Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Very misleading sentence

Near the end of the technical regulations changes, in the section about Manor being denied permission to use their 2014 car, there is the following sentence: "Since unanimous agreement between all other teams was required and Force India was the sole team to reject the allowance, dispensation was not granted." This is extremely misleading and verging on being an outright lie. Force India was NOT the only team to reject the allowance, they were the only team to vote at all. Force India voted first and voted "no," and since the vote was required to be unanimous, no one else needed to vote. The article currently makes it seem like Force India were the only team opposed, which is patently false. Sauber and Toro Rosso both publicly declared their opposition as well. We need to change this sentence ASAP. Eightball (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, according to [1], "Although Force India voted against allowing Marussia to run their 2014 car, it is understood that the outfit were reflecting a wider mood amongst their fellow teams. The FIA, meanwhile, wanted unanimity on the matter for the application to pass." I'm making a small adjustment, taking Force India's name out. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We? Couldn't you have edited it appropriately? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I will admit that I struggled to think of decent way to rephrase it. The user above you makes a good suggestion. Also, in my experience here, one can't make a seemingly innocuous and factual edit such as this without starting an edit war. Eightball (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I was the one that added this sentence, and it is taken straight from the BBC source [here]. So for Eightball to say that the sentence is "extremely misleading and verging on being an outright lie" when it's taken directly from the source title is actually quite a farce, borderline insulting, and on the verge of violating WP:AGF. Whether or not it emerged later on that Force India's vote was reflective of the greater mood of other teams is beyond the circumstances of when the BBC source was initially published. Twirlypen (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

See what I mean? Eightball (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

See what you mean? There's a significant difference between contesting content in an article and making baseless accusations. There is no edit war going on as you seem to be convinced that there will be, as we all know what happened to the last person that had a problem with it. How the same thing hasn't happened to you for the same thing and your clear disregard for policies has actually confused quite a few of us. I have no problem with the sentence being changed or altered if other facts come out later on. It's your accusations that are annoying. Twirlypen (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's nip this in the bud. The sentence has been fixed by a more accurate source. Nothing wrong was implied with the previous version, but we have fixed an apparent mistake. Moving swiftly on. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's please keep this discussion in line with —Gyaro–Maguus— 's advice and not comment on the contributors, but on the contents. Having read both presented sources neither supports the view that Force India were the first to vote. They both state that their was indeed a skepticism regarding the application throughout the entire paddock but that Force India were the only ones who actually went as far as voting against. That being said, I think the current version of our sentence is actually better in that it gives a neutral view of the situation. In the end, who voted against isn't really that important, just that no unanimity was achieved. Tvx1 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

http://en.espnf1.com/marussia/motorsport/story/190925.html Eightball (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This maybe isn't the correct place for it, but I've had no problems with people on here. I've had some problems on other pages, where people have basically been like "I disagree, and I'm more experienced than you, so you must be wrong", but nothing like that has happened here. Thank you for being civil in everything, even when people disagree. I'm writing this cos I'm taking a short WikiBreak due in part to issues on other articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Safety Car: Lapped Cars statement

Under Regulation Changes -> Sporting Regulations, please change:

" Once the last lapped car will have passed the safety car, it will return to the pits at the end of the following lap. This is a change of the previous practice which required the unlapped cars to have caught up with the back of the pack before the safety car could return to the pits. " to " Once the last lapped car has passed the leader, the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap. This is a change of the previous practice which required the unlapped cars to have caught up with the back of the pack before the safety car could return to the pits. "

This is because of two reasons. 1. The source states that this will happen once the car passes the leader (not the safety car) and 2. Currently the statement has 'the last lapped car' as the object, and such when it refers to 'it', one assumes that it is referring to the last lapped car, but in reality, it is referring to the safety car.

http://www.fia.com/node/9172 Sam596 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have created a sandbox for what, in my opinion, would be the best way to convey the progress of the season. I modeled this after the 2012 article, which currently has a GA status. Since it's just sandboxing, I did not cite any content right away. This can be added later if you all like its layout. I added the midseason testing subsection to Spain and British Grands Prix because they usually happen there and there are only going to be two this season, with no testing after Abu Dhabi. I don't intend for these to go into great detail. I added them simply so that we can note that it happened, maybe mention any unusual events like when Lotus had those awful looking 18 inch wheels. Obviously, Grands Prix yet to occur can be hidden with a wikinote until each event occurs.

I wanted to include preseason testing without going into too much detail. I wanted to note the top times, teams that had trouble, noteables like Jerez 2014 v Jerez 2015 and Hamilton's illness in Barcelona. Your comments and critisism are welcome! Twirlypen (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm strongly in favour of structuring the season report as a few lines (10-15) on each section, as per F1 2012, rather than the prose style with no subheadings like in F1 2013 and F1 2014. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree. Those reports aren't easy to read, and 2014's style just did a team by team breakdown, so there were essentially 11 different results in 11 different places in the article. I think it'd be best if we just all agreed to a style before the season begins instead of piecing everything together week by week, whether it's the style I've proposed or not. Twirlypen (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I will be tweaking the sandbox as information is released, so that if it is included into the article later, it will be an easy transition. Twirlypen (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Drivers' and Constructors' standings tables are done and pretty much ready for use. Their templates can be found here and here. Twirlypen (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've substed {{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}} into 2014 Formula One season and replaced the contents with the contents of Twirlypen's new templates. @Twirlypen: can I get you to nominate your templates for speedy deletion using {{db-author}} - our convention is just to have a single template for each championship, which gets updated from year to year, rather than having a separate copy of each template for each season. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't normally document pre-season testing (and certainly not in-season testing) unless a really significent event takes place during them that affects the season (e.g. A driver having a serious crash with resulting injuries causing him/her to miss a number of races). By the way, round 9 is Great Britain/United Kingdom, not England. Tvx1 07:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, I understand it's not a normal occurance to document testing. However, I feel that we need to change something with how we let the article unfold as the season goes on. As for the testion section, I could even squeeze the section I have proposed even further, but I feel that a short synopsis of its events, again a la 2012, wouldn't be detrimental to the quality of the article. Like Joseph2302 pointed out, the 2013 and 2014 articles really went downhill as the season went on as far as quality and presentation goes. As for the rest, DH85868993, I have marked my templates for speedy deletion and Tvx1, I changed Great Britain to United Kingdom.

Again the point of this is so we can all get on the same page early enough and attempt to solve any potential issues before they arise. Thanks again... Twirlypen (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

For testing, I think it should be kept as short as possible (4-6 lines), covering only very notable events. For instance, these drivers/cars were fast in testing, McLaren Honda had problems, Hamilton ill, Alonso crash. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. Your example of pre-season testing report is way too detailed. There's no need to have a subsection for every test. The pre-season section should really be a short overview of really really notable events, if any happen at all. A long-term view should be taken at all time. Sure pre-season testing is notable now because it's going on at the moment. But if you read this article in ten years time, will these events (e.g. Hamilton ill) still have any value in the scope of the entire season and its outcome. Likewise for the report of the actual season. We need to take a long-term view. It shouldn't be a race by race diary we will fill in in great detail after every race. It should be a report of how the championships were won and by whom. All events documented in the report should be connected to their effect on the season and events that only affected the race in which they happened shouldn't be mentioned at all. If you want an even better example of a season report than 2012, take a look at 2011. Tvx1 05:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree if I'm able to get concensus on whether or not it's to be put in the article. I'm just keeping a broader record for now until it's all done and then I'll trim from there and see what you all think. I've gotten some feedback strongly against the round by round summary format though, but that is exactly why I've brought this up now, so we aren't arguing about it once the season actually starts. Twirlypen (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Races that aren't happening

I have started a discussion at the Formula 1 WikiProject to discuss the inclusion of races in season articles when those races are not happening. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Carlos or Carlito?

