Jump to content

Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Contested speedy deletion

This article should not be deleted for G4 - as that is only for A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. I have restored all versions so that the version at the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Formula_One_season dated well over two years ago at 01:56, 16 November 2010 - which refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Formula_One_season&oldid=396563450, and as can be seen has absolutely no relevant data for the year 2015 - the current article has 2 items that have been published about the 2015 season already, and more will surely follow.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because deletion is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Formula_One_season. Dricherby (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Crystal Ball

I've deleted the sentence sugggesting Honda will power McLaren. A blog and a school website clearly not good enough. See Daily Mail which contradicts this, and mere speculation at Autosport. Warren (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Drivers and Calendar

I've put in information about confirmed drivers as well as the calendar. I think bullet points are the best for the teams and drivers section (they're is only two), with the usual for the calendar. If you think they're is a better of presenting the information, feel free to alter this. Pch172 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed your edits about the Thai Grand Prix, because the race has not been confirmed. Please put more thought into your edits - the reference you gave made it pretty clear that no contract had been signed. 149.135.146.47 (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thai GP

There does need to be something in the article that mentions the Thai GP that everyone is happy for it to go in the article Pch172 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No there does not. Didn't the Rome Grand Prix teach you anything? --Falcadore (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I added a brief paragraph below the calendar talking about the Thai Grand Prix. It seems appropriate to include this because Bernie Ecclestone himself has confirmed that a Thai GP has been arranged.Videomaniac29 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
And I removed it, reminding again about the Rome Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand that it is possible that the Thai GP may not occur...but I feel it is notable enough to be included in this article. A lot of planning has gone into it, and it isn't as if it is some vague fantasy idea. There is a strong chance that this will occur, so why shouldn't it be in the article in a 'proposed races' section?Videomaniac29 (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, I re-iterate the example of the Rome Grand Prix. When it is formally announced as being part of a calendar by the FIA, then I reckon it's good. A lot of planning work has been done for a LOT of grands prix that have not taken place. Why is this one any different from all those others? --Falcadore (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see your point.Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Teams section under teams and driver

Is this really needed? The only team change so far is the Honda engines supplying McLaren, which is stated under team changes. Until more drivers and teams come apparent (when creation of the usual table), this should be removed. Pch172 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

America and Mexico

The Mexican Grand Prix and the Grand Prix of America were recently removed from this article without any explanation given for their removal. Their presence on this article is well sourced so I reinstated them and I wonder wether anything has been published recently saying that this races have in fact been cancelled. If not they should stay in the article. Tvx1 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed the source for NJ, to one that stated 2015 is the plan. The previous source (and current one for Mexico) simply states that they will "...appear on a future schedule." Is there a better source we can use for Mexico as well? JohnMcButts (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Drivers Table: Signed vs. Announced

The inherent problems associated with declaring drivers as "signed" was pretty well-demonstrated with the Great F1 Edit War of 2014. What thoughts do you all have on changing it from "signed"–a process that is typically covered in secrecy and misdirection, a normal state that is likely obvious to anyone who's followed the sport for a long period–to "announced"? That's clear-cut, avoids the unfortunate edit-warring we saw over Sirotkin, and should make it more difficult for forceful, uncompromising personalities to run roughshod over a chorus of restraint.

Reasons in favor of it would be increased clarity, decreased debating over silly issues, no need to parse cryptic answers to blind questions, and greater harmony between "Announced" and "TBA", instead of the current dissonance between "Signed" and "TBA" (when apparently an announcement wasn't necessary to call a driver "Signed" for 2014 for a very long while). It seems like it would reduce the wiggle room available for misinterpretations of the situation.

Reasons against it would be that it might put the table a little behind the curve if teams make announcements but don't update their sites immediately following their announcements (though that seems unlikely, and other solid sources would likely cover the interim). Or, a team's not wanting to officially announce until both drivers are signed could leave one driver unlisted for an unacceptably long period of time, and could start debate about whether a remaining driver is still signed (given that contract durations are often learned through press leaks and assumptions, and their conditions for renewal are generally opaque).

