Talk:2017 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Vandoorne "signed a contract"

I'm not keen on the wording of the article reading "Vandoorne signed a contract". I know that the existence of a signed contract is the standard we use to include content in the table, but Hülkenberg's move to Renault opens up implications for the wording (as do other notable examples, such as Button and Williams, and van der Garde and Sauber). As soon as I see the wording "Vandoorne signed a contract", I immediately think "well, is he going to see it out?".

I know that this sounds like a quibble, but for the sake of clarity, we should assume that if a contract is signed, it is the intention of all parties involved that it will be seen to its conclusion until such time as it is proven otherwise. The wording of the article should reflect that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

So what wording do you suggest than. Bear in mind that we cannot use "will" as that is in breach of WP:Crystal. And no, we should not assume things. José María López and Luiz Razia are two examples who spring to my mind as to why we shouldn't. Tvx1 10:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — You want to go with WP:CRYSTAL? Really? We've been down this rabbit hole before. Here's the argument in a nutshell: if we can't assume that all parties to a contract intend to fulfil it as stated, then we can't include anything in the driver table because they might not see that contract out.

Do you want to remove the table from the article, or should I? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"José María López and Luiz Razia are two examples who spring to my mind as to why we shouldn't."

Isn't that an assumption in and of itself? You're saying "a contract exists, but it might not be fulfilled" based on nothing more than two isolated incidents (one of which—Lopez—was arguably beyond his control) and the vague supposition that some unforeseen event might prevent the contract from being fulfilled. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep your cool please. No we shouldn't remove the content in the table or the table itself because we can verify these contracts exist today. However we cannot verify now who starts the 2016 Australian Grand Prix; That's why we have WP:Crystal and we cannot write things like "x will happen". If you can suggest a better wording for the content in question which keeps satisfying that policy, please do so.Tvx1 11:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"However we cannot verify now who starts the 2016 Australian Grand Prix"

No, we can't, but you're ignoring the implications of what you're suggesting—that drivers might make it to Melbourne, but then again, they might not. And you're using the suggestion that they might not to dictate the way the article should be written, despite no evidence to the contrary.

"That's why we have WP:Crystal and we cannot write things like "x will happen""

And for the same reasons, you cannot imply "x will not happen".

"If you can suggest a better wording for the content in question which keeps satisfying that policy, please do so."

Let's assume for the moment that there is no alternate wording. What is the lesser evil? Suggesting that a driver will race because they signed a contract, or suggesting that a driver will not race because of an outside event that has not happened (and may never happen). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, so long as you're using Lopez and Razia as an historical example to demonstrate why a contract might not be fulfilled, I'll direct your attention back to Hülkenberg as an example of why saying that a driver has a contract is not sufficient.

"Keep your cool please."

How about I decide how I am feeling, and you just concern yourself with the content of the article? You have no way of knowing how I feel right now, but if ever my mood changes, I'll be sure to let you know about it. If, for example, I was feeling irritated, I would say words to the effect of "some dickhead is trying to undermine me with an ad hominem attack by insinuating that I am making decisions based on emotions". Since I haven't said anything like that, you haven't got a leg to stand on claiming that. But I'll give you a hint: continuing to imply that I have lost my temper when I haven't is a sure-fire way to ensure to raise my hackles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you write something like, "Do you want to remove the table from the article, or should I?", that's clear reaction borne out of emotion. Now please comment on the content instead of on the users. No-one is suggesting anyone will not race. Now, do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future? Tvx1 12:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"No-one is suggesting anyone will not race."

No, you're IMPLYING it. You just cited two examples where contracts existed, but were never fulfilled, and we just had Hülkenberg get out of his Force India contract. Anyone taking a broad view of the article will see it. And what's worse, you're justifying it under CRYSTAL while breaking CRYSTAL to pieces. In saying "we don't know who will race in Melbourne", you're predicting a future event that will prevent the contract from being fulfilled.

The contract says that the driver will race provided that all conditions are met; it creates a status quo. In order for that status quo to change, there must be some external event that forces change. We don't know what that event is. We don't know if it will even happen. But you edits amount to "we can't say for sure because something might happen, even if we don't know what that might be". That, in itself, is breaking CRYSTAL. You may not be speculating in the article, but you're letting that speculation guide the decisions that you are making and in the end, you're misrepresenting the situation.

We should be observing the status quo established by the contract, not second-guessing it because of the potential for something to change it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're reasoning is once again a logical fallacy because in no way is the content in the article currently tying to speculate, predict or imply anything. It's literally representing current facts verifiable through the sources backing them. I'm certainly not " letting speculation guide the decisions that I'm are making" I'm letting policies and guidelines guide my decisions. The relevant policies here are crystal and verify and judging on your previous reply I'm seriously beginning to doubt that you actually understand the former. In fact, I'm not sure you even understand what predicting the future means. Predicting the future would be stating something like: "Driver X will drive." or "Driver X will not drive." What I did was simply stating fact, as it is the simple truth that we don't know at all what will happen in the world five months from now. I only cited those Lopez and Razia examples to point out why your wording is a no-go. I have not used them in any way in the article. It has never been our intention in the season articles to have our pre-season driver tables predict the starting grids. We have always labelled it "Signed teams and drivers. The goal has always been to tell our readers who is currently signed up to drive in the upcoming season in question and the prose underneath the table should follow that. Thus your claim that "saying that a driver has a contract is not sufficient" is wrong as it is in reality the only verifiable fact that we can say. No I will close of my reply once again with a (copy-pasted) request for a collaborative, constructive reply: Do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future? Tvx1 12:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

'in no way is the content in the article currently tying to speculate, predict or imply anything"

But your justification does. Your entire argument for keeping the wording as it is hinges on the idea that we cannot say for certain who will race in Melbourne. Like I said, the contract establishes a status quo, a guarantee that future events will take place provided that all conditions are met. We can reasonably assume that all parties will meet those conditions because that's what the contract says that they will do. Therefore, the only thing that can prevent the contract from being fulfilled is some external event, which, as I have said, has not happened yet and which we have no way of knowing if it will come about. Therefore, your entire justification is based on speculating about the possibility of a future event.

"Do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future?"