Watching some of Ted's Notebooks from Jerez, I noticed that he made an observation that Carlos Sainz Jr prefers to be called "Carlito". Of course, Kravitz is a secondary source, but I think we should consider changing "Carlos Sainz Jr" to "Carlito Sainz", especially if he is referred to as "Carlito" over the radio and/or in team paraphernalia. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a preferred name is used—"Freddie" is not Freddie Flintoff's given name. It's "Andrew". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If he is nearly always referred to as Carlito, then that would be okay. However, there's no mention of Carlito on his Wiki page at the moment, as far as I can see. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If the name is commonly used we could add it to the lead of his article, similar to Nelson Piquet Jr.. Regarding the name that we put in the drivers' tables and race result tables and so on, we should stick to the one used in the official documents, again just like we did with Nelsinho Piquet. For this article's driver's table we use the FIA entry list which reads Carlos Sainz Jr., so that's what we have written here. Tvx1 17:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

New Entry List

On the new entry list, [2], there were a couple of notes at the bottom, was wondering if people thought they were important. (1). Stevens' participation is subject to him having a Superlicense (2). "Full compliance with the 2015 Technical Regulations required" for Marussia.

(1) seems like a formality, since he raced last season, but would (2) be worth noting somewhere? And if so, where abouts? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think (2) refers to the fact that Marussia have not yet performed to the crash tests that are required, and until then, cannot fully comply with the technical regulations (assuming the car adheres to the regulations on dimensions, weight, etc). —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting you bring that up, because surely that note regarding Stevens on the FIA entry list doesn't make any sense. Surely he already has a Superlicenece? How on earth would he have been able to drive in the race at the 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix without having one? Tvx1 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, don't superlicences need to be renewed every year? And for a significant cost? Maybe he had one last year but has not gotten it renewed yet for 2015... Twirlypen (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. He probably hasn't paid his annual fee yet. It will just be the base price since he didn't score any points last year. Tvx1 04:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Drivers have to renew superlicences every year, they have to pay for it (IIRC it depends of how many points you scored last year so Stevens' one shouldn't be too expensive), but I think it's superlicence was not "automatically" renewed because he took part to only one race last year, and Appendix L Art 5.1.2 says he needed to have at least 5 starts :

"The driver must also satisfy at least one of the following requirements:

• a) have made at least 5 starts in races counting for the FIA Formula One World Championship for Drivers the previous year, or at least 15 starts within the previous 3 years."

source (Jchesters (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

Those are modifications for 2016. They are not yet in use. And even so it stipulates a least one. There are four other options in that article following the option a you have posted. Tvx1 17:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are the current rules, not the 2016 rules (the "Important" note clearly says "see THE END of the Appendix for the changes which will enter into force on 1 January 2016", the rules stated right under that important note are the current rules. Now, about options b), c), d), e) and f) :

• b) tells us that a driver have to have previously held the super license while being a regular test driver of a F1 team during the previous year, which was not the case (since Stevens was a regular test driver for Caterham before getting his super licence, not while holding it, the word "and" in b) implies that both conditions have to be respected at the same time).
• c), d) and e) are about a driver's record in various lower formulae or championship. Stevens complies to none of these conditions, his record is just not good enough.
• f) would be the one that would qualify him, since this option doesn't precise if the driver have to do these 300 km during a test or during a race, so we can argue that a 2014 Grand Prix was indeed an event where a driver drive a current Formula One Car at racing speeds, and Stevens did certainly way more than 300 km at racing speeds in two days (as he did 299,9 km during the race alone). However, the 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix was about more or less 104 days ago (I'm not good at counting days), so it depends of when he made his application (it had to be done at least about 2 weeks ago if it had to be done by the books). Still, his application might genuinely be under study by the FIA at the time of the publication of the updated entry list. (Jchesters (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

I think he actually satisfies option b. I don't think the word and implies one has to achieve this requirements simultaneously at all. Just that they have to be satisfied. He held a super licence during 2014 and he has been a regular test driver for both Marussia and Caterham that season. Tvx1 20:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Driver Numbers

I'm certain that Stevens' number is 46 for this season, as he used it last season at 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. F1 2014 says "Drivers were assigned permanent numbers for the duration of their careers, with the championship adopting a system similar to the one used in MotoGP. The number 1 was the champion's right, with drivers free to choose any number from 2 to 99; the champion's "regular" number was reserved while (s)he was using the number 1. The regulations further stipulated that a driver's number had to be clearly visible, both on their car and on their helmet.[132]"
But when I add 46, it gets reverted, the last reverter claimed "The #46 used by Will Stevens was allocated to the team, not chosen by driver. Robin Frijns also used that number when driving in FP1". Yes Frijns did, but that was BEFORE Stevens used it in a race, which makes it his number. Also, if it's assigned to drivers, then how come Vettel/Alonso/Kyvat/Ericsson who have changed teams have kept the same number? The reason I've put it on here is so that there's written record of this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like his number has been confirmed anywhere, and there's enough doubt here to leave it out for now. We don't have any idea whether Stevens chose 46 or whether it was assigned to him (it looks like a test driver number), or whether he will be forced to use it again. Certainly nothing worth edit-warring over. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Each car will carry the race number of its driver as published by the FIA at the beginning of the season or the race number that has been allocated to his replacement" from [3], looks like he got allocated it. I retract my complaints over the number, although there was no source given when I was reverted. I guess sometimes you can just be too bold. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you were doing was original research and synthesis. You were synthesizing sources and events to claim it was his permanent race number. What we really would need to include a number is a source that clearly states what Stevens' career number is. We're in no rush to add one so I'd prefer to wait until we have more clear information instead of including a number based on what we think the rules stipulate only to be proven wrong later on. Besides, your Frijns-before-Stevens theory doesn't hold up either. There's another clear case from Caterham last season that proves that these are allocated replacement numbers and not chosen career numbers. André Lotterer used number 45 when he replaced Kobayashi in Belgium. Roberto Merhi than used that same 45 during Free Practice at the following Grand Prix, despite the number having been used during a race. Tvx1 20:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The FIA updated the Formula 1 official entry list and confirmed that Stevens' number is currently "TBA", so by the looks of it, it was indeed allocated and not chosen as a permanent career number.

More informally, I can explain how I think those non-permanent numbers were allocated (I guess that's a good example of original research and synthesis) :

In 2014, each team was allocated two consecutive "reserve numbers" (as I call it) that are used by test/reserve drivers and are also used by a racing driver who doesn't have a permanent number yet (eg. Lotterer or Stevens in 2014) replaces one of the race drivers.

Basically, each team got the first pair of consecutive numbers available according to the 2013 WCC, which means for example that Red Bull got 15/16 as reserve numbers because they're the reigning champion and because 15/16 is the first pair of consecutive numbers available as numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 were all used as permanent numbers, and numbers 2 and 12 couldn't be used as their previous (1/11) or their following numbers (3/13) were taken.