Or, if we can't build consensus around this change, can we at least establish a better process for validating a driver's status to race for the team? Given the lack of testing in this era of F1, signing someone to drive for the team may as well mean simulator work, or press and sponsorship duties (see Williams/Susie Wolff), etc.

It seems like we should attempt to reduce the possibly ambiguity of this table, since nobody seemed to change their minds one bit about it the last time around, but mostly reasoned by force. Reducing the possibility for vagueness, and reducing the need to rely on singular members of the highly fallible (and vague) press, seems like it's in everyone's best interest.

Thoughts? 76.90.20.73 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps only drivers who are confirmed without caveats (Sirotkin famously had one)? --Falcadore (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I like that idea. And one would hope that it would be sufficient, but the caveats (and there was more than one) were either ignored or discounted by some, unfortunately. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

2015 numbers

It is not speculation to add the driver numbers. The FIA has made it clear that numbers are assigned to drivers for the duration of their careers. If they win the title, they have the right to use #1 if they so choose, but if they do, their regular number will be put aside so that no-one else can take it. It would be speculation to claim that a certain driver will be #1, but that is not what the article is doing - it is simply listing the numbers that are assigned to the drivers, the numbers that we can prove they will use unless they become champion. And even then, they have a choice to use it. We have a source that says they will use those numbers, which trumps a set of circumstances that means one of them might not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself can you? Warnings on two pages on this subject weren't enough? --Falcadore (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
We know what numbers they will have if they don't win this year, but because we don't know who will win, each row is inevitably based on the speculation that that driver will not win. Burgring (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
We also do not know the permanent numbers for drivers will continue or not, not a single race has been run under this system, it is slightly premature to suggest a second season will follow. --Falcadore (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Forza Rossa

Once again, we find ourselves in a Sirotkin situation, where we have contradictory sources.

The first source comes from the FIA, which states that Forza Rossa is still being investigated as to their viability. This, obviously, supports removing the content.

However, the second source comes from FOM, which states that they will be accepted. And in order to compete, the team needs approval from both the FIA and FOM. The FOM source states that FOM will accept them, and that Jean Todt also approves.

So, we have two contradictory sources from two bodies with the authority to rule on it. The best way forward is to include Forza Rossa with a footnote explaining their provisional status. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. While it's just about acceptable to mention them in the text, the best way forward is not to list them in the signed teams and drivers table when it's not certain that they have in fact been accepted for 2015
I will quote the sources that are provided to substantiate their presence in the list.
That's no confirmation. That's speculation.
Again, this makes it clear that Forza Rossa hasn't received an entry for 2015 yet.
This doesn't confirm they have a 2015 entry yet either.
And from FOM:
I don't know why you are even claiming that the sources are contradicting each other when they are all telling the same story. Haas has received a 2015 entry and Forza Rossa has not received a 2015 entry yet. Therefore it is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL to include them in the list of signed teams at this moment.
Go back and read that Autosport article again. When Ecclestone is directly quoted, he says that the team will be accepted. Not that they could - that is a weasel word used by the author of the article. The only condition Ecclestone attaches to Forza Rossa's participation is whether or not they can be ready on time, and that that is dependent on them (which is probably why the author used said weasel word). But whether or not they can make the grid is not the issue - Ecclestone clearly says that they will be given an entry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, I do not have any idea why do you like to create an edit warring. In this case, Forza Rossa is clearly under pending and should not even appear on the Wikipedia pages yet. StandNThrow (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask that the article reflects what the sources say? You cannot simply disregard a source because it does not match up with the version of the article that you think is best. If they were so clearly under review, then why has the man who controls the Concorde Agreement said they will be given an entry? In order to compete, Forza Rossa would need an entry from the FIA and an agreement with FOM. Each is as important as the other, which begs the question of why you are completely disregarding half of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, I suggest you do another thorough reading of the Autosport article. It quotes Bernie stating that they have been "accepted", not that they have received and entry. What does that "accepted" even mean? It might as well mean that he has accepted their application to join for reviewing. What's is most important here is that he has not literally stated that they have received an entry for the 2015 season. It's possible that they will join the following season as has been raised by the sources. You are the one jumping to the conclusion that they have received an entry for the 2015 season. Wikipedia is not a news site, so there is no rush to publish things on our articles until we have been able to correctly verify them. We can easily wait until we have a more clear view on the situation. Given the sources I have quoted above we are now reflecting them in the best possible way by mentioning Forza Rossa in the appropriate locations in the text and not listing them in the table (yet). Tvx1 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"What does that 'accepted' even mean?"

