Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Proposal for the flag field in F1 infoboxes

This is a long-running issue, but it should be addressed. I've just had an exchange with an editor who was removing these flags, who made some good suggestions with regard to our flag use in infoboxes which might better satisfy WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Although the most recent discussion resulted in overwhelming support for keeping the flags, we could still make some adjustments to make our flag usage clearer. We should not see our large numbers as an opportunity to ride roughshod over any MOS recommendations.

The editor's comment was as follows: "...you don't really want or need to show the person's nationality with a flag appended but want to display their nationality as shown in FIA F1 Super Licence they hold. So my question would be, why not call a spade a spade? Instead of attaching a flagicon to the name of the country of birth, don't call it Nationality but call it what it really is FIA Super Licence nationality with a flagicon and leave the personal details section with place of birth free of the flagicon, as is usual. To me that might even be just about acceptable to the WP:INFOBOXFLAG enforcers. It would be similar to the Allegiance link and flagicon for a military person, such as we see for Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein that uses the template {{Infobox military person}}."

This seems very reasonable to me, so I propose renaming the nationality field as he suggests, and keeping it separate from birthplace / birthdate details. It is an F1 infobox after all. This would clarify the link to FIA Super Licence#Nationality of drivers, which as he rightly points out, is completely unsourced. That really needs to be fixed.

I'm going on a Wikibreak as of tomorrow, but I was hoping you guys would be able to discuss this and maybe come to a conclusion. It's not a big stretch for us, and it would make things clearer for others. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

At first glance I'd rather have Racing licence nationality. The Super Licence has not always been required to race in F1, but I believe a racing licence has always been required to race. Since some drivers don't race with their actual nationality, but their racing licence nationality (Grosjean, Gachot, etc), I think it would still remain accurate. Plus, it can be used outside of F1 infoboxes, though we'd need to visit WP:MOTORSPORT to do that. —Gyaro –Maguus— 13:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I also would prefer the label to be something more like "Racing licence nationality" - it seems a bit incongruous to have a field labelled "Superlicence nationality" in (for example) Ascari's infobox. But apart from that, I'm happy with the general principle. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the exact wording can be changed to suit us: I like "Racing licence nationality" or something similar. It's less specific and would certainly make more sense historically, and superlicences are always subject to change anyway, as we've seen lately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently. This is NOT how a F1 driver's nationality is determined. Quite in the contrary. Article 9.5.2 of the FIA's International Sporting Code states: " All Drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their Licence, participating in any FIA World Championship Competition, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, publications and prize‐giving ceremonies." Thus drivers with a dual nationality like Grosjean, Nico Rosberg en now Max Verstappen simply chose which country they want to represent. I think renaming the field simply to "Sporting nationality" or "Racing nationality" would be a much more adequate description. Tvx1 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what you're disagreeing with. I'm talking about renaming the field, not changing how we determine nationality or anything like that. Are you just objecting to the world "licence" in the field? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm objecting renaming it to "Racing Licence Nationality", because as result of article 9.5.2. there is a possibility that the racing license nationality does not match the nationality a driver uses in F1. That label does not coverer all possibilities. A prime example of this is André Lotterer. Lotterer is actually a German-Belgian dual national who actually has a Belgian racing licence, but opted to represent Germany under article ISC article 9.5.2. Tvx1 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see in any problem in calling it racing nationality. As far as I am concerned, it quite honestly denotes the same information – the nationality that the driver uses to race. The actual nationality is not relevant, just the nationality that the driver uses, and thus the issue that the person Breton was talking to had. As for the passport point, unless we have references on what nationality passport a driver has, we cannot use that specific definition to fill out the parameter. Rather, we have to use things like this (and this) to define the nationality. As a slight note, one thing I do know about German passports is that if you have a German passport, you cannot have another passport. This is why Lotterer is German and races as a German. On an extra note, there is nothing stopping us from filling the parameter with multiple nationalities, but in the way it is done at Bertrand Gachot and potentially to place both German and Belgian nationalities in Lotterer's infobox. In these situations I would source the information, place a note, or simply write something like "German (FIA) · Belgian (holds licence)" (but with a line break). —Gyaro –Maguus— 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: upon reading German passport, I learn that a German is allowed to hold both a German and an EU or Swiss passport (as a second passport), but not a not non-EU or non-Swiss one. Since Belgium is in the EU, my initial assumption is technically incorrect. What I believe to be the case is that Lotterer is German, not Belgian, because he is German-born and thus German nationality law places that with higher importance. —Gyaro –Maguus— 16:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Erm, No. German nationality law places those who are born and raised in Germany with a higher priority. However Lotterer was raised with his Belgian mom in Nivelles, Belgium (read the source I provided earlier). Anyways since he was born to a German father and a Belgian mother he received both countries nationalities according to both countries' nationality laws. Anyway his Belgiumness should not be added to his F1 Infobox because, because he never represented Belgium during his F1 racing career (as far as I know of). There should be some mention of it in his article though. Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in nationality law, and I didn't read the source. I recall from when I was being taught German in secondary school that a German could only have one passport, the German one, even if they were foreign (in which case they would have to stop using their current one). That was said to the whole class about 6 to 8 years ago, so it is actually quite well remembered on my part. To enhance my point, I read both the passport and nationality law articles and I actually have to assume my final sentence (which I did start with "what I believe"). The information I gleaned about Lotterer was from his WP article, which, as you appear to have seen, literally makes absolutely no mention of his Belgianness. Hence, why I was wrong. —Gyaro –Maguus— 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's no that important for this discussion anyway. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion about Lotterer's nationality you can always do so on his article's talk page. What I tried to point here was that there are examples were racing licence nationality does not match the nationality used in F1, and that "racing licence nationality" is therefore in inadequate label for the field.

OK, I'm up to speed. So are there any objections to "Racing nationality" or further suggestions? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection with either Racing nationality or Sporting nationality. Oh and holding a German passport and a non-EU or non Swiss passport simultaneously is not forbidden, but just restricted. See German nationality law as well.Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no difficulty in accepting 2 fields (assuming there are no formatting problems) I.e. Nationality (birth or assumed) and racing licence nationality; BUT to which field would the flagicon then be placed (if at all), presumably the racing licence nationality... or have I missed something here :P. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, having a racing license nationality field is not a good idea because there are examples, like Lotterer, of F1 Drivers whose nationality in the sport does NOT match their racing licence nationality and because, according to the International Sporting Code, F1 Drivers (as well as drivers who compete in any other FIA World Championship e.g. WRC, WEC, WTCC) retain a passport nationality and not necessarily their racing license nationality. I have no problem however with using more than one nationality field in an infobox. A Nationalit(y)(ies) (legal) field on top and a Racing Nationality field per racing category's section that is included in the infobox. The flags should be used with the Racing nationalities, I think, since these are the flags we will use in our race reports, season reviews, team articles etc. Tvx1 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've thought about this and in Breton's quote above, we have that military personnel don't have a nationality field, rather, an allegiance – because that is what is important. Here, we should note the "racing nationality", and not a nationality, as that is what is important. To further my example, I picked a musician, Taylor Swift, who is definitively 100% American, and her nationality is not noted, because it isn't important. Though yes, we can keep the flag. We've fought too hard to give it up now. —Gyaro –Maguus— 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "Racing nationality" or "Sporting nationality". Of the two, I have a slight preference for "Racing nationality". DH85868993 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Eagleash, Yes, the flag would go on the "racing nationality" field, not any regular nationality field, although I don't think a regular nationality field would be necessary under these circumstances – in 99% of cases the two would be the same anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As point of interest, changing this field has been discussed before. Tvx1 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having sifted through many of our drivers articles I noticed there is an important inconsistency in the way the nationality information is included in the info-boxes. Some articles, like the contested Jean-Pierre Beltoise one, show it near the top together with the driver's personal information; while others, like e.g. Sebastian Vettel have it in the Formula One section of their infobox. Should this be made consistent over all the articles? Tvx1 (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel it should be at the top of the box, together with DoB (and death if applicable). All other boxes (F1, bikes, Le Mans etc.) are secondary to this information. Eagleash (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's the whole point - a "Nationality" field at the top of a driver's infobox would seem to describes a driver's "personal" nationality (whatever that means) whereas the "Nationality" field beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading specifically indicates the nationality they raced under in Formula One (which is why the word "Nationality" is linked to the Superlicence article). That's why we're discussing changing the label, to make that more obvious. By rights, all F1 drivers should have their (F1/racing) Nationality listed under the "Formula One World Championship career" heading, but in cases where there's already a Nationality field further up the page and it would be the same (e.g. Beltoise), we tend to leave it out to avoid the appearance of duplicate information. One reason for showing the Nationality beneath the banner rather than above is that we always know what country a driver represented in Formula One, but their "personal" nationality is sometimes less clear. Consider:

Bertrand Gachot - raced in F1 as "Belgian" from 1989-91 and "French" from 1992-95. But what would you display at the top of his infobox as his "personal" nationality?: French? Belgian? Luxembourgian (where he was born)? In a 1991 interview, he said "I am not really one nationality. I feel very much a European."
Nico Rosberg: Races in F1 as German but holds dual citizenship (German and Finnish)
Jochen Rindt: Raced in F1 as Austrian but was born in Germany and had German citizenship

Also, on a more practical level:

if you put "Nationality: British" at the top of any Scottish or Northern Irish driver's infobox, you can guarantee someone will change it to "Scottish" or "Northern Irish" as appropriate in a very short amount of time, and
a flagicon at the top of an infobox is way more likely to be removed by someone quoting WP:INFOBOXFLAG, than if it is beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading.

DH85868993 (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, didn't explain myself very well. All the points raised above are valid, but nationality is important basic information and should be displayed prominently, (if at all that is). I would mention that in the "deaths in" pages, nationality is displayed as "X"-born "Y" where applicable so maybe something along those lines is a possibility? Then racing nationality in sub-boxes, (and the way it's done on Bertrand Gachot's page seems a reasonable solution (if slightly unwieldy at first sight)). UK is a peculiar problem and always has been. I consider myself English first of all but don't have a problem with being thought of as British. British should refer to the whole of the UK otherwise it becomes politicised (and POV). Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I also didn't read what you wrote properly - I thought you were proposing moving Nationality from beneath the "Formula One Championship career" heading to the top of the infobox in all cases, which is not what you wrote. I'm open to the idea of having "personal" Nationality at the top of the topmost infobox on the page (i.e. near DOB) for all drivers, and only having (racing) Nationality beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading for cases where it is different. However:

per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, we probably wouldn't be able to have flagicons in the "top" Nationality field (which doesn't worry me personally, but I know some people are attached to them)
it would be a nontrivial amount of work to update the 800 or so F1 driver articles (but WP:NODEADLINE, etc), and
we'd have an issue where the F1 infobox is the only infobox on the page (because it doesn't currently support a Nationality field above the "Formula One World Championship" heading), although this could be addressed by converting the F1 infobox into a {{Infobox racing driver}} with an embedded F1 section.

DH85868993 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm coming round to the idea that the original questioner proposed, I think, together with what is proposed immediately above. The infobox could display date & place of birth but not necessarily nationality. Any anomalies could be quickly explained away in the lead which already usually has nationality details in it. E.g. "X"-born "Y" (assumed nationality) racing driver who raced under a "Z" racing licence...with a field in the F1 infobox for "licence nationality" (or "racing licence nationality"), with the flagicon displayed there (or not) once agreement reached. DH85868993 I'd be willing to help out when I could. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I have explained twice before, racing licence nationality is NOT the way to go, since there are examples of racing drivers, like André Lotterer, whose racing licence nationality does NOT match the flag they raced under and because the International Sporting Code dictates that F1 drivers (and other FIA World Championships' drivers) retain a passport nationality and NOT their racing licence nationality. Tvx1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We could conceivably move the nationality field to the top of the info-boxes as long as we make a clearly distinguished difference from their personal nationalities, for instance by naming the relevant field "Racing nationality" or "Sporting nationality" which is exactly the sort of nationality we are allowed to mention under MOS:SPORTFLAGS.

As for DH85868993 issues with F1 infobox-only articles, surely that can be tackled by editting the template?

P.S. Gachot should have a personal nationality, shouldn't he? Surely he has a legal nationality (i.e. a passport)? Tvx1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the second para above is pretty much what has been proposed, should it be agreed that a change is necessary. I.e. separating personal and racing nationalities. As far as Gachot is concerned he could quite legitimately use just the EU passport (I think). Eagleash (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a pure EU passport. Any passport from an EU member state still belongs to that member state and the holder will have that member state's nationality. By the way, he has a French passport! Tvx1 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah OK. I've no idea really: I don't even have a UK passport. & it's all a bit off topic now anyway. Eagleash (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Heaving read through WP:INFOBOXFLAG again, I'm not so sure anymore that the proposed change is going to help us satisfy WP:INFOBOXFLAG more than is already the case. After all the guideline gives "sport nationality" as one of the non-exceptions for including a flag in the infobox. The main situation remains that WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a guideline an not a black and white law we must follow. Everything is written in the normative style using "should" an nothing is forbidden by the guideline. This means that if we have a consensus that it's for the betterment of our articles and indeed our entire project to have ONE flag in our info-boxes, which he have now for quite some years, it is our good right to do so. And to be honest, I don't quite agree with some of the opinion-based assertions that are presented as facts in content of INFOBOXFLAG guideline. Tvx1 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reset

I think the above has been a useful discussion. May I suggest that we take a step back and discuss/decide what nationality-related information we think needs to be displayed in a F1 driver's infobox(es), and once that's agreed then return to discussing the location and labelling of the information, what's the best way/how much effort it might take to update any articles and what other issues may arise? I think the first two questions we need to answer are:

Should an F1 driver's "personal" nationality (e.g. Räikkönen is "Finnish", Vettel is "German" etc) be displayed in an infobox (as currently occurs for Grand Prix motorcycle racers [1], [2], IndyCar drivers [3], [4], [5], [6] and many other non-F1 racing drivers)?
If the nationality under which they raced in Formula One is different to their "personal" nationality, should that also be displayed?

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking Tvx1's good thoughts, this is a tricky one. No matter if drivers have dual citizenship (which by the way since last month is also possible in Germany for non EU citizens: [7]), they will still choose a flag they drive under in Formula One. But they might drive in other categories under a different flag (like Nico Rosberg did, who drove in F3000 under the Finnish one. The regulations of F1 state that you race under your passport nationality. But divers might have 2 or more passports. Here are some thoughts on what we might do:

As is now we should have a section above "Formula One World Championship career" with personal information where we put ALL of the drivers legal nationalities.
Further down in the F1 part we should put "Raced in F1 for" or something around this line. This should NOT be called "Licence nationality" as we found out that the licence does not dictate which flag you race under in F1. This should only apply if the F1 nationality differs from the legal nationality (so leave it if drivers have single citizenship like Michael Schumacher.
In sections about other Formulae or other racing series we might put another nationality info.

