.40 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria GP

Bulgaria have signed a preliminary contract with Bernie Ecclestone so it's very likely that Bulgaria have a GP in 2011/2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.78.206 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And your reference is? --Falcadore (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rome

I know Rome is slated for 2012,but the promoter has said that if the event is fast-tracked, it could be ready for 2011. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need something a bit more substantial than a promotors wishful thinking. --Falcadore (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is circumstantial at best, but Istanbul is in strife with a decision on the future of the race expected very soon. The timing of the annoucement of the Roman race comes just after the reports about Turkey. One comes into prominence, but another declines. If Istanbul gets axed, I wouldn't be surprised if Rome is bumped forward to 2011. That's a lot of "if" and is wholly speculatory, but when it comes to the calendar, there are usually no conincidences. Wishful thinking on the promoter's part it may be, but it takes three weeks to set up most street circuits. Odd then, that Rome is being planned for some thirty months away, isn't it? The timing of it ... well, I think they're being cautious. They dont want to jump the gun in case Turkey saves itself. Mind you, I can't prove a word of that, but I think a short note like the one currently in the article cannot hurt for now. At the very least, it will stop people from persistently editing it in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that odd. Adelaide and Melbourne street races both had similarly long lead times, although Melbourne's was actually cut by a year when devastated Adelaide organisers asked Melbourne to start a year early. --Falcadore (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

2011 Rule Changes

Refuelling

Annoyingedit (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)fuel pumps wont be neded refuelling is banned in 2010

Planned and possible races

Some of the races listed here appear to be either purely speculative or wishful thinking that has not gained official approval. Portugal reads like speculation. Bulgaria reads like it had never received approval. Czech Republic reads like speculation. Rome is good for 2012, but is speculation for 2011. USA is also speculation. All these should be deleted. --Falcadore (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, when I substantially tidied the article previously I did leave them in to see what other users thought, see above. But I totally agree they should all go as they are not confirmed. Schumi555 12:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Establishing own team

fellow former World Champions Alain Prost and Jackie Stewart in establishing his own team - this is fundamentally false as it is written. Prost did not establish Prost Grand Prix, he took over Ligier and renamed it. Jackie Stewart did not establish, in many respects it wasn't even his team. It was his son's Paul Stewart's team which Jackie joined to gain credibility when it made the jump from F3000 to F1 and also because of Jackie's links with Ford.

Jack Brabham established his own F1 team. As did Graham Hill and John Surtees, if we are going to pick former World Champions. --Falcadore (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the references to Prost and Stewart which were (imho) unnecessary anyway. DH85868993 (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you say you had a consensus to do so? One person does not constitute a consensus. Anyway, I included references to Prost and Stewart when I wrote that in case people have started following the sport since those teams faded in case newcomers were under the impression that Villeneuve was the first former driver to have a team bearing his own name. Perhaps a re-write such as fellow former World Champions Alain Prost and Jackie Stewart in lending his name to a team' would be more suitable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not apply when it's straight facts at play. Perhaps the wording of the Edit summary could have been better, but that should not affect the validity of the edit.

in case people have started following the sport since those teams faded in case newcomers were under the impression that Villeneuve was the first former driver to have a team bearing his own name - then use Jack Brabham and John Surtees as examples rather than Prost and Stewart (remembering Stewart historically was named for Paul Stewart not Jackie Stewart). --Falcadore (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say I had a consensus to remove the references to Prost and Stewart? Oh, I see, you interpreted "per talk page" in my edit summary to mean "per the consensus on the talk page" - I meant it as "per the issue raised on the talk page". I was just being bold and removing controversial/disputed/incorrect text which, in my opinion, added little to the article. DH85868993 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I saw your edits and opened the talk page to reply, but had to leave. I didn't get back to it for another six hours. My mistake. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. As Falcadore noted, I could have made my edit summary a little clearer. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Calendar dated 31st July, 2010

Please note that the calendar released on 31st July 2010 was only in the draft stages and has yet to be confirmed by anyone in a position to do so. It should be considered unofficial and left as is until such time as a full calendar is released.

Also, please note that there is no need to link to the article pages if they have not been created yet, and that there is no need to create said pages until such time as the 2011 season begins (or at least not until January 1st 2011). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

McLaren Mercedes?