Yes, I do: we say that Vandoorne will race because that's what the contract says that he will do. Tell me, do you have any reliable, verifiable evidence that says Vandoorne will not race? Or is it just a vague supposition of what might happen? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Vandoorne will race is not different wording that does not involve predicting the future. It's exactly what you entered in the article and why we're having this discussion. Being constructive/collaborative does not involve clinging on to your own wording. Now, please stop accusing me of trying to predict the future. Why on earth do you have any reliable, verifiable evidence that says Vandoorne will not race??? At no point have claimed he will not nor does the article in its current state. In fact I couldn't care less what will happen in five months now. What I care about is representing the facts that as they stand right now, verifiable through sources. We can't state that something will happen in wikipedia's own guaranteeing voice because a)it's really common sense that we can't and b)wikipedia policy. So once again, (copy-paste) do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future?Tvx1 00:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"At no point' have claimed he will not nor does the article in its current state."

No, you haven't said it, but you're wilfully ignoring the point: you're using it to guide your entire argument. How many times do I have to say it? You're letting the assumption that something could happen override our knowledge of what will happen. The contract says that, should everything continue as expected, planned and intended, Vandoorne will race. What evidence do you have to refute that?

"In fact I couldn't care less what will happen in five months now. What I care about is representing the facts that as they stand right now, verifiable through sources."

You're making the same mistake that you always do: you're so fixated on what the article looks like today that you forget about what it will look tomorrow. The best articles are articles that are written to be current, but with one eye on the future.

"Being constructive/collaborative does not involve clinging on to your own wording."

Nor does acting like a self-appointed gatekeeper. You don't own the article, so please stop behaving as if you are the final authority on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't said it, but you're wilfully ignoring the point: you're using it to guide your entire argument.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm using policies to guide my judgement. I've already said that before but you apparently refuse to accept it. That doesn't change it being true.

The contract says that, should everything continue as expected, planned and intended, Vandoorne will race. What evidence do you have to refute that?
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The answer is there in your statement. You state a big if yourself and we obviously can't guarantee these things will happen. That's why we can't use "x will happen" in Wikipedia's voice. I'll repeat as well that neither I nor the article are claiming that Vandoorne won't race.

You're making the same mistake that you always do: you're so fixated on what the article looks like today that you forget about what it will look tomorrow.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That's because the policies force me to. And it's very logical they do.

The best articles are articles that are written to be current, but with one eye on the future.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Keeping on eye on the future does not equate to presenting content as facts to our readers in wikipedia's voice when they aren't yet. We have already explained that last year during the Lotus/Renault and Marussia/Manor issues.

Please stop behaving as if you are the final authority on the subject.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't. You're the only acting authoritative here. You were once again reverted by more than one editor and then barged onto the talk page demanding that your wording be reinstated. I have ended every of my replies with an attempt to get a constructive suggestion that keeps satisfying the policies. It's an attempt to find a compromise that satisfies everyone as well as the policies. You refuse to collaborate with that attempt though. So here goes again, (copy-paste) do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future?Tvx1 10:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"You state a big if yourself and we obviously can't guarantee these things will happen."

Do you ... even understand what a contract is? How would you describe it, if not a legally binding document that outlines the expectations of two or more parties to realise a future event?

"You're the only acting authoritative here"

Really. You're the one demanding alternatives and refusing to acknowledge the inherent problems in his own argument. For some reason, you cannot seem to grasp the way you're using CRYSTAL to justify your edits. So, here it is again, in the simplest terms:

A contract is a guarantee of a future. The only thing that can prevent that future is an unknown event. You say "we can't guarantee that future", which means that you think that that unknown event might happen. You have no evidence of this. Therefore, you are predicting that the contract might not be fulfilled despite the nature of the contract outlining what will happen, which is CRYSTAL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I understand what a contract. You obviously don't. I doesn't guarantee what you wan't to present to our readers is a verified fact. Again, I'm not predicting any contract won't be fulfilled. Predicting and might are not synonyms. They are quite contrary to each other in fact. You obviously don't understand what "predicting the future means". It involves attesting that something is certain to/no to happen. That almost always involves the use of the word "will". I haven't done that, so please stop these nonsense insinuations that I'm predicting the future. I'm only ensuring that the article's wording is in line with policy. We are bound by policy. Lastly I'm not demanding alternatives. I'm suggesting that we start being collaborative and try to find a compromise that satisfies all. So (copy-paste) do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future? Tvx1 15:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"I'm suggesting that we start being collaborative and try to find a compromise that satisfies all."

You may well be the first person to suggest something without actually suggesting anything.

"Predicting and might are not synonyms. They are quite contrary to each other in fact."

Except that this isn't about prediction. It's about speculation. If you're acknowledging the possibility of some external event preventing the contract from being fulfilled, you're speculating. You're saying "we can't guarantee that Vandoorne will race" despite the contract saying that he will, so clearly you think that something might happen to prevent it. That's speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We report verifiable facts. The verifiable facts are that these drivers have contracts to race next year. We do not have any way of verifying that they will actually race. Report the verifiable fact and let the reader make the inference themselves, it is not up to us to say that something in the future will or will not happen. We cannot verify that. Robert Kubica had a contract to race for Lotus in 2011. Did he actually take part in any races that year? No. Stick to facts Prisonermonkeys, not speculative, forward-looking statements. If you want to write a prognostication blog ahead and do that, but Wikipedia is not a blogging site. Try Wordpress. Pyrope 22:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

" Robert Kubica had a contract to race for Lotus in 2011. Did he actually take part in any races that year? No."

And that falls under force majeure. When the contract was signed, he had every intention of racing and the team had every intention of running a car for him. But his accident was an external event, something that nobody anticipated, but prevented him from racing.

It's entirely possible that Vandoorne will get a bad case of gastro two days before the race and be unable to participate (or any one of a thousand and one other things). We have no way of knowing if that will happen, but by the same token, we have no way of knowing that it won't. This is where my issue comes into it: sure, the wording of the article is technically correct, but it's built on the premise that something might happen to prevent Vandoorne from racing, whereas the contract says that he will race. We've traded the certainty that every reliable source provides based on the possibility of something preventing it. If that something were to happen, it would require additional sources to verify.