For André Lotterer that would mean that under his picture we would have both the German and Belgian flag, but at the bottom F1 section, above "Active years" we would open a new category. For Rosberg that would mean we would have both his citizenships in the personal info, the Finnish one in his F3000 section (there is none yet) and the German one in his F1 section. Contra: There will be a lot of flags in the infoboxes, pro: but they would be correct. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It might look like this for Lotterer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that works well enough. The link to the nationality section of the FIA Super Licence article works well to give a explanation of why the nationality appears twice. I don't think there is problem linking that to pre-Super Licence nationalities. On the other hand, I'm not too sure about having two nationality fields active in situations where we only have one racing competition in the infobox (such as Rosberg), though I'm pretty sure that if I saw that with my eyes that view may change. —Gyaro –Maguus— 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The point of my original proposal was to remove flags that show ordinary, non-sporting nationality. Hence the two flags there in Lotterer's infobox under his picture should be removed. The German flag would stay for the F1 infobox. Other series would only show the nationality field if a different nationality was used. Per the MOS, we would have no justification for any flag for basic nationality. Repeating flags in a sporting infobox is unjustifiable and would attract even more drive-by removals of flags than we have now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. I fail to see how adding more nationality fields and more flags to the info-boxes is going to result in us having less issues with MOS enforces (note that a guideline actually can't be enforced). The question that was raised is should we rename the nationality field in the F1 Infobox? So should we? Bear in mind that WP:INFOBOXFLAG lists "sport nationality" as a non-exception (something I personally disagree with). Tvx1 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I see this proposal is still lingering around without having produced some results so far. So, I'm going to make a different proposal. What if we rename the contested field to country? That would be similar to for instance how tennis players are dealt with and would simply allow us to put the countr(y)(ies) they represented during their career, while doing away with the more ambiguous term nationality. Any thoughts? T v x1 13:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Separate Manor F1 article

I would like to propose separating the information of Manor's Formula One participation onto a separate article, the information on Manor's Formula Renault and Formula Three participation should remain on "Manor Motorsport", Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 have their own separate articles even when both those teams were operated by "Manor", also the article will eventually overflow meaning another article is needed. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Looking at the redirect's history, I see that this was tried before, but re-merged with Manor Motorsports for reasons unknown. Twirlypen (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed also considering the different entities behind each team iteration. Good luck! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this article should be titled "Manor Marussia". —Gyaro –Maguus— 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also support having a separate article for Manor's 2015 F1 activities. I'd be happy with "Manor Marussia" as the title. DH85868993 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The article could either be titled "Manor F1" or "Manor Marussia" but "Manor F1" seems more suitable for the long term if the team continue into 2016 they will most likely drop "Marussia" from their name but "Manor Marussia" could always be easily changed. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Until such time that they actually do become Manor F1, we cannot call them that as per WP:OR. Manor Marussia is, for now, the only suitable location. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So is this move going to happen then? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to split the articles. What's the difference between Manor Motorsport and Manor F1? It's the same racing team, and unlike Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 has the same identity and ownership. QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The same difference as McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Honda, I guess. T v x1 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Splitting out the 2015 activities would also address the current situation where the table at Manor Motorsport#Results shows Manor as competing in F1 from 2010 to 2015, but Manor Motorsport#Complete Formula One World Championship results only lists 2015, which seems a bit odd to me. DH85868993 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Tvx1 on their analogy. MTG is a broadly-based engineering and technology group that owns a racing team. Manor is a racing team that competes in a number of different series. Manor seems more like Equipe Ligier in that sense. Ligier is a simpler case, as so far as I know they never ran a team on behalf of anyone else. Another useful F1 analogy might be made with Tyrrell. The Tyrrell Racing Organisation was established in the late 1950s, but mostly concentrated on lesser formulae until 1968. In that year the team entered Formula One, but not as Tyrrell. For their first two seasons they were Matra International, with Matra works support and funding. Only for the 1970 season, when Matra insisted on their using the V12 engine to maintain the works support, did they break off and race under their own name. Despite these two identities we list all their F1 results under Tyrrell, because that's how the vast majority of reliable sources treat them. As ever, what I'd like to see in these debates are positions established by sources, not by what people here think or feel. I'm not fussed whether the 2015 F1 Manor entries are split out or not, but please could we try and use some evidence-based decision making? Pyrop e 22:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see any point in keeping the information together because when Manor Motorsport had intention to enter Formula One in 2009 they created a separate entity called "Manor Grand Prix" which was a spin off company that competed as "Virgin Racing/Marussia Virgin Racing" later "Marussia F1" due to sponsorship and stake holder reasons, the company under the name "Manor Motorsport" which competed in Formula Renault and Formula Three is a separate but connected company to "Manor Grand Prix Racing" which is currently running in Formula One as "Manor Marussia F1 Team" that is one of the biggest and most valid reasons why "Manor Marussia" should be separated and given its own article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Matra International was a distinct corporate entity from Tyrrell Racing, and similarly World Wide Racing (that ran the Lotus cars in Italy in the early 1970s when ACBC was scared of being arrested over Rindt's death) was distinct from Team Lotus. However, despite what Companies House says, we don't distinguish them here because most reliable sources don't distinguish. As far as how the Manor team themselves regard their continuity, to paraphrase from the History section on their website "Manor has a strong heritage in motor racing – formed in 1990 by John Booth ... Manor secured entry to the highest echelon of motor sport for the start of the 2010 season. In February 2015 ... Manor emerged from administration and is now participating in the 2015 FIA FORMULA 1 World Championship'". That's only their opinion, of course, but it is one line of hard evidence as to the relationship between Manor Motorsport and the F1 entry. Formula1.com gives the history of Manor Marussia as beginning in 2010, when "After lower formulae success, Manor Motorsport join F1 as Virgin" and, following many tribulations and a name change or two, "Undeterred, their determination unabated, they return afresh for 2015". One entity, traced through from Manor Motorsport's initial entry to today's Manor Marussia. Looking at other articles in Autosport and elsewhere, even during the brief period where Manor Grand Prix was under Russian ownership, the F1 outfit was certainly operated as an integral part of the wider Manor edifice, with personnel sharing and coordination occurring between Marussia F1 and the Manor FR2.0 and GP3 teams. In contrast, there are an awful lot of external sources who treat the Manor Marussia team as a continuation of the 2014 Marussia team, using phrases along the lines of "the team will use their 2014 car for the first half of the 2015 season", and similar. That being said, the team is apparently dominantly known simply as "Manor" to all and sundry, so that marks a break. Pyrop e 19:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly part of the problem we are having here is an apparent desire on the part of many editors for one, single solution. As the discussion shows, it just 'ain't that simple. How about making the Manor Motorsport page an overview of all Manor's motosport activities, with large sections on their F3, FR2.0, GP3 and GP2 entries, and this year's F1 entry, but also including summary information on the 2010-2014 seasons? We would maintain separate detailed articles on the Virgin and Marussia time periods (linked to using the {{Main}} template) which would each include 'their' race results. The Manor Motorsports article results (or separate page, if and when it is needed) will include all years from 2010 on, but with adequate footnotes and links to provide information on the public face of the team. After all, Virgin was only ever a sponsor, in much the same way that the 1970s Politoys and Iso-Marlboro cars were only ever Frank Williams Racing Cars with different frocks on. Incidentally, Politoys and Iso chassis results are listed at the FWRC page only. Just a thought, and another route to consider that would allow full use of all the viewpoints taken in reliable sources Pyrop e 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Manor Motorsport article would serve as a central hub article (if my wording makes sense) with all the information on Formula Renault, Formula Three and GP3. Obviously have a overview of the different F1 team identities like we have currently and have it more detailed on the separate team articles "Virgin Racing 2010 season to 2011 season", "Marussia F1 2012 season to 2014 season" and "Manor Marussia 2015 season onwards" Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat that way, yes. Excepting that, so far as I can see with comparison to reliable sources, we have one of two choices for this season's entity: 1) treat is as a continuation of last year's team on last year's page (e.g. numerous press references to them using their 2014 car for the first half of this season, etc.); 2) treat them as a reversion to Manor Motorsport running the team under their own name (e.g. Manor's own press materials) and keep the info contiguous with the lesser formulae data. I don't see much evidence that a wholly free-standing article is justifiable. Pyrop e 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is our good right to create a standalone article for their F1 activities if we think that would make it clearer for our readers. Having separate articles does not automatically mean we claim them to be independent entities. T v x1 00:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Having already said that I'd support splitting the 2015 activities out into a separate article, I'd also support their inclusion at Marussia F1, per our general principle of grouping results by chassis make (the 2015 cars are still identified as "Marussias" in the official results). And yes, I'm aware that "one size doesn't necessarily fit all", but I believe this is one of the options open to us in this particular instance. DH85868993 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A separate article would be preferable for the readers as the "Manor Marussia" team is identified as separate from it's former identity as "Marussia F1", their are many sources referring to the team as just "Manor", similar to the 2010 season when BMW Sauber was identified as just "Sauber" by the team themselves, fans, pundits also including many other sources. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The current cars (MR03B) are still Marussias because that's the team would constructed them. However we don't yet what the actual 2015 car (to be introduced later in the season) will be named, so I'd prefer to wait to make decisions based on chassis makes until they have introduced their actual 2015 car. Tvx1 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a majority of users want a separate article created and the facts seems to point towards it being a better solution, so should the article be created under the title "Manor Marussia". Speedy Question (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for mobile tables

In case anyone is interested, I have launched a proposal to change the style of the mobile tables to make them match the desktop skin's tables more in response to a number of readability issues that were reported within this project in recent moths. In case anyone wants to weigh in their opinion for either side of the argument, you can do so here. Thanks, T v x1 15:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about Today's Featured Article

Complaint is at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_the_summary_of_today.27s_or_tomorrow.27s_featured_article, they say the tyres had problems in previous races. Please reply either here or there. - Dank (push to talk) 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, but... Very hard to check for specific topic articles as the search results are chopped up into individual pages by chronology of search, rather than thematic pages, and the bot seems to be entirely incapable of identifying even very obvious mirrors (i.e. even those that actually properly acknowledge the Wikipedia source!) meaning that all of the articles of interest that I found to me were false positives. Lots of "load-page-ctrl-F" for no real benefit. Nice idea, needs work. Pyrop e 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Austria lap leaders

I notice that {{F1Laps2015}} has not been updated for the Austrian Grand Prix. I'm happy to update the template if someone can provide/point me to the lap leader data. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this help? T v x1 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've found this too. T v x1 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I went on and made the update. T v x1 16:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Manor/Australian Grand Prix

OK, we have settled this. Now let's leave this behind an open up the talk page for other important issues

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

There's been some to-ing and fro-ing over the "Debut" and "Races" fields in the infoboxes of Roberto Merhi, Will Stevens and Manor Motorsport (i.e. regarding whether or not the 2015 Australian Grand Prix should be counted). It's always been my understanding that the "Debut" field identifies the first race entered and likewise the "Races" field indicates number of races entered, and on that basis, the 2015 Australian Grand Prix should be included, as Merhi, Stevens and Manor were entered for that race. Other opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. As an indication of how other sites are handling this issue, FORIX lists Stevens as having 8 presences (i.e. including AUS15, remembering that he had 1 race in 2014), ChicaneF1 credits Stevens with 8 "Races contested" but formula1.com shows Stevens with 7 Grands Prix entered.

Of the three sources presented, only the FOM one has the authority to credit results. Forix is, literally speaking, correct though, as Stevens was present in Austrlia. But that's not the criterium we use. I don't think we can genuinly claim a driver made his/her debut by just running around in the team garage all weekend. So the Australian GP should not be counted. T v x1 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We regularly discount F1.com due to its long history of inaccuracy. I'm in agreement with DH85868993 in taking the debut and race fields as races entered, which should mean we count the Australian GP for Manor and their drivers, even if they did not drive the car all weekend. QueenCake (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I say they should be classes as having entered but not started, which is what happened. —Gyaro –Maguus— 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The team was there with most if not all their equipment. They just did not take to the circuit.

Wiktionary defines debut as: A performer's first-time performance to the public.

Miriam-Webster defines debut as: the first time an actor, musician, athlete, etc., does something in public or for the public

DNP, whether it be Did Not Practice or Did Not Participate, it defines Mehri as having NOT done anything.

There was no performance in Australia. Debut therefore was at Malaysia. --Falcadore (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

On the 2015 article, in the teams & drivers table, we list that Manor did not participate in Australia. However, on the team's article, we list their first race as 2015 Australia. Again, on the main 2015 season page, the drivers are listed as participating in rounds 2-7, yet on Merhi's page, his first race was again listed as 2015 Australia.

I have tried to unify the information overall, from the team page to the drivers to the templates we use for stats, but some of the articles are getting reverted so instead of bringing it up on individual talk pages, I was going to raise the issue here, but it has already been brought up. Manor was on the event entry list. Aside from showing up, they did not participate in any portion of the event all weekend. The FIA even punished the team for not participating. As such, I feel their first event should be the first one they actually took part in, 2015 Malaysia. But if concensus goes against my opinion, the information should be unified across all of our articles. Twirlypen (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have the exact same opinion as Twirlypen here. T v x1 22:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

FORIX is correct, as an entry counts as a presence unless they DNA, as we have always counted it - until recently apparently. That's what people get for making things up, like "DNP", which is a typical Wikipedia fudge. The Manor cars were entered and DNQ. It doesn't matter why, and why it matters to some people whether they turned a wheel or not, I have no idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever we decide to use, my main point is that all of the info is correct. As it stands right now, some of our articles reflect round1 as their first race, while others reflect round 2. Twirlypen (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If it were kept simple, people wouldn't revert it. The more options we have, the more differences of opinion we have. Reduce the options (by getting rid of things like DNP) and reduce the arguments and the potential for inconsistency. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So what are we agreeing to here? Did 2015 Australia include Manor or not? If so, we need to reflect it on every related article. If Manor is included in 2015 Australia, then so are their drivers. 2015 would need to show this in the "rounds" column. If we are NOT including them in 2015 Australia, then every Manor related article needs to reflect that as well. We can't have different stats criteria for drivers & teams. That also serves only to add confusion. Such as Manor being counted as participating simply for having their name typed on a piece of paper, but drivers not being counted until they drive the car. Drivers are part of the team, thus if the team is counted as entered, so should the drivers, and vice versa if they are not counted. Twirlypen (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Forix is correct in their count only through their own defenition of "presences". Manor, Stevens and Merhi were present. However, Forix does not have any authority to make up criteria. If we would follow their vision, we would have to put Roberto Merhi's debut as the 2014 Italian Grand Prix. We use the official definitions and they are supported by the FOM figures. T v x1 01:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No we wouldn't – Forix make perfectly clear that Merhi was not entered for that race, just for Friday practice. You say Forix (Autosport) don't have any "authority" to make up criteria, well, nor do anyone else. Unless you count FOM, which, as we know, make a regular point of getting it wrong. We have reliable sources for a reason, and Forix is one. A very reliable one. The sad fact is that, even with all the best sources in the world available to us, we can't get it right because it can't be kept simple. We do have different criteria across the range of articles because we're woefully inconsistent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Small interruption to proceedings to say amen to Bretonbanquet - as a relatively new Wiki contributor, I am flabbergasted by the inconsistency especially in the Season reviews, considering it's usually the same authors involved CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is that. Of course there is an authority that can make up the criteria. The rules of the sport are formulated and governed by someone. To put a very simple question, where's your proof that FOM is undoubtedly wrong, and that Forix is undisputedly right. I'm really getting enough of this insistence that Forix is the "holy grail" of F1 results and cannot possibly make a mistake ever. T v x1 12:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the FIA or FOM's definition of a presence? If you want proof that FOM screw things up, then you've clearly never looked at it in any detail. I don't think many people here need extra proof. Forix occasionally differs from other sources, but I don't think I've ever found a mistake in it. It's Autosport, they're hardly amateurs or newbies. OK, you carry on using FOM as the unquestionable source and people will carry on asking why the articles are inconsistent and/or wrong. Once upon a time, years ago, these articles made sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want proof that FOM screw up. I want proof that this particular figure by FOM is wrong. I want that because our general consensus is that any FOM figure that is not disproven by other sources can be considered reliable. Now then, bring that proof it's wrong. The only arguments I have found against the FOM figure is that some just don't like it. I don't want the FIA or FOM definition of a presence either. We are not discussing whether or not Manor and Merhi were present. We know that they were. We're discussing whether they made their debut at the Australian GP. Being present≠taking part in the Grand Prix. T v x1 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That response is why there's no point in having this conversation. You ask for proof when there are sources available – you just don't like them. You want FOM everywhere, and it's just not reliable enough. You don't see the irony in saying I "don't like" FOM. There's no point in discussing it because very few of us have three weeks or a month to dick around getting annoyed about it. I'm aware that all this stuff used to be accurate and now it's not; it's too much effort to try and fix under the current circumstances. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia's policies on sourcing that say we have to prioritise "official" sources over those of reliable third parties. Indeed, if anything we are encouraged to avoid primary sources because of the potential for vested interests. Case in point: Bernie did not want Manor to compete at the beginning of this season, and would benefit financially if they were not deemed not to participate. It's perfectly possible FOM excised Manor from their results for their own reasons. Or perhaps it was just their typical inaccuracy, as demonstrated by the numerous issues brought up on these pages over the years.