I just wondered whether anyone knew when McLaren are dropping Mercedes from their official team name? If I remember correctly, it was at the end of 2010, but obviously my unreliable memory isn't sufficient evidence. They are currently listed as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" in the article, so I won't change it until we know for sure. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 03:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It was confirmed that they would carry the name for 2010, but I don't think there's been any word as to when or if they'll drop it. The team has been said to be developing their own engine, but they may delay it until 2013 to fit in with the regulations. If they drop the 'Mercedes' from the team name, then it's likely the new name would be Vodafone McLaren Automotive, but in the absence of any official word from the team, I see no reason why it should be changed. Things will sort themselves out towards the end of the year when the teams gear up for season 2011. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Lotus...again

I have removed both Lotus drivers, engine manufacturer and reverted their team name back to Lotus Racing as none of these have been confirmed yet. The only thing that has been confirmed is that they will not be using Cosworth engines in 2011. --Brody59 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is known that Tony Fernandes has the rights to the Team Lotus name and intends to use them for 2011. The drivers and engines; yes, they needed to be removed. But I see no reason why the name cannot be left there given that we had a very valid source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Planned is not quite a confirmation though, Sauber planned to switch their BMW Sauber name during 2010 but obviously we kept them as BMW Sauber anyway. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Until this stuff is confirmed, anything could happen. Let's not try to guess things. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is well known that Fernandes has the rights, whether or not he will use the name is another story. I guess we'll know after Singapore!!!--Brody59 (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There are good reasons for keeping the articles separate that have nothing to do with ownership or team name. Just the pure logistics of merger two teams separated by 20 years would make for a messy merge. No reason why they can't be kept separate articles. --Falcadore (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No one's discussing article mergers? The³5₉ (Talk) 07:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all! Just the name of the Lotus team for next year on this page, which we're going to change when confirmed this weekend!--Brody59 (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

AnomieBOT added all Lotus unconfrimed details again. I took them back out!--Brody59 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And? Its a bot trying to save missing references. Fix the page properly and it wont do that. No need to shout about it. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't, I was just stating that that had happened and I changed it back; no need to be so rude!--Brody59 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you changed it back to the exact same incorrect removal and the bot had to rescue the reference again, so you completely ignored what the bot was doing in order to hastily revert what you did not understand, all while shouting at something that doesnt read. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The name of the future Lotus team is still is dispute. Lotus Cars wants to partner with Renault while Lotus Racing has announced its partnership as 1Malaysia Team. Shouldn't the article reflect this conflict? Fsarmony (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone can understand it, and better still find sources to explain it fully, then sure. Personally I think there isn't any information out there yet that's clear enough to explain it in any detail. Might be worth waiting till announcements are made. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What? Lotus Racing is 1Malaysia! I'd been thinking we should have a note on the table to explain the situation to those not in the know. I'll do one and people can change it as they please. - mspete93 20:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

For all we know the names could end up staying the same. Once any new names are announced, they can be changed. Until then we go by the names of the teams that are entered by the FIA. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true, they'll probably end up with the same name.Fsarmony (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the team nationality? It's half Malaysian and half Luxembourgish and it's still French?Fsarmony (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Drivers confirmed?

Scot Paul di Resta will be promoted to race driver at Force India for 2011 alongside German Adrian Sutil, with German former Williams driver Nico Hulkenberg as reserve driver. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9334327.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.13.200 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Tonio Liuzzi really confirmed for 2011? Regardless of speculation regarding Di Resta etc., Force India themselves have not confirmed him as driving for the team next year, so he should be removed. Furthermore many sources [1] say that Rosberg is on a multi-year deal with Mercedes, yet he is not in the table. Consistency please. - mspete93 18:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Liuzzi has a contract, apparently - at least he has said as much. I think the problem stems from the team all but openly stating that his contract doesn't mean anything, and they'll get rid of him if they want to, regardless of any contract. That kind of thing opens up a problem for us in that on paper, the driver is confirmed, but in practice it might still change. It might well be that if Sutil leaves, they'll keep Liuzzi anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/drivers; Timo Glock is not yet confirmed with Virgin for 2011. Iknow he says he is committed, but he is stillnot yet confirmed, so I not think he should be listed as a driver yet. [[65.41.176.50 (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)]]