Therefore, we can make the list of all reserve numbers (in brackets, drivers who used reserve numbers in 2014) :

• Red Bull : 15/16 (Buemi used #15 in testing)
• Mercedes : 23/24 (Wehrlein used #24 in testing, don't know why he didn't use #23 though)
• Ferrari : 28/29 (De La Rosa used #28 in testing)
• Lotus : 30/31 (Pic used #30 in FP1 and testing, Ocon used #31 in FP1 and testing)
• McLaren : 32/33 (Vandoorne used #32 in testing)
• Force India : 34/35 (Juncadella used #34 in FP1 and testing)
• Sauber : 36/37 (van der Garde used #36 in FP1 and testing, Sirotkin and Fong both used #37 in FP1)
• Toro Rosso : 38/39 (Verstappen used #38 in FP1)
• Williams : 40/41 (Nasr used #40 in FP1 and testing, Wolff used #41 in FP1 and testing)
• Marussia : 42/43 (Rossi used #42 in FP1)
• Caterham : 45/46 (Rossi and Mehri both used #45 in FP1, Frijns used #46 in FP1 and testing, Lotterer used #45 at Spa and Stevens used #46 at Abu Dhabi and #45 in testing, Leal used #46 in testing)

source for testing numbers, source for FP1 numbers

However, if one team uses more than two drivers during testing, the third driver seems to use the first following number available : eg. Lotus tested 3 drivers (Pic, Ocon and Lynn) at Abu Dhabi, Pic used #30, Ocon used #31 and Lynn used #33 (which should logically be allocated to McLaren but was never used by the team in 2014).

In 2015, teams kept the same "reserve number" (eg. last week in Barcelona testing, Wolff kept #41, Wehrlein used #34 when he drove for Force India and #23 when he drove for Mercedes, Palmer used #30). The only unknown thing is about McLaren, who can't possibly use #33 as it is now Verstappen's career number, I think McLaren might use 47/48 (the first pair of consecutive numbers available to them) or even 45/46 (because Caterham are not in the entry list anymore, so these numbers are now available) or simply use 32 and any available number (which would break the consecutive rule). Actually, we might not know until Vandoorne or Turvey takes part in testing or in a FP1 session, as McLaren's current reserve driver (Magnussen) has a career number and therefore, should use that career number in testing, FP1 or if he needs to replace one of the race drivers.

Remember, this is based on original research, and as far as I know, there is no source supporting my research or claims, but I hope that might help understand how non-permanent number allocation works. Jchesters (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically how it should work. However I don't think Magnussen still holds his career number. I've always understood that once you cease to be a full time race driver you hand back your career number. At the moment his career as a race driver is effectively on halt. There's no guarantee he will return. Otherwise they would run out of possible numbers for the drivers to choose very quickly, with the 99 possible numbers all being distributed somehow. Tvx1 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is literally the exact same discussion we had when someone kept adding #40 for Nasr. #46 was assigned to Will Stevens last year — he did not select it. Twirlypen (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Magnussen is currently driving with #20 (photo source), so he did keep his number. Generally, the problem about keeping or not keeping a number is how do we define a "career" and especially how a "career" comes to an end. Here, it seems that the FIA decided that a "career" goes on as long as a driver is at least test (or reserve in Magnussen's case) driver (Jchesters (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

On the other hand Gutierrez doesn't use his 2014 number anymore, but rather #28. So your Magnussen example can't be treated as a rule. Tvx1 07:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, craaaaaazy idea time: how about we wait until Stevens and/or the team confirm his number? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

About Gutierrez using #28, I could argue that he used that number during a promotional test, not during an official testing session and an official testing session is more "trustable" than a promotional test where the car does not really need to have a number at all (IIRC, Oliver Turvey didn't have a number when he did the shakedown of the Honda engine last year, and it was officially a promotional test). I do agree with you we can't treat test drivers numbers allocation as a rule in general since that kind of number allocation is as far as I know not written in any official document or trustable source. However, this afternoon, the FIA announced that they added a precision to how long a career is : They'll consider a driver's career to have ended if that driver does not participate in an event for two entire consecutive championship seasons (source). Therefore according to this new rule, Gutierrez should keep #21 at least until the end of the 2016 season, maybe even further if we consider FP1 outings as "participating to an event" and Gutierrez has at least one FP1 outing. (Jchesters (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC))

So, that means that Gutiérrez, Vergne, Magnussen, Chilton, Kobayashi and Bianchi all retain their number for the time being. Tvx1 19:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Charles Pic, Esteban Ocon and Alex Lynn used numbers 30,31 and 33 in Abu Dhabi in november all testing for Lotus [4][5]. So that's three testing numbers for Lotus. And I noticed that Ocon is listed as being Spanish, while we list him as French. Tvx1 08:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I already told about Lynn using #33 in Abu Dhabi in my very long first post (the one from 27 Feb, 16:17). (Jchesters (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC))

Your point being? Tvx1 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's easy - we use the FIA's definition of a career. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So to confirm, Magnussen's number is definitely 20? Because he's confirmed as driving in Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit it in because I don't have the source but I'm sure I read that the FIA defines being current as having raced in the last 3 years. Therefore KMag's number would have been available in 2018 but that'll be 2019 if he does indeed race in Australia as the team say he will. Duds 2k (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The final entry list has been published and there are no surprises. Stevens and Merhi use different numbers to the ones allocated to them last season. On the other hand Ferrari will no longer be able to use 28 for their test drivers. I think we have enough precedents now not to have any debates about driver numbers anymore. Tvx1 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Noses

I'm having my concerns about the following bullet point in the technical regulations changes section:

• Following the backlash over "ugly" nose designs in 2014, the FIA moved to amend the rules surrounding nose designs for the 2015 season. Noses will now be lower than in 2014, retaining a minimum cross section, but they must taper to a point at a fixed linear rate, effectively outlawing the dramatic finger shapes seen in 2014 in favour of a more gradual shape. Furthermore, the design of the nose must be symmetrical and consistent with the centreline of the car, thereby banning the more exotic designs, such as the "twin-tusk" approach used by Lotus on the E22 chassis.

This is based on this source dating back to last june. However, eight months later some of the noses of the 2015 cars (Williams FW37, Sauber C34, updated Toro Rosso STR10, Red Bull RB11) taper from the tip to the front of the chassis in a non-linear fashion. With no word arising yet that these nose-designs are illegal, I'm starting to wonder what the 2015 Technical regulations really stipulate regarding nose designs. Tvx1 18:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any changes. I imagine that the noses consist of two parts - the tab which sticks out and the square plate that goes over the top of it. We cannot see the nose tapering at the fixed linear rate because it's hidden under the plate that goes over the top of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the FW37, I see wide nose with an appendage sticking out at the front. No linear tapering, no square plates over the top. And no claims it's in breach of the rules. What we really need to do is look at what the technical regulations actually stipulate. I'm not technically adept enough to identify the relevant stipulations. Tvx1 20:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaving formula one