While looking up the race classification on the FIA's website, I notice that Fernando Alonso has been credited with a "DNF". Which I'm sure would have been received with some surprise by our Fred, who was otherwise engaged on the beaches of Asturias. Is that enough proof of why we rely on sources such as FORIX? QueenCake (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Very good point indeed about Manor and Bernie. And that FIA link – that results table is utterly useless. Not only is Alonso inexplicably listed when he wasn't even entered, Bottas gets a DNF when he didn't even start, and Magnussen isn't there at all. Gee, let's use that source; it's official, after all... Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This has never been about prioritizing a certain source just because they're official. This is about proving that that particular figure they published is wrong. And arguments like "they have been inaccurate in the past' just don't work. So please stop being cynical and for once answer the question. Note for the third time that Forix uses a different criterium. They count presences of teams/drivers. That's not what DH85868993 originally asked. They asked when Manor and Merhi made their debut, not the first time they were present as a team/race driver. T v x1 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you've managed to miss or ignore the source QueenCake presented. That is clearly the FIA screwing up, as they list Alonso as retiring from a race he didn't even enter. Thus, the source is not credible, and that's the sort of thing you're relying on. I'm not sure, personally, which race counts as their debut... but the obvious failure of that source right above is a huge discrediting factor in any of the related primary sources - particularly as there is definitely a potential vested interest, as has already been mentioned. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has to prove anything is wrong just because you're asking, or for any other reason. As far as I am concerned at least, I agree with DH85868993 and QueenCake in that Manor made their debut in Australia. Forix concurs, and as it is a reliable source, that's good enough for me. Trying to make distinctions about whether Manor's actions constitute a debut is futile, probably original research and (should be) beyond the scope of the tables we draw up. It just lays Wikipedia open for inconsistency. Manor were there, that's a debut. DNP is a crock. Some disagree and I can see why, but that's my point of view, although I suspect we're going to hang this discussion on "proving FOM wrong", rather than consensus-building. If that's the case, there's little point in going any further. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not just because "I'm asking", it's because the consensus is that FOM figures are to be considered okay if the figure in question is not disproven by other sources. So I'm just asking for the consensus to be put in practice. I'm still not convinced why we would should only consider Forix and ignore all the rest. There are others that disagree with them as well. Stats F1 puts Merhi's debut in 2014 and his first race as the 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix. It's not all that back and white crystal clear as you claim. I did not go on about the FIA source, because I never mentioned that in my argument in the first place. If we're going to to talk consensus building, so far I see you and QueenCake insisting that debut was Australia on the merit of, in Twirlypen's words, having their name printed on a paper; myself, Falcadore and Twirlypen stating that it should be Malaysia, DH85868993 as OP leaning towards Australia but open for other opinions and Lukeno94 not being sure which one it should be. So it doesn't see there is a clear agreement for either side. T v x1 22:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input into the discussion. It highlights why I think whether or not a driver/team is entered for a race is the simplest/best criterion to use throughout Wikipedia (i.e. Debut/Last race/Races infobox fields and also the "Rounds" column in the season summary articles). It's usually clear-cut whether or not a driver/team was entered for a race and would avoid debates over the exact meaning of less-well-defined terms like "presences" or races "contested". If we think the meaning of the infobox fields might be unclear to readers, we can always change the label (e.g. we could change "Debut" to "First race entered"), or add a tooltip, as was done here. DH85868993 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The use of vague terms does help in adding confusion to the discussion as DH points out. If we are going by races entered, then yes, it should be Australia. But then that same criteria should also apply to the drivers as well and the 2015 season teams and drivers table. But, if we go with debut, then it would be Malaysia. My opinion lies with the latter, to the point that if concensus goes with Australia, that a footnote be added that Manor took no part in the event and were punished by the FIA for their actions, or lack thereof. But mostly, I just want the information to be uniformly reflected across all of the articles. Twirlypen (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As I think has been nicely demonstrated above, Debut is the vague term that is causing most of the trouble. It means one thing to one person, and another to another. Oh, and by the way, the FIA didn't punish Manor for their actions in Australia. They were cleared of any wrongdoing by the stewards. I don't know where you got that idea from. Bernie threw a tantrum and allegedly withheld transport costs, but that's an FOM personal decision and not a statute infringement. Pyrop e 00:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, it could not be proven that Manor made no attempt to qualify. They said they'd tried to get their cars running, and failed to do so. Bernie has his own ideas, but then he never liked the team anyway, and he's not the FIA. I really don't know why Wikipedia feels the need to make a distinction between those who DNQ because they were too slow and those who DNQ because they couldn't get their cars running ("DNP"). The result is the same, and no distinction should be made. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the Manor Motorsports article and Roberto Merhi's article directly contradicts each other - and will continue to do so until we agree one way or the other. At this point I really don't care what criteria we use to define when Manor debuted, so long as the content of the articles doesn't DIRECTLY CONTRADICT ITSELF! How on Earth can we say that Manor debuted at Australia and then at the same time say their driver debuted at Malaysia?? If we are using the entry list to justify Manor debuting in Australia, the same criteria MUST apply to Merhi - he was on the entry list as well - and he showed up as well. Right now we are basically telling readers that Manor showed up in Australia - with full intentions of racing according to this discussion - without drivers. Twirlypen (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it will be made consistent. Once we have decided which way to go. At the moment though, the opinions are divided roughly 50-50 for either side, with another few contributors being neutral. T v x1 14:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So, have we come to a resolution on this? I won't idly have conflicting information remain much longer. Twirlypen (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you summarize your proposal succinctly and then we'll see whether it is supportable? Pyrop e 04:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether we decide their debut is Australia or Malaysia is irrelevant to me at this point. My proposal is that all of the information on the various articles gets consistant right now. We can't have Manor Motorsports say one thing, and the rounds table on the 2015 season article say another thing, and Roberto Merhi's page say another for the 3-4 weeks while we drag our feet around in the mud over what "debut" means. I propose we put it at Australia while this gets hashed out for probably yet another 3-4 weeks, and if it comes then that their debut is Malaysia, we can change everything then as well. As long as everything is consistant right now. Twirlypen (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If I understand Twirlypen's proposal correctly, it would involve the following:

Changing "First race" in Roberto Merhi's infobox to 2015 Australian Grand Prix
Changing "Races" in Roberto Merhi's infobox to "7 (6 starts)" (which is achieved by changing {{F1stat|MER|entries}} to "7")
Changing "Races" in Will Stevens' infobox to "8 (6 starts)" (which is achieved by changing {{F1stat|STE|entries}} to "8")
Changing the "Rounds" column for Merhi and Stevens in 2015 Formula One season#Signed teams and drivers to "1-7"
Leaving "Debut" in Manor Marussia's infobox as 2015 Australian Grand Prix
Leaving "Races competed" in Manor Marussia's infobox as "7 (6 starts)"

In which case, I support the proposal. DH85868993 (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at least while we debate still. Everything can be changed later if concensus swings the other way. Seeing mismatching information, especially when we know it doesn't match, just makes me cringe. Twirlypen (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

DH's summary seems fine for now. However, consistency is based on having a protocol against which future decisions can be measured. I agree that it is good to aim for, but as things stand (and bearing in mind WP:V) if someone puts up a reliable 'debut' source on the Merhi page that says Australia, while someone else puts up a reliable 'debut' source on the Manor page that says Malaysia, then you don't really have any basis for 'correcting' them right now. Whether or not you cringe is largely irrelevant. In my view, based on the above discussion, the encyclopedia needs to do away with the ambiguous notion of a 'debut' (and a somewhat slangy term it is) and simply report 'first entry', 'first start' or something else that is easy to define. In short, let's not discuss what debut means. Let's try and do things encyclopedically and report straight facts. Pyrop e 06:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would support changing the label in the F1 team infobox from "Debut" to "First race" (i.e. to match the driver infobox), acknowledging that "First entry" or "First start" would be even better/clearer, per Pyrope's comment above. DH85868993 (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Twirlypen (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at all the above comments, I feel "first race" is still to vague and therefore I can't support that. I prefer to support "First entry" as that is the most clear, indisputable one. First start would be fine as well. On the same note I would like propose to rename the "Races" field to "Entries". That way, any ambiguity the field currently carries is removed. T v x1 13:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, your recent edit to the 2015 article, updating the round column on the notion that "everyone is in Austria," provides a very strong argument that Manor Marussia SHOULD have 1-8 in their boxes. After all, they were in Australia. Not doing a damn thing towards the event, but they were there nonetheless. Twirlypen (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That's just a personal wording I have used for ages. That has nothing to do with the rules or what happened at Australia. T v x1 08:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no clear objection to unifying the information while this inevitably gets forgotten about and swept under the rug, I have done just that. Twirlypen (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, as a concession, I added a tooltip to the Rounds column in the 2015 article stating that it's rounds entered, not necessarily rounds participated. Thoughts? Twirlypen (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Following some updates to {{Infobox F1 driver}} a week ago, the driver infoboxes now have fields labelled "Entries", "First entry" and "Last race" and the team infoboxes have fields labelled "Races competed", "Debut" and "Latest race". Personally I would prefer both infoboxes to have fields labelled "Races", "First race" (with a tooltop of "First race entered") and "Latest race" (with a tooltip of "Latest race entered"), although I'd also be happy with "Last race" instead of "Latest race". Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If think we should opt for labels that are as unambiguous as possible so as to prevent editing from casual readers/editors, who are no so much aware of the project's convention, and subsequent reverting by the project's members. Therefore I don't think "debut" is a good idea. That will always be open for interpretation. I don't think changing unambiguous labels to ambiguous labels with a necessary tooltip is an improvement either. All in all I think "Entries", "First entry" and "Last/Latest entry" for both infoboxes is the most unambiguous option available. Both "Last entry" and "Latest entry" should be an available option as using "Last" for active drivers can create confusing for our readers, while it is ok to use that version for retired/deceased drivers. T v x1 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've boldly updated {{Infobox F1 team}} and both Tvx1 and I have updated {{Infobox F1 driver}}, so the fields in the driver infobox are now labelled "Entries", "First entry" and "Last entry" ("Latest entry" for current drivers) and the fields in the team infobox are now labelled "Races entered", "First entry" and "Last entry" ("Latest entry" for current teams). I went with "Races entered" rather than "Entries" for the team infobox to avoid ambiguity over whether it means "number of races entered" or "number of individual cars entered". I'd probably slightly prefer the labels in both infoboxes to read "Races entered", "First race entered" and "Last/Latest race entered" but I can live with the current labels if that's what everyone else wants. DH85868993 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, this is the concensus I am referring to. Twirlypen (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Which, as I read it, only applies to car, team and driver articles. And it completely overlooks the following:

1) The minimum standard that we have accepted in the past is that a driver must take to the circuit in order to be considered to have taken part in a session. Manor did not take part in any session in Melbourne.

2) If a different standard is being applied between racing drivers and FP1 drivers, then the article needs to make that difference clear.

3) The results matrices clearly list Manor as "DNP" for Melbourne as they did not take part. Listing them as having participated in the team and driver table is a clear contradiction of this.

At no point did Manor take part the Australian Grand Prix. Therefore, we cannot say or imply that they did. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The concensus is that they entered, and appropriate edits have been made to all affected fields. Twirlypen (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we shall remove DNP and replace it with DNS. Please source that Manor did not enter the 2015 Australian GP. Twirlypen (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so eager to stop the discussion from starting again? I have pointed out several valid issues that you have flatly ignored, and I would like to point out another: that we always, where possible, work to accommodate all readers. Tooltips are not visible to all readers—why do you think we stopped using them? There is a viable alternative available that also addresses the issues that have been raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I am NOT eager to stop this discussion from happening again. If you had read it from the beginning, I was actually on the other side of the fence when it started. However, I AM eager not to have an overzealous user impose his preference against concensus. This is the place to argue, not the articles. Twirlypen (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I've made the case. It's up to you to refute it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Made the case? I haven't seen a source that Manor wasn't entered, which again, if you've bothered to read the discussion, was the entire point. I'm sorry, but your case is weak and simply falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Twirlypen (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Change DNP to DNS and put a footnote, that'd be more accurate of the facts. Twirlypen (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing it to DNS implies that they did participate, which we know they didn't do. Adding a footnote only demonstrates that DNS is the wrong tag. We have never gone off the entry list for the table—only who actually takes part. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, forget about the different standards. I was complete wrong there. They are actually the same. All of them have to part in a session. The only difference is which session. According to the rules free practice drivers have to take part in at least either free practice 1 or 2, whereas race drivers have to take part in at least one saturday session (FP3 or Q, which Manor did not do.). Secondly, I can really detect merit in both sides of the argument. Frankly, you can perfectly list them 2-8 without braking the consistency with the other articles. As long as everything is consistent within the article. Whichever way we decide to go depends on how the contested column is defined. Prisonermonkeys is right to state that in the past we always went with rounds participated in. However it was recently redefined as races entered through I tooltip. That has a major flaw though, which I remembered when I saw Prisonermonkeys' mobile edit on the matter. Tooltips don't show on the mobile site, so it's quite possible they missed it and that other users will too. Therefore my preference lies slightly with reverting to 2-8 for this and the reasons stated above, since that is much less prone to misinterpretation. If we could no stop criticizing the editors and focus on the content we could actually get somewhere. T v x1 14:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The tooltip was put in as a compromise to match other existing information, as noted above. Again, at heart, I'm FOR 2-9 as well, but I also believe that it was confusing for someone to see that and then go to the driver or team articles and see that they "debuted" in a race they didn't take part in. That was fixed by changing the entry names. Twirlypen (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that really fixes anything. If there is confusion, the situation should be explained in the body of the article (and given the significance of what happened in Melbourne, it should absolutely be explained). Infoboxes, tables and graphics are supplementary. They should not replace the content of articles, even if they are what the reader sees first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It is explained in the body of the article. Third paragraph of the Championship summary and again on the 2015 Australian Grand Prix article. Twirlypen (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be an issue in the infobox. If anything, the infobox and the body of the article contradict one another, just as the driver table and results matrices contradict one another in the season article.

The most accurate way of representing the situation is to acknowledge that Manor did not take part in Australia, and that their first event was Malaysia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we are back to the original argument of this discussion of what terms we should be using and when Manor's first race actually was, of which everyone has already voiced their opinions pretty clearly. If anyone has changed their views (namely previous discussion participants DH85868993, QueenCake, GyaroMaguus, Falcadore, Bretonbanquet, Tvx1, CtrlXctrlV, Lukeno94, and Pyrope), they are welcome to speak up. Twirlypen (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I should think that's pretty obvious—their first race is the first one they took part in. I think it's a pretty ridiculous situation to be in if we say that they took part in a race because they were listed on a piece of paper when they never actually took part in any session. The cars never left the garage; they were never close to leaving the garage. In what world does that count as taking part? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Initially, those were my exact same arguments. Then the discussion took to what terms we should be using in the fields to take as much vagueness out as possible, such as changing "debut" to "entered." Twirlypen (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me Twirlypen but my (snide - sorry all) input was not related to this argument, from which I abstain. I can see both sides - they DID take part in the EVENT but DID NOT take part in the RACE. I think it comes down to a good explanation rather than a number exercise. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, CtrlXcrtlV, let's say that the prose accurately represents the situation in every applicable article (if it doesn't already). Which do you think is more accurate for the table: listing them as having taken part in the race or not?

Let's put it like this: if we consider Manor as having taken part even though they didn't leave the garage, then by that logic, I took part in the race. Because I was at the event, and I got to see the inside of one of the garages, but I didn't take part in any session. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

But you weren't in their garage. You didn't work on any of the cars. You weren't an entered driver. You weren't on the team's payroll. So no, of course you didn't participate even though you didn't take part in any session. By that stretch of logic, everyone with a decent seat participated because they saw the garages. Madness. Twirlypen (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You know perfectly well what I mean—at no point during the weekend were Manor in any position to take part in any session, let alone the race. But listing the Australian GP as their first race implies that they did take part, which is flat out wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You've failed to notice that the Australian GP is listed as their first entry. Have you read any of this discussion at all? I'm not stating new arguments here. Everything you're bringing up has been addressed above. Twirlypen (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And if you're going to try and use ridiculous logic "oh, well I was there, so I participated," when you know perfectly well there is a HUGE difference between you and anyone on the team that was entered and worked through the weekend to get the cars running, then expect an equal amount of ridiculous in the replies. Twirlypen (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I have to disagree with you that the changes to the infobox template "did not fix the issue". The confusion wasn't caused by the Australian events, but by the ambiguous infobox labels, such as "Debut" or "Races" we were using. The Australian events helped to expose that. We clearly saw casual editors changing the date based on what they thought they meant, simply because they were obviously not clear enough. So we opted for unambiguous labels like "entries" or "first entry". Now the information in the infoboxes is consistent with the rest of the article and more detail is obviously in the prose. The fact that Manor were entered but did not take part is now very clearly conveyed by the infobox with the data saying they were entered for 9 races but only started 8. So, sorry, but don't know what you're actually complaining about. T v x1 11:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought that was pretty obvious: they are listed as having taken part in the season article despite not having taken part at all, and in direct contradiction to other parts of the same article that clearly show that they did not take part. I simply do not see the reasoning that a piece of paper which is subject to change takes precedence over the actual events. Remember when Rossi was on the entry list for Spa last year? We didn't leave him in the article when the entry list changed. What's more, I have suggested an alternative solution that addresses this, accurately represents the situation, and overcomes the shortcomings of that a subset of users encounter, but apparently another article doing something differently is cause enough to overlook this. The individual articles don't really bother me; I'm more interested the season article. That's the only thing I am suggesting that we change: removing Manor's participation from round 1 in the team and driver table, possibly with a footnote explaining it, to that it is consistent with the rest of the article—the results matrices and the season review.