Seriously? That's the argument you want to make - that it could mean anything other than its actual definition?

Ecclestone mentions both Haas and Forza Rossa in his statement. He refers to both of them getting an entry. We know that Haas was given an entry. Considering that Ecclestone mentioned Forza Rossa at the same time, in the same context, and with no evidence to suggest he had any other intended meaning, you still managed to come up with "but we don't know that he meant to use that particular word in that particular way".

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Autosport source predates Haas being confirmed an entry for 2015. What Ecclestone is talking about is clearly applications being accepted for investigation. Regarding Haas it literately states "They will be accepted," he said about the Haas entry. "We have also accepted another team as well." and "We are happy to have another couple of teams. I have spoken to Jean Todt and we agreed yesterday that if another two teams want to come in we will let them in." We now know that Haas has received an entry for the 2015 season and that Forza Rossa is still being reviewed. We don't know wether they received and entry for 2015 or for a later season. The Adam Cooper source literally states that. You really ought to analyse sources more carefully. Again, there is no rush to include them on the list on this table. We are not a news site. We can easily wait a few days until the situation has become more clearer. And clearly you are the one was has not been taken serious. You've jumped to an incorrect conclusion again and this has been pointed out to you by myself, StandNThrow and BobDylanFan1994. Tvx1 (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to say I think PM is wrong on this one. The team hasn't been confirmed yet. We shouldn't jump the gun on matters like this – think of the number of times Ecclestone has been wrong or has had his ideas unrealised. A sentence in the team changes section should suffice, along with the bit in the intro. Obviously, they will be team 13, but I must emphasize the future tense in that statement. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that we are not meant to be a breaking news source, and that it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to not include information pending verification, even if other sources are treating it as fact. In this situation the most recent reliable source is straight from the FIA WMSC, which has the sole power to accept new entrants, and it quite clearly states that "Forza Rossa" (whomever they are) does not yet have an entry for 2015. The correct way to proceed is to not add them in the entrant table, but include text stating that their application is still being assessed. QueenCake (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that both FOM and the FIA need to confirm the entry of Forza Rossa before we should be treating it as fact. I don't see a problem with explaining this in text with the relevant sources. Let's not get into a slanging match over it either, or start criticising each other, folks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr.kolles, the motorsport.com source you keep providing to show the connection between you namesake Colin Kolles and Forza Rossa is not enough. Just because the article says something, that does not automatically make it true. The author offers no evidence of their claims, and really just summarises what other reports are saying. You need something that shows a clear link between Kolles and Forza Rossa. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Sirotkin situation could have been avoided by waiting. The same is true here. We don't have to publish. There has been no announcement that Forza Rossa exists and will take part in either the 2015 or 2016 season. Holding back and awaiting developments should be the default position of our wikiproject. Additionally acting each moment Bernie Ecclestone has a verbal spasm is unhelpful.
So I suggest that for major news like a new team, we await official announcement from the parties involved. --Falcadore (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation? and Haas 2016

I found this report while browsing around today. The wording is a bit iffy, with "appears to be" used a lot, and I cannot find any confirmation from the FIA or the usual sources. The team name however does appear to be "FRR F1 Team" and not Forza Rossa, the name of Bazac's Ferrari dealership. There is also mention of using Renault power.