Saying that Vandoorne will race is the more representative version because every reliable source available says that he will. This is the only site I can find that doesn't say it, and it doesn't say it because of the potential for some vaguely-defined and amorphous thing to happen at some indeterminate point in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Keeping WP:BALL in mind, it would seem most appropriate to wait to add drivers until the team announces their driver lineups. Wikipedia is NOT the place for speculation.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The team has announced their line-up: Alonso and Vandoorne. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the article is built on the premise of what's a verifiable fact right now and what's acceptable by policy. The certainty which you claim every reliable source and every contract provide simply does not exist. We have already provided you three examples why: José María López, Luiz Razia and Robert Kubica. I can add another two: Érik Comas and Christophe Bouchut in 1995. The latter of whom never made his scheduled F1 debut. Tvx1 13:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"The certainty which you claim every reliable source and every contract provide simply does not exist."

So you admit that there is the potential for something to happen that would prevent the contract from being fulfilled. I'll ask you again: do you have any specific evidence to suggest that something will happen to Vandoorne, or are you just guessing?

I find it very strange that you support the continued inclusion of the calendae in the discussion below, even though the certainty that you claim does not exist here does not exist there. And then you wonder why I get frustrated when there is no consistency to the way articles are edited. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What lack of consistency are you on about?? The entire team and drivers section is labeled "Signed teams and drivers (and that's for a reason). The whole calendar section is introduced with prove clearly stating it's a provisional calendar. The whole article is written with the consistent editing of presenting verifiable facts. And I don't know why you continue to imply this, but for the umpteenth I'm NOT claiming something will/will not happen. In fact you, and you alone, are insisting that we should state something will happen. Tvx1 00:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"I'm NOT claiming something will/will not happen."

I don't know where you're pulling this from. I never said that you were claiming something—I said that you're basing your decisions on speculation, so even if the wording is technically correct, the reasoning behind it is faulty, and that undermines the content of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You requesting evidence from me that something will not happen is a clear claim that I had stated so. As I have stated many times before, I'm basing my desicions on policies. You utterly refusing to accept that doesn't make it untrue.Tvx1 10:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What is this argument even about? What do each of you want? Wicka wicka (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wicka wicka Your guess is as good as mine, mate. I feel an Attenborough voice-over is needed. Unfortunately, like the usual animals Attenborough comments on, it seems constant banging together of heads has rid these poor editors of their brain cells. Such a shame. I actually had to re-read that a few times to figure out what they actually wanted to happen.

For what it's worth, I agree with Prisonermonkeys (I think - it's kind of hard to keep track) in that as long as a contract is signed, and Vandoorne's been announced (which he has) it's reasonable to assume he will race next season. However I don't see any reason to change the wording - if we're taking the definition of a contract Prisonermonkeys posted above, there's no need to read "signed a contract" with any doubt. And if anything does happen, we can change it.

Tl;dr - Vandoorne's probably going to race in 2017, wording doesn't need to change. Allypap81 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Loving the use of 'probably' and 'reasonable to assume' in there. Does rather suggest you don't understand the concept of encyclopedic writing. If you want to write a commentary blog on what is probably reasonable to assume about the world next year then by all means go and find yourself a blogging site. Wikipedia is not your metier. Pyrope 00:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Prisonermonkeys wants to say something like "Vandoorne has signed a contract, but he might break it," correct? I can't for the life of me figure out what Tvx1 is arguing in return, though. Pyrop, given the way these two have been going at each other for the last few days, the last thing we need is to incite another flamewar. Cool your jets, please. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka — no, I don't want to say that at all. The contract forms a guarantee that Vandoorne will race. The only thing that can prevent that is something that would require additional sources, like Alonso's testing accident. So I think that the wording should reflect that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, no. Prisonermonkeys wants to write something like "Vandoorne will race". Policy prohibits us from doing do so, however. After all we can't verify what will happen in the future. As for me, I have no personal desire for an exact wording. My only concern is that we use a wording that does not establish a future event as verified fact, in line with policy. And prisonermonkeys, a contract does not give such a guarantee. We have given more than enough examples as to why. Tvx1 13:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

In practice, to readers who are not editors and are not familiar with wiki policy (i.e. the vast majority of readers), those two statements are identical. Prisonermonkeys, you said in your very first comment that you "know this is a quibble." It's exactly that. Right or wrong, your change will improve the quality of the article not one iota. Don't get me wrong, I am endlessly frustrated with the inflexibility of wiki policy and the constant reliance on rules that were devised years ago by nameless, faceless internet people who don't have the faintest clue what's actually best for an encyclopedia (see: replacing tables with prose, the stupidest rule in the world). Nonetheless, "Vandoorne will race" and "Vandoorne has signed a contract" mean the same damn thing to 99% of readers. Is this really the hill you want to die on? Wicka wicka (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, well done and thank you for having decided to wade into this mess. Brave. Just FYI, this is part of a long-running problem with this editor that spans many talk pages, numerous other editors, and oceans of electronic ink. Mostly the issues stem from two sources: Prisonermonkeys's misinformed belief that a "contract forms a guarantee"; and their refusal to accept any form of editorial consensus that runs counter to their own point of view. On the first point, a contract is only ever an agreement regarding the exchange of considerations. Any party can break a contract at any time; there may be issues of consequential loss and resulting compensatory actions or payments, but there is no absolute guarantee. Using that as a hook to hang predictive, forward-looking, guesstimate statements on is simply unencyclopedic and misleading. It also introduces unstable forms of words that become stale through time if not updated by a later editor once the event has come to pass. There are numerous examples of this just in our Motorsport articles, and Wikipedia as a whole is lousy with out of date 'currently' and 'so-and-so will' statements. As you rightly point out, to most readers the existence of a contract strongly implies that an event will happen, but to explicitly state that is misleading. Let the reader make the inference themselves, and keep the prose here correct and stable. Both are achievable, unless you employ Prisonermonkeys' form of words. As for the second point, who know what will happen. Pyrope 19:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Just FYI, this is part of a long-running problem with this editor that spans many talk pages, numerous other editors, and oceans of electronic ink."