So please, explain this to me: why is a piece of paper more accurate or more representative of what happened than what actually happened? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that Twirlypen, you and me now clearly agree that the teams and drivers table in the 2015 Formula One season article should have the tooltip over "Rounds" removed and the numbers for Manor changed to 2-9. You seemed to have some complaints about the team's article and the drivers' articles as well, but these I don't understand. By the way, it's ~~your Aussie friend~~ Bretonbanquet who argued quite furiously that it must be 1-9 in the season article, and nothing else is acceptable, because they had their names written on a piece of paper. I obviously disagreed with that from the start. T v x1 11:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus, you guys are still arguing about this. You may as well all accept the inevitable truth that the person who persists longest with this ridiculous drama will get their way in the end, and facts have nothing to do with any of it. Tvx1, you show your usual talent for accuracy in describing me as "Aussie" (never even been to Australia), apart from the obvious barb of being someone's "friend". Carry on, everyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course you aren't. I mixed you up with Falcadore there (facepalm). Don't know how that happened. Especially since Falcadore agrees with Prisoner's side. T v x1 13:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with the team, car or driver articles since I'm not really working on them. They came up because I was trying to understand the reasoning behind the decisions while I was away. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, in that case we are on the same wave here. In that case the only thing left to do is to change the season article. T v x1 12:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I'm for removing the tooltip and changing the "1—9" to "2—9". We could possibly add a footnote, but I feel that the matrices and season report section (and possibly the "team changes" sub-section) adequately explain the situation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would write an argument on favour of "1–9" but it conflicts with the fact the MasterCard Lola's 1997 Brazilian Grand Prix entry on the 1997 Formula One season article is not included in the entry column. I believe this leaves us with a potential inconsistency that will lead to the solution to this issue. One thing I have noted is that what Manor Marussia did in Australia is far from an isolated event across the history of F1, and I mean from 1950 to the current season. My decision on which side I will support will be dependent on which side the F1 WikiProject has supported subconsciously throughout the project's existence. —Gyaro –Maguus— 12:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@GyaroMaguus — honestly, I think that the most sensible way forward is to use the rounds column to show when drivers participated in a Grand Prix, and in order to have "participated", they need to have taken to the circuit in an FIA-sanctioned session (read: any session). It's already the standard that we use for FP1 drivers; we don't add them until they actually take part, even if their participation is announced months in advance (as is the case with Fabio Leimer, who will drive for Manor in FP1 at some point in the year, but is not in the 2015 article since it has not happened yet). I appreciate the idea that the entry list comes from the FIA, and that we recognise the FIA as the absolute authority on these issues, but at the same time, we are free to use our discretion. For example, those entry lists may put the drivers in numerical order (in the case of 2015, RIC-VET-ROS-RAI-GRO-etc), but we put them alphabetically by constructor and then numerically by driver because it's easiest to read. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Manor-in-Aus II (Character limit break)

The above discussion has reached the character limit that my device can handle, so I am going to finish off my point here:

I think that we can use our discretion here as well, because from a completely objective point of view, I think we can all agree that saying a team participated in a race because a piece of paper published before the race took place says that they participated when for all practical intents and purpose they did not take part in any session is a fairly silly position to be in.

It would be like saying there was a blizzard at the British GP because the forecast from the national weather bureau said that there would be a blizzard before the race began, when in reality there was no blizzard. It's an extreme example to be sure, but the point still stands: we are an encyclopaedia. We document what happened, not what an authority says was supposed to happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Coming in very late... I'm probably on the wrong side of WP policy or something (as usual ;p ), but IMO, if a team hasn't actually run a car at an event, it's not a "debut". I'm not sure "entered" is a good measure, either, for the same reason: an entry not run is as good as one not entered. That said, I don't expect policy will conform to my view now, any more than it has before... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It won't be a surprise to anyone that I don't agree with most of these poorly argued opinions. The weather analogy above is arrant nonsense. PM, you're saying that a team or a driver has to take to the track in a session in order to have participated. I say that's another example of editors here making up definitions as they go along and applying them selectively. That's fairly silly. We're not here to use our discretion; this is not a blog or an independent F1 website. We're supposed to document F1 per the rules of the sport as it exists in the real world, whether we agree with it or not, not inflict our own interpretation of what we think happened. The level of inconsistency across our handling of 65 years of this sport is mind-boggling. I'm long past the point of arguing about it, but it's frustrating though, that some of us spent a long time years ago attempting to improve consistency across the range of articles, and that has proved to have been a waste of time. No wonder nobody ever comes here to check stats. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And the rules of the sport dictate that to be considered an eligible race driver, you have to take part in at least one saturday session, which Manor did not do. Now I think the weather analogy can be used be in an other. Just suppose an entry list is published for a particular race, but then a severe blizzard erupts before the first session of the weekend begins and as a result the Grand Prix is cancelled altogether. I'm sure you'd still argue that we should count that round for the round column of that season's article. T v x1 14:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the table with the rounds column in it is a season entry list, not a retrospective list of drivers who took part in races. Manor were entered for Australia and Stevens and Merhi were its entered drivers. That is the extent of the scope of that table. Whatever happened regarding whether they took part in any sessions or can be said to have raced or not – that's to be dealt with in the race results table. It has nothing to do with this table. To put 2–9 in the rounds column for Stevens and Merhi (and I've given up wondering who is arguing for what) is to say that Manor either didn't enter the race or didn't name any drivers, both of which are patently untrue. That's why Alonso's column says 2–9, because he wasn't entered. It doesn't say 2–9 because he didn't race, it says it because he wasn't entered. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with treating it as a season entry list is that it assumes that all drivers are entered for the entire season up-front, which we know to be untrue because driver line-ups can change (they don't even have to change; the possibility of a change is enough to invalidate it) and we update it race-by-race.

The table should be treated as a retroactive list of drivers who participated. I'm not sure that the difference would be registered by the average reader, but treating it as a retroactive list of drivers who participated sidesteps the implications of treating it as a season entry list and allows us the leeway to represent the events as they actually happened, such as in this case, when the entry list and the grid are different. Furthermore, convention dictates that the column in question is only updated once drivers have participated in a session, not when the entry list is published. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Then why does it say above it "Here's a list of teams and drivers entered for the season"? Why does it exist long before (sometimes years before) the season starts? Drivers may not be entered for the whole season, but teams are, and that table has always plainly been an entry list for teams and drivers, with replacement drivers added as they are announced. How on earth does that invalidate it as an entry list? If Manor's row says rounds 2–9, it makes no explanation as to where Manor were during the Australian GP weekend or whether they had an entry for that race or not. How would that table explain who Manor's nominated drivers were for that round? What's the point in it being a retrospective list of drivers when we have a results table for that? Why dick around with the criteria for that table? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say that all, Breton. It says "Here are the drivers who take (took for completed seasons) part in the season, followed by drivers an teams who take/took part in the season and which round they took part in. Manor did not take part in Australia. And you know full well that the criteria for inclusion in the article tend to differ greatly from pre-season setting to the in-/post-season setting. Take for an example the calendar. There is a complete different approach between the "List of contracted races" we set out with and the actual calendar we include once the FIA's WMSC release a provisional one. T v x1 17:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say that either. It says "signed to take part". Manor, Stevens and Merhi were signed to take part in Australia, and you say they didn't take part, up to the point that you're effectively pretending that they weren't there. If Manor had not taken part, they would have been sanctioned by the FIA. This is what I mean by you guys not liking the facts. You just look at it and say, "pfft, they didn't make much effort so it looks more like they didn't take part". Your/Our definition of "taking part" is irrelevant. Don't bother to answer any of my other questions, I know they're inconvenient to your argument. Nobody's talking about the calendar, don't confuse matters. Are you saying that table is not an entry list? Because I think that would come as a surprise to most people who are familiar with this article. It's a table which says "here are the teams and drivers signed to take part" and you're saying that's not an entry list. Have I got that right? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I could just say the same of you not liking the facts. We are not pretending they weren't there at all. Now please put the personal battle aside. That will get us nowhere. That "signed" is a leftover from the pre-season setting, when we list contracted drivers. If you look at any article on seasons prior to 2015 and 2016 you will see that they read "Here are the teams and drivers who took part in the season." We might as well use that exact wording for the current season because that actually describes the current state of the table. It is the list of teams and drivers who took part up to the latest race. Nothing scheduled is included. If they were to cancel the rest of the season right now the list would be complete without us having to change anything at all.T v x1 18:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is why it's pointless. There's no "personal battle", let's get that straight first. A couple of amateurs say they didn't take part, the FIA are satisfied that they did. That's pretty much all we need to know about the way F1 is represented on Wikipedia at the moment, and all I need to establish here. The FIA? What do they know, right? That table, if the rounds column is changed to 2–9, will effectively say that Manor were not present in Australia and had no drivers. You're OK with that, however untrue it is. That is because you have constructed your own definition (however logical it may seem to you) of what constitutes taking part. Go ahead, do whatever you want to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you call your co-editors amateurs shows that this is very personal for you. Please drop that attitude. The rules established by the FIA stipulate that to be a race driver one has to set a time in at least one saturday session. Please explain to me how get around that. And please stop insinuating that we would claim the team and their drivers were not present. It's just not true. FOM does not make any mention of Manor on their Australia result. Nor does the FIA, not even for qualifiying. Nor does any other reliable source. And here is another one for qualifying. So I'm really starting to question who is make up their own definitions here. T v x1 19:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not you, we. We are all amateurs here. Unless you think you are something else. Try to read my posts without your predetermined idea that I am somehow out to get you. I am not talking about race drivers per se – we all know they didn't race or compete in a session – I am talking about nominated drivers for an event. I'm not insinuating anything; I am wondering how you propose that table will show Manor's presence in Australia (and their drivers) if the rounds column says 2–9. I am assuming you don't want to imply that Manor were not there. Why on earth you bothered to dredge up a bunch of sources showing the race result, I have absolutely no idea. Do you really think I'm claiming they raced? What the hell has qualifying or the race got to do with it? It suggests to me that you don't even know what we're talking about. I'll put it another way for you to ignore: how do you explain the presence of a result (the ridiculous "DNP") in the race results table for Manor and their drivers, if the top table doesn't include them in round 1? How do you show the difference between Alonso (on a beach somewhere, not entered) and Stevens / Merhi (entered but sitting in the garage all weekend)? Or do you think there's no difference? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I made an edit out of good faith at an attempt to settle this and (hopefully) make everyone happy. Please revert it if it's unsatisfactory. Twirlypen (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Alonso and car 14 have blank cells in the results matrices, Stevens and Merhi and cars 28 and 98 have DNP. That's the difference there for anyone to see. The tables in all season articles are introduced with a sentence that is the list of the driver's who competed/took part. The column for the drivers says "Race drivers", not "Nominated drivers". Again think of Alexander Rossi who was a nominated driver for two races last season. The table's introductory sentence and all it's elements make it crystal clear what's being listed and why.

Twirlypen, it's a good edit but I think it would only be satisfactory for all of us if it would say 2-9 for the Marussia Manor drivers. T v x1 23:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the footnote to tidy up the column, deleted the tooltip because it's not visible to everyone, and changed the column entries to "2—9". The reason for this is because reading it over, it was a little bit contradictory, felt more like it was trying to appease as many people as possible, and hinged on understanding semantic differences. The simplest solution is the best, and needing tooltips, footnotes and havinga contradiction—however slight it may be—is not simple. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

With the footnote, I have no objections to 2—9. Twirlypen (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 – "I think it would only be satisfactory for all of us if it would say 2-9 for the Marussia Manor drivers." Brilliant. You really do know how to pretend everyone agrees with you. This whole discussion has been a complete farce. I don't think you've adequately answered any question I've put to you. You've even talked about a completely different table when I asked you about the difference between Alonso and the Manor drivers. I see there's now a footnote which effectively says, "We know this table includes information that is misleading, but we like to make it as cock-eyed as we can so here's a footnote." I look forward to you people making every other relevant example consistent with this rubbish. Incidentally, emdashes are not the correct dash to use, but it's sort of fitting that you're using them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking through this, there's absolutely no consensus for putting 2–9 in the rounds column. In fact there's the opposite. It's just another case of the same old characters dragging something out for so long that nobody wants to argue any more. Then some old crap is put in the article and we go again. Well done, everyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, everyone. Of all the users who posted a direct opinion on the teams and driver table (myself, you, Twirlypen, Falcadore, Prisonermonkeys, TREKphiler, —Gyaro –Maguus— and CtrlXctrlV), you are the only one who insist that one 1-9 is the only correct way. All the others seem to agree that 2-9 is the best way forward, while CtrlXctrlV seems to be neutralish with a slight tilt in favour of your argument. There's no pretending from me at all. There's certainly no consensus for your version. And please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. T v x1 00:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Amazing. You forget QueenCake, Pyrope and DHnumbers who don't seem to agree with you, and GM who has said below he thinks 1–9 is the better thing to do. You don't fancy his plan because it means having stats you don't like the look of. CtrlXctrlV is a bit more than neutral, as it looked to me. Maybe you should do some reading of your own, starting with WP:CONSENSUS. There's no point in having any further discussion about any of this as your debating style simply produces acres of chat, after which we just do what you want to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed omit those users (and this time you forget one as well: Lukeno94), because they did not post any direct opinion regarding the teams and drivers table, but only regarding the statistics in the infoboxes of the team's and the drivers' articles. We have all agreed to go by (first) entries there. But just because they supported that, it doesn't allow anyone to synthesise any opinion regarding the season articles. That's why I left them out. I refrain from deciding for them what their opinion is regarding a particular subject. I only consider those who have left a clear documented opinion regarding the actual subject of debate. Again, not bad faith at all. T v x1 20:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I only support "2–9" because it appears to be what we have followed in previous seasons. I have looked at the early seasons and entries which didn't amount to anything at all are usually completely ignored from Wikipedia. Since this Marussia entry also didn't amount to anything at all it seems right to use "2–9". I do believe that "1–9" is actually the better thing to do, but that would involve making Lola in 1997 "1–2", adding FIRST Racing to the 1989 table, adding Raymond Mays to the 1950 table, among many changes. Then I think about it, and for those three it makes sense – they had entries, being on the official entry lists – but they didn't actually do anything. —Gyaro –Maguus— 01:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And why do you consider First and Mays for inclusion? I can't actually find any evidence that they ever were on the entry list of a Grand Prix. Anyway as said before the tables in those article are described in their respective articles to show the teams and drivers who took part/competed in the season and thus not of those who were entered. So none of your examples fits the criteria. By your reasoning we should also add USF1 to the 2010 article. We shouldn't be doing that now, shouldn't we? T v x1 01:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are multiple inconsistencies across the season articles, such as First and Mays, then we should take this opportunity to address them. And we should be deciding based on what is most representative of what happened, not based on how much work needs to be done.

Personally, I think that the discriminator should be taking part in an event rather than appearing on an entry list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

So rather than using a reliable source like an entry list, we should use your definition of what constitutes "taking part" in an event. You don't see the flaw in that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I see the flaw in using an entry list as a source when that list is the only place where a team has entered anything. Especially when the entry list is published before the team did not take part in anything, and there are a multitude of reliable sources that attest to the way that the team never took part in any session. If the only place where the team entered anything is the entry list, how can we reasonably say that they took part in anything? You're still assuming that the team and driver table is an entry list, and not a summary of who took part and when. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How can we reasonably say they took part in anything? Because the FIA said so. We've already got a summary of who took part and when; it's called a results table. This is what people like Falcadore mean when they say there are too many tables in season articles, just repeating the same old stuff, all of which is repeated again and again in other articles. Before somebody decided a bloody rounds column should be added, that table was a simple entry list of teams, nominated drivers, chassis and engines, which was easily understood and easily sourced with no arguments. Keeping it simple. It's basic, basic article construction. A season of motor sport - start with a list of who's involved. Never mind which rounds they entered and why, that's what the results table and the text are for. No, instead we over-complicate everything, leave much of it ambiguous, stick a bunch of flags on it and pretend it's good. It isn't. How season articles became so goddamn long, I'll never know. There's one way in which Wikipedia coverage of F1 reflects F1 itself very accurately – it's been dicked around so much that it's now too complicated and the overall quality has suffered. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think the rounds column is there? It's to illustrate when driver changes happened. Otherwise, you would have three drivers—Button, Alonso and Magnussen—in two cars. So who drove which car, and when? Given the size of the article, readers will either have to read the entire thing to find out, or scroll up and down between table and matrices. The rounds column isn't simply window-dressing—it creates verisimilitude between the individual parts of the article. And it's not the only part that does it; once upon a time, the season review used to be positioned at the start of the article before editors realised that this assumed the reader was familiar with the teams, drivers and rounds in advance, and that if they weren't, they were forced to scroll down, familiarise themselves with it, and then scroll back up. And so, in the interests of verisimilitude, the the articles were rearranged.

Ideally, articles should be written in such a way that a reader who knows nothing of the sport can click "random page", read it through and understand it. If that means editors have to hold their hand a little bit, then so be it. You're forgetting that our audience is anyone who reads Wikipedia, not simply the fans of the sport, and so stating that Manor took part in round one because a single reliable source said that they were expecting to when in reality they didn't do anything that could be considered taking part—and when there are dozens of other reliable sources that said they didn't take part—is incredibly misleading. Especially when it contradicts other parts of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head – "Given the size of the article...". It's far too long. We've even now introduced a situation where the footnote for the top table is about two miles south of the table itself. The season review – too long. Why is there a race report for every race? We have race articles for that. It's all extra guff. I'm not forgetting that people reading this may not understand F1 very well – I refuse to refer to them as "our audience" like we're writing a magazine – I'm remembering these people, and thinking of the crap they have to wade through just to try and understand what goes on in an F1 season. That said, babying them by implying that Manor weren't in Australia (because that's what the table does, whether you like it or not) is not the answer. That table should clearly say they were there, and leave it to the results table to explain what happened. Clear as day. You're creating a huge amount of future work for yourself when you try and make tables for other seasons match that, because you just do not have enough information to do it. If a driver was entered in a race in 1952, you have no idea whether he practiced or not, only whether he took the start and raced. So how can you possibly maintain consistency when you make it so complicated? If that guy DNS, is he added to the rounds column? Well, did he "take part"? You've got no clue. But I really don't think that stuff bothers you guys. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's certainly impossible to find out wat happened at a race in 1952, because I guess the press hadn't been invented yet back then. Surely there was no radio and there were no newspapers yet. Brenton, I'm sorry but I fail to understand why this is such a drama for you, why you are so offended by this. Can't you just see how many people are disagreeing with you? You are literally the only one complaining that we are making ridiculous articles. If you really want to see a bad example, take a look at the Rally articles. Some rally reports contain just one table. Twirlypen, has stated time and time again that the season report section will be rewritten to a full season report once the season is over. We can't simply write the full report yet because the season isn't even halfway over yet. Please assume good faith in your fellow editors will you. T v x1 16:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see why this discussion has been reopened, as I can't see any arguments that weren't raised originally. As far as I'm concerned, the facts remain the same. Manor were entered into the Australian Grand Prix (this is indisputable). Neither of Manor's cars set a timed lap in a session over the weekend. That however makes no difference in the context of this discussion. These statistics have always been about race entries, not "participation", and besides there is no official definition of "participation" that we can use to negate Manor's Australian Grand Prix.