Further, should Haas be removed from the table? Every report I've seen has indicated that the team has pushed back their entry to 2016. They may have a 2015 entry, but if they opt to sit out a year, surely their word should be enough to remove them from the entry table? The359 (Talk) 19:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Haas should be removed, as it is not confirmed that they will be competing, and when a decision is made, they can be added in. As for FRR / Forza Rossa, I think it should not be put in until there is an official announcement from the team or the FIA. SAS1998―Talk 10:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
If there is one thing that the source makes clear it is that both Haas and FFR have received an FIA entry, however neither are confirmed to be entering in 2015. They could enter later. While it's acceptable to mention them in this article, I think that it is preferable not to list them in the table for the time being, until we have a clearer view on what they are going to do. Tvx1 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Whether they make the cut at all or not is irrelevant, it's when it will happen. These are rather random sketchy reports and I'd rather wait till a big name announces whether they make it for 2015 or not. *JoeTri10_ 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The entry process explicitly granted candidate teams a place on the grid in 2015. If they choose to defer until 2016, then that is their choice. Confirmation of their deferral would have to come from the teams themselves. So if the FIA says they are in, then we should assume that they are in until they say otherwise. It is like any other addition to or subtraction from the table: we have to go by what the sources say, not by what we think is a likely outcome. Especially when one source says "they are in", but another says "they might not be". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a classic case of the Sirotkin situation. Multiple official, reliable sources reported and confirmed the possible entry of said team but with a clause. If the clause is met then it's a guarantee however now reports from lesser and rather ambiguous sources are surfacing noting on said clause and is reporting Haas's decision to delay by a year. They may easily be correct but because it's not 'The BBC' Or 'SKY TV' or some other big media outlet then by Wikipedia rules we outright ignore them and cling onto old reports. I mean seriously though, I don't want to wait another half a year just got to get officially confirmation. I'm not doing that again so I hope this gets sorted soon. *JoeTri10_ 11:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It is simple: all of the sources about Haas deferring talk about it in terms of "it is understood that", which is not confirmation. It has to come from the team, not some journalist with unclear contacts. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Least we not forget that those within the team are bound under contract not to divulge such information until Haas himself decides too tell, whenever that is. Those in the know who may be right or wrong can only be trusted if we decide to trust them and that is a warzone of opinion. Plus to decide whether we trust word from Haas himself seems to weigh on where it's being reported too. This article here, hosted on the famous Forbes website is too now reporting Haas formula to debut in 2016 but do we trust it?. [1] *JoeTri10_ 12:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also found a report by ESPN on the same matter [2] *JoeTri10_ 12:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the sources make the situation very clear. Both teams received an entry to enter the sport within the next two seasons. When exactly they would enter was left to their own discretion depending on the amount of progress they make. Haas originally confirmed that they would enter in 2015, but now more and more sources are reporting, some even directly quoting Gene Haas, that they will enter in 2016 instead. I don't know how many more we really need to remove them from the table. We can still mention them in the scope of the article though. Forza Rossa Racing have not confirmed yet when they will enter, so it is to soon to list them in the table. Like with Haas it is not wrong however to mention them in the scope of the article. Tvx1 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The scope of the article is fine, but not the article lead. The Haas situation amounts to "we were aiming for 2015, but won't be coming until 2016", and officially Forza Rossa haven't been granted an entry, so we can't say what they're doing. Neither is appropriate for the article lead, so I have moved the bulk of it to the body of the text.

With Haas confirming a 2016 start, it is probably high time to create the 2016 season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't like creating season articles this far in advance, but I've long bowed to the inevitable and accepted that someone will keep doing them anyway. You might as well do it now PM, I'm sure you'll do a better job than some drive-by editors. QueenCake (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary yet. We don't know enough about that season yet. Tvx1 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
We know which circuits are under contract and which are not, and we have a team that will join in 2016. That is enough to create a basic article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, the article appears to be creation-protected, so I don't know how to request that the article be started. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
An appeal to (re)create the article has already been made about a month ago, and it was rejected. I don't think a current proposal would be sufficiently different from the rejected one (note that it already included Haas) to assume approval this time. In the explanation of the refusal the end of the current season has been put forward as a suitable (re)creation time. I agree with that. Tvx1 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Haas' inclusion in that article is based on the assumption that they would have been on the grid in 2015. It may be a subtle change, but their 2016 debut may be important enough to justify its creation.
Also, that proposal was put forward by Pch172 who, dare I say it, has never made the best decisions in his editing. His argument seems to amount to "we have created articles this early in the past". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You shouldn't judge the merits of a proposal based on who submitted it, but rather on the quality of the contents. I don't think Pch172's proposal was bad at the all. The only differences a new proposal would have would be an updated calendar, a new source for Haas and the inclusion of FRR. I you think that is enough and you are that desperate to create the article now, than good ahead and submit a new proposal and we'll see if it's accepted. Personally, I wouldn't create the article before the end of this season. Tvx1 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