Glock has a contract. But Virgin want to present their drivers at the same time. --Gamma127 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fairuz Fauzy is the Lotus Renault test and reserve driver for 2011. http://paultan.org/2011/01/18/fairuz-fauzy-is-lotus-renault-gp-reserve-driver/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.179.34 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

AT&T no longer Williams' title sponsor

According to this Autosport.com article, from 2011 Williams will have a new title sponsor. So the reference to AT&T in the entrants' list is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lustigson (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That article was published on 19th October 2006, nearly four years ago, so it is probably referring to AT&T becoming their new title sponsor back then. Schumi555 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sauber Telmex

Shouldn't the Sauber Telmex deal be under "Sponsorship Changes" rather than "Team Changes"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody59 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So, why isn't it?--Brody59 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ask the editor who put it there? The³5₉ (Talk) 00:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't someone else move it (ie: I don't know how)--Brody59 (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Schumi555 08:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better!! At least some people are nice around here!--Brody59 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Chassis names

This reference from autosport.com names Virgin Racing's next chassis as the VR-02. Is it worth putting this in the table? I'm aware that it might open a huge can of worms with regards to crystal balling, but here you go anyway. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 10:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, too ... but I'd be hesitant to include it just yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Marussia Virgin

Hey guys,

I've moved the Marussia entry around in the teams table. First of all, I've put their flag as being Russian because Marussia have purchased a controlling stake in the team. That makes them Russian. When Red Bull purchased Jaguar, they became Austrian because Red Bull is an Austrian company. Likewise Lotus; they may be based in the UK, but we list them as Malaysian.

I've also moved the team up in the table because Marussia are not the title sponsor. Virgin is. Hence, the team's name now begins with an M and not a V. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The nationality of the parent owner has absolutely nothing to do with the team's nationality, it has to do with which country's sporting association they choose to be represented by. As I stated before, Benetton was British for many years, only switching to Italian in their final few seasons. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. But you do agree with me on the count that they should be between Lotus and McLaren on the table (rather than between Toro Rosso and Williams) because Marussia's purchase of a controlling stake does not consitute title sponsorship, but rather ownership, right? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering "Scuderia Ferrari" is listed under F, then it makes sense to me that Marussia Virgin should still be under V until such time that we hear of the car being called a Marussia. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

But Marussia and Scuderia don't hold the same meaning. "Scuderia" means "stable", and is taken to mean "team". In the comparison between Marussia Virgin Racing and Scuderia Ferrari Malboro, the "Scuderia" in Ferrari holds the same weight as "Racing" in Marussia Virgin. A more apt comparison would be between the "Marussia Virgin" and "Ferrari Malboro": Marussia and Ferrari are the owners, Virgin and Malboro the title sponsors. After all, Virgin is not the team that appled to join the grid this year. Technically, they are Manor Grand Prix, and the Virgin Group purchased the right to rename the team Virgin Racing when they signed on as title sponsor. The arrangement now is that Marussia have purchased a controlling stake in the team, with Manor running the day-to-day operations of team on their behalf and Virgin filling the role of title sponsor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Virgin was the majority stakeholder before, therefore they are more than just a title sponsor. This also still ignores the fact that the "alphabetical" listing on the chart is by constructor, not team name. The cars are still called Virgins, therefore they should be V. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

They can't be the majority stakeholder now - Marussia is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the constructor and our use of it for alphabetical order. Genii is the majority stakeholder in Renault, but it's still listed as Renault. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't add a second flag. They are not going to play two national anthems for the team if they win a race. Twin flag stuff for teams in any series is just rubbish at any level. You don't see flags representing ownership in F1 where it might differ from registration, be it Benetton Formula, Brabham, Leyton House March, Stoddart-era Minardi, Footwork Arrows, etc. --Falcadore (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't adding a second flag. I was changing the UK flag to the Russian one. I've since been convinced that's wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The table is listed alphabetically by constructor and the constructor is Virgin. Final. - mspete93 08:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Final"? Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Virgin was the constructor because they bought naming rights to Manor Grand Prix. Marussia have purchased a controlling stake in Manor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And have only changed the name of the team, they have not, as far as we known, changed the name of the constructor. The cars are not Marussias. And the list is in alphabetical order by constructor. So V is what we go by. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm debating is whether or not Marussia have acquired the rights to be called a constructor by virtue of buying a controlling stake in the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone seen anything anywhere that suggests the cars will be called Marussias next year? Without a source there's no argument to be had. Buying a controlling stake in the team is no indicator, and Genii Capital are a good example of that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't actually find anything that says they've bought a controlling stake in the team. All I can see is "significant" or "major" shareholding. Virgin are just talking about Marussia being a partner. I think we should change that dodgy Russian source for a decent one too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9178539.stm

