Talk:2012 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Fan Forum and Speculation

Please be aware this is not a fan forum or a place for any form of media speculation we had this problem when virtually every country possible was listed a being a potential race venue. The only races to be listed in the table are either contracted Grand Prix in the current season with a contract covering the 2012 season or races contracted for the 2010 or 2011 seasons and nothing else, until a full contract is signed by all parties confirming the race will take place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a fan forum, but when the person quoted in the source is Bernie Ecclestone, I'd say there's more than a modicum of credibility to it. And he's being quoted in Autosport and the Guardian - two very reliable sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There were previous sources for a Rome GP which was removed because firstly no contract has been signed and secondly no track has been confirmed. Circuits and races must only be added when the contract is signed, not just when one man opens his mouth. One man saying something no matter who they are does not make it true, a contract and only a contract makes it true and the words of one man are not a contract.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you got rid of the information on the return of the US Grand Prix in 2012, which is official news and shouldn't have been removed. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is official until a contract is signed. No contract has been signed so it is not official. The only races which can be listed are aces with existing contracts for 2011 or existing contracts for 2011 which run through 2010, otherwise it is speculation and the page devolves in to a forum and not and encyclopaedia page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Both the organisers and FOM make references to a deal being agreed to. Even if they don't specifically use the word "contract", there are details within every major news outlet that journalists could not know without knowing the terms of the deal, such as the length of the arrangement. Show me a media source that specifically says that no contract has been signed yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Contract is signed [1], even if nothing exists at the site yet, and there are doubts over money. A contract is a contract - even one with Bernie. Can we leave the Austin GP in the table, please. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You've gone to far removing races this time, if a statement from the FOM - the series managers, stating a contract with Austin for a grand prix is not to be believed, then your never going to have a proper source. QueenCake (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't get personal all edits are made in good faith and do not make conjecture or intimation otherwise. Just because FOM or one man says so doesn't make it true. A related sports example of this Alex Ferguson said in 2004 he was going to retire and guess what it didn't happen. So until something actually happens then its not confirmed. Also adding a wild list of all possible races cannot be allowed to happen, If anything this discussion will stop the addition of a wild list of races which occurred previously.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The table is a list of contracted races, not a list of "races that are definitely going to happen". If we waited until something actually happens before adding it in, then we can't have a 2011 article, and only half a 2010 article. There's a difference between speculation and sourced addition of contracted future events. That said, new races with no contract don't belong in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I Understand that but there must a realisation that just because one man says something doesn't make it correct. Also I now accept the sources for the USGP as reliable because it more than the word of one man or one group. I am though not accepting the source for the Rome GP as it is in Italian therefor making it unverifiable and is only a proposal to hold a race, which the source directs to. The source states no contracts or dates at all--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

When that one man is Bernie Ecclestone, the guy who decides whether a race will happen or not, his word is the only word worth considering. Granted there still needs to be a contract, but Ecclestone's word is a strong start. Regarding the Rome GP, the fact that the source is in Italian is not enough to discount it, but the fact that is doesn't mention a contract is indeed enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That used to be the case but times have changed since the 70s and 80s when he was that powerful.--21:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's incorrect. It's only in the past few years he's been slightly less powerful, but he still decides who gets a race and who doesn't. Certainly there's nobody else with that power. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Paris Court, FOTA and and GPDA have become more powerful and he has become far less powerful as seen by the recent dispute over his budget cap.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The budget cap was not Ecclestone's idea - it was Mosley's. It might have been endorsed by Ecclestone, but it was always Mosley's initiative. As has been said, we cannot simply ignore a contract simply because it "might not" happen. That in itself is speculative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rest assured that the Paris Court, FOTA and certainly the GPDA have no input whatsoever into which countries get Grands Prix and which are dropped. Also, don't be fooled about ideas Ecclestone suggests that are later dropped or overruled. Half of the stuff he comes out with is just meant to deflect from other, more serious business - it's all part of the politics. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I noticed that some odd edits - London, New York, Nigeria (!?), Rome and Russia - were added overnight. I've sent the person who made them a friendly message explaining about the need to reference and how we don't take to speculation, so hopefully he'll make with the conformity.

However, last time I did this the person in question rebelled and just went through and started vandalising the 2010 page for the hell of it ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Are all the engine suppliers acctually definant? or is the just assumed beacuse of which engibes all the teams have now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.75.148 (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Driver's

Vettel's contract at RBR ends at the END OF 2012 : http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84102 Please add to the table (Zeoace (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

There is no confirmation to schumachers continued drive in formula one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.213.9 (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone fix the column width on the drivers table? I don't know how to do it, but it would look much better if Schumachers name it was on one line. Editadam 22:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It auto-adjusts depending on your browsers width. Try maximising it looks fine to me :) QueenCake (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

De La Rosa is contracted to drive for HRT is he not? http://www.hispaniaracing.com/news.php?nid=583 although not a FIA confirmed driver, he is confirmed by HRT. Shouldn't he be added to the list of drivers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.2.52.5 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are Ricciardo and Vergne not listed in Toro Rosso? They are confirmed by the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.244.26 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 calendar

I think the table needs to be deleted. It's still 2010. 2011 calendar has only just been announced. While several, even most GPs have multi-year contracts, it is right now some 19 months before the 2012 season begins. Really, this is speculation. Perhaps text of which GPs are continuing but let's delete this table. --Falcadore (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This table is a legitimate table with reliable sources. A similar thing could be to say we need to delete the sports which will appear at the 2012 London Olympics they are 24 months away. The speculative Grand prix have all been removed and only contracted Grand Prix appear in the table as confirmed and the legitimate speculation section is only for race currently contracted for 2010 or 2011. it is hardly speculation under WP:Crystal and nor is it Synthesis or Original Research. I think it is a legitimate and well sourced table showing the Grand Prix’s which are going to appear in the 2012 season or have a legitimate basis that they are likely to be included in the 2012 season.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the London Olympics example is relelvant because the 2012 F1 calendar is far from set. Some race are included simply because they are sceduled in 2011, which is no guarantee they will continue forward. Rather than a table, would not the references be better captured with text, with a table to be added later when a list of dates is announced? --Falcadore (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The races which are not contracted for 2012 but appear in the 2011 season are in the section at the bottom, which a section based on legitimate and not wild speculation. The other races are all races with multi-year contracts covering the 2012 season, so stating they will be on the 2012 calendar is legitimate, with a verifiable and reliable source. If contracts are to be dismissed as unreliable then Wikipedia is placing a level of standard higher than that which is placed by the law. Removal of the table may just as well mean deletion of the whole article, as it could be claimed that this whole article is 18 months away from being true and is therefore all speculation and should be deleted. Simply having text with inline sources reduces the clarity which the table brings. The table summarises simply what hundreds of words would do. The ease of accessibility and ease of understanding this table gives is far greater than an inaccessible and wordy lump of text which few will bother to wade through. This article and the standard template are fine, why try and fix something which is not broken.--Lucy-marie (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rome GP

The Rome GP is not confirmed as staring in 2012 in the source the source says 2012 or 2013. "Ahead of Italy's existing race near Milan, they said that Rome would also feature on the calendar in 2012 or 2013" is a direct quote from the source itself. It should not be added as a confirmed 2012 race as it is an either 2012 or 2013 race. --Lucy-marie (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already told you I do not assume good faith in your edits. The use of "2012 or 2013" undermines the entire point of it being in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How am I not assuming good faith? The source states 2012 or 2013 and the table must reflect the source for the table to be accurate. If one source is to be used as a reference for something which is not stated in the source then it is synthesis and cherry-picking of the content of the source. I also fail to see how it undermines the table. --Lucy-marie (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't assume good faith in your edits. You have a history with this page, claiming it is unneeded. Mmost of your edits have removed information or changed things in such a way that it makes them unneeded, like listing the Rome race as starting in "2012 or 2013". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To make that claim is implying I don’t assume good faith either for you to have that justification in the first place. There is no justification for not assuming good faith in this situation. Most of the information which was edited was to improve the style and remove POV from the article, which you disliked. Also no edit of mine has been made with the intention of making information seem "unneeded" the edits made to the Rome GP simply reflect what the source being used states. The source itself states "2012 or 2013" as the start date. Having the race listed in with the Contracted races which will be taking place in 2012 is misleading as it implies there will be a Rome GP in 2012 which is not a certainty.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a history of repeatedly removing valid information from this page, information with a dozen sources to support it. It has required consensus from WP:F1 just to include something that by rights should never have been removed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Back on the subject - if the event organisers cannot decied which year they will be ready, is it actually ready to be included at all? If the race organisers cannot commit to a date, then nor should we. It should just be noted that a Rome GP may occur in the future and it should not be included in any calendars. If the organisers do not know themselves for us to include Rome GP in a calendar is speculation. Just because its official race organiser speculation does not make it any less speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a contract in existence that says the race will happen. That contract will give 2012 or 2013 as the starting date, subject to final approval from the FIA and/or FOM (I admit, that is slightly speculative on my part). The contract exists, stating that it can happen in 2012, and so I think it's a valid addition until we get information that proves otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Then add that information in text, NOT in the table. When it's confirmed that it will take place in 2012, then add it to the table. Whether a contract exists or not, it is still speculation, contracted speculation if you like, that a 2012 Rome Grand Prix will take place. I am not saying the race will not happen, I am saying that even race officials are saying is speculation to say a 2012 Rome GP will happen.