  1. On the BBC qualifying commentary, it was said (by David Coulthard, I believe) I that Haas has deferred his entry to 2016.
  2. Why don't we decide on a specific date (say, 1 July) on which we discuss whether the information available on the next uncreated season article is enough to put together an article of. The article is not created until there is consensus that it should be from the discussion. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
[Autosport] has reported that Haas has been postponed to 2016 as well. Tvx1 (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
GM, it is somewhat difficult to put a date for creation on a future article, because it assumes that enough information to substantiate the article will be available by that date. But if I had to put a date on it for all future articles, I would suggest waiting until after the halfway point of the season. So with 19 GPs, I would wait until after round 10. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
That is fine by me. All I was suggesting was an agreed to point in time to discuss whether the creation is a good idea considering the available information or to just simply have it created anyway, to avoid premature creations. —Gyaro–Maguus— 10:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with that if it's about the next season's article. But what we are discussing now is the creation of the article for the season after next season. I think the end of the current season is a good moment for that. Wikipedia is not a news site. There is no rush to create articles and publish things. Anyways, when to create the 2016 article is not pur decision to make as it has been creation protected. Tvx1 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it is our decision. Admins are just like us: they edit in areas of interest to them. There is no guarantee that the admin reviewing the case for creating the article will have any interest in Formula 1, so it is up to us to decide when we have enough information to go ahead with it, and that consensus will be taken on-board by the reviewing admin.
Personally, I think that Haas' confirmation of a 2016 start is enough to justify the creation of the article. When he announces his engine supplier, which he plans to do within the next few weeks, then that should be more than enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sale Of Caterham

In regards to the recent confirmation by Caterham that Tony F has indeed sold the team [3], Some things have been left in the air. To begin, the information given to us is rather vague in terms of just who now owns the team? The site states that the outfit has been sold to Swiss and Middle Eastern investors so initially I would say it is now a Swiss team? However the team is also being advised by Colin Kolles. Unless we wait for specific information, it's anyone's guess. I have left it blanked for now but my biggest guess is that it's now a Swiss team. The next question is will this team even run in 2015? Although it hasn't stated so, they do seem to leave hints that it will. Whether it will run the same name (for 2015 onwards) is also not specifically explained. I have updated the information for now but whether others will like to wait for more specific information is up to discussion.*JoeTri10_ 14:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a well established precedent for this. Unless the constructor name changes, we keep the same team article regardless of a change of ownership. At present, it remains the same constructor under a Malaysian racing licence. Whether or not the new owners are planning to change that is unknown. There isn't too much we can do but note the sale on the relevant articles and await more information. QueenCake (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I say we keep everything that we hasn't been announced to have changed the same – so, for 2014, we continue with the Malaysian racing license until updated as to otherwise; and for 2015, we hold the Caterham name and Malaysian flag until updated as to otherwise – although changing the Malaysian flag to a blank flag for 2015 is an option I would be happy with. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That all sounds reasonable. For this years article then I say we keep the flag blank, as apposed to 2014 where it shall remain as the Malaysian Flag. *JoeTri10_ 19:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought teams couldn't change their name or nationality mid-season the only possible thing they could change in 2014 is if they choose to give the team a title sponsor like what Spyker did to Midland in 2006, but 2015 is a different matter. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of whether they change or not, we have no evidence that they intend to, and in any situation, to which nationality. We can only wait until something is changed, according to a reliable reference, to make our changes. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed a point from the body of the article detailing the change. The change happened in 2014, and according to the team, the only thing that changed is the ownership. If there are any subsequent changes that come into effect in 2015, then they can be mentioned. But until then, changes should only be mentioned the year that they come into effect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

2016 F1 season article

The article has been created
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.