It's one of the references in the article. #48, I believe. It says that Marussia have bought a controlling stake in the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? Genii is the majority shareholder for Renault, doesn't mean it is under G does it? The majority shareholder has absolutely nothing to do with the name of the constructor does it? Lotus do not have any stake in Lotus Racing whatsoever. Besides, does a controlling stake not mean it could be of the same value as Virgin's stake in the team? The team have not said anything about changing the constructor name, so we have no reason to change it. (P.S. I personally don't think there will be a change either, in the short term) - mspete93 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

^^What he said. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Genii deal is unique. It was structure so that Renault could cede control of the team, but keep their name in the sport. And marussia cannot have a controlling stake in the team if they have bought the same amount as Virgin. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with who is the named constructor. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't shifting it to Marussia for the constructor WP:SPECULATION anyway? Have the team said that Marrussia is the constructor? If they haven't, you've made it up and that is against Wikipedia. You do understand that don't you? --Falcadore (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@The359 - of course it doesn't have anything to do with who is named constructor. My entire point was to demonstrate that the Renault-Genii arrangement is not the same as the Marussia-Virgin one.

@Falcadore - I'm not making anything up. I'm not speculating. I'm arguing that because Marussia have purchased a controlling stake in the team, they have become constructors. Marussia own the team. Marussia operate the team. Marussia make the decisions that affect the team. Virgin do none of that - they are just title sponsors, with no ability to influence the direction the team has taken. If we compare Marussia and McLaren, Marussia is like McLaren whilst Virgin are like Vodafone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That argument is not fact. There are no sources to back it up. A controlling stake (even if they have one) does not necessarily make them constructors. Nobody has said anywhere that Marussia own the team or make all the decisions. Nobody has said that Virgin suddenly have no input into anything - why would they bother to have any stake at all if they have no input into anything? Marussia didn't buy the whole thing. If Virgin are "only title sponsors", who owns the part of the team that Marussia don't own? This is speculation, verging on wild speculation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Bretonbanqet - "A controlling stake (even if they have one) does not necessarily make them constructors." Where is your source to say that Marussia will be the constructor? If you don't have one, then you are making it up, aren't you? There are four people here trying to tell you that you are wrong and yet you are still going on!!! - mspete93 12:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide a reference that Marussia is now the constructor, not the owner or part owner, but one where it says they are now the constructor. If it isn't anywhere else in any media attributed to a reputable source, or the team themselves, then who did make it up? The list of suspects is very short. If you personally make the leap that ownership means constructorship, then that is what speculation is, it's assuming an outcome without confirmation. That is what speculation means. Do you not understand that you've made an assumption? --Falcadore (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll like to end this debate by pointing out Virgin Racing themselves have stated the team shall be known as Marussia Virgin Racing, with Marussia being a partner (not constructor) and the team undergoing "No organisational changes" (hence no re-registering of the team to Russia). QueenCake (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Per previous experience, and discussion at the 2010 season's talk page, I've semi-protected the article for an initial 3 months. Such protection can be extended should it be needed, an issue which will be addressed nearer the time. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tyre

Do we need to show the tyre manufcaturer in the Teams and Drivers table? The red & yellow "P" gives the impression of imparting useful information that differs between teams, but it's the same for every team and will be for the foreseeable future. We can mention the tyre supplier in the main text but putting it in the table is no more useful than having a column for "number of wheels per car". --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the same for the 2010 season. I think it is included for consistency across all F1 season articles. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Refer to earlier discussions on the topic: [2] [3]. DH85868993 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-season

Young driver tests and tyre tests info will need to be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudrocksurfer (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So long as we don't go through the annual rigmarole of having people add four miles of text about some meaningless testing session. That stuff needs to be very concise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Concise yes, but enough to reflect the large amount of media coverage it gets: a balance we still struggle to get right. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But reflective of its importance once the 2011 season is complete. Don't include information simply because we can.