The concerns have been successfully addressed
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Currently we are listing Vergne, Gutiérrez and Magnussen as "leaving formula one" despite all three of them remaining active in Formula One as test and/or reserve drivers and Magnussen even as race driver in Australia. Should we adress this? Tvx1 I don't really see how, short of getting rid of the sub-sections (I have no idea why this was done). They have left full-time competition. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC) True, but we currently give the impression that they have left the sport all together, which is wrong. Tvx1 13:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC) See, this is why I don't think we should be detailing drivers who leave F1 in the articles. Listing people who aren't racing in this season not helpful IMHO. --Falcadore (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC) But that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing drivers who are NOT leaving F1. Tvx1 14:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, they are test drivers who don't do any races. If their next job was answering the phones at the teams front desk, would that count as not leaving Formula One? --Falcadore (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) A simple solution to this problem would be to remove the subheadings. That way, all driver changes would be documented under... er... Driver changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Falcadore, your sarcastic comment isn't of any help here. The three drivers I mentioned have all driven during the tests held this year so far and Magnussen is even going to drive in a race. There is no certainty that the other two drivers won't have to step in at any point of the season. Furthermore they are probably going to do more work during the in-season tests. So yes they are very much in the sport. I know very well from past discussions that you think test drivers don't have a merit and shouldn't be mentioned at all on wikipedia. The reality is that the sport does and we have to describe our subjects how they appear in real life., whether we like it or not. In case you're interested, I'm in favour of removing the subsections.They're just no practical. Tvx1 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Talk about sarcasm all you like, you knew what I meant all along, after all I said it enough times previously. Drivers are the 20 guys sitting in the cars when the red lights go out, beyond those is information of much lesser importance and not significant contributors to the championship. --Falcadore (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC) The subsection in question is called "driver changes". When there are two drivers on the grid one year who weren't racing in the previous year, and the number of cars on the grid hasn't changed, then that means that there are two drivers who were on the grid who have since left, thus fulfilling the "driver change". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC) There, it's fixed. I removed all of the subheadings and cut out as much superfluous detail as I could. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Nice edit, well done. Good to see the information condensed and unambiguous. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC) No that's your opinion of what's the situation. That doesn't mean it's an undisputed fact. The sport itself clearly thinks otherwise. We weren't even discussing including them in way that claims they affect the championship. We were discussing mislabeled driver changes and that has been solved now. Tvx1 17:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC) The subsection "Leaving Formula One" simply could have been renamed to something else, like "Other changes" or the like. Anyways, it's done with now. Twirlypen (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Driver names

So, I've noticed that Will Stevens is getting changed to William Stevens, as per Official Entry List. If we're doing this for Stevens, surely we should also change Nasr and Perez's names, as they are different on the entry list to this page? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The entry list is a reliable source for who's taking part in F1, not for people's names. A person's name should match the title of their article, and any suggestions about changing it should be taken up there and the article renamed if necessary. Then links to it can be changed where relevant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, I think according to common sense, it should be Will Stevens. I'm arguing the logic behind calling him William is bad, as according to that logic, Perez should have both his surnames listed, and Nasr should also have his fullname listed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't use other wikipedia articles as sources. It's anyway correctly linked to his article. If the official entry list displays William it means he used William on the official paperwork he submitted to the FIA and he must have a good reason to do so and we follow suit. Just like we did seven years ago when Nelsinho Piquet appeared as Nelson Piquet, Jr. on the entry list. And there is no analogy between William's correct first name and Sergio's family name and Felipe's middle name. Those are different things. We actually treat them the same. We have their first names like they are in the source. Felipe, Sergio, William. But all in all, this is pretty trivial. Tvx1 18:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not using other Wikipedia articles as sources. Our driver/team list isn't designed to be just a copy of the FIA's. If his common name is Will, then that's how we refer to him throughout. Otherwise we change the article to William Stevens. If he used William on his official paperwork, that's grand, but it has no bearing whatsoever on what we call him on Wikipedia. The point about Pérez and Nasr is actually perfectly relevant, because we are discussing how driver's names are displayed. You say the FIA list means we have to say "William Stevens", but that logic doesn't continue for Nasr or Pérez. That doesn't fly. As I said above, the FIA entry list is not a reliable source for drivers' names. We have other sources for them, and that's how articles get their titles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The common name principle only applies to article titles, NOT to article content. Hence why his article is named Will Stevens, while the article lead names him as William Stevens. That guideline is actual a section of an article called WP:Article titles. Besides the man has only competed in one grand prix so far, so it's a bit early to claim an undisputed common name. And with your analogy, what do you suggest we do with Nelsinho Piquet? All I ask is we that we are consistent with our practices. Tvx1 20:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite, and you're not being consistent. I haven't claimed that the common name policy applies to article content, but that his article title is what it is because that's how he is referred to in the press. His inexperience is irrelevant to the strength of his common name anyway. The first line of an article will always show a full name, so again, that's irrelevant. My point, so far unaddressed, is that an FIA entry list is insufficient to change the guy's name here, particularly when other drivers' names are not being treated the same way. I'm on a poxy mobile device so I can't see Piquet's article, but it shouldn't be Nelsinho because that's not his common name. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Breton on this - the FIA entry list is the only place he is referred to as "William". In every other source that I can find, be it for his joining Manor/Marussia or his exploits in other series, he is referred to as "Will". I don't think that it is unreasonable to continue referring to him as "Will" instead of "William" here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not unreasonable at all. But what if we wait until the entry lists (from the FIA) for the first Grands Prix appear and change if those say Will. We're in no rush to make a decision on this by any means. When I mention him having only taken part in one GP I'm not referring to a lack of experience but on the fact that there is only a limited number of events that have produced sources including his name. Tvx1 23:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, those sources all use the name "Will". The FIA entry list is the only place that he is called "William". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should we wait? I see a 3–1 consensus for "Will", no policy-based argument for "William", no reliable source for "William", and his article title is "Will". I'm not seeing a consistent usage of the FIA entry list names either. Also, the limited number of events producing sources including his name is not relevant, as I've said. 99% of them say "Will". Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just why is an FIA entry list not a reliable source? Because you don't like it? And if there is no reliable source for William at all, then why are we including his official name in his article? And why do emotions have to rise so quickly again? The reason why we don't use the other mentioned drivers' names per the entry list is because we have a considerable number of other FIA sources using the names we use. For Stevens we don't have as many. Anyways, I know bloody well what a consensus is (and it is NOT a head count) and I you all like Will, so be it. It's trivial matter. I have no interest in making a drama out of it whatsoever?. Tvx1 12:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't wave IDONTLIKEIT at me, that's just insulting. I'm not sure why I have to re-explain everything I say with every post, but here goes. The FIA entry list is a reliable source for who's confirmed to be taking part in the season, not for drivers' names. There are far, far, far better sources for those, and they all disagree with the FIA entry list. The FIA were just being super-formal, like they often are, as they were with Pérez and Nasr. Basic. I don't mean there's no reliable source at all for "William" – I mean it (obviously) in the context of our debate, i.e. there's no reliable source for William being his commonly used name. Again, it doesn't matter how many sources we have for "Will" (and there are dozens anyway), because 99% of them say "Will", starting with all the sources for the race he drove in. Assuming your last sentence is a statement rather than a question, I'll change it back. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I see PM's already done it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Claiming the FIA entry list is unreliable regarding names is rediculous. I'm pretty sure all the names on it are correct. Whethet they are commonnames is a different question. But it doesn't matter, we have consensus. Tvx1 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well then according to that, Nasr, who's never raced before, should have his fullname listed, exactly as written on the FIA source. It's exactly the same principle as Stevens (new driver, and so apparently we should use their FIA-listed full name). Joseph2302 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that if Felipe hadn't appeared on a number of FIA entry lists for last season's races as "Felipe Nasr". Tvx1 17:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In that sense as well, Will Stevens raced last year for Caterham as Will Stevens. Twirlypen (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

The request could not be fulfilled because it was contradicted by subsequent events
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Roberto Merhi's number is listed as TBA. As a test driver during the 2014 Italian GP, Merhi's number was 45. Driver numbers are permanent, and unless the FIA advises otherwise, Merhi will race in 45. http://cdn-9.motorsport.com/static/img/mgl/1700000/1750000/1756000/1756500/1756599/s8/f1-italian-gp-2014-roberto-merhi-caterham-ct05-test-driver.jpg Rollo75 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)  Not done Same reason as above. His team got assigned 45 last season, but he can (probably) change it. And there's not been an official source saying he's 45 this season. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