Having read through the previous archives, I see there has been some attempt to agree on the starting of the 2016 article. Now, I realize this is blocked thanks to some people having not heard of the crystal ball regulation, so I propose that we firstly have a vote on whether or not this should go ahead, and then secondly take it to those higher up to lift the ban.

Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, so I shall abstain from voting. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a matter of voting, but a matter of having referenced content that is independant of what appears in other articles. Do we, or you, have that? Why not start the article in a sandbox - then put it up for voting or review. If you actually need a vote then:
Postpone until sandbox version of article approaches publishable levels. --Falcadore (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
We've got Haas coming in and now Azerbaijan confirmed as the host for the European Grand Prix. There's definitely enough material to warrant an article creation now.
Normally I would do it myself, but I edit from a mobile and the platform has its limitations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that there's now enough content to warrant an article. It would just be a matter of including enough content to make the article worthwhile without relying on any speculation or unsourced material. If done well it would be a very useful and encyclopedic article. OakleighPark 11:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't this article WP:SALTed? There was certainly plenty of demand for that. --Falcadore (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Falcadore, I think it was, mostly because it was repeatedly created, but the content was virtually identical to the 2015 article. Haas and Azerbaijan are certainly fresh content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Possibly suggest creating in sandbox and asking for review to move over? Personally think it's a little early. But that's just MHO. --Falcadore (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to submit for review. And I'm editing from a mobile, so I'm bound be the limitations of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You can find the info on submitting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. Tvx1 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Forza Rossa (again)

In the past few days, I have noticed that people keep adding details of Forza Rossa Racing to the article (and to the 2016 page), off the back of the Adam Cooper story from a few weeks ago, and from the Romanian-language story being used as a reference in the team article. However, as there has been no confirmation from the FIA, and no further comment from any of the involved parties, I fail to see what has changed since the last consensus that we established - namely, that it needs the FIA's approval before it can be added. The only thing I can find since that consensus is an interview between Kolles and a Portuguese publication in which he claims that the Forza Rossa project is still moving along, but that the team has not paid its entry fee yet. As I do not speak Portuguese, I cannot verify it, but assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, then it is further proof that the team should not be included in the article just yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely. In addition to what has been stated above, none of the sources used to justify their inclusion actually confirms during which season they will make their debut. So we don't have enough information yet to state them as signed for 2015 or even for 2016. At this time, per WP:NOTNEWS, it's best to wait until we have a better picture of the situation before editing them into the relevant article. Time is or friend, the start of the 2016 season is 20 months away so we are in no rush whatsoever to publish things. Tvx1 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Caterham ownership

Just found this link: https://www.opencompany.co.uk/company/09193244/caterham-cf1-grand-prix-ltd
It says a new company named Caterham Cf1 Grand Prix Ltd has been registered in the UK on the 29 August 2014, and during the FP1 of the 2014 Singapore Grand Prix Sky Sports F1 showed this "Caterham CF1 Grand Prix" sign on TV, which probably means the team will be racing under the UK's flag. Is that enough reason to be added to the article, and should it be also added to the 2014 Formula One season article? - Hunocsi (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the Caterham CF1 was registered can be mentioned – but your sources are not enough to change the flag. We'll need to wait for official announcements from either Caterham or the FIA. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no hurry to change the nationality. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The team's nationality is not determined by the location of their seat, but by the nationality on their racing license. So the information provided here is not enough yet. Tvx1 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2014

Lotus now confirmed using Mercedes engines http://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/news/2014/2014-lotus-f1-team-mercedes-benz-power-unit-announcement/

BlackSti00 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done by another user. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Japan GP Driver Announcements