You can either take the moral high ground, or you can resort to ad hominem attacks. You can't do both. Especially when you don't have a squeaky-clean record yourself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you also misunderstand the concept of an ad hominem comment. I was specifically addressing the (lack of...) substance in your argument, which stems, as stated, from your misrepresentation of both the nature of a contract and the non-verifiability of statements about future events as yet unhappened. There are only so many times that similar issues crop up with the same editor before it becomes apparent that what is occurring is specific to that editor, and not a wider problem with Wikipedia's protocols and methods. If you choose to interpret that as ad hominem then that's up to you, but it isn't. And I have never claimed moral high ground anywhere, that comment is attacking me on a personal basis rather than my arguments. Pyrope 22:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about some of the recurring issues with editors, shall we? How about this one: it was decided some time ago that the season report section should be a comprehensive run-down of the events of the season. I was the lone dissenting voice (or at the very least, in a minority), but the consensus passed. In the time since, who has done all of the work on this section? Me. Now, I'm well aware that I am probably one of the better writers on the project, but that doesn't change the fact that editors make sweeping decisions about the state of an article, push the responsibility for it to someone else, and then treat that someone else like a serial pest when they dare to question the wisdom of decisions. What was the last contribution you made? This one, where you treat the editors like idiots? You know perfectly well that that content was first written in 2015, that the statements were current when written, and that the article has a low volume of editing traffic. Hence, your statement about "forward-looking statements that never should have been included" was unnecessary at best, and insulting at worst. All you needed to do is say "updating tense of article", but no—you had very little to do with the article, but roll in and treat the people who actually work on it like idiots. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologise if the form of words I used offended you, but the point I was making is perfectly valid and I entirely disagree that it was "unecessary". In fact, it is a great example of the problem I outlined above. If that text had been written in a neutral, stable, factual way in the first place it would not have gone stale. It wouldn't have mattered if the editing volume was low, because it would have been just as true two years down the road as it was when written. Do you see how that works? I used the edit summary to make that plain, possibly in a pointed manner, but always assuming good faith. Edit summaries are there to communicate intentions as well as actions. The implication that I was "treat[ing] editors like idiots" is your own interpretation and wasn't there when I typed. Nobody has ownership of articles here and nobody is forcing you to edit anything you don't want to. In a very literal sense, it isn't your job. Most of us here are recreational editors who do this for some sort of fun, and in most cases that means adding new content. To have the encyclopedia cluttered up with crystal ball statements that go stale within a matter of months inevitably creates the sort of tedious drudge cleanup work that nobody likes doing, and so it doesn't get done. Hence, it shouldn't be there in the first place when a perfectly factual, clear and stable syntax can be created very simply right at the start. Pyrope 02:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Haas

Magnussen In, Gutierez Out at Haas F1 The driver line up can be updated again, now that Jolyon Palmer has been confirmed at Renault and that Kevin Magnussen is moving to Haas replacing Esteban Gutierez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.144.167 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The sources say Magnussen is "poised to sign" i.e. hasn't quite happened yet. Joseph2302 20:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

Add chassis name VF-17 to Haas F1 Team row in Contracted Teams and Drivers table. From: http://www.formula1.com/en/latest/headlines/2016/11/magnussen-to-partner-grosjean-at-haas-in-2017.html - quotes Magnussen "next year's Haas VF-17".

Nt1192 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Bbb2007 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Magnussen's movement

I am commenting this out because these sources do not indicate Magnussen's movement. As we have seen in the past with teams having 3 and even 4 drivers at one time. Remove this comment when a RELIABLE source confirms his movement. Then add his new teams information in here as well. Wikipedia is not a breaking news organization. Wikipedia does not need to be first to the story.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Renault has two seats. Hülkenberg has one, and Palmer the other. Wherever Magnussen ends up, he is leaving the role of race driver. We don't need a source to officially confirm Magnussen's departure from a seat because we already have sources that confirm that the two seats are full. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: See OR which states, "[Original Research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Re-add when a valid source indicates his movement. Again, Wikipedia is not a news source.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@MordeKyle — did you read the edit, or did you just assume? The rules clearly state that a team can only enter two cars. Renault have stated that Hülkenberg and Palmer will drive those two cars. So I am not reaching or implying a conclusion stated not stated by the sources. I am, however, starting to suspect that SchroCat was right. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: yes, I did read the edit, the wording itself is irrelevant, as are the rules of Formula 1. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. 2+2≠4 unless we have a source that says it does.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not treating it as a newspaper. We have sources that confirm Renault's line-up. Magnussen is not a part of that line-up, which is supported by the sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: If you're not treating it as a newspaper, then you should have no problem waiting for a source that confirms Magnussen's future.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You cannot build an article entirely on primary sources. If your only source on what Renault is doing is Renault themselves, then they could publish a press release on April Fool's Day announcing Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as their drivers, and you'd believe it. You need secondary sources to verify primary sources, especially when those primary sources are self-published. If those secondary sources point out that Magnussen is leaving, it is entirely acceptable to include it in the article, even if the team did not explicitly say it. I have those sources at hand, but apparently I need to spell things out in crayon before I can add them because you don't grasp this.

So far, all you have managed to do is prove that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I never said anything about primary sources needing to be used at all. You seem to have a gift of extrapolating things. As I've stated before, we are not breaking news here. We need to wait for a source that verifies his future. Anyone can see that Renault has 2 drivers in their lineup, so it's clear he is not driving for them. That is sourced. Again, with the nature of british media and the silly season and all of that, it makes sense for Wikipedia to wait for a reliable source to confirm his future. Is he going to HAAS, is he going to another team? Is he going to retire? Just wait for a source, the information can be added later when a good source is available.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Is he going to HAAS, is he going to another team? Is he going to retire?"

It doesn't matter. The article only says that he won't be racing for Renault. More information can be added if and when it becomes available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I can understand both sides of the argument, but ultimately I think we can do without a note on Magnussen for the time being. The article isn't worse without it and there isn't any rush. I'm sure we'll learn more about his future soon enough, at which point we'll be able to expand the article.Tvx1 23:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: You're history of rushing to include ever little bit of information on Wikipedia makes me question your intentions here. I've already showed you WP:NOT, yet you blatantly disregard it. Why do you feel this tiny, almost irrelevant, piece of information absolutely has to be added now? Adding this line calls into question where he is going, and we don't have that information. I don't see why you can't just wait a little bit for all of the information involved in this to be fleshed out, so that we may have a truly encyclopedic entry about this information. Added little blurbs of information is not what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a news source!!!!  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Your history of rushing to include ever little bit of information on Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion."