Have a read of this 2010 season debate before adding any testing data. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate data. --Falcadore (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From memory, a sentence after the final test will be enough. I think that's what we did for the 2010 season page. Perhaps more important is a section - again, a smaller one, but this one may have driver quotes - on the Pirelli tests, particularly on how the drivers feel the new tyres compare to the Bridgestones. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Liuzzi

Does Liuzzi have the Force India drive yet? Should we keep him in or take him out?--Brody59 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

He, supposedly, has a contract next year, however the way I understand it it's more of an optional first-choice for the team rather than a hard and fast seat. Best to just keep him in until anythings else is confirmed. QueenCake (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more recent source if you want to replace/add it; http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/34500.html Quote "As for next year, I have a contract with Force India for 2011 so I am pretty confident that everything will stay the same. " But anything can happen in F1 and it usually does, so he 'may' get replaced but at the moment he has a contract... Hope this helps (Zeoace (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Daniel Ricciardo

I've included a note in the driver table about Daniel Ricciardo and the way he'll be doing Friday practice at every race next year. I know it's not uncommon for an extra driver to take the place of a regular driver on Friday mornings, but Ricciardo's situation is unique - we've never had a situation where a driver is contracted to drive in Friday practice at every race, and certainly not one who has been announced months in advance. I think it's a fairly notable event, and thus worthy of inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't particularly say it's notable, really. We have no clue how many of the test drivers may do the same thing for other teams. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We've never had a test driver who was guaranteed a pracice session at every Grand Prix before. And I highly doubt that ay other team is going to put such a system in place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides being assumptions, I fail to see why its notable enough to deserve a note on the chart. Just put it in the text for the driver changes. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not an assumption. Articles like this - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88501 - make it pretty clear he is guaranteed to drive at every Grand Prix. It's notable because it's never happened before; no test driver has ever been contracted to run in Friday practice at every Grand Prix like this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So? Just being the first to have that sort of deal doesnt necessarily make it that notable to be placed there in the article. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys, it is notable as it's never happened before. Also, driver changes isn't a place to list changes to test and reserve drivers, never has been. Therefore, the note is the only place it can go!--Brody59 (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh? There is an entire section named Driver Changes. The "factoid" blongs there, not on the summary chart as a note. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is losing sight of the fact that Ricciardo is not taking part in any races is he? His involvement in the season will be minimal. Whether you use the language of test driver, Friday driver or third driver Ricciardo is not to take up a grid position in a race is he? There is nothing sufficiently notable about ANY non-racing driver deserving of special notes in this manner, unique position or not. --Falcadore (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pastor Maldonado

I have noticed that sometimes Pastor Maldonado disappears from the 'Teams and Drivers' grid, while no edit has been made meanwhile. Has anyone else also noticed that or is it just me going crazy ? Maimai009 (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some wrote about Pastor Maldonado and Williams F1 in this article "... 2011 will mark the first time since 1982 that Williams have not run a European driver on a regular basis." I deleted this because it is not true. In 2005 Williams had Mark Webber and Antonio Pizzonia as their regular drivers during and after the Italian GP. --Mundotaku (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pizzonia was not a regular driver. He was a replacement for a concussed Nick Heidfeld. Maldonado, on the other hand, is a regular driver - unlike Pizzonia, he is contracted to race for the full season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pirelli tests

Felipe Massa was the fastest overall in the pirreli tyre tests, yet it is listed as fernando alonso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenRooker (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Got a reference? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The section is too long as it is. A tyre test no even in the same calendar year? The relevance is extoradinarily small. Delete. --Falcadore (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's a tyre test that is not in the same calendar year - but it's a tyre test that is extremely important because of the new tyre supplier. In fact, I'd say it's more important that the section on the young driver tests. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a test. What is important is the races. Just because it's the off-season and there is no racing going on doesn't mean we should over-write the insgnificant that is taking place. In any case, what is important about this tyre test is not going to be revealed by who was fastest in the session. What's important will be the technical data the tyre technicians pull from the test, and the order of who is fastest will be mostly irrelevant to that data, the temas will have plenty of testing opportunities to adjust and everyone would be using 2010 cars or hybrid 2010/2011 cars anyway. Pirelli won't be sharing their data with the public, and it would be of far too technical a nature to Wikipedia anyway.