This is not a 2012-2013 season article, it is just 2012, and by any measure a 2012 Rome GP taking place is speculative.

The very heart of speculation is, is that if you are not sure it will happen and no-one is sure it will happen, then it is speculation. 2013 appears to be definite, but 2012 is not. --Falcadore (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We had it in the text. Back when it was first annouced. We even had sources quoting Ecclestone on it - until Lucy came along and deleted it because it didn't meet her high standards despite complying with Wikipeia's policy. I personally would have included it in the main body of the table, but the only reason why I kept it at the bottom is because I knew she'd make an issue and I didn't want to have to go to WP:F1 and get a consensus again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would definately be in favour of a restoration of a text annotation on the race's possibility of appearing on the 2012 calendar is it comes from FIA/F1 sources rather than wishful thinking of race organisers. But giving it a place on a chart gives the race a visual legitimacy, the suggestion that this article believes that the race will take place, that it does not have. If the source is just a quote from Ecclestone in the media that I would be concerned about. It should be in the form of official announcement from FIA rather than Mr. E saying something in passing to a journalist that is annoying him. --Falcadore (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason the Rome GP was originally removed from the text was because there was no contract in existence like there is now, which the previous discussion concluded as well. At the time it was nothing more than wishful thinking and speculation. Now there is a contract signed there are verifiable sources which back up the inclusion of a Rome GP somewhere in the article. I think the best compromise is to have it in the main bulk of the text and not in the table as the start date is not fixed yet. The wording though needs to avoid speculation and must reflect the source(s) being used.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the original text contained a passage that described Bernie Ecclestone's plans for expansion of the sport, including races in Russia and on the streets of Rome. The text did not suggest that a race would actually take place, it only quoted Ecclestone (with direct quotes in the relevant source) about his vision. Given that he is the only person who can comment on these things with any certainty in the absence of a contract, he is effectively God. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of quoting just one man no matter who they are or how powerful they are perceived to be is fine in a section regarding what he wants to happen while he is at the head of the sport. It must though be taken with a rational lens that he can want all he wants but if now one else wants it no matter how hard he tries it just won’t happen. He can't build the track and drive the cars all by himself. When talking about confirmed races contracts and statements from the FIA are needed and not just the wants and desires of one man. --Lucy-marie (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that contracts are not made with the FIA. They are made with FOM, and FOM is organised and administered by one Bernard Charles Ecclestone. All negotiations go directly through him and none other. From the point of view of the sport's organisation, Ecclestone is the first, last and only person who is involved. You are right in saying that he cannot build a circuit and drive the cars by himself, but nobody can build a circuit or drive the cars without him first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

FOM still though needs the authorisation of the regulatory body which is the FIA and as I said one man cannot build a race track drive, maintain all the cars and run the whole Grand Prix weekend by himself. Until all the cogs are in place such as the contract being signed and the race being authorised then simply quoting one man belongs in a section regarding what he wants to do as the head of the sport during his time in charge. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The 2012 page relates to the future of the sport. Do you not think it pertinent to include a short passage about the vision of the future held by the most powerful man in the sport? And if not, why is there a passage about exactly that already in the article?

And for the record, FOM can act without the FIA's authorisation. The FIA has granted them the power to expand the sport as Ecclestone sees fit. If Ecclestone wants a race in Rome and the FIA does not, there is little the FIA can do because they only police the technical and sporting regulations. They have zero power over the commercial side of things because you cannot give a governing body that much power. It would be like having a football match where the players wrote the rules, policed the rules and played the game by the rules. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The passage needs to make clear that it is the goals of the head of the sport and nothing else for it to have relevance; it also needs to be of a neutral POV as well. FOM would have a problem though getting any Formula One drivers for such a race as their super licences all require they participate only in FIA sanctioned events. It would also not form part of the Formula One World Championship if not sanctioned by the FIA. The FIA are not the players they are the equivalent of the FA and FOM is the equivalent of BskyB. You can have a match run by BskyB but it doesn’t count for anything unless it is sanctioned by the FA. As this is an article on the 2012 Formula One season unless it is sanction by the FIA then the race is meaningless in terms of the 2012 Formula One season.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Grouping races by continent

I have reverted edits to the page that grouped the races by continent. This, I feel was a completely unnecessary change because most people know which continents countries are in, and the continents themselves have no bearing on the actual championship - there is no trophy awarded for whoever wins the most races in Europe or Asia, and thus I saw little need for it to be included. All it did was needlessly pad out the page with information that did not contribute to the article, and so I have returned the page to its original state. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree. I was surprised it was broken up that way in the first place. Kuguar03 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

They could have at least kept it alphabetical both by continent and within each section ... but that would have only made me consider deleting it for a moment longer than I actually did. I just don't know how to revert mutliple edits in one go and restore the page to an old version, so I had to do it the hard way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jarno Trulli

Okay, Trulli has announced that he will be with Team Lotus in 2012. However, I find it a little bit questionable. Compare the statement from Team Lotus to the statement from Red Bull about Webber re-signing. This is the article about Trulli:

"Jarno Trulli will remain at Team Lotus for 2012, after the Hingham-based outfit announced on Sunday that the Italian had extended his contract.

The Italian joined Team Lotus for its inaugural campaign in 2010 and has played a major role in helping develop the outfit over the past two seasons.

Speaking about his new deal, Trulli said: "I am very pleased that we have been able to confirm today that my contract with Team Lotus has been extended into 2012. The challenge I first accepted when I joined the team is becoming more exciting every day, and I am very proud that I can keep helping the team take steps forward for at least another year."

Team principal Tony Fernandes, who made a big push during the formation of his outfit in going for experienced drivers like Trulli, said: "We are all delighted that we have been able to reach an agreement to keep Jarno on board for at least one more year with our team.

"He has shown in qualifying in Monza just how much pace he has and how he can wring every last drop of performance out of his car and since day one with us he has brought a level of professionalism, insight and raw speed to our team that has helped accelerate our development on and off track.

"Today's announcement will give us the benefit of his experience and knowledge into 2012, another very important year in the growth of our team."

And this is the article about Webber:

"Red Bull Racing is pleased to announce that Mark Webber’s contract has been extended for another year, meaning the Australian will continue to drive for the team in 2012.

Mark Webber said: “I want to continue racing at the top in Formula One so it’s no-brainer to remain at Red Bull Racing for another year. My motivation to achieve the best results possible both for myself and the team is still very high. Over the past five years, we have worked hard and proved that we can design and build a competitive and championship-winning car, and I’m looking forward to putting the car and myself on the limit again each and every race weekend in 2012.”

Christian Horner said: “When we sat down and started talking about 2012, it was immediately obvious that Mark and the team wanted to continue our successful relationship. This meant agreeing an extension for 2012 was very straightforward. Mark knows the team well, having been with us since 2007, and his motivation, fitness and commitment is as high as it has ever been. The pairing of Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel is a very strong one, they push each other hard and we are extremely happy the pairing will remain unchanged for a fourth season.”

Now, here's the important thing: nowhere in the article about Trulli re-signing does it actually say Trulli will be driving for the team. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but I find it very strange that Team Lotus has not said that Trulli is driving. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I would keep him as the race driver until something different (such as a test driver role) is confirmed. Editadam 17:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs)

If he's going to be a test driver, I'll eat my computer. Why on earth would he sign as a test driver? There's nothing to say he's not going to be a race driver, so we should assume he will continue in the role he's had for the last two years. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Caterham F1?