The request could not be fulfilled because it was contradicted by subsequent events
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Will Stevens is listed as "TBA" for a number, yet at the 2014 Abu Dhabi GP, he drove in 46. FIA numbers are permanent; Stevens' number is already listed as 46 unless the FIA deems otherwise. Rollo75 (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)  Not done There's a debate about it above. Because he wasn't racing at the start of the season, his team got assigned 46 for him to use, but he can (probably) change it. We're waiting for an official source with his race number for this season. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)  Not done Not all numbers are permanent. Article 21.2 of the 2015 Sporting regulations, Each car will carry the race number of its driver as published by the FIA at the beginning of the season or the race number that has been allocated to his replacement under Article 19.1(b)(iii). This number must be clearly visible from the front of the car and on the driver’s crash helmet. I.e. André Lotterer used 45 in Belgium last year, while Roberto Merhi used it in Italy later on, and both Felipe Nasr and Max Verstappen have already picked other numbers than the ones that were allocated to them last season. Tvx1 00:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

The request could not be fulfilled because it was contradicted by subsequent events
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Re Sporting http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/file/1-2015%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%202014-06-29.pdf 21.2 Each car will carry the race number of its driver as published by the FIA at the beginning of the season or the race number that has been allocated to his replacement under Article 19.1(b)(iii). This number must be clearly visible from the front of the car and on the driver’s crash helmet. Prior to the start of the 2014 World Championship season race numbers will be permanently allocated to drivers by ballot, such numbers must then be used by that driver during every Formula One World Championship Event he takes part in throughout his career. Any new drivers, either at the start of or during a season, will also be allocated a permanent number in the same way. The numbers for both Will Stevens & Roberto Merhi have previously been set, due to Regulation 21.2 of the FIA Sporting Regulations. These aren't up for debate. Rollo75 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)  Not done You clearly didn't read the or the race number that has been allocated to his replacement under Article 19.1(b)(iii). part of the rule. This is clearly proven by the Nasr and Verstappen examples who doesn't use the same number as the one allocated to him last year. Furthermore, the FIA hasn't published any numbers for these two drivers at the start of this season yet. Your assumption just isn't supported by the facts. Tvx1 00:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Update: They have announced their numbers to be 28 and 98 respectively. So it appears you're thoughts were incorrect. Tvx1 21:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

van der Garde's legal challenge & Magnussen replacing Alonso

I have removed these from the "Driver changes" section and added them to the season background report. Later, I realized, at least with the Magnussen case, there has been precedence in having a mention in the "Driver changes" section, so I readded it. But the Giedo van der Garde issue should not be in the section for the simple reason that no change involving him has happened yet. Twirlypen (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen - that is WAAAAY too much detail. At this rate, the table will expand beyond 100,000kB (the minimum length of an article before a split should be considered) before the end of the flyaway rounds. I know you based this off the 2012 article, but that article is why we go team-by-team for the season summaries in 2013 and 2014. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the "Season report" being broken down into 2, possibly 3 subsections: Background, Race reports, and if needed, Postseason (if there's a controversy or something). What I've written thus far is all I intend to include in the Background section. Twirlypen (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind that if this article reaches 100,000kb 100,000 bytes, it will be most certainly due to all of the tables and mobile-friendly markups we insist on adding, and hardly because of text. Twirlypen (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's still too long, and far too detailed. Look VDG's legal challenge - we only need to say that it happened, and the outcome. And even then, if it is settled in favour of Sauber, we don't need it at all. We don't need statements from the team and a full account of his claim.

And while length might be down to markup, we already have a very manageable means of recounting the season by going team-by-team. I don't see any reason to change that now, especially since the 2012 article was a pain in the neck to compile. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing good comes easy. The article may have been a pain to compile, but the effort seems to have paid off with it being a "Good article." The more recent seasons may have been easier to write, but my god, what a mess they are to read. I'm not entirely opposed to the prose style of recapping the season, but no casual person can look at 2014 and genuinely say "Wow, that is a very well-written season report and I had no trouble figuring out at all what happened." Twirlypen (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The size guideline only takes into account readable prose, so not tables and markup, of which this article currently has 1,464 kB. So we have lots of room before we reach the minimum size for a split. The 2012 article has 55kB of readable prose and is thus nowhere near that cap either. Tvx1 02:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And in-depth explorations of each Grand Prix will render the individual race report articles completely redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any of the summaries detailing tyre selection, background information of the particular Grand Prix, or the track it was held at. Those 10-15 line summaries are hardly "in-depth explorations" and if you think they are, I suggest that you revisit an actual race report article. Twirlypen (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is VDG's legal challenge so important to the article right now? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The same reason it was important enough to be included earlier on in a different section. It's a background story to the season — the man filed a motion in Australia, a country with no ties to either party, for immediate injunction to stop the team from racing their drivers next weekend. Whether the court decided to act, it's still worth noting as, as the title of the section indicates, a background story to the season. Twirlypen (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It only affects the season if the court rules in his favour. And they haven't ruled yet. So how is it important again? And how will it still be important if the court favours the team? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Precedence. Do you recall any other time a driver filed motion with a host nations Supreme Court in an attempt to disallow a team from using its drivers? A direct impact on the season doesn't mean it's not noteable as a background story, again in its appropriate section in the article. Twirlypen (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So you're intending to cover all of the "background" stories throughout the season, regardless of their actual impact on the season then? That's the "it happened, so it must be important" mentality. This is the season article. It should be for things that affect the season. If you feel that the precedent established by VDG is important enough for inclusion in an article, then include it in VDG's article. Just as Andy Soucek's article contains details of his injunction against GP2 team Coloni, impounding their cars due to a contract dispute a few years ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In any event, it'd be wise to gain concensus before removing content based solely on your own personal opinion. I simply moved currently existing content to a more appropriate area of the article and expanded upon it. And to answer your question, I intend to include any background story in the background section of the article that is also worthy of being on the front page of Formula1.com, so no, not every story. Twirlypen (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By that, I meant what I said earlier, in that this and the Alonso crash are really the only noteable things that can be mentioned, as I doubt much more news completely different from these two things will come out between now and next weekend. Twirlypen (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And don't automatically suggest that I want to include every single story, like Guttierez testing the SF15-T or Susie Wolff getting some FP1 time. Just don't, okay? Twirlypen (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't think that "you need a consensus" will end the debate on the spot. Your proposal represents a significant change from previous articles, and as I have pointed out, is founded on an objectionable claim, that VDG's challenge has an impact on the season regardless of the outcome. One could easily argue that you need a consensus to introduce the changes, since "I got here first" is not an argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't introduce the change. It was added sometime last week without any objection. Again, as I said, I simply moved pre-existing content. You then decided it was far too detailed and then, again without concensus, decided that it wasn't worth being there at all. I have introduced several changes to previous article layouts, some met with praise, others not so much (see the driver changes section above). The point is, you're deciding for everybody what should be included in the article and its worthiness. Your opinion doesn't outrank mine, nor mine yours – which is, yet again, why I introduced this section to solicite the opinions of other regular editors. I'm not going to start a section on the talk page every time I want to move content, and to suggest I do when WP:BOLD clearly advocates making edits in good faith without a need for concensus is a clear trait that doesn't need to come back. Twirlypen (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that you go back and look at what changes I actually made. I did not remove that content. I hid it until such time as it became relevant, such as the outcome of VDG's challenge, so that it would be available should we choose to use it.