I think that's what you meant to say.

"I've already showed you WP:NOT, yet you blatantly disregard it."

First of all, let me show you a policy. It's called WP:AGF, and you haven't been observing it.

Secondly, you can't just say "WP:NOT" and expect that the situation will automatically resolve in your favour.

"I can understand both sides of the argument."

Oh, good. You're here. You've made up your mind, so I guess there is no point in having any further discussion lest I want to get dragged before the admins for disagreeing with you again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I'm very well aware of WP:AGF, and I did assume good faith until I've seen evidence of other behavior that indicates that I should no longer assume you are editing in good faith. Your history on Wikipedia is rather contentious, a lot of which relates to issues almost identical to this one. So don't you worry, I assume good faith where it is relevant to assume. This is also why your history is relevant to this discussion, regardless of your claim that it isn't. I also don't, "just say "WP:NOT" and expect that the situation will automatically resolve in your favour." I have pointed you directly to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper and explained to you why this information doesn't need to be added right now and can wait.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"I'm very well aware of WP:AGF, and I did assume good faith"

Clearly you aren't, since you questioned my motives the moment that I added something to the article that you wouldn't have. And now you're trying to drag my previous edit history into an isolated discussion as a means to discredit me. You clearly have no imagination, and are treating the fastidious application of policy as a substitute for it. You'll fit right in here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Clearly I am, as I did NOT question your motives until later in our conversation, as can be clearly seen above. I'm not going to continue to argue about nothing with you anymore, have a good day.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to get so worked up about such a major issue. It makes perfect sense to wait and see. More information will undoubtedly become available allowing us to make an encyclopedic addition. Tvx1 00:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Including Magnussen as leaving Renault meets every criteria for a valid edit. Dropping NOT because it isn't an edit that you would personally make and claiming that anyone who would make it is acting as if Wikipedia is a newspaper is taking things a bridge too far.

But whatever. I've had just about enough of this particular flavour of Kool-Aid. The temple of navel-gazing that you've built for yourselves won't last long, and I have no intention of sticking around to watch it collapse from the inside out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

PM loses his marbles occasionally but he is unquestionably correct here. Magnussen IS leaving Renault. It is a proven, objective fact. In what world was this considered worthy of debate? Wicka wicka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka:

'In what world was this considered worthy of debate?"

One where we can't say it if the team didn't explicitly say it, apparently—and a world where one editor can freely accuse another of breaking WP:NOT for making an edit that they personally wouldn't make. Apparently stating that Magnussen will not race for Renault is akin to treating Wikipedia like a newspaper because we don't know where he will go, even though the article never said that he would go anywhere.

You say that I occasionally lose my marbles, but when nonsense like this blocks the progress of the article, sometimes losing my marbles is the only way to get stuff done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, where is this proven? Pyrope 22:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pyrope — Renault have two seats. One is filled by Hülkenberg, the other by Palmer. Renault have confirmed their final driver line-up, and Magnussen is not a part of it. The article only ever said that Magnussen will not be one of their race drivers. The issue here is that MordeKyle wants to completely omit any mention of Magnussen on the grounds that a) Renault have not announced that he will not racd for them, b) there is no information available on where Magnussen will go, and c) it is not an edit that he would personally make. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, that wasn't my question and you know it. As for your claim that "the article only ever said that Magnussen will not be one of their race drivers", that's bullshit. Your own original contribution stated "will leave Renault", and although you later changed that, to say that it never stated what Wicka wicka was claiming as "proven" is crap. Claiming something as "proven" when there is no evidence whatsoever for that is a debate tactic known as "lying". Pyrope 02:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, no one ever contested that Magnussen can no longer acquire a race seat with Renault for 2017. The argument is just that although we could already dedicate a bullet point to Magnussen, we don't have to because the article isn't worse without one and we'll bound to receive more information on Magnussen's future sooner rather than later. When that happens we can include a more encyclopedic bullet point on him. It really shouldn't take long before this issue settles itself.Tvx1 23:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no need for Wikipedia to have incomplete information when we can simply wait a short amount of time to have a complete, encyclopedic, entry with this information. The reason I have brought up Wikipedia not being a newspaper, is related to this exact reason. Why are we in such a hurry to post incomplete information? We don't have a deadline to meet.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand NOTNEWS nearly as well as you think you do. For one, NOTNEWS specifically states that Wikipedia is not used for original reporting, breaking news or as a diary, and the inclusion of Magnussen does not fit any of those.

Secondly, if you look back over previous season articles, you will notice that the driver changes section is written in a very specific manner. Each dot point centres on a seat, essentially outlining the narrative of that seat (I know you're going to hate that word, but it's true). In its final form, that dot point will most likely outline the way Ocon left Manor to join Force India, replacing Hülkenberg who in turn moved to Renault and replaced Magnussen (that being a crude draft). By omitting Magnussen, you're deliberately leaving relevant information out of the article based on nothing more than personal preference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand NOTNEWS well, and relate this to reporting of breaking news. I see you find that subjective, which is fine, but it is still incomplete information, especially in regards to what you are trying to accomplish with this section and these bullet points. This is exactly why this information should be held until we know what is going to happen to Mag. There seems to be a likely chance we will hear something from HAAS soon that indicates he will be going there. As it is now, it just implies that Mag will disappear into the mist of F1 history, as we can't include unsourced information about HAAS, or any other rumors. If you goal is to try to show the roadmap of changes, wait for the complete map so a reader doesn't drive off an incomplete bridge. There is no rush to push out incomplete information.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"If you goal is to try to show the roadmap of changes, wait for the complete map so a reader doesn't drive off an incomplete bridge."

Then I will leave it to you to delete the bullet points in the article. Since we don't know where Magnussen will go, the dot point about Hülkenberg is incomplete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@MordeKyle — your edits are predictive:

"where he will fill the seat left vacant by Nico Hülkenberg's departure to Renault."

You're saying with certainty that Ocon will replace Hülkenberg. But, as the discussions of the past few weeks have decided, you can't say that with certainty.