Since when were Team Lotus/gonna be called Caterham F1? Where's the source? Trivran (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one yet. Tony Fernandes has signalled his intentions to change his team name, but it hasn't happened yet. He and Group Lotus need to convince the other teams that if they change their names for 2012, they will keep those names for some time. So this is really just a case of someone jumping the gun, assuming that it will happen without any actual evidence of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It will happen, because no-one's objecting, but it hasn't happened yet. A source will be readily available when the time comes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation of Renault and Lotus name changes http://www.itv.com/formula1/news/2011/10/renault-and-lotus-name-changes-set-for-green-light-4987/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.84.1.3 (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. "Looks set to go ahead" is not any kind of confirmation. It's ITV saying they believe it will happen. --Falcadore (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The F1 Commission met in Geneva today and have approved of Lotus and Renualt's name changes to Caterham and Lotus respectively, plus Virgin getting renamed Marussia. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95874 Tommydeb 18:42, 3 November (UTC)

And right in that very article, it clearly states that the FIA has yet to approve the name changes, therefore there is nothing to change yet. The F1 Commission carries no official weight at the moment. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we can change the names in the article, because the changes have been approved in Geneva. They only have to be sealed by the FIA World Council on December 7, but that's just formality. - Dubfire (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're stating that the names have not yet been fully approved, yet we should change it anyway. Last I checked Wikipedia was about verifiability, not what you think is mere formality. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the proof: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/Pages/season_guide1.aspx. The FIA lists Lotus as Team Caterham, even for the current season. - Dubfire (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing there stating "Team Caterham". The drivers page has "Caterham" listed as the car, while the constructors standings still says "Team Lotus". They can't be both. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy but yesterday the "CONSTRUCTORS PROVISIONAL CLASSIFICATION" listed the team as "Team Caterham". I don't know why they changed it back. - Dubfire (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's because these lists are provisional - they can change a fair bit until they become official, and they sometimes contain errors, so we wait for the official confirmation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

FIA confirms team name changes for 2012 http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/11/12748.html - Dubfire (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

2013 season !!

I think it's time to make the 2013 season's page! Just to compare: it's one and a half years before the 2013 season, and the 2012 page already existed like three years before the season. I've seen that the page was created multiple times but was always deleted, don't know why. Someone should create a page that won't be deleted. There are plenty of information already to start the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.74.53.220 (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This should be asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One --Falcadore (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mid-season test

I don't think the mid-season test should be included in the calendar table, based on the precedent that no other season had mid-season tests included when they were not restricted before 2009. SchueyFan (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The test is notable because it is the first time testing has been allowed since 2008. If you look at the pages from 2009 and beyond, they are markedly different to everything up until 2008. You only have to look as far back as 2005 until you start finding massive differences in the style. So, were the tests left out of the pre-2009 pages because they were not notable, or were they left out because people never thought to include them?

I am also led to believe that testing in 2012 will be very different to what it has been in the past - all teams will take part in the one test, rather than simply running their own. If they do not go to Mugello, they do not get to test. When I added it in in the first place, it was my intention that the traditional pre-season tests would also be added, removing the need for a pre-season subsection as we have used in the past. However, since the testing scheduled has not been finalised, it obviously could not be added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Then include it as a sentence in background, not the calendar. Testing is training. How many references to mid-season football training to you see in English Premier League articles? --Falcadore (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the EPL, so I wouldn't know. I'm guessing the answer is zero, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Constructor

Hi. I was wondering if the constructor change will make any difference 2012. Do their statistic reset or what? Mårty-F1 (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed over at WP:F1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Charles Pic

It is not official that Pic is going to drive a Marussia next year. Neither the team nor he himself confirmed, that he has a contract. So it is only a speculation of a French newspaper. We have to wait until Pic, Marussia or a leading team member confirms, that he has a contract for 2012.
It is a similiar situation as by Force India. A German magazine has the information, that Hülkenberg and di Resta have a contract for 2012. But know official person has confirmed that yet. --Gamma127 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The usual procedure is a reference is acceptable when it quotes a named source. If Pic joins Marussia, the supporting article should contain quotes from Pic, John Booth, Nikolai Fomenko (Marussia's owner) or someone else within the name. But they must be named; it's too easy to pass speculation off as fact by quoting an unnamed source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

United States GP canceled

Today Ecclestone announced that the Austin race has been canceled for 2012. It will be first held in 2013. I have no sources in English, but if someone has, please update the page. I guess the race couldn't be removed from the calendar unless the calendar change is official. - Dubfire (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/us-gps-comeback-delayed-until-2013-6263133.html - Dubfire (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Sylt is not exactly the most reliable journalist in the paddock. He works for Pitpass, which has a very poor reputation. This aritcle is somehwat contradicted by others from the likes of Autosport where Ecclestone gives COTA a three-week deadline to sort things out. Indeed, it is contradicted by its own internal statement (the owners believe that the race can go ahead if there is a speedy resolution), and despite claiming Ecclestone has cancelled the race, the article never actually quotes him. I think it's better than we wait for a more-reliable source before we do anything hasty. Based on the timestamps of some of the articles over at Autosport, they have someone - Jon Noble (who has a far better reputation than Sylt) - in Austin reporting developments as they happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the source's claim of Bernie cancelling the event does not jive with what is reported elsewhere. The³5₉ (Talk) 11:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can verify that Bernie Ecclestone extended the deadline to December 7th, when the FIA World Motorsports Council will meet and set the schedule for 2012. There is a video article on our local NBC affiliate's website here. Rapierman (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Vitaly Petrov

We cannot have Petrov in yet - he has not been confirmed by Renault. This can be seen on the BBC article about Raikkonen's return. Although Petrov has a contract we have seen numerous times in the past where drivers either leave before a contract is up (Barrichello) or their contract is cut short (Liuzzi, Heidfeld etc) therefore I dont think that it means anything that they have a contract. Colinmotox11 (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove him until it is official that his contract has been broken. Maimai009 13:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please notice that the section is called "Signed teams and drivers", and Petrov is still signed. There are strong rumours that his contract may be broken, but it doesn't mean that it would be broken, and if we follow rumours, we should probably remove at least Massa and Trulli from the table as well. I'm going to revert your change. Ximaera (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

He has not been confirmed for next year by the team therefore I dont think we can have him in! Once they confirm him we can have him in is what I think! Because it says they will announce the 2nd driver shortly! Colinmotox11 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I get your point but fact is he has a contract to drive for the team in 2012. That alone should be enough to put him in the table. For instance, the source you're providing doesn't quote anyone from the team saying that Petrov will be confirmed (or not) for 2012. Maimai009 14:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with maimai - Petrov has a contract. What's more, this story (http://en.rian.ru/sports/20111129/169144788.html) suggests that Petrov will be the one to decide his fate: he has the choice of staying with Renault, or moving on. The team won't decide for him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

He has been taken off by another user as he is not on the official entry list! http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/11/12862.html Colinmotox11 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Pedro de la Rosa does not appear on the FIA entry list. However, he has a contract with Hispania, and so appears in the article. Likewise, we have a source that shows Petrov has a contract with Renault, even if he does not appear on the entry list. Why can de la Rosa be included in the article, but Petrov cannot? Either both can, or neither can.