Please do not change the Driver sheet if no official announcement has been made from either noted driver or team. This refers to someone placing Fernando Alonso's Name in the McLaren-Honda section.82.45.210.235 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And the same applies to replacing Alonso with Vettel at Ferrari. The standards we have set out for an acceptable source for a driver change is that it needs to cite and quote one of the involved parties (driver or team member who is in a position to speak for the team, for instance team principal) declaring that a contract has been signed or disbanded. Tvx1 (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Christian Horner fits that definition. Especially since this was Vettel activating an exit clause in his contract. It's a little unorthodox to have a team principal confirm a move to another team, and if we were talking about Eric Boullier or Monisha Kaltenborn, it wouldn't be an acceptable source. But Horner is Vettel's team principal, and would thus be in a position to know what Vettel is doing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
No he doesn't. Horner has nothing to say about Ferrari's decisions. Our standard is crystal clear. The team or the driver involved in the contract. In this case Vettel and/or Ferrari. No-one else. Furthermore more Vettel has openly refused to confirm his boss' comments when querried about them. Tvx1 (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I never said he did have a say in Ferrari's decisions. I said he is involved in Vettel's decisions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if we should accept him as source to add Vettel as a Ferrari driver, which driver would we have to replace? Nothing in his comments states who Vettel is going to replace if he goes to Ferrari. Do we remove Alonso, who has a contract to drive for Ferrari for the next two seasons and who doesn't have one for McLaren (the team he will allegedly move to) as has been stressed by that team's boss Ron Dennis? Or do we replace Räikkönen, who has already hinted at his retirement at the end of next season and who hasn't been smiling to much all season about his car's performance (not that he tends to smile very much anyway)? Maybe he got so disillusioned that he decided to advance his retirement by a year? There's no way to know at the moment. The solution is simple though. We wait until the parties involved (Vettel, Ferrari) announce what's going to happen because we are not a news site wanting to score a scoop, but an encyclopedia. Tvx1 (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Horner is a good source of information on Vettel leaving Red Bull. Where Vettel goes, not so much, just that he has gone. --Falcadore (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

VETTEL HAS NOT YET CONFIRMED HE IS DRIVING FOR FERRARI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.68.17 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Are De Montezemelo's comments (here) sufficient grounds for removing Alonso from the Ferrari section? I'm not advocating replacing him with anyone at present, but a statement like that from the guy who was in charge at the time seems to be a reasonable source for removing his name from Ferrari. WilliamF1two (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, Luca was president of Ferrari until 13 October - the Monday after Suzuka - when Marchionne officially took over. However, since his departure from the team was made weeks beforehand, one could argue that his involvement in the process is unclear, and that his knowledge of the subject is open to doubt. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
True, but the article claims (and we have previously considered the BBC a reliable source) that it was agree Alonso would be released from his contract "in the summer", presumably when Luca was still in charge. It seems a bit misleading to have him down as a "confirmed" driver when it is overwhelmingly likely he won't be driving there next year. WilliamF1two (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't have him as a confirmed driver, we have him as a signed driver. Fundamental difference. Our standard is crystal clear. The driver or a team member who is in a position to speak for the team. As Di Montezemelo is no longer a member of the team he does not fit that defenition. We are in no rush to remove him. Read the BBC source. It literally states it hasn't been announced yet. Furthermore it states that Fernando asked for his contract to be ended. That doesn't mean it has been accepted. Is it really that difficult to wait until they themselves announce a change? Tvx1 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Teams in administration

I have hidden Marussia and Caterham in the current table given that both are currently in administration. While this does not guarantee that they will be shut down, I do not think that we can reasonably claim that both teams are scheduled to compete until such time as their futures become clear(er). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, I don't think any team has paid their 2015 entry fee yet. However, as it stands, unless a team specifically says otherwise, it's not unreasonable to assume that a team competing in the current season will also compete in the following season, not unlike other professional sport leagues. Having said that, I would agree that both teams don't have the financial stability to assume that they will be competing next season. Twirlypen (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_1&oldid=1140545591"