On the other hand, this is what my edits say:

"Hülkenberg was released from his Force India contract and signed a deal to drive for Renault."

All it states is what has happened—that Hülkenberg signed a contract. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Do whatever you want man. I'm just going to stop contributing to this project. You are the most disruptive editor I think I have ever seen. Enjoy your project.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So I have to observe your decision not to include any mention of Magnussen on the grounds that we don't have all of the information about his future ... but you don't have to observe a previous decision obtained through consensus that we cannot predict future events with certainty in Wikipedia's voice? How does that work? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

What the flying butternut are you talking about now? Your own form of words is "will replace". Theirs is "will fill the seat". BOTH of those are predictive. I suspected during the earlier debate that what we were dealing with was a major deficiency in your linguistic cognition and intellect, and now I see it confirmed. Jeez. Pyrope 02:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I admit it's not perfect, but I am trying. You could help that by patching over some of the bits that I miss; Wikipedia is, after all, supposed to be collaborative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

People try to clean up after you, but your response is almost always outraged indignation and days of back and forth, with you being basically the only person on your side of the interminable argument. Never mind how many times we have to explain things, no matter how much proof, no matter that we have to explain basic points in the English language (such as the verb "to defend") and simple philosophical concepts (such as "the future") you argue and argue and argue. You invent "facts" to suit your case, you claim articles of Wikipedia policy and guidance that just don't exist, and you ignore those that do if they don't fit your side of the argument; and on and on it goes. What you are suffering from is a major case of misplaced ego, and a serious competency issue where language and cognition are concerned. The rich part is that despite having to take days and days out of our editing to try and get it through your thick skull that we can't synthesize information to predict the future, you then try to (mistakenly, almost hilariously) use that argument to berate another editor who had the temerity to adjust your own precious contributions. And you want us to "patch over the bits you miss" like some team of zoo keepers trailing around after a runaway incontinent elephant? Sod off. You are indeed one of the most disruptive, time consuming, enthusiasm sapping editors I have evr had the misfortune of working alongside. Pyrope 02:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"The rich part is that despite having to take days and days out of our editing to try and get it through your thick skull that we can't synthesize information to predict the future, you then try to (mistakenly, almost hilariously) use that argument to berate another editor who had the temerity to adjust your own precious contributions."

As opposed to assuming that people cannot learn? Look at the article since the consensus was achieved—how many times have I gone back and changed it? The only substantial one has been merging the points about Ocon and Hülkenberg. I freely admit that the wording isn't perfect. And the only thing stopping me from changing it is that I can't think of a better way to express it. I do, however, know that there are other editors who have skills in that area. So the way I see it, I can do the rough draft and others can put the finishing touches on it to bring it up to project standards.

But no. The one time I recognise the consensus by attempting to preserve the language that the project deems most suitable, you come charging in and accuse me of being deliberately disruptive. Ironically enough, you defend a version of the article that doesn't hold up the consensus that you previously agreed upon, as opposed to a version that (at least partially) does.

"And you want us to "patch over the bits you miss" like some team of zoo keepers trailing around after a runaway incontinent elephant? Sod off."

I do it all the time. Go back and read the season reports some time, especially when they haven't been updated for a while (some of the post-Mexico edits were particularly poor). Or better yet, compare the quality of the writing in McLean MP4-30 (an article that I almost single-handedly wrote) to the writing in McLaren MP4-31 (an article that I haven't touched yet).

"You are indeed one of the most disruptive, time consuming, enthusiasm sapping editors I have evr had the misfortune of working alongside."

And you're one of the most autocratic, inflexible, intolerant and hypocritical editors that I have encountered. So I guess that makes us even. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh goody, another crock of bullshit and lies to sift through, how very predictable. At no point have I defended either your version or that of MordeKyle; I pointed out that they were BOTH flawed in exactly the same way. What I was addressing was your ignorant, holier-than-thou treatment of MordeKyle, despite the fact (demonstrable, with evidence) that you had done exactly the same thing! I have also never accused you of being deliberately disruptive, so again you are inventing things and misrepresenting the words of others for your own benefit. You are, though, extremely disruptive. That you don't seem to recognize this is a very serious problem, and a problem of competence, as I said above. It is only when you have been backed against a wall by days and days of evidence-based argument from other people that you even begin to concede that you might have been wrong, and at that point you decide to adopt the garb of saintly martyr. At no point do you ever apologize for your obnoxious, illogical, unsustainable posturing and the waste of everyone's time. And bully for you, you do some cleanup work once in a while. Fabulous. Brilliant. Have a lollipop. So why, when others clean your stuff up, do you behave in such an abhorrent manner? This is disruptive. This wastes other people's time. This sucks energy and motivation out of the project. The accusations you have plucked out of your backside to level at me are supported by... what? Evidence? Doubtful, but if you have any let's hear it. Pyrope 04:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it's pretty obvious that you have no intention of assuming good faith. The one time I make an effort to uphold the consensus, and you immediately spin it as me deliberately trying to be disruptive. I'm not going to bother trying to justify myself to you because I know that there is no convincing you, and I know that there is no convincing you. Like I said, you're autocratic, inflexible, intolerant and hypocritical. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

As ever, you need to go away and re-read WP:AGF. There is no requirement to assume anything when bad faith is demonstrated. You can't justify yourself, as your position is indefensible. As ever, when asked for evidence you go off in a self-righteous huff and fail to provide anything. Remember you asinine guff about GPUpdate? Still no sign of that photo you were ever so vocal about. Autocratic, how? Inflexible, where? Hypocritical, when? I provide evidence and ask that you provide evidence in return. Pyrope 05:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I note that you have repeated your claim that I accused you of being "deliberately disruptive". Just as an easy gimme, where was that? Which words did I use? When was this? Hmm? Pyrope 05:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point all of you are basically just vandalizing the page. Magnussen has left Renault, this is an established fact, and we should mention this in the Driver Changes section as we have done since always. Stop acting like this, it's ridiculous. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Who are you even replying to? Regardless, I don't think you quite understand what vandalism means. Anyway, MordeKyle, Prisonermonkeys, Pyrope, I have tweaked the bullet point on Ocon to remove the predictive wording. Does it satisfy all of you now. Tvx1 14:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Simple, elegant, and if nothing changes it will not require someone to go back in a few months time and rewrite the whole thing. Pyrope 17:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

And more to the point, this is collaboration in action. Certainly a far more productive way of doing things than abusing editors for not getting it perfectly right every time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

...aaaand evade the questions yet again. No evidence? Nothing? Pyrope 22:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, that's not an example of collaborative editing. That's an example of why you should wait for something to be announced before trying to shove it into Wikipedia, precisely the opposite of what you have been arguing for on many pages for weeks now. Don't act the sanctimonious saint again, this is proving you wrong. An apology might be in order, but I'm afraid I have very limited expectation that you are able to muster that level of common decency. Pyrope 22:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"An apology might be in order, but I'm afraid I have very limited expectation that you are able to muster that level of common decency."