Also, there is no need to use exclamation marks as frequently as you do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to get some consistency here PrisonerMonkeys, last year STR officially announced that Buemi & Alguersuari would be driving for them this year (as is the case) however when I tried to add them you and other editors all said that the FIA list is the final official list that we go by, so hence they were not added until they were on the FIA list: you may remember there was a big discussion about it? Therefore why on Earth can these guys be added, especially Petrov, there has not even been an announcement about him. We need to keep this consistent every year because Im getting the feeling that a select group of editors (im not naming and not singling out) are doing what THEY want with the article and not keep to editing standards and not keeping a consistent editing pattern across years. I will leave de la rosa in because as you say he has an announcement but Petrov cannot stay: we know in modern F1 that contracts mean very little and can and are broken, once there is an announcement (official) then I think that is the point when Petrov goes in. Not until. :]

p.s. sorry for exclamation marks

Colinmotox11 (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference for Petrov clearly states that he his contract places him at Renault in 2012. In the absence of any other information that suggests he will be leaving (of which you have none), this is the most-reliable source. Show me evidence that Petrov will not be staying at Renault (the FIA entry list does not count because the FIA does not control contracts - after all, it does not include de la Rosa), and I will remove him from the table. Until then, he should stay. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, while you are correct in pointing out that contracts can be broken, and are done so regularly, this does not mean that all contracts are always broken. Otherwise, we would have to leave every driver off the table until the team says "yes, this driver is racing for us", even when that driver is confirmed to be on a mutli-year deal. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Petrov got an option for 2012, not a signed contract. The deadline to accept the option is set to 10th December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.56.212 (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Petrov shouldn't be on the list. OK, FIA doesn't control contracts and also PDLR isn't on the list despite having a contract. But, as Kimi's on the list, there must be a good reason why Petrov isn't. Maybe this article tells that reason. Petrov can leave LRGP if he wants, and according to that article, if he stays, he has to compete for the race seat with Senna and Grosjean. But nothing like that has been reported from PDLR so he should be on the list. There's just too much uncertainty around Petrov driving at LRGP. --August90 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But, as Kimi's on the list, there must be a good reason why Petrov isn't. And right there you're speculating. Which we don't do. So can't agree. --Falcadore (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Falcadore and Prisonermonkeys, Petrov has a contract, and until (or if) anything is confirmed that he is not driving for LRGP, I say keep him on the list. He has a contract, and you cannot just assume that the team is going to break that contract. Otherwise, as Prisonermonkeys has already stated, "we would have to leave every driver off the table until the team says "yes, this driver is racing for us", even when that driver is confirmed to be on a mutli-year deal." Editadam 00:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a compromise. If a driver has a contract, but he's place is not secure, I think it should be noted (with a †). We should make a difference between a driver who's place is solid, and who's not. It's also a good idea for the races. Austin is already noted, but Korea and Bahrain are also uncertain. - Dubfire (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that it's hard to define what is secure and what is not. Moreover, it would open way to any kind of rumour. Maimai009 11:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would be happy with a compromise - having Petrov in the table but a note saying something like "Vitaly Petrov has a contract for 2012 but has not yet been confirmed by the team to be staying." Colinmotox11 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that this compromise is very sensible. He should be in the table, as he has a contract; however I do it should be mentioned that he has not been confirmed by the team. I feel that it acknowledges the situation appropriately, and should be carried through in this situation and in future similar situations. Editadam 20:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The compromise (note) is done - you guys may want to change the wording slightly? But this is definitively the best solution because of differences in opinions. Colinmotox11 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice theory. The only problem is that Wikipedia is based on facts, not opinions. What you've effectively done here is used weasel words: you've included him in the table, and then you've built a get-out clause into the article so that if it doesn't happen, you can say "Well, the article was always right". It's fairly obvious that you are expecting him to leave, and you have let that dictate what you wrote in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What we have done is compromise. You want him in the table - we have included a note - this note is purely fact. It is true that he has a contract but is not confirmed yet. There is no opinion or speculation in this. I am not basing it on thinking he will leave - i am basing it on the fact that he is not confirmed in the seat and the team still are waiting to announce who will be in the seat. All the note is doing is informing readers that unlike the other drivers in the table he is not confirmed until 10th December however he has a contract. You accused me of saying my opinion is right and that is it but I am supporting a compromise and you are not - that doesnt work! Colinmotox11 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's compromise based on speculation. Are you having trouble understanding that? Wikipedia is not a soft news website. It reports what is, not what might possibly be. If you want to indulge in soft news and speculation Wikipedia has a compromise already built in to the system for you to use in these circumstances.

It's called Wikinews. So go and report it there and leave wikipedia alone until formal announcements are made. --Falcadore (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. In the absence of confirmation, we must use the most recently-available source that proves Petrov's status within the team as confirmed or unconfirmed. Right now, we can prove that he has a contract for 2012, even if there is talk that he is leaving, and so that can be included in the table. We cannot prove that he does not have a contract. If it is annouced in 12 hours that he is leaving the team, and that he and Renault agreed to part ways a day ago, is it really such a sin that he remained in the table for those 12 hours when he was technically out of contract. On Wikipedia, verifiability beats the truth every time. Petrov might not have a contract with Renault in 2012 - but right now, we can't prove it. Until then, we can't have footnotes and addendums in the driver table explaining why some people believe a driver should not be there. You're effectively saying "The table says this, but the table might be (or is) wrong because of this". All that does is undermine the point of the article by contradicting itself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

TheAussieDigger, please stop taking Petrov out of the table. It is yet to be confirmed that he won't be at Lotus at 2012, so we have to go with our most recent and reliable source, which states that he has a contract at Lotus for 2012. If you continue to take him out of the table, you may be seen as vandalising the page.--Brody59 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

December 7 edits

Dear Prisonermonkeys and Falcadore. I can see your point, but this approach makes Wikipedia less real. We are F1 fans, we know all the news and rumors, so we don't make this page just for us, we make this for other people who want to be informed about F1. Let's assume that someone reads this page now, but he won't read it again until the start of the season. He sees that Petrov is Kimi's team mate, but will be surprised when he sees that someone else is Kimi's team mate on the first race. He will think "Wiki was wrong". But if there's a note that 'Petrov is not secure at the team', then the page won't lie, no matter what happens to Petrov. If something is not official but is known by many people, and it's very likely to happen; I consider that a FACT. Petrov is likely to leave the team, that's a fact. Hence, this should be noted. Please don't come again with "this is a speculation". A speculation or a rumor would be that Kubica will drive for Ferrari in 2013. Can you see the difference between a fact and a specualtion? I don't wanna go against Wiki's principles, but I think a note is not that much. - Dubfire (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dubfire - the fact that the team themselves have officially said that a decision on him will be made on 10th december to me means that it is not decided whether he will be at the team. The fact he has a contract does not mean he will be at the team the next year. That is FACT. I would not go as far as saying we know he will not be there next year because we dont but i do think it is stupid and against Wikipedias policy of being up to date and accurate. It is very inaccurate to say he will be there next year. Previously we have had notes saying that a circuit is on the calendar subject to homologation. This is no different. I personally would not have him in this table until he is confirmed just like any other driver. If we start saying he has not been confirmed but is expected to be there where do we draw the line? Therefore a note is definitively necessary and more users than not seem to agree with a note as compromise. This is not 'adding news' because it is a hard fact that he will be confirmed on 10th December so that argument doesnt hold water. Colinmotox11 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Brody59 for perfecting the note about Petrov, this is definetly the best solution for everyone. Colinmotox11 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a "solution". This is someone editing something into the page that effectively says "Vitaly Petrov is in the driver table, but here's why he shouldn't be", which only undermines the entire point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on facts, not opinion. If your argument is that Petrov has a contract, but that does not guarantee that he will race, then you're going to have to make a footnote for every driver in the table, because although they have contracts, that is no guarantee that they will race. A decision on Vitaly Petrov will be made within the next 48 hours. Until then, the page can tolerate his inclusion in the table. What the cage cannot tolerate is your constant disruptive edits which go against the established consensus. If Renault annouce that Petrov will leave the team in 2012, then I will personally remove him from the table as a show of good faith. But until then, he should stay in the table as is - not footnotes or addendums trying to explain away his presence and speculating that he might or might not stay with the team. Colinmotox11, any edits that you make to the table regarding Petrov between now and the annoucement of his future plans will be considered vandalism, and you will be reported to the admins. You have been asked (and later told) several times not to do this. Please refrain from making such disruptive edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that everyone who reads this article is an F1 fan is a bit presumptive. We are here to present articles for every person, not just for F1 fans. And Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If some random person thinks that Petrov is Raikkonen's teammate and then that turns out to be false, oh well. We are not here to crystal ball the future. We have verified sources saying Petrov is signed, therefore he is on the chart. It's as simple as that. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Colinmotox11, Dubfire, or Brody59's edits vandalism, I think this is rather an edit war. And, I wouldn't say we have a consensus on this issue. I think Petrov belongs to the table as he's a signed driver, but many sources have said his Lotus seat isn't secure. Only Räikkönen in the FIA's entry list higlights this. That's why I think the note would clarify the situation, Petrov has a contract but not necessarily will race for Lotus. --August90 (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I only call it vandalism because Colinmotox11 has been told on at least three different occasions to stop editing a) Petrov out of the table, or b) a footnote "clarifying the situation" (which only really reads as "this is why I disagree with him being in the table"). He knows full well that the consensus among editors (until today, at least) is to keep Petrov in the table, but he keeps removing Petrov on the basis that he thinks he knows best. Like I said, a decision on Petrov is expected within forty-eight hours. It could even come within forty-eight minutes. The article can tolerate his inclusion in the table until then. What does prematurely removing him from the table or adding an addendum to the bottom of the table explaining it away achieve in the meantime? Nothing. It doesn't make the article any better, and it is only temprorary at best. Right now, any article that says his future is unclear effectively violates WP:CRYSTAL as speculative, because they all say "he might stay, but he might not". And when it comes to Wikipedia, "might" simply isn't good enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Riddle me this, Batman - if we include a footnote explaining that Vitaly Petrov's future with Renault is uncertain, then should we also include a footnote explaining that Romain Grosjean's is similarly unclear? After all, he has just said that he is willing to give up on Formula 1 if he does not get a seat (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96687). If your answer to this question is no, then why is it acceptable for there to be a footnote speculating on Petrov's future? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets get this straight - I removed him from the table once and have added a note twice. I first removed him because, to me its obvious he shouldnt be there, then you guys raised the issue on here. I then added a note, you moaned and threatened reporting me, again so this was discussed more. There were then two editors (prisonermonkeys and Falcadore) who disagreed with this, everyone else said this was a good compromise and it was necessary to clear up the situation. Even editors who think that he should be in the table have agreed with a note and some have amended the note as well. There I have NOT vandalised. To say i keep removing Petrov is quite frankly a lie! I have removed him once and added a note twice as already pointed out. The note is not speculating and does not mean "this is why I disagree". It is there to inform users that Petrov is in the table because he has a contract but he has not been confirmed by the team. If people see the FIA list and see he is not here and does not have a reference actually saying he will be driving then this makes Wikipedia look pretty rubbish.