The derogatory term winter pole wasn't invented without foundation you know. --Falcadore (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

lotus Renault

The Name change to lotus Renault hasn't been confirmed in the FIA entry list yet, so shouldn't it be changed back to what it originally was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooza (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need. It's a title sponsor, and it has been confirmed. The FIA entry list is only the entry list as of the day it was released; any future changes obviously cannot appear on it. Both Renault and Lotus Cars have confirmed the arrangement, so it's a legitimate addition to the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the constructor name should be changed to "Group Lotus". Renault announced they are only an engine supplier to the team now - guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.139.113 (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC) EDIT: My apologises have noticed team will still be known as Renault unless other teams agree to name change.

Please read the reference which is attached to Renault in the constructor's column. Renault will remain the designated constructor. The³5₉ (Talk) 11:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Team Orders

Ok, I edited in a line on the news that Team Orders have been un-banned for this season and Prisonermonkeys says they are covered already, but where does it say they are allowed again??--Brody59 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Earlier in the section. It's the part about Jean Todt's stance on team orders: they're accepatble provided they don't bring the sport into disrepute through teams lying about them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari Marlboro

Are Marlboro really the main sponsor of Ferrari (as stated on the teams list table)? Is it not Santander? Will Hambling 21:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will.hambling (talk • contribs)

Yes, Malboro really are Ferrari's title sponsor. The way their deal works is Philip Morris buy all of the space on the car, and then companies like Santander buy space from Malboro. Just because Santander is the most visible sponsor on the car, it does not mean they are the "main", or title sponsor. Williams is another team with a similar arrangement - AT&T is their title sponsor, but Philips and RBS have (well, had - they're both leaving the team) more-prominent branding. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up Prisonermonkeys! Will Hambling 07:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

History of nationalities in the sport

I've removed the histories of various nations being represented in the sport from the driver changes subsection. If it had been one or two drivers, then it would be okay - but if we're going to recount the last time a Belgian driver, a Venezuelan driver and a Mexican driver all competed, then the article would be needlessly padded. We did it on the 2010 page for Vitaly Petrov, since he was the first Russian in Formula 1, but I don't see how Gachot, Cecotto and Rebaque are particularly notable drivers. If d'Ambrosio had been the first Belgian Formula 1 driver since Jacky Ickx, then I could understand the significance of it all. But not when all we're doing it referring to various backmarkers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. Refer WP:NOTSTATS. This sort of information is best added to the pages on the drivers rather than the Formula One season page. --Falcadore (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - including it makes it sound like its important information about the season, which of course it is not. First of a nationality, yes, but otherwise no. - mspete93 13:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd also say first since a significant driver (ie Prost, Mansell, Senna - not that these drivers come from under-represented nations, of course, but you get the idea) after an extended period of time (at least a decade; preferrably closer to two) would also be acceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nico Hülkenberg

Hello.

I think the statement about Nico Hülkenberg leaving Williams should be placed under the "Exited Formula One" section rather than under "Changed teams". That's true that his manager have announced he will have a drive for the 2011 season, but as far as we know, he hasn't be signed by any other team... What do you think about it ? Maimai009 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Until such time as he fails to secure a seat, he hasn't exited Formula 1. While he may currently be unsigned, he is known to be in talks with Force India. It may sound like semantics, but Willi Weber has said that Hulkenberg will be on the grid in 2011. That is the best and most accurate statement that we have to describe his current status. To claim that Hulkenberg has exited Formula 1 when his manager has issued a statement contradicting that claim is speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I have to admit that it is wrong to claim he has left Formula 1 as long as there will be available seats (and Hülkenberg doesn't have one of them, obviously). But placing him in the "Changed teams" section is also speculation.

We can not say he has changed teams until we have confirmation from the team itself. As the article stands now, it is like saying "Nico Hülkenberg has left Williams for [Place Hülkenberg's future team when we know which one it will be]". This is totally WP:CBALL because it is admitting he will compete and this has not been confirmed. Yes his manager has stated that he will have a seat for 2011. For which team ? He is in talks with Force India, but he's not the only one (di Resta, Liuzzi). What about Toro Rosso (Buemi, Alguersuari)? And HRT (Any pay driver), should they be able to compete ? What about a reserve driver spot ? What about no seat at all ? As of now, we have NO certitude.