You'd probably dismiss it as lies and bullshit again, and try to imply that I am only doing it to be disruptive. You've got some nerve, thinking that you can abuse another editor and then expect that an apology is in order from them. And since I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to apologise for your own behaviour, I'm going to suggest that you follow suit. I'll apologise to people who deserve it, and people who generally act like a prick don't make that list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You're hilarious and utterly predictable. Still repeating untruths and providing no evidence at all for any of the other lies you've been propogating, and yet acting as though you are somehow the injured party. Clueless. Pyrope 00:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There you go, in the mean time the Magnussen situation solved itself.Tvx1 18:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I collapsed the bullet points on Magnussen/Grosjean and Gutiérrez. Gutiérrez is directly affected by the Magnussen/Grosjean announcement, so it didn't make much sense to have them at opposite ends of the list. Since the list is written alphabetically, the Gutiérrez dot point would have appeared in close proximity to the Magnussen/Grosjean one anyway. Tweaked some of the wording to remove redundancies; "contract renewal" (or some variation thereof) was mentioned twice in as many sentences.

I appreciate that it may not be perfect, in which case someone polishing it up to project standards might be called for. Did the best with what I had; you can either make it better or start slinging shit again. Your choice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Italy

I noticed this article recently. That would suggest that the Italian Grand Prix is "subject to confirmation" as well. Should we reflect this in the article.Tvx1 20:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well the table relates to and is sourced by the calendar announced by the FIA, so I suspect that adding another "to be confirmed" to that would constitute synthesis. However, there is nothing to stop you adding another footnote below that is sourced by the article you've found. Pyrope 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Renault named their 2017 chassis the R.S.17. http://en.f1i.com/news/81300-bell-foundations-future-laid.html 74.65.104.234 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Class455 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

http://en.f1i.com/news/81300-bell-foundations-future-laid.html 74.65.104.234 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. That site is a self-published fansite, which are not considered reliable sources. See WP:RS. Class455 (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing dubious source for Wehrlein

I've removed the rather dubious looking source that claims Wehrlein is signed for Sauber. The quickly translated version of the German article (from Motorsport-Total) seems to site itself for the information. Maybe wait for Sauber or Pascal to make the confirmation themselves. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

That is the usual standard - a direct quote from a person who is named and considered to be in a position to comment with some authority (Ericsson's manager okay; the guy he buys his coffee from is not). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Rosberg's number

The driver has retired from the sport
Just a quick note because we go through this every year: although Rosberg is entitled to use #1, consensus holds that his number should be #6 until such time as he chooses #1. This is because #6 is assigned to him for his career, and will be put aside if he chooses to use #1. In other words, #6 IS his number, while #1 MIGHT be his number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Grand Prix

As in majority of cases of Grand Prix naming we use an adjective (British GP, French GP, etc.), shouldn't we use Azerbaijani Grand Prix instead of Azerbaijan Grand Prix? cherkash (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

We should probably reflect the official name of the race, once that becomes known. The FIA's provisional 2017 calendar doesn't help, since it only lists countries, not race titles. I notice that some travel sites refer to the race as the "Azerbaijan Grand Prix", e.g. [1], [2] - of course I don't consider them as official sources, but they might be the best we have to go on for now. DH85868993 (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand there is no "Monegasque Grand Prix". We don't synthesise naming schemes, but reflect sources. So far I haven't seen any call it the Azerbaijani Grand Prix.Tvx1 13:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And the GPs of the United States, Luxembourg, Singapore, etc. It's not standardised to that extent. You can almost guess which races won't use an adjective form by looking at whether or not it would sound awkward in English. QueenCake (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Driver order based on FIA entry list

I believe the order in which drivers appear per team is now based on their car number, which is fine, but I reckon we could follow the order of the FIA's entry list, which has a number of differences. Lustigson (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, our table is listed alphabetically on constructor name. I'm not eager on following the FIA entry list because there doesn't seem to be any logical system to it.Tvx1 13:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The order in which the FIA has published its entrants is indeed a mystery. I do not propose to follow that list regarding constructors' order, but rather the drivers per constructor, e.g. Alonso above Vandoorne. Lustigson (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's more logical to keep it by driver number, since we can't see the pattern with the FIA, and I suspect there probably isn't one. It gives us a consistent standard to work to from year to year, and stops people second-guessing themselves in the absence of entry lists. QueenCake (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"The FIA does it that way" is detrimental. We are under no obligation to perfectly replicate the source—so long as we include all of the information contained in the source, we can use our discretion as to how we arrange it in the article. We generally like to arrange it in an order that makes it easiest for the reader to understand. Imitating the FIA entry list does not do that. Say Alonso (#14) is listed before Vandoorne (#2); is that being arranged alphabetically by driver name? If so, why is Stroll (#18) being listed before Bottas (#77)? There is no apparent order or reason to the organisation of the entry list, and that translates very poorly into the article. For some time now, consensus has held that the table is structures according to the following order:

1. Constructors are listed alphabetically.
2. Drivers are listed numerically within the team; if they do not have a number, they are listed alphabetically.
3. In the event a driver is replaced mid-season, the rounds column takes priority regardless of number to reflect which driver is replaced (which was very useful when Manor ran four drivers).