As I was told last year there is no rush to add drivers to the table and it should be left until the team confirm him to be driving - this has not happened. There is FAR more speculation in saying "Petrov might be driving next year so we'll have him in the table anyway" than saying Petrov is in the table because he holds a contract but has not yet been confirmed. So you have the audacity to accuse us of speculation when what you say has far more speculation. All you are doing is pretending that it is confirmed he will be driving next year rather than highlighting to users that his future is uncertain. That is fact so there is no speculation here we are just using fact.

Maybe you are long term editors but that doesnt give you any more right unless you are an admin. You are getting muddled up with where there is consensus. The consensus is that he should be left in the table but with a note. There is a large majority in favour of this so please get your facts correct.

Whenever any other editor apart from you guys that have been here for a while try and do anything you revert because you dont like it - even when consensus is against you and then you are surprised when i say i get the feeling you think you own the page! We have to remember that it is not just us who read the aricle.

The only reason we need a note explaining Petrov is because you insist he is in the table - Grosjean is not there, nor is Senna, therefore cleverly that is why we dont have a note for them. Would you long term editors please make up your mind how you want to go about adding drivers and keep it consistent year to year instead of chopping and changing. And threatening to report to admins all the time and making false accusations of vandalism will not help anyone.

Colinmotox11 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, if you keep removing the note, then don't you do vandalism? Who said that you are right? The majority of the editors say this note should be included, so that makes you a vandal, I guess. If you are so smart that you know everything better than other people, then why can't you understand and accept this logical little note? This is not about Petrov anymore, it's about future notes too. If something is a fact, it should be noted; I won't explain again to you why this is different from a speculation. This is the exact same situation like when the calendar is footnoted with the 'subject to homologation' stuff. That says that the race is in the official calendar, but won't take place until the circuit is verified by the FIA. And if you try to be so official, then shouldn't be each and every sentence be quoted from somewhere? You can accuse each sentence on the page with speculation, because only some parts of some sentences are cited. - Dubfire (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please delete this note. In this point I completly agree to Prisonermonkeys. And I do not see a "consensus" for that note... --Gamma127 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are far more users than not agreeing to the note. It is the only way to clearly show the facts of the situation regarding Petrov. Colinmotox11 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, what "facts"? The dictionary definition of fact and the Wikipedia definition of fact are compeltely different. Your footnote might have been factual under the dictionary definition, but it was too open-ended. It effectively said "Petrov has a contract, but he might not be with the team next year", which is not factual under the Wikipedia definition because there is the potential for specualtion within it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus so far

Users for the footnote: Colinmotox11, Dubfire, August90, TheAussieDigger

Users against the footnore: Prisonermonkeys, Gamma127, The359, Brody59, Falcadore, maimai009, Editadam

Consensus so far says the footnote should go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Editadam thinks "this compromise is very sensible" so I dont think that means he is against it. Brody59 made slight chances to the note when I added before. Again this suggests he is also in favour as he had contributed to the note. So both these editors I think can change lists. maimai009 and The359 have not actually said they are against this compromise so its unfair of you to just assume they are against it: they are not in favour of removing him. Fine. I dont agree but accept he can remain in, but with a note. You can now see if you read what the users are saying that it looks like this:

Users for the footnote: Colinmotox11, Dubfire, August90, TheAussieDigger, Editadam, Brody59

Users against the footnore: Prisonermonkeys, Gamma127, Falcadore

I have not included maimai009 and The359 as they have not said if they are in favour or not - even if they are against it then there are 6 users who have said they are for it/think it is a sensible compromise and 5 users against. At the moment it is 6 for and 3 against. I think you will find that this is a majority and so it means concensus is FOR the note clarifying the situation until announced by the team. As we have a majority and that means consensus then I feel we can add it back in. Please do not remove until there are more people against it. Colinmotox11 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what maimai said:

"We shouldn't remove him until it is official that his contract has been broken."

And this is what The359 said:

"We have verified sources saying Petrov is signed, therefore he is on the chart."

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They are talking about removing him. Neither have commented on whether they agree or disgaree with the note. Do not asssume they do - they agree with keeping him in. And editadam and brody59 have both said they support a note. Are you not seeing that? That is where im getting my numbers from - i am not including maimai or the 359 in my numbers - only the ones who have said they agree. Colinmotox11 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have asked a moderator about this. I have been advised to restore the page to its pre-consensus state, and to let them make a decision about it. Until then, please do not make changes to the article - you'll only prevent them from doing their job properly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, as far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators". Can you tell us where you have taken this please? -- de Facto (talk). 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant an admin.

Also, for the record, I am looking at all of the edits to Petrov when I count consensus, not just the recent ones. Some of the early edits also included a footnote, particularly when some users were told to stop removing Petrov frmo the table. I see the two issues as being inherently linked. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel like buying out Petrov's contract myself, just to end this. Whatever you guys want to do, please stop reverting the page. While the discussion is going on (and on), leave the page alone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For information, I am against the note. Even if an administrator is now taking care of the issue, I feel the need to clarify my position as I can see that my words have been understood differently by two users. As we all know, his situation might be clarified very shortly, so we just should wait and see what happens. Meanwhile, Petrov belongs in the table as the latest official and verifiable source confirms that he is contracted for 2012. Adding a footnote for Petrov is a bit overdoing it in my opinion. As it has been said before, it would lead to the addition of a footnote for every driver that may be hired/dropped by a team even if the assumption come from the team itself. I also wanted to point the fact that the 2012 season starts on March 18. That's 3 months from now, there is really no need to hurry. Maimai009 23:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late wading in now, but FWIW, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it does not have to be bang up to date, it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia - thus we show facts. The only fact is that Vitaly has a contract, anything else is just speculation, unless one finds a reliable source to say he won't be racing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well i guess this is all irellevant now! Colinmotox11 (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source that you wanted so much: http://www.crash.net/f1/news/175295/1/petrov_position_uncertain.html. I found this in 1 minute on google, I'm sure there are/were tons of other sites stating that Petrov is likely to be fired. And this turned out to be true: Grojean's taken his place. That's why we wanted a little note. Someone could have attached a source, I don't know why that didn't happen. I hope that in a similar situation in the future, there won't be such a big discussion about writing down the verifiable, real truth. - Dubfire (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! It makes the article look stupid now as Petrov was in just like any other confirmed driver such as Vettel or Alonso and then boom it is confirmed that Grosjean is driving. In similar situations in the future we will include a small note if a driver has a contract however has not been confirmed. Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Even a officially confirmed driver who is on the official entry list could loose his cockpit one week before the first race. --Gamma127 (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very stupid to me. This happens all the time. Also, since consensus is not a vote, I'd prefer to not have my statements thrown about without straight up asking me of my opinion on the specific issue simply for the matter of tallying votes for some majority that has no effect on consensus. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your idea, Colinmotox11, is that we enter a scenario where every driver will need a footnote because they can have their contract terminated. In the past 48 hours, there has been talk that Kamui Kobayashi could have his contract bought out. Shall I add a footnote explaining that, then?