I also agree with Bretonbanquet over the use of the "DNP" tag in tables. I'm not sure whether the correct one would be DNS or DNQ, but DNP clearly appears to be an original creation of a Wikipedia editor. QueenCake (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Funny how Tvx1 ignored you when he was talking about his "consensus". Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Were not talking about the driver/team statistics here. Every one has agreed to the changes for the team/driver articles were we now entirely go by entries. The current discussion is over the teams and drivers table in the season articles and in each of these articles they are introduced as the list of teams and drivers who competed/took part in the races. Manor didn't do that. And yes, there is an official definition of participation. Setting a time in a least a session. And for race drivers that seesion is one saturday session. And Breton, I didn't include QueenCake because they didn't post a direct opinion on the teams' and drivers' table and as far as I can see they still haven't. Their above argument relates to team and driver statistics, which we are not discussing anymore. Again, stop the bad faith insertions. T v x1 16:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1: (e/c) If you think that the press carried full details of practice sessions, you've clearly never looked into it in any detail. If obscure Driver X had an engine failure in practice in 1952 without setting a time, how will you find out if it blew up on track, or whether he couldn't get it started? Did he "take part" or not? Don't tell me you can find out because I know from experience that it's not always possible. You will not be able to maintain consistency across the range of articles because you make it too complicated. You want to know what I'm offended by? Mediocrity and inconsistency. I don't care about rally articles, there's your latest attempt at going off on a tangent. Who asked for a full season report anyway? I certainly didn't; something you made up? It's already too long in my opinion and we're barely halfway through the season. My point is that F1 articles are becoming less consistent, and there's a good reason for that.

Why would we go by entries in one respect and not another? Is this for real? You are introducing inconsistency. Your idea of an official definition of participation is wrong, unless you have a source for that. Are you saying that race drivers have to have taken part in a Saturday session to be deemed to have participated in the event? That's rubbish. I'm done here, I just don't believe that you are capable of discussing this meaningfully, whether you want to or not, and the result is going to be the same anyway. We might as well protect the article for the benefit of those who agree with you. I look forward to watching the level of inconsistency be maintained, at best. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean it's wrong. It 's all in the rule book. I don't make up my own definitions. And it seems they've even changed it, they have to take part in one practice session over the entire weekend now, so no longer specifically one saturday session. You see those things happen. You're obsession that we have to use one rule that fits all for 110 years worth of season articles, just doesn't work because the sport's rules change over they year. And in Formula 1 they do so very frequently. T v x1 16:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to quote the section/paragraph, I'm not trawling through the entire thing to find something that isn't there. You've almost certainly disregarded what I asked for anyway and will quote me something else – remember I'm talking about a definition of having participated in an event, (and you'll know that an "event" is everything from scrutineering to the podium ceremony) not a race. The rules change? Do they? Well, thanks so much for letting me know. Assuming good faith is hard when you're so bloody patronising. Good to see you've at least admitted that consistency is not something you're aiming for. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what you seem to want believe, I do aim for consitency. However like with everything, I'm bound with what the reliable sources and the rules state. For instance the 2014 British Grand Prix lists Raikkonen as retired, while the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix lists a bunch of drivers as DNS, simply because the rules on how to deal with first lap red flags were different when those events happened. Does that look awfully incosistent? Of course it does. But that is how these events unfolded. Now stop referring to what happened 60 years ago. We're talking about a 2015 race governed by 2015 rules. It's rule 36.1 you're looking for, by the way. Again I don't invent my own defenitions. T v x1 18:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Another tangent, and ah yes, 36.1 – the 107% rule, which states nothing about a definition of participation in an event, which is what I asked for. As for you being bound by the rules, I refer you to the clarification section below. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops it's 32.1. Sorry for that. T v x1 18:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. 32.1 is the schedule for free practice. Do you mean 31.2? That's the requirements for being allowed into the race, which also isn't what I asked for. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes 31.2. The one that states that you have take part in at least one practice session to be eligible to start the race. If you didn't take part in anything, you're not a race driver. T v x1 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's great, but it's not what I asked for. I never talked about eligibility for the race, I wanted a definition of having participated in the event, and it does not exist. Therefore nothing can be provided to deny that Manor participated in the Australian event. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There should be no difference between the team and driver statistics and the rounds column in the entry table on the season articles, and they should both include Manor's entry in Australia. I hope that makes my position clear.

After doing a fair amount of snooping, it appears that I may be wrong over participation. There appears to be an official definition of participation, of sorts. Article 13.2 (f) says each team must undertake to participate in every event. The stewards investigation (I'll link this document again for convenience) into this matter says quite plainly that the FIA considers that Manor participated in the Australian Grand Prix:

[Quotations from the stewards report, bolding mine]

The stewards convened to determine whether there had been a breach of Article 13.2 (f) of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations relating to participation in the event by the Manor Marussia F1 Team.

Having considered all available material, the Stewards determined that there had not been a breach of Article 13.2 (f)

Therefore the Stewards accepted that the team explained it had used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that its cars were able to compete in active competition, therefore the Stewards take no further action during the event.

If the rounds column is to be based on entries we have to include Manor. If it is to be based on participation, we have to go by the officials definition of participation. The stewards of the race stated Manor did not breach the rules relating to participation, ergo they participated and we have to include Manor. Whether or not the cars left the garage or set a timed lap shouldn't matter here - anyone who wishes to know about Manor's Australian Grand Prix can read the race report. QueenCake (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

For anyone who (understandably) doesn't want to trawl through the above nonsense, here's my argument broken down into bitesize pieces. I will then aim to walk away from this as I don't see any sensible solution arising anytime soon.

I understood the table in question to show team/driver entries; Tvx1 and Prisonermonkeys take it to show participations. Either way, I believe Manor and its drivers to have participated in the event (Australian GP weekend); Tvx1 and PM (and whoever else) do not consider the team to have participated.
Manor did not run either of its cars, nobody disputes that. The rules say all teams must participate in every event with both cars. Accordingly, the FIA asked Manor why they didn't run.
Manor made their case and the FIA decided the rules were not broken, specifically the rule about participation.[8] Therefore it can be said that the FIA are satisfied that Manor participated, or the team would have been sanctioned under this rule. No source has been provided to say that Manor did not participate in the event (not practice or the race – the event).
Tvx1 and PM are not happy with the FIA's definition of participation and have invented their own definition based on whatever logic they use. This is the definition currently applied to the table. I believe that editors' own definitions of sporting regulations or terms used within them are unencylopedic, unverifiable and unreliable. I would prefer to use the FIA's definition as I consider this to be all of those things.

I think that effectively sums up my position, and anyone reading this can judge it as they see fit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not my opinion of the meaning of the table. These tables have had the explanation above them that they list the teams and drivers who took part long before I even considered becoming an editor. I just try to follow the standard the project has set out years ago. The source you provided states that Under article 13.2 of F1's sporting regulations, when teams enter the championship they must show that they plan to "participate in every event with the number of cars and drivers entered." You're assessment is correct that they indeed did not break that rule, as they did show more than enough intent to participate. However, that does not automatically assert that they did participate. T v x1 19:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say "plan". Rule 13.2f: "[Competitors' applications] shall include an undertaking by the applicant to participate in every event with the number of cars and drivers entered." My interpretation of that probably differs from yours, but the rule was not broken, and there is no definition of "participation" in the Sporting Regulations with which to deny Manor's participation. They passed scrutineering, which is also part of the event. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The source you provided, from Autosport, does literally say plan. The quote from the rule book I provided does indeed instead say an undertaking, and not they shall participate. T v x1 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The source was provided to verify that no action was taken against Manor, not to verify the FIA's wording. The rulebook is the FIA's wording, and as I predicted, we differ on its interpretation, and there is no definition provided of "participating in the event". You don't deny that Manor underwent scrutineering, or that scrutineering is part of the event. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I would argue there is a definition of participation, based upon the stewards ruling on whether or not a team participated. QueenCake (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

But the steward's ruling does not state that. It literally states that the team explained it had used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that its cars were able to compete in active competition as required by article 13.2f. They tried what they could to make sure the cars were able to compete. What it patently does not say is that Will Stevens and Roberto Merhi took part in the Grand Prix, in accordance with rule 31.2, like you want us to state in the season article. T v x1 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

QueenCake's argument that a definition is provided by the FIA ruling with respect to 13.2f is a strong one. Specifically, within that ruling several mitigating circumstances are provided by the FIA which satisfied them that the participation rule was met, not least that they underwent scrutineering, and as we know, scrutineering is part of the event. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Save that that rule does not request participation, but ensuring the ability to participate. So that they acted within that rule does not confirm they participated at all and it certainly does not confirm that Stevens and Merhi did participate as race drivers, which is what you want us to state in the season article. T v x1 21:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

They were nominated as race drivers and participated in the event. This has been proven already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, I almost feel bad bringing this up in the first place. ~~And isn't the footnote directly under the table? That's where it is on my screen.~~ Nevermind, PM removed it from there, where it's needed most. Maybe the wording atop the table needs to be looked at, since that seems to be the underlying issue here. Twirlypen (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How? Where is the proof that Stevens and Merhi actually participated? You have only proven that Manor did their best to ensure that they were able to participate. But that's not the question we are trying to answer here. Twirlypen, Prisonermonkeys moved it to the bottom of the article. On that point I agree with Bretonbanquet that it's more practical for the readers to have directly underneath the table. T v x1 22:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Both Manor cars took part in scrutineering: Australian GP Stewards' Meeting 15/3/15 – "the team had... [4] taken part in scrutineering" and passed of course.
Scrutineering is part of the event: FIA Sporting Regulations 2.2 – "Event means any event entered into the FIA Formula One Championship Calendar for any year commencing at the scheduled time for scrutineering and sporting checks and including all practice and the race itself..."
Ergo, the team and its drivers participated in the event, just not much of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The cars took part in scrutineering, not the drivers. That does not confirm the drivers participated in the Grand Prix. T v x1 22:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The drivers also undergo scrutineering: their licences, race suits, helmets, HANS devices etc are checked according to FIA standards and drivers are weighed for future calculations at weight checks during Qualifying. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put the footnote back under the table, at least for now. Whether we agree that there should be one in the first place or not, I think we can all agree that, at least for the casual reader's clarification, it belongs under the table until a final concensus is achieved. I think Bretonbanquet has a solid case for participation. Albeit very minor participation, it is participation nonetheless. I again bring up the wording above the table as a possible cause for this confusion in the first place. Twirlypen (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, please stop reverting edits without seeing the discussion first. Also, please specify the exact issues the placement of the table footnotes is causing by being directly underneath the table instead of just saying "it causes issues." Thank you. Twirlypen (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I understand your mobile device may have trouble displaying this discussion due to it's length. If you'd like, we can start a new section. Otherwise, please refrain from editing on matters being discussed that you cannot participate in. Twirlypen (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I can participate—I just edit the section below, but put content above the break. If I haven't participated for some time, it's because I was asleep and then I went to work.

I reverted the edits because if we have two separate sections of footnotes, the software doesn't know which one to show when I click on it. It might be a by-product of the recent software updates, but I know that it doesn't affect the desktop version because it shows the footnote in a bubble, a lot like references. On mobiles, however, it physically scrolls the page—but with two sections, it doesn't know where to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I've offered another solution besides the footnote template, then. Twirlypen (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Or we could just use the version that we know works with no issues and stop making changes for the sake of making them, and keep the consistency within the article.

And if change is necessary, perhaps we could discuss potential changes before making them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

For a discussion that is so long, you can't even view it in it's entirity anymore, I don't know where you're getting that there isn't a problem with how it is right now. If you've followed any discussion here in the past year, you'd know that nobody wants to make the first move once a discussion is over. See the Manor/Marussia MR03B and Caterham discussion below for 2 very recent examples. Frankly, I'm astonished that you're flirting with 3RR over something that very obviously isn't right the way it is. Twirlypen (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It was so quiet here without Prisonermonkeys... those were the days... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion was essentially over with, until an edit was made against concensus, and this talk page was at 107,646 bytes (which, is large enough) at the time. Since then, this page has ballooned by over 70,000 bytes in the past 3 days, and this "discussion" has needed 2 subsections due to it's length and compatibility for one editor. Quieter days, indeed. Twirlypen (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase—if you don't have anything to contribute, don't bother. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Twirlypen—don't you dare to presume to know what I am thinking. I have given you a perfectly valid reason as to why the edits don't work. If you're so convinced that I am trying to impose IDONTLIKEIT, perhaps you would care to explain how those edits break the functionality of the article and why this is not just acceptable, but better for the article than a set of edits that don't break the page, even though they're in violation of a long-standing consensus that says we should make edits that are good for as many readers as possible. And while you're at it, please give me one good reason why I shouldn't go over to ANI/3RR for your latest string of edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have stated on my talk page, reverting back to an accepted version of the article does not violate 3RR, and if you feel otherwise, you are more than welcome to report the issue. I introduced an alternative option to the footnote template by using a legend, one that does NOT inhibit your viewing experience. Your revision based solely on, and I quote, "or we could just use the version that we know works with no issues" with no real excuse as to how it makes the page worse for you, falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and is moreso grounds for a 3RR violation than anything I have done constructively. So by all means, take it to ANI. I'd love to hear what they say regarding your conduct 3 days after a 3 month ban. Twirlypen (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see: there's the original edit that I made in good faith when I saw the same template repeated unnecessarily, the glitch that I reported to VPT, the subsequent edits that I made to the article aimed at correcting the glitch until such time as a more permanent solution could be found in the coding, and this conversation where people have repeatedly ignored my attempts at drawing their attention to the issue and launched [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Needlessly reverting a constructive edit that in no uncertain terms imposes no restriction on your ability to view the article is edit-warring and can ONLY fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 3RR isn't the only thing that needs to be violated to be considered edit-warring. Concensus was formed. The page remained unchanged until you got back and, in good faith, reverted the table back to 1-9 and I brought you here to indicate the discussion had taken place. However, you continued to revert edits, remove tooltips, and generally impose your preference over the accepted version (which is assumed after a few days of going unchanged by editors involved in discussion) while you renewed the discussion. That is edit-warring and WP:IDONTLIKEIT by definition. Twirlypen (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A few days? I wasn't asleep that long. When I went to sleep eighteen hours ago, the single-use template was still in the article. As for those other changes, I direct your attention to the long-standing consensus that edits should accommodate as many users as possible—something that footnotes do, but tooltips do not. Edits that you initially rejected outright. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about this, which was initially in good faith because I assumed you hadn't seen the discussion, which is when I tagged you here when I reverted that. The tooltips and footnotes were initally reverted under the guise that "they didn't make sense," which is when I asked for specific clarification both times, and I was fine with both explanations. What I have a miff about is why you reverted a constructive edit when it clearly had nothing to do with functionality before allowing any other editor that has been involved a chance to accept or reject the compromise. The only one audibly against the footnote was Bretonbanquet, and exponentially more so when the footnote was at the very bottom of the page. Changing it to a text legend is a chance to make both sides happy on the matter regarding an issue that was, and not trying to imply any snide tone, but an issue that was very much closed to begin with before you came back. Twirlypen (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

But the stewards' ruling does not state that. It literally states that the team explained it had used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that its cars were able to compete in active competition as required by article 13.2f. They tried what they could to make sure the cars were able to compete. What it patently does not say is that Will Stevens and Roberto Merhi took part in the Grand Prix, in accordance with rule 31.2, like you want us to state in the season article.
— [[User:T v x1 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)]]

Save that that rule does not request participation, but ensuring the ability to participate. So that they acted within that rule does not confirm they participated at all and it certainly does not confirm that Stevens and Merhi did participate as race drivers, which is what you want us to state in the season article.
— [[User:T v x1 21:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)]]