And if you are familiar with BOLD, then I expect you would be familiar with BRD as well. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the edit you made. You hid it until the entire case is settled, which to me constitutes having you decide what is and isn't worthy of article inclusion. You keep saying "we" but I have noticed you usually go ahead with your version of edits before actually seeing what other editors opinions are, and then when they challenge it, THEN you demand that concensus is necessary. Funny how these things never came up for the past few weeks.... Twirlypen (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple of funny things in the past few weeks as well. Like the way a regulation change was listed as a calendar change, which I still find confusing as to how that mistake could have been made. But don't worry - I fixed it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not unlike the time I made a [sourced] edit to McLaren MP4-30 article that you immediately [revertedhid] on the grounds that you had to check out the source before you could bear to have it in the article. At least so the revision summary implies... Twirlypen (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Having this section is not a significant change from the past. 1994 and 2012 are two examples of articles having a "background" section that spring to my mind. I have no problem with having such a section as long as it's concise and the long-term significance of the documented event(s) is seriously considered. Some events might be important now, but if we look back at the season in a few years time they may turn out to be trivia.

And we are all human beings just like you, so sometimes we make mistakes. Excuse us if we're not as perfect as you want us to be. Tvx1 04:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have actually found it strange that it isn't more common than that. I feel that significant stories come out more preseasons than not. Red Bull and Ferrari leaving FOTA before the 2012 season started would be a story I'd include. But, since 2012 was ruled a bad example of article construction, I guess I can't use that to support my argument. Twirlypen (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Save that more than half of those "stories" might seem very important at a point like this when pre-season is taking place, but will be really trivial in a few months time. And there are a lot of storms in teacups as well. Tvx1 04:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Really. You want to do something as childish as sift through each others' contributions looking for reasons to undermine and disregard the other person's position here? Tell me, how is that an appropriate course of dispute resolution, and how is anybody supposed to think that you exercise good judgement when considering content to be included? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Can both of you PLEASE stop commenting on each other's qualities as contributors and PLEASE focus the discussion on the content? Tvx1 04:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That's my point. I am more than willing to have a discussion about content and the direction that the article takes. But don't think that you can revisit whatever poor judgement that I might have exercised in the past and use it to shut me up simply because I disagree with you. I will promise you now that doing so will not work, and as I just demonstrated, I can turn that around if I so choose, and we achieve nothing.

Now I firmly believe that when it comes to deciding content, we should use our discretion as to what is important and what is not. As this is the season article, it should be for things that have some lasting impact on the season. In the case of VDG's challenge, I don't think that the challenge alone is enough to merit inclusion. If the court rules in his favour, then is takes on a level of importance to merit inclusion. But if the courts rule in favour of Sauber, how does the challenge impact upon the season? Nothing has changed, and there is no lasting effect. On the other hand, we have Alonso's injury. We know that it will have an effect on the season because McLaren have announced Magnussen has his replacement.

It's like the Korean and German GPs. Korea was on the calendar for six weeks. It wasn't run in 2014, and it won't be run in 2015. Nothing has changed, and so there is no impact on the season. It is a detail that is superfluous, and its removal affects nothing in the article. On the other hand, the German GP represents a change - if it goes to the Nurburgring, it's a change of venue; if it stays at Hockenheim, it's a change to the event-sharing agreement; and if it is removed outright, it's a fundamental change to the calendar.

So what do Alonso/Magnussen and the German GP have that VDG's challenge and Korea do not? They represent a tangible effect on the season as a whole. We have to draw a line somewhere as to what merits inclusion and what does not, and until now we have always drawn it at that tangible impact. I do not see why that needs to change now, and I honestly think that changing that approach is so great that it needs a consensus - not simply here, but from the entire F1 WikiProject, because it represents a fundamental shift in the way that we compose articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have no problem with content being challenged. My point in this case is that it's regarding content that has already been added (without incident) that I simply moved to a different/new section, that I'm being accused of adding without getting proper permission first. I have stated my reasons why I feel its inclusion is worthy, albeit not detrimental or directly impactful to the season. Is a season article supposed to just be written with tunnel vision, such as we write ONLY on what happens between Australia and Abu Dhabi and absolutely nothing else? Twirlypen (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

When I see "background", I think of something that applies season-wide, like a major overhaul of the regulations - not a single driver change that just happened to have been announced two weeks before the season started. Especially when it only affects one race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a simple misunderstanding here. You have always drawn the line for meriting inclusion at a tangible effect, not we. It has been pointed out to you very recently during your discussion at WT:F1 that that view of yours is wrong, and in case you didn't notice no one agrees with you so far in that discussion. We have always put the line at relevance. Is the contested fact relevant? A bit, yes. How significant is it? Minor, and it could disappear shortly. But at this moment we don't know so we can't arbitrarily claim that it's patently irrelevant. Therefore it's just about ok to give a mention and if next Wednesday it turns out to be pointless we remove it again. Nobody has ever said it must stay in the article for all eternity. As for the driver change, we don't know yet how many races it will effect, Alonso has not been cleared to race yet. Not even for Malaysia and beyond. Tvx1 08:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But using that logic, you cannot claim that a detail is important. Case in point - VDG's challenge. We won't know how relevant it is until the court rules on it, which is why I concealed it for the time being. Also, if you're arguing based on individual merit, then you can't counter individual arguments with a generalised response. And disagreeing with the community consensus doesn't mean that I am wrong by default. It just means that people disagree with me. If you stopped treating this as a battle to be won, it would be easier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm the only one that has replied to this section that absolutely doesn't treat this as "a battle to be won". Shooting ridiculous accusations is not getting us anywhere. Stop it. Tvx1 08:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the section below provides some reason as to why there's a point in including it temporarily. We can't have the Sauber drivers as TBA without having some kind ox explanation. Tvx1 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read anywhere that VDG will drop his case against Sauber after the Australian Grand Prix. I have, however, read that he has stated that he will do whatever it takes to get his seat. So who's to say that VDG won't file another speedy injunction in Malaysia if Australia decides not to act? And then in China? And then Bahrain? Then Spain? And so on.... Given that Swiss courts have sided with the driver, it appears that VDG isn't going to quit so easily. Saying definitively that this will only affect one race is simply inconclusive at this point. Twirlypen (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Korea has a contract until 2016. Whether a race was run or not in 2014 has no bearing on the existence of a contract. New Jersey has a contract until 2028 – they'll have a place on every season article until either then or if the FIA terminates the contract before then. Twirlypen (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have renamed the "Background" section "Australian Grand Prix", as I feel that this is more representative for the time being.

To my mind, a background issue is something happening behind the scenes that is key to understanding the events that will unfold over the season. For example, the overhaul of the engine regulations in 2014 are one of these background issues. I do not think that Alonso or VDG satisfy this.