As has been pointed out, there is no rush to get content into the article. It is better for the article to be out-of-date, but accurate than it is for the article to be current, but lacking veracity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the title above the table states "SIGNED teams and drivers", NOT "These drivers will be racing for these teams in this season" (or something to that effect). It states the drivers signed, so the table data should represent the title of the table, if a driver has signed for a team (no matter how doubtful it is that they will race for them) then they should be included. End of story. Editadam 21:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference in my opinion prisonermonkeys is that the other drivers have actually been confirmed to be driving next year by the team whereas Petrov had not. There is no speculation there - just fact. The team had even said that a decision would be made by a certain date on his future. This is where I see there being a difference. Anyway Grosjean has now been confirmed so this is all irrelevant. Colinmotox11 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your footnotes repeatedly contained the words "uncertain" and "unconfirmed", which opened up the door to speculation - there were two scenarios at hand: Petrov leaving Renault, and Petrov staying at Renault. Your edits existed in the grey area between the two, and were worded in such a way that either was possibility. Furthermore, your original argument, that "contracts are broken all the time" was highly specious because you put the page into a situation where certain things could be said about some drivers, but not about others, and with little to distinguish the justification for either except personal opinion of which drivers needed footnotes and which drivers did not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what facts are you referring to Colinmotox? --Falcadore (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The point im trying to make is this - ALL the other drivers have been confirmed to be driving this season. They either appeared on the FIA official list OR the team have confirmed them afterwards to be definitely driving (such as Maldonado, Grosjean & De la Rosa). Ok? This is a fact. Petrov did not fall under either of these situations, he was not on the fia list nor was confirmed by the team. He was the only one in this situation, this is also a fact. Therefore this is why I think he should have not been on the list but at the very least had a note regarding this. Other drivers such as Kobayashi dont need a note because they are on the FIA list (i.e. been confirmed by the team). The team had also said that Petrov's future was uncertain and that they would confirm his future on the 10th. The notes said that he had a contract, this is a fact, however the team had not confirmed him to be driving, this is also another fact. There is far more speculation in saying he has a contract so we think he will be driving than saying he has a contract but will be confirmed on this date. Contracts are broken all the time but Petrov is the only one who needed a note because he was the only one not to be confirmed to be driving. There was no personal opinion, Petrov was the only one in that situation so hence why I think he needed a footnote. -- Colinmotox11 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Colinmotox11's comment makes sense. FIA's list is kind of confirmation, teams don't announce to FIA drivers who they don't intend to have next season. That's especially the case if the team has only one driver in FIA's list, even if they also had a contract with another driver. In de la Rosa's case, HRT had recantly announced PDLR will drive for them, so so PDLR's inclusion was OK. --August90 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Petrov is the only one in this situation so hence why I feel he needed a note. We have notes for the homologation of circuits which is no different. Colinmotox11 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP makes it different. And it doesn't change that removing Petrov or placing a note was based on speculation. Whether it is fostered by the team or the FIA it is still speculation. We don't do speculation. At all. If there is an issue that is uncertain, we are supposed to leave things as they are until it is clear. --Falcadore (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you extend the ban on speculation to notable, reliably sourced and properly attributed speculation with due weight? If so, under which Wiki policy? -- de Facto (talk). 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG, I can't believe this debate still goes on! Colinmotox11, don't try to prove your point if they can't understand. Could you all read back how many lines this debate already has? This is about adding a note. Colinmotox11, if they are too dumb to understand why this note would have been necessary, then leave them alone. Be the smarter one. They will alwalys come back with 'this is speculation' and all the Wiki rules. I could prove them that if this is a specualtion, then everything else is, but I won't, cause they wouldn't listen. They are so stubborn and narrow-minded. I'm not here on Wikipedia to fight with such people, so won't add any more comments to this. - Dubfire (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes every point you make is spot on im just trying to make them understand so that if this situation crops up again then they will see through their rose-tinted glasses and realise. Colinmotox11 (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with your edits, the both of you - you're treating a consensus in your favour as a victory of some kind. You're too emotionally-invested in the debate, trying to prove a point to everyone rather than trying to make the actual article better. If you have the "proof" you claim to have that if the situation regarding Petrov was speculative, then all edits are speculative, then everyone here is more than willing to listen to it. Instead, you claim that everyone is "too dumb" and "stubborn and narrow-minded", which will do you no favours. If we come back at you with "this is speculation" and "all the Wiki rules", we do it for a reason: because we believe your edits violate those rules, and we're not going to make an exception to it just because you want us to. If you can demonstrate that your proposed edits a) are for the good of the page, and b) do not violate any of the rules, then we will be satisfied that the changes are for the good of the page and will agree to them. But in the meantime, a lot of us remain unconvinced, and I personally believe that selling this idea to us will be very difficult. Just make sure you're doing it for the right reasons - do it because you want to make the page better, not because you want to be able to say "I was right and you were wrong". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind some people that because we follow the rules here and avoid adding information that is poorly-sourced or unverified, our F1 pages are not the total heap of disorganised, speculative rubbish that some foreign-language F1 Wikis are. This is the reason that so many editors come here to edit even though English is not their first language. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"everyone here is more than willing to listen to it". LOL. That is the one thing that you have never done. If you had listened, you would have understood that I was not "emotionally-invested in the debate", maybe Colinmotox11 was, don't mix us up. In fact I was "trying to make the actual article better", yes. That's why I wanted a note, that would have stated facts, which you could read all over the internet. The fact that the FIA entry list didn't show him as a driver. That's why the best solution would have been that he is shown in the signed driver's list, because he had a contract, but with a note that he wasn't on the entry list. Tell where is the speculation in that. Tell me which Wiki rule does that break. The source would have been the FIA, would the page have been a "total heap of disorganised, speculative rubbish"? And if you want a speculation, I can give you one: why was Petrov's number either 9 or 10? Which source did verify either? Shouldn't that have been TBA? That is far more speculative than a note. I don't like fighting, I listen to others, and I saw your point. I know where you were right, but I have never speculated. I don't know what kind of note other people added, I didn't read the edit history. I only speak for myself. Bottom line is: I wanted to add a note with a verified source, because I felt the page was incomplete. If you say you listen, then you can understand. - Dubfire (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"why was Petrov's number either 9 or 10? Which source did verify either?"