I don't wish to be rude Tvx1, but Manor and their drivers participation in Australia is stated in plain English in that ruling. The ruling does not use the words "Manor participated in this event", but it does state Manor did not break the regulations relating to participation - which means the exact same thing. Participation is a binary choice - you either do or do not, and in this situation those responsible for adjudicating this decision say that Manor and their drivers participated, by stating that they did not not participate. I cannot possibly explain this in simpler terms. QueenCake (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't state that, that ruling states that they did what they could to make sure that their cars (and drivers) were able to participate, not that they actually participated. But it doesn't matter anymore, because Bretonbanquet has provided enough in the meantime to assert participation, even it was very minor. So there is no need to debate that further. However, if we are going to strictly and consistently apply that rule, than surely we have to include Alexander Rossi in the 2014 teams and drivers' table for the 2014 Russian Grand Prix since he took part in scrutineering and was subsequently entered for the event (=he took part in the grand prix), shouldn't we? We should consistently apply our conventions, no? Oh and by the way, I didn't notice it before, but the entriy lists for Grands prix (such as this one), contain the following sentence (I'll bold the part that is very important to this discussion): During initial scrutineering today the following cars were found in conformity with the safety requirements of the 2015 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations. Therefore the list of cars and drivers eligible to take part in this Event may be found below. So it seems it's not that clear cut that the FIA considers taking part in scrutineering counts as taking part in the event, but that it simply makes one eligible to take part in the event. So it seems like it is not as black and white as we thought. T v x1 16:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really; a team or driver could be found ineligible to take part in the event even though the event has already started. It doesn't necessarily follow that eligibility has to established before the event starts. Just as in the past, a car could fail a weight check in Qualifying and be deemed ineligible to take part (excluded) – it doesn't mean it never took part at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And on the question of Rossi – I don't know if I said anything at the time, and my familiarity with that particular incident has faded somewhat, but if he was a nominated driver at any stage (whether it was changed later during the weekend or not), and intended to take part in the race, he should be listed as a race driver. Same as if he wasn't replaced by another driver and the car didn't run. Obviously his name should carry a footnote to explain why he's there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok I can follow that reasoning. But what should we do with his entry for the 2014 Belgian Grand Prix? Again, he was on the entry list and participated in scrutineering and thus took part in the Grand Prix. He was replaced with another driver though. So if we list him for that round we would eventually end up with two drivers in the table for the same car for the same round. T v x1 19:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would include him with a footnote. It's a pain that Caterham and Marussia were messing around so much at that time. He was originally down as a race driver though. Having two drivers using the same car for the same round isn't all that rare though – off the top of my head, in Japan in 1976 Williams had Kuwashima replaced by Binder during practice and we've got both there in the table. In Rossi's case he barely did anything before being replaced, but for me, he just crosses the line between not participating and technically participating in the event. An example of someone not crossing that line would be Jorge de Bagration in Spain 1974. He had an entry at one point but he was later omitted and rightly or wrongly, removed from the event before it started. Another one would be Gary Hocking in South Africa '62 – on the entry list, but sadly deceased a few days before the event. Drawing the line there means we can cut out all those guys in the 50s and 60s who were on entry lists but didn't arrive at races – those guys can be hard to deal with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet's points regarding participation regarding Manor seem to be pretty airtight. As Queencake stated, the stewards in Australia deemed that Manor did not break any rules regarding participation. Ergo, by that ruling, it can be reasonably deduced that Manor did participate. It's either they did Y or they did not N. Now, if we want to squabble on about whether that applies to the drivers or not, I'm not looking forward to it, but the way I see that situation is I doubt Manor would go through scrutineering while the drivers did not. Such as, I hardly doubt Stevens and Merhi sat in a chair when it was time and said, "well our guys are busting their asses trying to get our cars ready, and we don't know if they will in fact have them ready, but since they aren't ready right now on Thursday or Friday or whatever day they scrutineer us, let's just skip weigh-in and hope we don't have to do anything," and would avoid sanction by said stewards. Twirlypen (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, on a simpler scale, trying avoiding templates that may possibly interfere with mobile viewers, yes, that was what I was trying to do. Twirlypen (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I knew that one works, since it's the way we show grid movements as a result of a penalty and there are no issues on mobiles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The footnote template used earlier on would have worked fine as well. That is, if you use it correctly. No surprise at all that the article has difficulties pointing to the right footnote if you attritube the same name to both groups of footnotes ({{Refn|group=N}}). You should have given different names to the different groups of footnotes. For instance you could have used {{Refn|group=N}} for the table footnotes and {{Refn|group=Note}} for the results matrices' footnote. There certainly isn't any glitch. T v x1 09:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Technically, he participated" is not an acceptable argument. Either a driver took part, or a driver didn't take part. And given that their job title is "driver", it stands to reason that participating involves driving the car'. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, nobody has satisfactorily resolved the inherent problem with a single piece of paper published before the race takes precedence over dozens of reliable sources published after the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, he took part, he participated. And no, it doesn't stand to that type of reason because being a racing driver involves a lot more than driving the car. In terms of taking part in an event, it involves much rigmarole before you ever take to the track. That goes for bog standard clubman racing right up to F1. There's no problem about "a single piece of paper" (by which I assume you mean the entry list) taking precedence over anything. None of those sources says Manor did not participate in the event. The sources QueenCake produced state that they did. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Technically, they participated" is a perfectly acceptable argument based on the FIA rules and rulings of the stewards at the events. Plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA, I didn't see them on TV so..." doesn't supercede facts. Being a driver involves a lot more than simply driving a car at a GP practice, qualifying, and/or the race itself, and if you think otherwise, then you simply know nothing about the profession. There's fittings, scrutineerings, simulations, testings, etc.

Frankly, this discussion should have been over long ago and am growing weary of the same back and forth. The arguments have been presented, and it's not going to come down to a matter of last man standing getting their way. Not this time, not anymore. In favor of 1-9, we have the FIA rules and stewards ruling stating that Manor did not break any rules regarding failure to participate, which in other words means they participated in at least one portion of the Grand Prix. In favor of 2-9, we have a dozen or so results that simply state Manor did not set times in practice, qualifying, or the race and make no other mention of other aspects of the event. I, for one, am convinced at the arguments presented and now believe it should be 1-9. Bretonbanquet feels the same, as does Queencake. Prisonermonkeys is in favor of 2-9, as well as Tvx1 for the purpose of having to participate in at least one practice session. These are the five most recent editors that have voiced an opinion since the discussion was rehashed.

As such, we have 3 in favor of 1-9, and 2 in favor of 2-9. This is hardly a change in concensus since the end of the first part of this discussion, and with that the previous version of the article should stand, which is 1-9 with the tooltip for rounds entered. However, to allow functionality for all users, I think the footnote would be a better option than the tooltip. Twirlypen (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If I've missed anyone, it is unintentional and I apologize. Please state your side one way or the other. Twirlypen (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey hang on, did you miss the parts where I agreed that Bretonbanquet had provide convincing evidence that they participated and where I wrote I follow there reasoning? T v x1 05:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparantly so! This discussion is so ridiculously and ludicrously long, it's easy to miss a reply or two. My apologies. So we have four in favor of 1-9, and one for 2-9, pending other editors' inputs. Twirlypen (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well there are three others that voiced their opinion since Prisonermonkeys relaunched the discussion: GyaroMaguus, Trekphiler and CtrlXctrlV. T v x1 06:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Trekphiler's remark is kind of ambiguous, however leans towards 2-9. Will mark for 2-9.
GyaroMaguus's remark supports 2-9, but agrees 1-9 is the better thing to do. Mark neutral.
CtrlXctrlV's remark is that they see both sides. Mark as neutral.

For 1-9: Four editors (myself, Tvx1, Bretonbanquet, and QueenCake)
For 2-9: Two editors (Prisonermonkeys and Trekphiler)
Neutral: Two editors (GyaroMaguus and CtrlXctrlV)

Have I got everyone? And please correct me if I've misinterpretted your comments. Twirlypen (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. For one, consensus is not a vote. But more importantly, listing them as having taken part implies that they actually took part—this "they did stuff, so they participated" argument hinges on a technical definition that isn't explicated in the article. It still contradicts the rest of the article, and nobody has even attempted to explain how one source published before the race takes priority over dozens of sources published after the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Because those dozens of sources merely state that Manor did not set a practice, qualifying, or race time. None of them go on to state that Manor broke FIA participation rules. In fact, subsequent sources re-affirm this by stating the stewards decision on the matter. Twirlypen (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we state then what that technical definition is in the article? Perhaps change the footnote to "Will Stevens and Roberto Merhi were entered for the first round in Australia, but although both they and Manor were present, they did not compete as the team were unable to complete their cars in time for the event. Though Manor did not set any times, the team was cleared by the stewards of wrongdoings concerning participation under FIA rule 31.2(reference rule here)"? Twirlypen (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What you're missing is that this is dealing with a space that is highly technical and needs a convoluted definition to explain the discrepancy. Technically, it is right, but eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns and it begins to harm the article because you get caught up in the explanation and you lose the flow of the article. In order to adequately explain it, you would need to cover not only the sporting regulations and the stewards' decision, but the political motivation to waive the rules and consider Manor as having participated, thereby allowing them to keep their 2014 prize money and stay afloat.

That's why we can't rely on a single document like this—we wind up in funny territory when something unusual happens. We had a similar debate when Timo Glock was sick and could not take part in a race one year—was he withdrawn or simply DNS?

The advantage of considering a driver to have participated when they take to the circuit is that it's black and white: either they took part, or they didn't. There is no for alternatives. Here, we're relying on interpretations of the rule book and having to communicate it through footnotes in a situation where simplicity is the best way forwards. Adding layers of complexity helps no-one, and footnotes should be used to compliment content by explaining or building upon supplementary points, not taking the place of the primary point.

We are an encyclopaedia. Our job is to document what happened in the simplest and most direct way. We must of course rely on credible sources, but it is possible to get caught up being unable to see the forest for the trees. Right now, we're staring at the tree, and we've lost sight of its impact on the entire article. Technically correct is not the best kind of correct—we have to meet the needs of the article, and I feel that relying on an extensive technical discussion of the rules to communicate a very minor point does not meet anyone's needs.

I will say it again: simplicity and effectiveness are our friends. If we consider driving the car in a session to be taking part, and not driving to be not taking part, then it is black and white. There is no need for interpretation and discussion—it is either yes or no. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"If we consider driving the car..." is what we had discussed previously. "What does the column actually mean? And affecting secondary articles like the team and driver articles, is the term debut, which could be ambiguous in it's interpretation by some users vs others, the right term to be using instead of something more concrete, like entered?" It was established that the rounds column should be for rounds entered and the infobox labels for debut should be changed to first entry. I get what you're saying, I really do, but I'm saying is that it's all been discussed before in this very discussion and the concensus was reached to be less vague and open to as little misinterpretation as possible while still able to be sourced - which we can with an entry sheet and the FIA ruling.

Trying to state that the rounds column is for participation brings us right back to the beginning of the arguement of what that means to some people vs what it means to others. It's too vague and open to misinterpretation, just as the term Debut was. Twirlypen (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How are the binary opposites of driving and not driving "too vague"? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to read the discussion from the start. The issue was the table saying 2-9, while the team article said they debuted in Australia, yet Merhi's article said his debut was Malaysia. Through all the squabbling, it was decided, and concensus formed, that debut was too vague and that the rounds column, to be consistant with entries, would mean just that - entries. This unified information in the Manor, Merhi, and the 2015 season articles and now, together with the sources indicating FIA participation, unifies all of the information by stating Manor participated in Australia even if only slightly. Otherwise we are saying Manor entered Australia with no drivers. You want to make the article clear for a casual reader - that was the issue. A footnote PLUS prose explanation (3rd paragraph of Championship summary) PLUS further explanation on the event article PLUS explanation on the team's article PLUS explanation on the car's article should more than suffice as an explanation to the casual reader instead of having information conflicting such as different debuts, rounds, etc. that only a seasoned fan/editor of the project/sport would understand. Twirlypen (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It should work, but the problem is that it doesn't. Did you not read what I said about complexity and interpretation? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I did, actually. The problem is though your interpretation doesn't supercede the concensus that was previously formed regarding the issue. I tagged you in here (a discussion that had essentially concluded) so that you could present your case once you were able to participate, but it doesn't look like your arguments have persuaded anyone to change their minds to put it back to 2-9. I don't know what else to tell you. Twirlypen (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I know what to tell you—consensus is not a vote. The moment you were persuaded, you immediately posted "3-2, new consensus" and changed the article. That's not how consensus operates. It's a form of mediation to try and decide the best way forwards, and I believe that there are serious concerns that have not been addressed—like the unnecessary complexity introduced into the article, which hinges on a detailed understanding of the technical regulations and the political context. Nor have you addressed the contradiction between the table and the matrices, or the way the table implies that the drivers actually drove, and that by including the footnote, you undermine the position of every other driver there. You're neglecting the needs of the readership and assuming that they have the same understanding as you, and you haven't considered alternatives. You have just raced to get the numbers—and if it only ever came down to number, you have a marginal consensus at best, since it can easily change—and have expected that anyone opposed will accept that and overlook their own reservations because of a number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In other words, "you must see things my way." No, I don't, actually. Just because you've presented an argument doesn't mean I or anyone else has to agree, which appears to be the case. I switched it back to what it was before because that's what concensus was. The article was stable, the discussion had ended. Ergo - concensus. Aside from the tooltip/footnote format, you have exploded this talk page beyond reasonable lengths with different words, all amounting to "it's complicated and I don't like it and I don't think anyone else likes it either," even though everyone who participated in the discussion has disagreed.

I amounted a tally to see where everyone stood since you've re-raised the issue, and aside from the two obvious neutrals, everyone participating is satisfied with how it is and, more importantly, are unconvinced by your arguments, including me. They are all done with this and so am I. Twirlypen (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your case would be better-served if you made an argument that could not be turned back upon itself. You admitted that you tallied the numbers up and enforced consensus the moment you had the numbers, which is a vote. The rest of your post amounts to "I don't want yo hear it any more, so the consensus stands". Nowhere do you address the issues which have been raised, because you apparently think that so long as you can claim a consensus on the matter, the edits will hold.

The irony is that you clearly think that this sets you above me in terms of editing style. But guess what I got my first block for? Doing "'exactly what you have done. So how about you address the issues, or we can start playing the numbers game the way you have been—and given that you won't discuss those issues, we'll just consider your contributions invalid.

And before you say anything, yes, that's exactly the terms you have been imposing on everyone else. I think it's only fair that you play by your own rules. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone else, just you. Everyone else, aside from the neutrals (again, yet another thing I've had to reiterate at least four times), is convinced that your argument doesn't stand. We will not consider my contributions invalid, only you will, because I'm refusing to cave to your baseless demands while, for some reason, even bothering to reply to you. And yes, of course the edits will hold as long as there is a concensus and the concensus hasn't been swayed - that's a given - I shouldn't have to state the obvious.

What is there to discuss? You think it's irrational that the table is set up that way and no one agrees with you. You think it's easier for the casual reader to have conflicting information in different articles and again, no one agrees. Big deal. If you feel there's no concensus among the editors involved, you're welcome to use the other avenues available to you, such as starting a new discussion indirectly relating to the matter (which you've already done), going to DRN (which would really just be you saying "These guys don't agree with me and I don't like it"), or accepting concensus and moving on instead of literally clogging this entire talk page up with a temper tantrum. You do this every single time a discussion doesn't go in your favor anyway, so I'm not really surprised, just annoyed and disappointed. Twirlypen (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already explained that several times:

It contradicts the matrices.
The full explanation hinges on a detailed understanding and interpretation of the rules.
It represents an over-complication to the article.
It undermines the position of every other entry in the table, since they are now open to interpretation; rather than being a simple yes or no, there is now a third option: "yes, but under these conditions".

Now ideally, you are either supposed to address these issues in such a way that people concerned about them are reassured, or propose further edits or alternative edits that will overcome these issues. But you haven't done that—you have just said "3-2, consensus formed" and expected everyone to accept it without further argument. And then you wonder why people like me keep the discussion going. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's 4-1, and going back to the beginning of the discussion about a month and a half ago, probably around 12-1, maybe 12-2. Also, please continue to ignore the whole part about compromise. Compromise is actually a very large part of CON. Being the lone person to disagree retroactively doesn't overrule concensus. I've already proposed that the rule be cited in a reference in the footnote (which, by encyclopedia definition, it should be anyway) in very plain English. It's quite an easy fix, but I suppose since it wasn't YOUR idea, you'll completely ignore that as well. As far as the rest of your list, they are quite literally personal opinions; ones that, again (FIFTH TIME), you've failed to get anyone to agree with. I am done here, but don't think that means I or anyone else has conceded. Twirlypen (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And if you think casual readers would still misunderstand that, with the source and the explanation laid out in plain English not using very large or complicated words, then that is what Simple Wikipedia is for. Twirlypen (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think that this is still about the content, you have clearly missed the point that I have been making—that this isn't conductive to proper debate. Once upon a time, this place used to be pretty well run. Now, instead of conflict resolution, we have people rushing to be the first to shout "CONSENSUS!" and then refusing to participate in any meaningful debate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, neither I nor anybody else see it your way. We all came to a compromise and an agreement. It had a few bumps, but we worked together to find a resolution that satisfied everyone. That is, up until about a week ago. And I'm pretty sure I only shouted "CONCENSUS" after you had repeatedly altered the table, even after acknowledging this 6-week old discussion had taken place, and again after your arguments failed to generate any response or agreements.