In the case of Alonso, the plan is for him to miss Melbourne and return for Sepang, and complete the rest of the season. So how is there any impact outside the Australian Grand Prix? In the case of VDG, the challenge only affects the AGP, and while I am aware that he might launch future challenges, let me ask you this: if, hypothetically, Manor drop Will Stevens mid-season, how does that become a background issue? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone say that Manor (or any other team) dropping its driver mid-season would be a background issue? If anything, that is quite literally a mid-season driver change. Twirlypen (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Or was that a subtle way of hinting that something under completely different circumstances means the same thing as this VDG issue? Twirlypen (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have to question your decision to change the subsection to "Australian Grand Prix" as neither of these issues pertain to the event itself. The VDG issue revolves around Sauber and their contracts, and Alonso/McLaren has more to do with the actual crash at testing and his subsequent injury. As indicated by the previous section title, they are background stories to the season, and not specifically the Australian Grand Prix as you seem to have convinced yourself these issues are. Twirlypen (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The plan might be for Alonso to return after Malaysia, it hasn't been confirmed yet. He has not been cleared to return to his race seat by the doctors yet. Don't underestimate the consequences of a head trauma. Tvx1 03:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As such, I have renamed the section to a more literal "Sauber lawsuit and Alonso injury" as these two issues will likely be the only ones discussed in the section, and it'd be wildly egregious to name a section later named "Australian Grand Prix - the actual race" Twirlypen (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to me how Magnussen replacing Alonso for the first race is a background to the entire season, and not simply the background to one race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Easy. The incident happened on 22 February, nearly one month before the Australian Grand Prix and two weeks before teams even went to the country. If it had happened at Friday practice, it'd be a direct background to the event. Plus, where did you read or hear that Alonso was medically cleared to return to Malaysia. I can't find anything stating this crucial "fact"... Twirlypen (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

But if it only affects one race, how is it background to the season, rather than background to one race? Think about how this article will appear in December. You're setting up the background or the pre-season as a narrative framing device, covering the issues that do not apply to one race, but are recurring throughout the year. If the VDG and Alonso situations only affect the Australian Grand Prix, then they should be addressed in the Australian Grand Prix section, even if they happened before the actual race meeting. To treat them as part of the background to the season assumes that they will be recurring issues throughout, and there is no evidence that this will be the case, so it's CRYSTAL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In any event, I feel Tvx1 has properly addressed these as preseason stories worthy of noting. They are not directly tied to the Australian Grand Prix for reasons I have cited, nor are they directly tied to the entire season as a whole (yet?) for reasons you have cited. I believe that a "happy medium" exists as its displayed right now. Further, we are capable of editing this as rulings are made/Alonso heals. We worry so much about what the article will look like 10 years from now that we forget that we can change it 10 days from now. Twirlypen (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can finally explain this: His specific challenge in Australia, which seeks action against Sauber at the Australian Grand Prix only, falls under background for that Grand Prix. However, VDG's legal challenge with Sauber as a whole, dating back to 2014, will likely follow Sauber around for a good portion of 2015, and thus would, could, and should count as a background story to the season. Twirlypen (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And regarding Magnussen, the result he achieves in Australia will affect the exact outcome of the entire season. It count for the entire championships, not only for the Australian Grand Prix. Tvx1 04:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sub-issue to the above