The FIA entry list. While the entry list is not reliable for driver line-ups, it is reliable for car numbers. Petrov was listed as #10 because Raikkonen had been assigned the #9. Therefore, the #10 was the only number Petrov could have. Before Raikkonen was announced as driving for the team, we listed Petrov in the table above a blank space because we list drivers alphabetically until such time as number are assigned. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I was never emotionally invested in it either. There is far more speculation in what you guys were proposing (no note) to having a note stating facts and clearing it up. It is not just us who know the whole story that reads this! Other people could see the FIA entry list and see that on here there were 3 extra drivers not on the entry list, Maldonado, PDLR and Petrov. The first two they could then see the sources that they were confirmed to be driving however Petrov was NEVER confirmed by the FIA, team or any press stories. The only reason he was there was because he had a contract. The fact that he was in the table, and was no different to any other driver makes this article look silly. A note would have cleared up the situation, explained the facts, and generally made the article seem truthful and verifiable. Colinmotox11 (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the biggest concern with the footnote would've been that it would've been used with more speculative cases, like e.g. Bianci is replacing Kobayashi. But, on the other hand this case wasn't good for Wikipedia's informativity; Petrov was in the table as if his Lotus Renault seat were secure. Actually, I haven't trusted in Wikipedia's signed drivers list since Wikipedia was first to announce Schumacher's return, days before the official announcement! I even trust more on message boards during Silly Season. So I don't really care on this issue. But, if I could do what I want to do to this page, once the FIA entry list has been published, I'd remove drivers who aren't on FIA's list. Then, I'd keep adding drivers when they are added here at formula1.com. I think FIA and formula1.com should be enough official not to be considered as speculation. --August90 (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Except... the FIA does not confirm drivers. It's not their role to run the race teams, they are not the definitive word. Unless a driver fails Superlicence of course but Petrov was an existing driver. Confirmation comes from the teams. Not from anyone else. --Falcadore (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Were we talking about driver confirmation or driver signing? Petrov was signed but this controversy has been about his (missing) confirmation. OK, FIA doesn't confirm drivers, but usually teams announce their confirmed drivers (like Räikkönen, not Petrov) to FIA. Yet, FIA doesn't update the entry list through winter but I think FOM keeps updating drivers when a driver has a contract and is enough likely to drive for that team. They've already now added the new STR drivers, and they have also Maldonado and PDLR. --August90 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree we cannot just use the FIA lists. We should add drivers as teams announce they will be DRIVING next year. Such as Sauber and RBR did a few months ago. Then once the FIA list comes out any driver not already confirmed by the team to be driving, but is on the FIA list should be entered into the table. The FIA list is a list of all drivers which the teams have entered into the season so this comes from the teams too. After the entry list is published and a team announces a driver to be DRIVING they should be added. Petrov did not fit into any of these situations so hence he should not have been there, or at the very least had a note. There is NO speculation in doing this, purely factual. This is the most verifiable way to go about adding drivers in the future. Colinmotox11 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The extension of that logic is that all drivers should be deleted from the 2013 article. While they may have contracts to race in that season they coukd be sacked at any moment given the sudden availability of a retired World Champion like saw Nelson Piquet or Mika Hakkinen. --Falcadore (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do believe that should be done. Yes drivers like Alonso and Vettel have contracts however they might not be racing. I do think they should be removed until such point as the driver is confirmed to be driving for that season. Colinmotox11 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then if you can convince the Wikiproject to take up that as a procedure then your explanatory note, or the removal of Petrov note would have been the right thing to do. As it presently stands, that is not what the Wikiproject does. I look forward to seeing you start that debate. I might even side with you. --Falcadore (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a section to the Wiki Project talkpage. :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmotox11 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"I was never emotionally invested in it either."

So you say, but your action speak louder than your words - like, for example, accusing long-time editors of violating [[WP:OWN}} simply because your changes were rejected the first time you made them. From reading all of your arguments, I got the distinct impression that you wanted those changes to be made because they were your changes, and not for the betterment of the article. If this was not your intention, then perhaps you should think about the way you present yourself. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

Admin's comments

1. Verifiability beats the truth every time. We do not speculate or indulge in original research.
2. There is no rush to get the info into the article.
3. We work on consensus, and edit warring will not be tolerated.
4. If you are collectively incapable of working within the normal Wikipedia policies, behaviour guidelines etc; I will lock the article and start issuing blocks. Now, I'm sure you don't want that to happen, do you? Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Toro Rosso vs STR

2012 Entry List (http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2011/Pages/f1-entry-2012.aspx) says that Red Bull constructor is, in fact, Red Bull Racing, and Toro Rosso is STR. As far as I remember, both are called like this for ages, is there any reason why Wikipedia calls them in a way it does? Ximaera (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The FIA previously listed "Red Bull Racing" as "RBR", so it's most likely that the FIA is simply abbreviating the constructor name for STR. As for the use of "Red Bull" and "Toro Rosso" instead of "Red Bull Racing" and "Scuderia Toro Rosso", it's just what makes the most sense. Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso are the teams, just as Scuderia Ferrari is the team. The constructors are however Red Bull, Toro Rosso, and Ferrari. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To my understand Toro Rosso's chassis is STR so that it's easier to sell, the team can take a new name with STR initials and still keep the FOM money. Instead, RBR has always been only an abbreviation. --August90 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with The359, the three-letter abbreviations are stupid, don't know why FIA uses it (maybe it takes less space). The only team that uses abbreviated form is HRT, that's the official name. In case of Red Bull and Toro Rosso, the abbreviations are not used in everyday life, although they exist. And as far as I know the chassis names are also "Red Bull" and "Toro Rosso", followed by a code (like RB8 or STR7). - Dubfire (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No. FIA Formula 1 Entry List states that exactlyconstructors are called Red Bull Racing and STR! That is, Scuderia Ferrari makes Ferrari chassis, but Scuderia Toro Rosso's is called STR. I agree with you that it is somewhat harder to remember and identify abbreviations than common names, however, shouldn't we respect official FIA protocols? Ximaera (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

By that logic the 2011 chassis used by Toro Rosso is the STR STR6. What the FIA released was a press release, nothing official or of any protocol. The FIA entry lists from previous years also used the Red Bull as "RBR-Renault", therefore the fact that the FIA has magically changed it shows that they're just making it up as they go. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FIA 'current' entry list of drivers for 2012 (as of 30-11-11)

According to this link Vitaly Petrov, and Pedro de la Rosa are not officially entered for the season yet. What should we do about this? Editadam 02:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignore it, because the FIA has no say in who the teams hire, short of them having a Superlicense (which they do). Please see discussions just a few sentences above this. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I think the FIA entry list does not conclusively say they will not be driving for the teams. What it suggests to me is that the contracts of the drivers may not yet have been registed with the FIA and specifically contract recognition board.

What I think will actually happen is several editors will bring the point up (this is now the second time) there will be arguments to and fro and other edittors will pull them in and out of the article regardless of what we debate.

The only thing the FIA entry list should be used for IMHO is the allocation race numbers. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that the FIA press releases specifically state at the bottom that they are for media purposes only and carry no regulatory value. They are not official rulings of the FIA. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If a driver is absent from the FIA entry list, then we should use the most up-to-date information available. In the case of de la Rosa, this is the annoucement that he has signed on to Hispania in 2012 and 2013. And in the case of Petrov, this is the annoucement that he had a two-year deal starting in 2011. There has been no information confirming his departure from the team. Although the FIA entry list suggests that Renault have not filed the paperwork on Petrov, this is not confirmation that he is leaving. To assume that it is violates WP:CRYSTAL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what I thought, I was just checking. Editadam 00:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

MP4-27 or MP4-27A

First, the number of the new McLaren was 27A, but now the "A" is removed from the page because of an f1.com article: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/12/12906.html. But 27 is a road car model number isn't it? So which is the right number then? Isn't f1.com's MP4-27 a typo error? That would be logical. - Dubfire (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What road car is called the MP4-27? Do you mean the McLaren MP4-12C?

Autosport I believe reported the name MP4-27A, while F1.com reported MP4-27. Nothing meanwhile seems to have come from McLaren, so neither source really trumps the other. However I will say that given the trend of McLaren car naming for the past 30 years or so, and the fact that McLaren has not used the "A" designation for the initial car since the McLaren M19A in 1971, the odds are on McLaren continuing their trend and simply naming the car MP4-27. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We can edit war back and forth (my personal prediction for what will happen) or remove it until a source attributed to McLaren appears. --Falcadore (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. No 'A' in sight here: http://www.mclaren.com/page/revealed-mp4-27-launches-in-february - mspete93 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the road car that I was talking about: http://www.topspeed.com/cars/mclaren/2013-mclaren-mp4-27-ar109646.html. The next car sports car after the McLaren MP4-12C. It would be quite illogical for McLaren to assign the same number to a road car and and an F1 car. And remember: they used the letter "D" for MP4-17D during the 2003 season, so they could use letter "A" this time. In my opinion, they shouldn't assign the next number in the F1 "number-line" to a road car. - Dubfire (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a blog. McLaren has not named their "799 horsepower MegaMac". Just two days ago I had to remove a link to McLaren 799 from our McLaren template because of someone assuming.

And they used the letters B, C, and D just fine over the years as evolutions of existing cars, but they have not named the initial car "A" since 1971, as pointed out. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I even found the "press release" that your blog claims came from McLaren and announces the name of their new supercar: http://media.mclarenautomotive.com/release/110/ The "MP4-27" they are referring to is the Formula One car, under the section "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes". The only mention under McLaren Automotive of the new car is this: "Working on the design of a range of game-changing high-performance production cars whose launch will take our annual production to 4,500 cars per year by 2014." No cars named. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, it seems that this year's McLaren is really MP4-27.

Another question: why did somebody remove the links to the cars (chassis)? - Dubfire (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Because all that they linked to were pages created as redirects back to the team. Removing the links makes it less likely someone is going to start attempting an article by guessing, as they always do in years past. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't thought of that. Yes, they should only have links, once the pages exist. - Dubfire (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the articles in the season

The inclusion of maps of the circuits will help significantly improve the article also allows another way to meet the schedule for 2012.--Shinobilanterncorps (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The maps of the circuits do not actually affect the 2012 season. They affect the individual events and the circuits themselves, but they have no bearing on the overall season.