I offered a reasonable compromise, and you have thus far refused it. It is not my obligation to come up with more compromises until you are satisfied when you're the lone one against it to begin with.

What specifically do you want to hear that will make you happy? "You're right, Prisonermonkeys. The other dozen or so editors that think otherwise are completely wrong and don't know what they're doing. Only YOU know what's best for the project and for Wikipedia viewers as a whole. Your opinion has heavier weight than the entire community put together. Please, inject your wisdom and spontaneously & opposingly edit any previously discussed topic and then wave BOLD high and proud, for we editors who know nothing must then obey!" Get real. Let it go already. Seriously. Take it to DRN after this point. Twirlypen (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What do I want to hear? How about "okay, I can see why you think that might be an issue, but have you considered X, Y and Z? I think that might put your doubts to rest", or maybe "alright, maybe that's something that we need to consider, so how can we overcome the problem?". But instead, all you give is "SHUT UP, CONSENSUS LA-LA-LA-LA-LA DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT!". And ironically enough, you pride yourself on the way that you were successfully swayed by a compelling argument. So why do you doubt the ability of others to be persuaded? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop lumping "others" in with you. You're the only one I doubt the ability to be persuaded. You've again ignored where I said "I see what you mean, I really do... etc..." and "Why don't we change the footnote to this, with a citation..." But, since we are clearly not going to agree on this, and since no one else has changed their minds after you have presented your case, your next step at attempting to get your way would be DRN. Best of luck. Twirlypen (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that I am only referring to the past twenty-four hours? You have a terrible habit of declaring a consensus and then expecting that the discussion immediately stops, and that any issues that emerge are simply people being disruptive rather than trying to improve the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate your concerns, but I honestly think you're being overconcerned here. If we take a look at it. 1. Disagree, it does not contradict the matrices. In fact they complement each other. The teams and drivers table says the took part in the Grand Prix and the matrices state what happened that participation resulted in: they Did Not Practice (i.e. they didn't drive and only took part in the preparations). 2&3. There you're just being over concerned. 4. It's still a very simple yes or no. Either they appeared on the entry list either they didn't, yes or no. T v x1 05:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Twirlypen—I think that you should read @Tvx1's post. This is how you're supposed to work towards a consensus. It's far more constructive than simply racing to get the numbers; there have been plenty of occasions where opposing voices have pointed out issues with edits, and that by listening to those edits and taking them into consideration, articles have been improved even further. We all want the same thing; we just differ on how we want to go about it. But racing to get numbers, shouting "CONSENSUS!!" and expecting the discussion to end immediately and without any opposition helps nobody. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Basically what I've said since the beginning. But since it was someone else, it's constructive. I get it. Are we done here yet? Twirlypen (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No. It has nothing to do with who is making the argument and everything to do with how the argument is made. What Tvx1 posted was constructive; what you have been posting is not. I have seen you make constructive posts in the past, so I know that you can do it. Just keep the emotion out of your debate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher/1999 British Grand Prix

Discussion has revived over whether Michael Schumacher's result at the 1999 British Grand Prix should be shown as "Ret" or "DNS". You are welcome to add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Michael Schumacher#Infobox "races". DH85868993 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Car/Driver numbers in driver/team/car results tables

Multiple IP's keep adding car/driver numbers to results tabels in driver, car and team articles. As you can see for instance here or here. I thought the project's convention was not to do that. After all the drivers' names provide enough means to distinguish the results and in a driver article there is certainly no point in having them. So I think we should keep our heads up and revert any of these additions. T v x1 16:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanboxing, part 3

If anyone is interested and wants to comment on it, I'm getting way ahead of myself and sandboxing the 2017 season article here. I believe I've found good Grand Prix references (most of the 2016 ones held up for 2017), and all the drivers as well (all 3 of them). I had liberties with the rule changes, so don't take that part too seriously. Cheers! Twirlypen (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The regulation changes really look interesting. But then again: It is very unlikely it is gonna happen this way. You might wanna add that DRS at any point of the track in FP and Q was already allowed in 2011 and 2012. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hence the reference name "I wish!". But mostly I'm trying to get confirmation of the other information, like the races and drivers. I'm pretty sure all the sources I've used check out. Twirlypen (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321

Please watch out for edits by this user to race articles and race reports. He makes senseless edits like this. His talk page indicates that useless edits is all he seems to be doing... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That edit wasn't even correct. The 2015 Monaco Grand Prix followed the 2015 Spanish Grand Prix, not the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix. Twirlypen (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will no longer make any edits to the sports, racing, and Olympics sections. The purpose of my edits was to create new pages for future sporting events that may not have not happened yet, and may even be in the next five to ten years or so, but are still being planned for, taking bids for, or are having teams chosen or infrastructure made. But, because Wikipedia does not ordinarily create pages for provisional events, and out of respect for the need for sensical, logical, verifiable, and correct edits, and out of respect for the staff and editors of Wikipedia, and the messages received, I will cease and refrain from such. But I did not do them out of malice or vandalism- it was meant to be a form of advance planning for future event pages. You all may feel free to delete any and all edits that are out of place. Thank you for your corrections and your services to Wikipedia, and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321 (talk • contribs)

Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321, we have tables at the bottom of each race article, such at the article in question in this discussion, that list each appropriate race before and after the event. I understand what you are attempting to do, but the project discourages having unnecessary redlinks in the prose of the article that would remain there for up to a year. Twirlypen (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand; it is distracting and too early to have it there, and especially with events in the distant future, too many things are unknown and speculative.

It is astonishing to me that a user with almost 1,000 edits still does not bother to sign his comments. For what it's worth: I did not undo your edits because I thought they were out of bad faith. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Baku revisited

Now that we have a provisional calendar for 2016, do we have any more information on the new European Grand Prix? Is its race title "European Grand Prix" or "Baku European Grand Prix"? Do we treat it as a separate article? And while we're at it, how will we represent it in tables—as EUR (Europe), BAK (Baku), AZE (Azerbaijan) or something else like BKE (Baku European)? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FIA lists it as "Baku", not "European", which would lead me to think we should start a new article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd eliminate AZE right away, since it's in no way referred to as Azerbaijan. I feel like those that participated in a much earlier discussion on the event's talk page would feel that it should be EUR since it's just another running of the European Grand Prix, however I could honestly see a case for any of the remaining three choices you've put forth. Twirlypen (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The FIA does list it as "Baku", but I can't find the original document—all I have seen are reproductions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd hold any decision for now. We don't seem to know anything more concrete as of yet. QueenCake (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 season report prose

Hello all. As I have stated on various talk pages, I intend to rewrite the season report subsections once they are complete, as can be seen in the style of opening rounds which is complete vs middle rounds which is ongoing. However, there has been displeasure even with this method as it may still result in a report that is too long by season's end. For this, I have yet again sandboxed an alternative style, which I invite everyone interested to view here and leave opinions or comments. Again as well, please note that the season is incomplete, so I have taken some liberties with the content. It is merely a demonstration of style that would result in a shorter, broader season coverage. Thanks! Twirlypen (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the sandbox version is way too short to do a season report justice. It does not have to be as detailed as 2012 (a GA), that's what the race reports are for (and I'm doing my best to get all of them to GA), but it can be longer and it should contain some sub-sections. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Three short paragraphs is of course too short, but the idea was to convey an alternative option at style of prose. I proposed the 2012 method of season reporting via my original sandbox and it was largely rejected, which I am fine with, despite a certain assertation that I cannot be reasoned with or have no ability to compromise. The overall big picture here is to tackle these issues now instead of later when the content is already written and established. I truly believe that being proactive, despite some lengthy discussions over what amounts to nothing, has made this season's article unfold a lot nicer than previous seasons. Twirlypen (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Homogenization of Season reports

Hey everybody, I believe we are on our way to another brilliant season report with 2015 Formula One season, which I believe will be an easy FA candidate once the season is over. However, that is not true for many other season reports. What is most striking is that there does not seem to be a consensus over the order of sections. For instance, as early as 2011, the report comes before the signed teams and drivers, which I believe is a confusing order compared to what we do now. Maybe we can set up a team to go through all season articles and homogenize the section orders. Maybe one editor for each decade? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, organization can be fixed with an easy copy & paste, just as I have done with the 2011 example. Content, however, would take some significant time to clean up. 2011 is a loooooooooooooooooooooong read. Twirlypen (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I know it's simple, but since it's a dull task, I didn't want to do them all on my own :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I did 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 now. Pretty much every article had its own distinct order... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to finish the 2000s, I'll tackle the 90s. Twirlypen (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Zwerg Nase, if you do, be sure to delete the safety car model info buried in the article. There's an overwhelming concensus against having that info in the article as the model of safety car has nothing to do with the season. Twirlypen (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't think that it's "an easy FA". After having a glance through, I think it's a little uneven and inconsistent in places. It's very episodic, which is understandable, given that it is updated race by race. I'll have a closer look and see if I can tune it up a little bit. My biggest concern is that there is a bit of colloquialism used—for example, "Mercedes hit the ground running"—and that will be picked up in the GA review process (an article needs to be GA before it can begin FA). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The prose will be tuned up. As stated on the article's talk page, the subsections of the championship are being written as they unfold, and then condensed in a more direct, summary fashion like the Opening rounds are in leiu of the round-by-round format once the section's events are complete. It keeps the important facts fresh, and avoids the simplistic "Team A did this in round one, then this in round two, then this in round three..." for 10 or 11 paragraphs, basically spelling out the results table for however many teams there are the previous few seasons. And I think Zwerg Nase meant that it is closer to GA/FA than previous season articles because we have been working on it since the beginning to keep the minor things out of the way, like overlinking and adding photos promptly. Twirlypen (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I also didn't mean to say it's FA quality now, but that from where we are, it will be quite easy to get there. I will do the rest of the 2000s. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone keep track of what has been done already? I'll tackle the eighties if you want that. T v x1 11:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be perfect :) I see Twirlypen is already through with the 90s. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

2000s are done. I also fixed a lot of headers to make them consistent. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have done the 80s now. To keep track of what remains to be done, here is a list of all the decades. T v x1 23:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

2010s

2000s

90s

80s

70s

60s

50s

40s

30s

20s

10s

00s

Oh and Twirlypen, while doing the eighthies, I'm came across the 1982 Formula One season which might be an interesting source of inspiration for report subsection headings for you. T v x1 23:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting.... Renaming the headings is always a possibility once the season is over and the the article has a relatively finite conclusion. Twirlypen (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I would opt for more neutral and encyclopedic headings to be honest... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Having read the 2015 report as promised, I can honestly say that the best thing for it would be to tear it up at the roots and start over. Bretonbanquet (or was that Falcadore—it was definitely one of them, maybe both) is right: it's too long and it's far too detailed. We're halfway through the season and it's already longer than what I would expect the final version to be. It's uneven, inconsistent and lacks cohesion—the first point is that Hamilton chose the number 44 over number 1, and there is a massive section on van der Garde which goes nowhere. There was nothing wrong with the old system, which was very structured and straightforward. This reads like a series of detailed recaps for people who missed the race. No doubt there is content in there that can be salvaged, but given that most of it seems to have been written with the idea that "if it happened, it's relevant", a total refresh would be best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If by "massive section," you mean one paragraph regarding VDG (and Sauber, and their trial that lasted into the actual Grand Prix and caused the team to skip practice 1 under threat of asset seizure), then yes, that's really massive. I know how it is now isn't perfect, but to call how it was any better, is comical at best. "Mercedes finished first and third here. They finished first and second here. In the third round, Rosberg beat Hamilton..." and repeat eleven times. It's basically a word-for-word read-out of the results table. We could literally record someone reading the table, and it would sound 90% like the prose. Also, you needn't mention the 2015 prose quality in nearly every unrelated discussion thread when there's already an existing discussion on this very page. Twirlypen (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi's death nominated for WP Main Page: In the News

Anyone interested in voicing support or opposition may do so here.

RIP Jules Bianchi 1989-2015. A truly dark day for Formula One. Twirlypen (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nomination. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Submission has been added to English WP Main Page. Twirlypen (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The simplest driver table

I'm going to take this opportunity to spin off a tangent to the above discussion and run with an idea put forward by Bretonbanquet—namely, that team and driver tables are too complex. After looking at the F1 season articles and season articles for other championships, I started wondering: what is the simplest version that we can have?

The table has the current functions:

Team name
Constructor name
Chassis
Engine name
Tyre supplier
Driver number
Driver name
Rounds
FP1 driver number
FP1 driver name

That's ten different things that the table does. Do we really need all of them? Assume for the moment that we have to rebuild the table from scratch—what do we keep? What do we let go?

Casting a really critical eye over it, I think we could reasonably cut the following:

Team name—this column does not really serve any purpose but to give the full team name and sponsors. The information contained is doubled up elsewhere, and we have previously made the case for removing formal titles from the calendar table.
Engine name—we know the name of the engine supplier from the constructor column. The exact name of the engine doesn't really have any bearing on the article, since the modern rules demand that all teams run the same engine model, with very few exceptions. This information would be better suited to the car/engine manufacturer articles.
Tyre supplier—the most recent version of the rules have a single tyre supplier. In years with multiple suppliers, this column would be necessary.
Rounds—ignoring verisimilitude for the moment, this functionality could be performed by prose and the results matrices. If removed, mid-season changes would need some kind of visual representation in the table.
FP1 driver number and FP1 driver name—assuming for the moment that some of the other columns get cut, it gets harder to justify keeping these two around.

And so this:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds	No.	Free Practice drivers
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	SF15-T	Ferrari 059/4	P	5 7	Sebastian Vettel Kimi Räikkönen	1–9 1–9	—

Instead becomes this:

Constructor	Chassis	No.	Race drivers
Ferrari	SF15-T	5 7	Sebastian Vettel Kimi Räikkönen

Thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems whatsoever with the content of the current driver tables. My big issue is still the fact that the new sort of table used in all F1 articles is crap (since they're not working in Firefox), but no one chips in to that discussion... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of an overreaction to a difficult discussion. The table has worked for years and years without hardly any complaints, so I don't see why we should cut it up that drastically. Although the team name looks to be redundant and the tyre column is not really necessary when there is a sole supplier. But that's all we could sensibly drop. Zwerg Nase, I have filed a phabricator ticket for the table issue. The link is in the section on this matter. They are working on it, so we should be patient now. T v x1 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Two comments on this: 1) I am sure the sponsors would disagree that the name in redundant. 2) and more importantly: While the name might be less important today, it was been very much so in earlier years. And since we should aim for consistency, we should have a table that can be used effectively for all seasons. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair points. T v x1 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It would appear more than a little silly that the most prestigious FIA-sanctioned open-wheel series articles would use the simplest table. If there's anything that needs chopped, it'd be the FP drivers, but at the moment I see no reason against it. Twirlypen (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's repetition that I have the biggest issue with, and since this is the first table in the article, repetition is not a major issue with it. I am abivalent about sponsor names; I agree with Tvx1 about the tyre column – for seasons with only one tyre supplier, a tyre column is redundant; and I would agree with Twirlypen's idea that the FP1 drivers could be moved elsewhere. A short paragraph of text would probably do, or a very simple, small separate table which only included those teams that use third drivers. Since there are never more than a small number of these guys, and a large part of that column is usually empty, I think that column could be dispensed with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say there are never more than a small number of FP1 drivers. There were 13 of them last year, 11 of them in 2011, 14 of them in 2006 and 13 of them in 2005 to name a few. That's clearly more than a small number. T v x1 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So remove them from the table and put them in a prose paragraph under the driver changes section.

Still not convinced that the tyre icon is necessary for years were there is one tyre supplier. Likewise the engine name—we know who the engine supplier is and there are no pages for those engines, so that would be better suited to the individual car and engine supplier articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tyre column from the 2015 season article, and moved the FP1 drivers to a prose format. Thoughts?

I am absolutely against having seperate tables for different seasons. They should all be as alike as possible. Therefore I say leave the tyres in there. FP can go elsewhere if need be. But engine needs to stay there! There are articles for some engines and also apart from that it's a vital information, considering how much the speed of the cars depends on engine power. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

PM, despite my recent edits, I believe you're jumping the gun a little here. For my own opinion on the matter, I stated that if anything should go, it should be the FP drivers, but at the moment I see no reason against it. Others have made similar statements without definitively expressing desire for anything to be removed. Tvx1 is making a case for the FP column to remain, as while it may not be a fulfilled column as of yet this season, it has served a purpose in quite a few previous seasons. Zwerg Nase has expressed desire for the table to remain unchanged for the sake of consistancy (an opinion I would side with, if forced to pick). So right now, there is hardly any concensus to change anything right now and the discussion is still relatively fresh. Before I am accused of doing the same thing during the previous discussion, understand that I made my edits after a very long while once it was clear there was a stalemate on a solution. Twirlypen (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not an edit based on CONSENSUS, but on BEBOLD. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

~~That's a stretch too, considering you started a discussion about it first, presumably with the intent to gain concensus. But I'm not in the mood to argue technicalities.~~ Twirlypen (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have revised the edits. If you genuinely want to invoke BOLD, you would have done so before ever starting a discussion about it. But you already know there has been a long-standing concensus regarding the table layout. So invoking BOLD is just nonsense. But if BOLD is what you want to push the back of your edits on, consult the second paragraph of that. Twirlypen (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You have two choices: you can stop the ad hominem attacks and contribute, or you can excuse yourself from the discussion until you learn some manners. You have repeatedly and consistently failed to assume good faith in my edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

First off, I have disagreed with many an editor in my time here, probably nearly every regular at one point or another. How is it you that I am the only one unable to find decency with? Second, Dad, don't think that you can send me to my room just because I disagree with how you conduct yourself with your hasty edits. Third, there's a saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well, we have been fooled four times already. I'm astonished you're allowed back at all, but that is simply a personal opinion. What's that thing about trust? Easy to lose, hard to earn back? Anyway my good faith towards you is a little shaken over the past 8 or 9 months.