In my opinion, Hülk should be placed on a "Left team" section or something until we have further information. But stating he has "Changed teams" is misleading information. Maimai009 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't say he has left F1 because we do not know it to be a fact. All we can say is that he has left Williams. Equally we can't say that he's changed teams. Do we actually have to put him anywhere? It'll all become clear soon enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you've said. For consistency, we should remove him from the section and not place him anywhere else. In any case, as you said, it is just temporary. Maimai009 (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Except removing him from the article implies that he has left the sport. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It would simply mean he won't be involved in the sport in 2011 and as far as we know, it is the case. As of now, Hülkenberg is in the same situation than Heidfeld and Di Grassi : they had a drive in 2010 and have been replaced for 2011. Is it necessary to mention them ? I don't think so. At least until we have more information. Maimai009 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is ridiculous to not even mention that he's left Williams. Anyone reading the article can be assumed to be interested in the fact that he has left the team and currently has no seat for 2011. Likewise di Grassi. Heidfeld was a stand-in and it's not so relevant that he has no 2011 contract. Otheriwse one might look at the driver line-up and think "So what happened to Hulkenberg?" and find no answer whatsoever in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It does imply he has left the sport, maimai. It is known that he drove for Williams in 2010, and yet now the driver table shows Barichello and Maldonado as racing for them in 2011. Removing the part about Hulkenberg implies that he is not in the sport because he is not shown with his previous team and that team is full. Or do you think we should remove Maldonado from the table until such time as Hulkenberg's future is known? Once the entire table is filled in, di Grassi and Heidfeld will likely be placed under a sub-heading reading "exited Formula One", especially once we know their exact fates. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Blick are reporting that Hulkenberg will be Force India's third driver in 2011 and will drive in Friday practice. If this is true, how do we want to handle it once it is announced? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This happened to Fisichella last year when he stepped back to a role of third driver at Ferrari after having drove for Force India and Ferrari. He is noted as having Exited Formula One, which is not totally true because as a third driver he was still involved in the sport in some way. If Blick's information turns true, I would prefer just to mention Hülkenberg under the Changed teams section, while specifying he has also changed role. It's the way it has been done in 2008 for Liuzzi. Maimai009 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It was done that way for Fisichella last year because he technically did exit Formula One - he went from a full-time driver to a testing and reserve driver. We also kept him out of the "changed teams" subsection, because we didn't want to list each and every change in the testing line-up, since test drivers don't do anything these days unless they're called up. It simply wasn't notable enough. So I propose listing Hulkenberg as exiting the sport full-time, with a note being made that he would be doing a Friday practice program. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Renault 'launch'

Excuse me being cynical, but is that 'launch' at Autosport International actually going to be for Renault's 2011 car? It seems A) quite early to launch a 2011 car, when testing cannot start until February, and B) unlikely that Lotus/Renault would want to launch at a show like that when they could organise their own event like all the other teams do, which is of a benefit to sponsors and partners. No news sources appear to have picked up on it (nor have the Renault F1 or Lotus Cars websites). It wouldn't surprise me if this was just a clever way of saying they are going to give the 2010 car a new paint job. I remember that Mercedes did the same thing last winter. The team website does not launch until January 31, so I wouldn't imagine the new car will launch until then. What does everybody else think? - mspete93 13:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Are car launches actually notable in the context of the season as a whole? --Falcadore (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not the kind of information that we would like to retain in our memories over years... Maimai009 (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that car launches are notable (except in the car articles themselves), and in any case, I'd be willing to bet that this is a launch of the new livery, not any new car. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would they be launching the livery when there are already dozens of photos of it over the internet? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It could well be the first official appearance of the livery, even though there are photos and mock-ups all over the net. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Bretonbanquet. Also, considering Autosport.com covered the announcements of the Sauber and Toro Rosso launch dates, I'm sure they'd be falling over themselves to plug the Renault launch if it was something worth promoting. As no news sites have still not covered it, I think we need to remove it before we mislead anyone. Chances are they've checked their facts and found it is not a launch. - mspete93 16:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just the livery: [4] Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)