Beyond that, how exactly do they "significantly improve the article"? You've gone and said that as if it's a proven fact, but you supply no evidence of how it happens to be true. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Title sponsors of races

I feel that the title sponsor of a race is not notable enough for inclusion in the race calendar table. If, for example, the British Grand Prix moved from Silverstone to Brands Hatch, then that would directly impact the calendar. But if the race stayed at Silverstone and the title sponsor changed from Santander to Sainsbury's, then how does that affect anything? It changes where the money funding the race comes from, but the races will always need money to be run. Therefore, I submit that title sponsors for races are not notable enough fo inclusion in the calendar (they are, however, notable enough for the driver table since sponsors influence liveries and liveries differentiate cars; I've often heard McLaren referred to as "the Vodafone team" by casual spectators).

If the title sponsor of a race is not notable enough for inclusion, then there is no need for the "race title" and "Grand Prix" columns in the calendar table. Only one would be enough, linking directly to the race. Without the title sponsors, the only thing the race title column is good for is the inclusion of the local name for the race, like in Hungary or Brazil. But there are only six races with a local name, so keeping a second column around is hardly necessary. Especially since most races are known by their English names, anyway (as mspete has pointed out to me, we list all race reports under their English name regardless of the local name).

We're always talking about how there are too many tables (or too much information arranged in a table) for the season article. I think that we can simplyify the calendar table by removing the race title table because the title sponsor is not notable enough for Wikipedia since a change in sponsor does not affect the actual race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

....because it's a calendar, and we're listing the races in said calendar. What's wrong with using the proper name of the event for the 2012 season just because it has sponsors? What does the race moving physical location have to do with anything? The 2012 race is called this, why pretend it isn't and simply list a common name? This is not the same MOS convention as article titles, there is no requirement to simply titles within an article.

The seperate columns between race title and Grand Prix are there because obviously some races are not in English, as pointed out with the Hungarian Grand Prix (Magyar Nagydíj). This article is for both Formula One fans and those without intimate knowledge of the sport. To expect people to know what the Magyar Nagydíj is is silly. There was honestly absolutely nothing wrong with the calender we have used in season articles before, listing both the proper race title and the basic name of the race it is grouped in with.

Removing a column from one table does not address the overabundance of tables, it simply detracts from the ease of information available to common readers in a singular table. The problem with too many tables has always been people's reliance to use tables rather than text, and this calendar table does not relate to that issue in the slightest. If it isn't broken, don't keep trying to fix it until it is. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The format of this table was debated to conclusion back in October. Why do we revisit similar arguments every three months?

Firstly, based on your reasoning from my talk page. The table in question is the calendar. The announced calendar of races. The schedule of the season. Number of laps has no relevance at all. Notability is not the problem, it's relevancy to the subject of the table. Number of laps is important, but it is not relevant in the slightest instance to the calendar. Even if it did there is a context issue. The number of laps conveys no real information of import without knowing how long a lap is at each circuit.

Secondly, the sponsored name of the race is important. The race is refered to by sponsored name in many places by offical sources. It's hardly unimportant, and the relative importance to the calendar compared to number of race laps is just boggles me. Why not then include the senior marshall at each venue? That has importance to. Maybe add the retired driver nominated for adjudication purposes. The name of the local president. The organising commitee...

And thirdly, we only just settled this! The link provided explained why there are two seemingly similar columns. --Falcadore (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall this exact issue ever being debated in October. I only ever recall discussing the value of having links alongside one another. And given that the conversation ran around in circles for a week, I'd comepltely forgotten whatever we discussed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Race title column should have the official race title, right? That means that the sponsor is included there, if it's part of the race title. No problem there. My problem is that if we want to include the official race title, then it is not e.g. "Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix", but it is "2012 FORMULA 1 PETRONAS MALAYSIA GRAND PRIX". I copied the title from formula1.com (that's why it's all caps). I noticed that the difference between this page's titles and the official ones are that "2012" and "Formula 1" are removed from each title. I undertand that there's no need for these two, because that's what this page is about, but still, this makes the official titles to be truncated. - Dubfire (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Williams

It is now Williams and not Williams F1, F1 it the name is not legal, it is only legal when there is F1 Team in te name... So it the name of the team now Williams and the company behind the team is Williams F1! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.125.219 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly is illegal about the title Williams F1? What exactly are you basing this claim on? The³5₉ (Talk) 18:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea.

To address the point made by IP user 83.119.125.219, teams have two names - the constructor name, and the team name. The constructor name is the most common. It is the name that most people refer to a team by, like "McLaren". The team name is much more formal. It usually includes sponsor names, like "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes", and is rarely used in its entirety, except in any paraphernalia issued by the team, like a press release. In the case of Williams, "Williams" is the common constructor name, and "Williams F1" is the formal team name. We include both in the table, one in the constructor column, and one in the team column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

With that in mind, I've moved the actual Wiki-link to the team pages. I've taken them from the team name column and placed them in the constructor column. The constructor column is a) highlighted, b) bold, c) the common name of the team and d) unobscured by flags and references and sponsor names. Maybe it's just a purely aesthetic approach, but I think it's more appropriate for the Wiki-links to be there. Especially since we did the same thing with the calendar, linking in the Grand Prix column rather than in the race title one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to replace "team" with "entrant" in the table to avoid confusion between team and constructor? Bigdon128 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit to-may-toe, to-mah-toe. The issue here is not distinguishing between teams and constructors, but how teams are represented in their official titles. IP user 83.119.125.219 is under the impression that a team referring to itself as "(Name) F1" is illegal, and that it should either be "(Name)" or "(Name) F1 Team". I suspect his reasoning is that Bernie Ecclestone made USF1 change their name (they were briefly known as "United States Grand Prix Engineering"), and later did the same to Force India (their "FI" logo was styled to look like "F1"; Bernie made them add a dot to the 'i'). However, I believe Mr. E's reasoning for this was that it implied ownership - "USF1" could be constructed as a separate Formula 1 series in the United States.

That said, this is not really an issue at all. Williams is recognised as Williams F1 (sometimes stylised with CamelCase to appear as WilliamsF1) on all official FIA documents. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Check Williams F1 site, there it is now also Williams F1 Team and not Williams F1 anymore!--F1Fan-J (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of laps

I think the number of laps for each race should be included in the calendar. That's a useful information, and won't take much space. The exact race distance could also be included, but that's not necessary. The reason why I'm asking this here first, is that I saw once somebody did this but later it was removed. Why? - Dubfire (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It was removed because the number of laps a race goes for has nothing whatsoever to do with a calednar of race dates. You might as well added driving glove size of the guy who won the race in 2010. Important information is one thing, relevant to the topic is another. Please stay on topic.

All this was explained in Talk:2012 Formula One season#Title sponsors of races further up the page. --Falcadore (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Glove size? Irrelevant. Details for a race are usually these (taken from formula1.com): Race Date: 18 Mar 2012, Circuit Name: Albert Park, Number of Laps: 58, Circuit Length: 5.303 km, Race Distance: 307.574 km, Lap Record: 1:24.125 - M Schumacher (2004). And of course the time of start, location and race title. I think that the number of laps and maybe the circuit length might be useful information for anyone who browses through the calendar. That's my opinion, but it's just a suggestion. If no one else agrees with me, then the calendar should stay as it is. - Dubfire (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of laps becomes relevant with all of that other date, like length of the circuit, but not without it. And none of that stuff is in the table. Number of laps on its own lacks sufficient context to make it relevant and has no place in the calendar table.

It should also be pointed out that the function of that table is as a calendar. All of that other information turns it into a small season guide which is not what that table is for. --Falcadore (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's necessary to change the calendar, but if we want a new-ish approach to it, perhaps we can go by the one used over at the WRC season page:

Round	Rally Name (Base)	Surface	Dates	Support Categories
1	80ème Rallye Automobile de Monte-Carlo (Monte Carlo, Monaco)	Mixed (Tarmac, snow)	17—22 January	S2000 WRC Production WRC

Except in the case of Formula 1, it would be:

Round	Race Title (Circuit)	Grand Prix	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix (Albert Park, Melbourne)	Australian GP	18 March

I mean, it's purely an aesthetic change, but I'm just putting it out there ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I know I shouldn't like this idea, but I do. So I'm just going to sandbox a little and maybe get some feedback.