It's generally worked pretty well. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Toro Rosso engines

Tvx1 has correctly updated the Teams/Drivers table to reflect that Toro Rosso's engine supplier is TBA, per the official FIA entry list. While Toro Rosso HAS signed a contract with Renault for next season, they are expected to rebrand them, much like Red Bull has done with TAG Heuer. Hope that clears up any potential confusion. I expect at least a few people will wonder why that's listed as TBA when it was confirmed months ago that they'd be using Renault engines. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it should be listed as Renault until such time as the situation changes. After all, we can demonstrate that Toro Rosso signed a contract with Renault; we can't rightly ignore that and call it "TBA" because of the unsubstantiated "expectation" that they will be rebadged as "TAG Heuer". That's speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If FIA say it's TBA, then surely it should be TBA. Unless we can find sources referring to them as Toro Rosso-Renault, the FIA is the best source we have. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not "unsubstantiated expectation." The entry list says "to be confirmed." Can you not read? I only mentioned the TAG Heuer stuff to explain the situation further. I was quite clearly not suggesting that we include that information. Why is it ALWAYS you who starts this shit? Wicka wicka (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't list them like that because of any expectation. We list them as TBA because that's what the entry list states. We reflect the source. Wicka wicka, please tone it down. PM made one talk page comment and made no edits regarding this issue. There is no"shit". Moreover, you started this discussion. We would appreciate if you would strike your personal attacks above.Tvx1 15:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The dude starts shit constantly, this isn't a controversial suggestion. It's like he's a professional contrarian always trying to derail simple discussions into massive arguments and flamewars. I'll strike my "personal attacks" (read: correct accusations) if he comes back and admits he was wrong. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop the personal rants. This adds nothing to the discussion. Work you indifferences out on your own talk pag(es). Not here.Tvx1 15:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to partake in the discussion if you don't want to. Like it or not, he made this discussion what it is now, and it's his responsibility to change it. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody brought this discussion to where it is now, so kindly bring an end to it.

As for Toro Rosso, we have a verified source saying they have a contract for Renault engines. We have another verified source that says their engine is "To Be Confirmed". Technically Toro Rosso has no obligation to tell the FIA who their engine supplier is, or what they will be named. The FIA simply published the information that they had available to them. We have had FIA entry lists in the past that have not listed drivers that we knew had announced contracts, and we have also had FIA entry lists which listed teams with the caveat that they themselves knew the team names would be changing because of a sale. In my mind, Toro Rosso's announced contract trumps any "unknown" in the FIA's entry list. As such we should list their engine as Renault as we have nothing but speculation that the engine name will be changed. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to use the engine name Renault, then the burden of proof is on you to find sources saying that they will use a Renault named engine. We have no idea what they're going to call the engine, hence TBA is appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion that it will be renamed is what requires the burden of proof, honestly. Any team could rebadge their engines, yet we list Mercedes and Ferrari without any such burden. This burden you are placing on this specific fact is based solely on unverified rumor. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with the current situation. It's reflecting the recent most reliable source on the matter. It's also a self-solving matter as we will soon rather than later which power unit will use. Therefore, it's certainly not worth get so fussed about. Tvx1 22:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Why is it ALWAYS you who starts this shit?"

You opened the door. I merely walked through it:

"While Toro Rosso HAS signed a contract with Renault for next season, they are expected to rebrand them, much like Red Bull has done with TAG Heuer. "

You said it yourself—"they are expected to rebrand them". This is little more than a rumour, and you have not provided any reliable, verifiable or independent sources to substantiate it. Yet you use this to justify listing the engine supplier as TBA. So, why did I "start this shit"? Because your justification is shit, ignoring four key policies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is contention over the engine name, I think that we could justify listing the constructor name as "Toro Rosso-TBA" and the engine name as Renault. After all, we have a satisfactory source that demonstrates Toro Rosso signed a deal with Renault, and the FIA entry list only confirms the constructor name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is little more than a rumour, and you have not provided any reliable, verifiable or independent sources to substantiate it. Yet you use this to justify listing the engine supplier as TBA.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 22:53, 7 December 2016

Not at all. We are using FIA's entry list, a very recent reliable source, to justify the power unit supplier as TBA. There is a column called "Name of the engine" on the entry list and it has Toro Rosso's engine as TBA, hence why we do the same here.Tvx1 00:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I was talking about Wicka wicka's justification for keeping the name as "TBA" on the grounds that it was "widely expected" that they would be entered as TAG Heuer engines. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, they wrote that Toro Rosso could rename their power units, just like Red Bull Racing named theirs Tag Heuer. There's no inferring that Toro Rosso will use the same name. Regardless, what counts is how the content is presented in the article and whether it's supported by the sources present to our readers. And currently it is.Tvx1 01:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit

I was wondering how i can access editing this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PD001 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

PD001 This page is semi-protected, so only editors with an autoconfirmed account can edit. Your account needs to be 4 days old and have had 10 edits. Or you can suggest changes on this talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. PD001 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Put Pascal Wehrlein in the Sauber seat 108.20.170.144 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See my response below. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Nick gug02 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Pascal Wehrlein from Manor has recently moved to Sauber

 Not done The sources on it say that "the final steps are now being made to get everything signed off formally". It's not a done deal yet. We'll add it when it's a done deal announced by Sauber. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ferrari engine named

Ferrari calling the power units this season 062/2 according to Motorsport.com. http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-ferrari-tipped-for-new-livery-new-engine-tech-in-f1-2017-862449/?s=1 PD001 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Motorsport.com have already gotten Ferrari power unit names wrong in the past. Let's wait until the team or one of its customers announces a name.Tvx1 18:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Frequently they will just assume engine and car names based on previous naming schemes. Everyone will already be referring to next year's McLaren as the MP4-32, for example, even though they haven't announced it yet. Ferrari is even more risky in this regard because they tend to randomly abandon naming schemes. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

PLEASE Put Pascal Wehrlein in the Sauber seat. Autosport, which is a reliable source of information (that is something you wanted in my last request), says that he's secured a deal with the Swiss Team. 24.200.116.20 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done They don't quote anyone in a position to speak for the driver or team, so we can't use them. We need a source that is both reliable and quotes the driver or the team in question.Tvx1 00:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

24.200.116.20 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Empty request. Please specify the change you want us to make.Tvx1 00:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyre column

See discussion at WT:F1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Mclaren

MCLaren naming chassis MP4-32 confirmed on Formula1.com. 74.65.104.234 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)