Subsequent events have provided us with the solution as to how to present the situation in the article
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Should VDG be listed as a driver for Sauber? I am no legal mind, but my understanding is that VDG's challenge is based on a verdict from a Swiss court that recognised his claim. If Twirlypen can provide the source that says he will continue to challenge if the courts rule against him—I cannot find it myself—then there is a case here where VDG has a seat, which is recognised by a court, and should be included in the article, even if the team doesn't recognise it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC) As I am at work, all sports-related websites are blocked by my firewall. The article I read (probably from [GPupdate.net]) did not say he will specifically challenge in each host nation until a resolution is met, but rather that he will more or less "do everything he is able to ensure his contract is honored," which should be reasonably inferred that he is not giving up if Australia fails to act. As for including him in the table or stating that he is in fact a driver for Sauber, that is a really slippery slope. The Swiss courts ruled in his favor, but essentially left it at that without making any other immediate ruling dictating what Sauber must do to compensate VDG. They could very well order Sauber to compensate VDG fiscally instead of forcing them to give him a seat at a later date. Twirlypen (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC) No. He hasn't appeared on any entry list so far. No source has put them in their driver line-up. Let's just wait until Wednesday when we the verdict has fallen. Oh, and be wary of using GP Update for reporting on this case. It's a Dutch site which will obviously very tempted to bias their coverage in favour of the Dutch van der Garde. Tvx1 03:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Well, those entry lists are compiled based on the paperwork sent to the FIA by the teams. If Sauber didn't list VDG as a driver, then the entry list won't show him, which is at odds with the Swiss court backing his version of events. But if the story claiming he would pursue every avenue to reclaim the sear is indeed GP Update, then you are right to say that it should not be used. I just didn't know that it came from that site. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC) They have reported it. But others have as well. Tvx1 03:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC) The lawsuit and VDG's persistance at pursuing the seat is nonetheless a pretty obvious thing. Regardless if a Dutch media site is reporting it, British [SkySports], or American [ESPN]. Also, [this] was a fairly interesting read, albeit it's paddocktalk and nothing really official... Twirlypen (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC) We would need to do a bit of triangulation there. Yes, the FIA entry list is generally considered to be the official source, but if we can establish that there was a contract to race, then why shouldn't we include him, perhaps with a footnote explaining that his presence hinges on the outcome of the court case? If the court rules in his favour, it will supersede the FIA entry list. Other details have been included elsewhere in the article on the grounds that they have a contract, so I do not see why this is any different, expect that it is without precedent. The nearest things that I can think of are Paul Stoddard's injunction in 2005, and Andy Soucek taking action against Coloni in 2009 or 2010 (I cannot remember the exact date). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Swiss court has ruled in his favor. However, what hasn't been ruled on is whether the contract is still in effect and VDG is entitled to a seat, or whether Sauber now owes him money for breach of contract. VDG is fighting for the former outcome. Twirlypen (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC) In other words, the courts have ruled on the charge, but not yet the sentence. Twirlypen (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Okay, thanks for that. Following through on that thought, can we really trust GP Update at all? They have a documented history of bias when it comes to Dutch drivers, and I don't think that we can really say "sometimes thus source is reliable, and sometimes it isn't". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC) That's going to happen with all sources. British sources will always have a bias for British drivers, for instance. Just like when they openly solicited with the FIA to have Rosberg penalized for his incident with the British Hamilton during the latest Belgian GP. As long as the publication from GP Update.net isn't contradicted by all other sources, there's no problem. Tvx1 11:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Again, "we" doesn't apply here. No one is saying nor has ever said "sometimes it's reliable, sometimes it isn't" except you when any source posts an article that contradicts your personal opinions on a topic, at least as long as I've been active here. Twirlypen (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC) My feeling on van der Garde's legal action is this: He had a contract with Sauber that Sauber ignored. That contract likely states that VDG has a deal for a seat for the 2015 season with Sauber. That contract also likely has clauses for penalties should Sauber or VDG break the contract or terminate it early. Sauber appears to have simply ignored the presence of this contract. In all likelihood, VDG is going to show he has a contract with Sauber, and Sauber is going to be left with two options: employ VDG or throw money at VDG as a penalty for terminating the contract. The odds that a team, who already employs two drivers and has major sponsorship through them, is going to employ someone they do not want to drive their car is small. And really, is VDG going to want to deal with a team that does not want him there? In the end we have three contrats and only two seats. We cannot simply start adding VDG if he does not have a seat at the moment simply because he has a contract. Every single reliable source states that Nasr and Ericsson are the drivers for Sauber. Even if the courts have the seat, I don't think we should add VDG until the team or the FIA confirms that he is physically going to drive the car. The359 (Talk) 23:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Considering VDG is on record of saying he wants the contract honored in the form of a race seat, I think your question as to would VDG really want to deal with a team that does not want him there would be an emphatic "YES, he would." Twirlypen (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Provided, of course, the courts end up ruling that Sauber has to give him a seat. But if that ends up being the case, there will most likely be an entire separate trial as to which driver (Ericsson or Nasr) would be cut. There's also that pesky underlying claim that Sutil also had a contract. He may also pursue it if VDG ends up in the driver's seat. Twirlypen (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I don't think the courts can force the team to give him a seat, just to honor his contract. The contract probably says it can be broken with a penalty payment. The359 (Talk) 01:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) It wouldn't make sense for VDG to be fighting so hard for a seat if the contract simply has a buyout clause... would it? I mean, wouldn't Sauber have paid him off by now since the courts already ruled in VDG's favor? I can only imagine VDG is fighting this hard for a seat because he and/or his lawyers believe that either A) there actually is NO buyout clause, or B) the terms of the buyout possibly require that he compete in X amount of races before the team has the option to buy him out. Twirlypen (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Depends on how much money Sauber has (especially if they're relying on sponsorship from their drivers), and how much more money VDG wants to invest into getting a future seat at another team. All of this is speculative, the point is at the moment Sauber is not running VDG in a car, and there is no immediate indication that they will. The359 (Talk) 03:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC) So the Australian court has ruled in favor of the Dutchman, yet Sauber still refuses to show any indication of running him in a car this weekend. I'm really not sure how should deal with this anymore. Tvx1 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) By Thursday afternoon, the FIA should have released an entry list (it'll be one of the steward's decisions on the FIA's page on the Australian GP). Considering that, as I type, it is nearly midday on Wednesday in Melbourne, we shouldn't have to wait longer than 30 hours (though I doubt that is manageable). Up until then, we have no confirmation as to Sauber's actions. So we can't do anything just yet, other than maybe add Van der Garde in the same way we added Magnussen. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC) FYI, —Gyaro–Maguus—, he has already been added before I replied here. Personally, I'd prefer to wait until we indeed have that FIA entry list for the race. There's no rush. Tvx1 00:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC) First we had to wait for the courts to make their ruling. Now we have to wait for a response from Sauber. I don't know what the laws are in Australia or what the penalties would be for a direct defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, but I can imagine that they (the courts) could heavily fine the team and/or forbid them from participating at subsequent Grand Prix in the country. Twirlypen (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Look, Twirlypen, it's an unbelievably confusing, unprecedented situation. We have no pre existing plan how to deal with this situation. I'm by no means sure how to deal with it myself. My concern is that we are receiving contradictory signals. On one side we have the court ruling in his favour and on the other hand we have Sauber who seem to remain unwilling to let him drive. I'm as confused as you are. Tvx1 00:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC) I agree that this is wildly unprecedented, but I just see a Supreme Court ruling as something that would be pretty final. Sure, Sauber is "unwilling," but they can't just tell a top Australian judge to go kick rocks, you know? People who are found guilty of crimes in criminal court are pretty unwilling to accept a judge's sentence, but in the end, they still have to go to jail. Twirlypen (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) In the meantime I have found another source. This one crucially includes a statement from the ruling: "The application is successful and... will be enforced." That should be enough. Tvx1 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) The source I used when adding VDG to the driver changes section reiterates that quote as well. I think it is a clear statement to Sauber not to consider ignoring their ruling. Twirlypen (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Keep in mind that a Supreme Court ruling isn't merely a suggestion that Sauber can mull over and decide later to brush off. It's an order from the government of Australia. Twirlypen (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC) But, the FIA could stop him driving? Possibly no insurance, does he have the right paperwork done (e.g. Superlicense). Sauber cannot stop him driving, but the FIA could. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) That's something I have been thinking of as well. And I can't imagine the Supreme Court enforcing something on the FIA. Tvx1 01:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't the FIA have stepped in by now to say "Hey, VDG, even if you win, we won't let you race."?? Twirlypen (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC) I doubt VDG would go through all this trouble if he didn't even have a superlicence and other necessary paperwork or prior FIA approval to race should his case be successful. Also, seeing as I doubt anyone with Sauber has Australian citizenship, the courts would be well within their rights to have law enforcement at the race to ensure enforcement and be prepared to remove the team to the nearest international departure terminal if it is clear they intend to defy the court's order. Twirlypen (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC) I just don't want the discussion to take the turn of "well what if VDG was a total dumbass..." Twirlypen (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC) I don't know what I have to make up from that comment. Anyway, what you wrote in your previous comment is really personal guesswork, isn't it. The fact is that on wikipedia the truth is what you can prove. So where is your proof? Where is the source stating he has his superlicence? Would it really kill you to wait another 24 hours until the entry list is published so that we have official FIA confirmation of the line-up? May I at the very very least suggest we append the current event template to the article so that our readers know that a rapidly evolving situation is occurring? Tvx1 01:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, you're right. By definition, it's guesswork. I'm fine with waiting for the official entry list, but are we suggestingly that there's a legitimate chance VDG fought this hard for this long only to not have a superlicence?? It's borderline common sense that he would have at least that. Twirlypen (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Of course the chance is slim, but the problem is we're lacking proof and so were bound there. How annoying it might be. It's policy. Tvx1 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Oh, Sauber have appealed (it will be heard today, in a few hours). —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC) By that regard, wouldn't we have to prove that both Stevens and Merhi also have superlicences? Especially so since Stevens' entry was specifically subject to him having one on the official entry list? Why would this burden of proof solely apply to VDG? Twirlypen (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC) They both qualified for it last season, so I assume they'll get Super Licences this season too. Manor would not have employed Merhi to race at such short notice if he didn't have one. Also, I just read the original judgment of the VDG case and it appears the ruling will apply for the remainder of the season, assuming the appeal is unsuccessful. Unfortunately I am not familar with legal vernacular and I can't fully understand from which decisions it applies from. —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Simple. Merhi and Stevens both appear on the recentmost entry list (which is currently cited in the article) with numbers and all, VDG doesn't. Tvx1 03:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC) VDG also appeared at Grand Prix outings last season, albeit just practice sessions. But from what I understand, a superlicence is required for free practice sessions as well. Twirlypen (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Also, that entry list came out before this ruling came down. Of course VDG wouldn't be on it. Twirlypen (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Irrelevant to your question whether we have required proof for Merhi and Stevens. We have it. And a Free Practice Super licence is not sufficient to race. See Appendix L of the International Sporting Code Article 5.2 [6]. Tvx1 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Very well. As it stands then, I now believe the article is properly portrayed. I concede my argument. Twirlypen (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"TBA" on Sauber?

As I mostly think that Sauber will race for Melbourne, what is going on with them when they're supposed to race in Melbourne? ---[ DanishSGTFan123 ]--- 17:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a legal challenge from Giedo van der Garde to Sauber, as he believes he was promised a Sauber seat for 2015. Until this is resolved, the lineup is not 100% certain. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Sauber themselves are not TBA, just their exact driver lineup. Tvx1 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the round column visible? No one has competed in a Grand Prix yet, so why are we saying all the other drivers have raced in Melbourne? QueenCake (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:2015 Formula One season#McLaren driver order. Tvx1 18:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

They were added before the discussion regarding the McLaren driver order was resolved, but as it also correlates to the VDG situation, it makes sense that it stays prematurely. Twirlypen (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The FIA have published an entry list following scruitineering that lists Ericsson and Nasr as the Sauber drivers, so they have been listed as taking part in the first race for the time being. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)