I have not and will not revert any edits that aren't pushing a prefered version of an article; something I did NOT do in the previous discussion - as stated earlier, my edits were a COMPROMISE and not a version I directly pushed for by starting a discussion on the matter. You want to remove references that are outdated or superceded by new sources? Fine, be my guest. Want to add legitimate content away from an active discussion you haven't directly started. Hey man, not my article. Go right ahead. Start a discussion with the seemingly sole intention of altering an established concensus without any real new opinions on the matter other than the first sign of a "hmmm, perhaps?" Then yeah, I'll revert that if no one else will. Twirlypen (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

One rule for me, and one rule for you. You happily insist that I should find a consensus before making edits, but you will make edits and insist on keeping them in place before achieving a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

By all means, let's hear how I tried to add the footnotes/legend to the table as a COMPROMISE to a discussion that was at a stalemate. I sound like a broken record - how many times do I have to explain the difference over and over? By the way, you were only okay with the addition of that once YOU added it. But go ahead and twist it around like you were against it's inclusion in any way and I forced it on everyone when you were ONLY against it due to the specific template causing functionality issues. Anyway, I'm not going to get goated into yet another useless discussion about civility with someone that's been banned for over 5 out of the last 9 months. This project was at peace and worked great together until literally 2 hours after your latest ban expired. Twirlypen (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is: There has been no editwarring while Prisonermonkeys was blocked. There is a lot now. It is preposterous to put any blame on Twirlypen for this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that can bring up my block history as a means of marginalising my contributions regardless of what those contributions are. That's an ad hominem attack if ever there was one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want. You want to invoke BOLD after the fact during a discussion in which you started as a direct result of failing to get people to see things your way in a previous discussion, and then lay the honus on everyone else to prove you wrong. Don't act like this is the first time you've done this. I've never seen anyone so unwilling to accept concensus when it's not in their favor or preferred way of thinking or having things displayed. Twirlypen (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't give you the right to disregard AGF because it suits you. I've never met anyone who assumes page stability equals a quality article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not just about one article, this is about consistency in the entire project. We should work hard to find one sort of table (both content and technic-wise) that can be used in all articles. What you are doing is searching for a good table for one article that technically suits not everyone but your preferred way of display, which is obviously mobile devices. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dragging things out so that talk pages push over 200,000 bytes and a single discussion needs multiple subsections just to keep track of everything when things aren't going your way. Ridiculous. But no, there's no chance of any coincidences happening here......... Also, I'm pretty sure I AGF'd when I immediately pointed you to these discussions and, despite previous quarrels, made contributing edits to this very issue because I assumed a new concensus had been formed. Lest I find out upon coming here that literally everyone had a different opinion and new concensus was absolutely nowhere to be found, which is, by definition, the very opposite time to invoke BOLD. So please stop lecturing me about good faith. Twirlypen (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

So I should just leave well enough alone because it will keep people happy?

That seems like a terrible idea. Because if I leave well enough alone, the quality of the articles will nosedive. How do I know this? Because I did go back and read the season review for 2015. And while I tried to be diplomatic about it, I think it's time to be blunt: it's bad. Bad enough that there are some sections that should be rewritten, if not scrapped outright. It's simplistic, disjointed and reads like fancruft at times. For some reason, you seem to think that it can achieve FA status, but I think you will be severely disappointed. So given the consistently poor quality of the decisions made here, how can I trust the editors making them to apply any other standard in their decision making elsewhere in the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion seems to be that you know better and you, and only you, can fix everything. Well, you can't. Feel free to suggest alternative prose. But stop messing with the layout without reaching a consensus first. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would I bother helping someone who clearly doesn't want it? Not worth my time or energy. As far as I'm concerned, you're on your own in that regard. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you all need to stop this. The three of you could quite easily have been blocked for personal attacks. This leads to absolutely nothing. I stand by original comment that this proposal was born out of overreaction to a difficult discussion higher up on this page. I only said that if something really could be cut what I think it was. Nevertheless I prefer not to cut anything at all. No edits should be made (yet) based on the reactions. This is a change that possibly affects over 100 years worth of season articles. We no to give the project's members much more than 22 hours to allow them to weigh in their opinions what, if anyting at all, should be removed. There is a reason why RFC's have a minimum length of 30 days. The reason why oppose to any changes lies in these decades worth of articles. Even though not everything seems necessary for 2015 season article, all part are necessary on a multitude of articles. I especially realized this when I recently homogenized our season articles on the eighties' season. Many of these articles contain teams using different engine types, tires, chassis, heck... some even used different constructors. All of these columns clearly have their value. And even the 2015 season article provides a strong argument against removing engine type names, since two different types of the Ferrari Power Unit are currently being used. By the way, all our season articles up to the 2000's label the first column as "Entrant". Later it suddenly becomes "Team". Shouldn't we make it all consistently "Entrant". T v x1 15:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Given my recent contretemps with Tvx1, it's odd that I now find myself agreeing with him. There's no mileage whatsoever in bashing each other. I know Tvx1 has felt that I was bashing him in the past, but I am really only interested in the articles. We really should concentrate on them. There's plenty of time for people to have their say on the table, and all this argument will only serve to put other people off reading it and commenting. Certainly no benefit in diving in and changing the article so fast.

On the point, I'm OK with removing tyre columns for seasons that only had one tyre supplier, as I don't think the range of season articles needs to be exactly the same format across the board. A few minor differences like this don't matter too much, in my opinion. That said, if consensus is to keep things as they are, fine. I agree with Tvx1 about the first column being labelled "Entrant" and I also take his point (way) above about there sometimes being quite a few FP1 drivers. I'd still prefer a separate table or text for them though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's bad. It's, another thing I've had to repeat four or five times, incomplete. Every other editors seems to understand and get this, because I've invited all of them to participate and edit whatever I add. But I get it, eye for an eye, I go after you for editing before concensus is reached on this issue in this discussion, you go after me for something completely unrelated that hasn't even been a problem for anyone. I'm fine with that though. As for the topic at hand, I too am in favor of not altering the table, aside from the minor label issues of Team to Entrant. Twirlypen (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree on that. Let's keep the tables consistent. Maybe the people who edited the season reports for section order can also change their respective reports for the "Entrants" name? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

See? We all have editors we simply just bash heads with at times more than others it seems... I've cooled off and am ready to start the day anew. I'm afraid the previous discussion that spawned this one isn't quite settled yet, though, and to be fair to both separate issues, I don't think it'd be wise to discuss both simultaneously. Twirlypen (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, that would be you then since you did the 2000s and they started being labeled team from 2005 or 2006. I'll do a check on the 80's but it though they all had entrant already. T v x1 10:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the 90s are correct. Side note, I'm thinking we should keep the tyres, even if there is a sole supplier for certain seasons. It shows that there was a sole supplier, and a casual reader wouldn't think to assume that if they see a tyre supplier column for one season and not another. Unless, of course, it's mentioned somewhere in the regulation changes or a footnote at the end of the table...... which there are for towards the end of the 90s tables stating what configuration all of the engines were. Twirlypen (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll go through the 2000s! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Done 2001-2015 Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Done 2016 T v x1 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi's article

With Jules Bianchi sadly passing way I think it is time to take a look at his article in view of making a considerable cleanup. IMHO, the detailed dairy of updates on his medical condition is a bit too excessive. Similarly I question whether it is necessary to have such a large amount of prose on the FIA's reaction and the accident panel's fidings. Lastly, I'd think the section on his 2014 season exploits before the Japanese Grand Prix might do with a bit of expansion. It's hardly noticeable at the moment. Any thoughts? T v x1 09:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The updates (mainly mine) could be cleaned up but not FIA's reaction and findings that followed. They gained a lot of attention and caused some controversy, as in the case of Senna, plus resulted in revised safety measures that would have not arisen but for those findings and reaction. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but is this article the correct place to go in so much detail about that? How did that affect Bianchi's life and career? Wouldn't that be better suited for say... the article on the GP in question? T v x1 10:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The medical updates are a bit drawn out, considering that there was no real change in condition. But I agree that the FIA investigation and findings are rightly detailed. The entire situation may be deserving of it's own article, but that's just my opinion if we can't agree on what content should and shouldn't remain. Twirlypen (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Short of the status quo, the same FIA material in another appropriate article (its own I'd say, much like Senna has a separate one; I wouldn't favour just adding it to 2014 Japanese GP) could work, cross referenced in Jules' biography article. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to take anything away from the situation, but I'd also be hesitant to fully support a standalone article. Senna was a three-time world champion; Bianchi was a rising star who had 2 career points, and has the unfortunate distinction of being "the next guy..." and nine months worth of coverage preceding his death. Twirlypen (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair comment. Maybe an F1 article on monumental events in the sport BUT... I am sure that would attract a lot of superfluous stuff. My preference remains for leaving the info in Jules' article then. Everything mentioned arose because of his unfortunate crash. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we remove the sections on the FIA's post-crash activities entirely. I'm suggesting it's trimmed down considerably to what's actually relevant to Bianchi, which is that an accident panel was formed and which findings it made. I mean how relevant is it really to Jules Bianchi when and where they convened, who was in the panel, that a unused proposal was made to airlift stricken F1 cars, how many pages the report contained and so on? T v x1 11:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The accident review panel and medical updates sections are far too long. They could easily be trimmed down without compromising the article. If anything, a more concise version will be much better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem Tvx1 and all, sounds quite sound and constructive. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I just took 3,000kB out of the review panel section alone. Most of it was better-suited to the 2015 season article, anyway. I'll look at the medical updates later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I had a go at the medical updates. The team's commemorative gestures have been cut back and moved under "Team reaction". CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just cut another ~5,000kB from the team reaction and medical updates. There was a lot of stuff in there that was very long-winded and quite superfluous at times, and the medical updates section read less like an encyclopaedia article and more like a rolling series of updates and broke NOTNEWS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Petronas engine links

Are there any objections to me updating all references to "Petronas" engines (i.e. Sauber's engines from 1997-2005) to point to Sauber Petronas Engineering instead of Petronas (noting that the links from several articles already point there)? DH85868993 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not from me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not from me either. I actually changed one of these links myself yesterday. I would suggest to use AWB though, because you're looking at updating every season and Grand Prix report article from 1997 until 2005. T v x1 14:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1: It was your edit that brought the issue to my attention. I am definitely planning to use AWB. If there are no objections within the next 12 hours, I'll make the updates then. DH85868993 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Manor" MR03B

Hello everyone. I have kind of spearheaded an issue which may or may not have precedence (because I don't know). Anyway, for 2015, we have been refering to Manor's car as the Manor MR03B, when it is simply a derivative of the car that Marussia built with a couple bolt-ons. In pedestrian terms, we don't buy a Ford Focus, personalize it with our own front splitter, exhaust, and what not and then call it a Douglas Focus, right? It's still a Ford Focus, built by Ford, no matter what we do to it. Wouldn't the same apply to professional motorsports? Marussia may be defunct, but the MR03 is still something they built. Am I making sense with this? Twirlypen (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You are, a little bit. But in this case, it is not the way you describe in your example. It's rather: Ford builts a Focus, then Ford goes bankrupt, then a company is founded that is the legal successor of Ford and they built a new Focus and call it the XYZ Focus. Which also makes sense. It is quite different from back in the 60s and 70s, when small teams bought chassis from other teams. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Except Manor did not build a new MR03. They slapped a few parts on Marussia's model to make it 2015-legal. Heck, they didn't even put a new engine in it. Using your example, Ford goes bankrupt, XYZ succeeds them and states "we are using Ford's Focus with some modifications because our own chassis is nowhere near ready." Twirlypen (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And it will be different when Dallara builds the chassis for Haas F1, because Dallara is in agreement with Haas to build the chassis under the Haas name, like they did for Hispania Racing in 2010. Such an agreement with Dallara does not exist between them and Indycar. The Indycar chassis are marketed as the Dallara DW12. I know one company is defunct, and the other isn't, so it's apples and oranges... I don't know. Twirlypen (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But Marussia and Manor are not different companies like Haas and Dallara. One is the legal successor of the other. That's the whole point of the team, that is why they get Marussia's money... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Marussia's money is the only reason Manor entered using their name. But that's not my point. My point is that it's not Manor's chassis. Manor hasn't built any chassis yet. They've openly said they are using Marussia's 2014 car that meets 2015 minimum safety standards (B-spec). If they had said otherwise, I wouldn't have a case. Twirlypen (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't hold up though, I can think of quite a few examples of consumer cars receiving a new name upon being modified by a third party. One even from Ford you have mentioned. Ford builds a car named the Ford Mustang. A certain mr. Shelby acquires some of these vehicles, modifies them somewhat and the result is... the Shelby Mustang. Another such example is say the BMW 7 series and the Alpina B7. There even are examples of this in Formula One. For instance the Arrows A23 and the Super Aguri SA05 or the Honda RA106 and the Super Aguri SA07. Anyway, we don't decide ourselves what the chassis name should be. We reflect what the reliable sources say it is. Our 2015 season article state that the team's constructor name is Marussia, so that seems to be a strong indication as to what it should be named. T v x1 13:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't a compromise be Manor Marussia MR03B? The Renault > Lotus F1 team transition may help (I can't recall what their cars were called during this period). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It was called the Renault R31, even though the team was renamed Lotus Renault F1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand BMW Sauber constructed a Sauber C29 for the 2010 season, so it doesn't always happen the same way. T v x1 13:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. The teams are listed by F1 under the factory name, so if the chassis is owned by Manor, whether Manor actually built the thing this year or not, it's run as a Manor, isn't it? That may not have applied when Cooper was selling chassis, IDK; as I recall, they were run under the team name, then (& I wasn't a big enough fan to know if they were entered as Coopers or not). So, does it make any difference if this chassis was built by Manor or not, since the actual builder is gone & Manor owns what's left? Didn't this also apply to the Brawns? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That's indeed how things go.T v x1 16:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't any different to the Spyker F8-VII, which became known as the Force India VJM01 the next year when the team came under new ownership. It was the same car, but had two different names. There is no reason we can't call this year's car the Manor MR03B. QueenCake (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Or the above Super Aguri examples I mentioned. T v x1 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, though I was going with an example that was all covered with the same article. QueenCake (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting and compelling points on the Spyker/Force India and Honda/Super Aguri examples. I'm sorry for raising such a rather mundane point, and not knowing these precedents beforehand. Twirlypen (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. If we don't discuss it, we can't know what to do in each situation. :) QueenCake (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we call a Vauxhall Monaro sold in the UK a Holden because Holden built it? I mean, all Vauxhall did was put some badges on the car and maybe made some tweaks to the user interface of the software. Maybe some different tyres. Alter the air conditioning, but it's still a Holden yeah? So all reference to Vauxhall should be removed.

WP:COMMONNAME suggests it should be Manor. --Falcadore (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, what of the case of Reynard 02S? DBA4 03S, Zytek 04S, Zytek 05S, Zytek 06S and Creation CA06/H are ALL variations of the Reynard 02S. Are you going to rename them too?

You do know, don't you, that there is no such thing as a Marussia MR03B, and one of the principal foundations of wikipedia is we never make stuff up ourselves. For any reason. --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Twirlypen had obviously admitted their mistake in their reasoning. Anyway, such a claim of the commonname is what desperately needs some sources to show that. It strikes me that in a discussion about what the name of a car is, not a single source has been supplied to, you know, show what the car is actually called. And interestingly enough, the first source I consult refers to it as the MR04. And why did CtrlXctrlV change the Marussia MR03 while this discussion is still ongoing? That is NOT constructive. T v x1 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Instead of reprimanding, "View history" and you will see someone else made changes that compromised the article even more. My revisions were to reflect the discussion here, and preceded most of what has since followed, Tvx1. And for once, I side with Falcadore - i.e. more logical that the MR03B be named a Manor or, as I proposed above, "Manor Marussia" as a valid compromise given the present lack of uncertainty. This renowned scale modeller (Spark) does so CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a little overzealous. The discussion was clearly over before you made your last comment. Manor themselves refer to the car as the MR03B; presumably the media guide was created in the pre-season uncertainty over the team. QueenCake (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That FIA document is interesting. Can someone actually provide a source from Manor about the car's name? Cause the Manor website doesn't give one. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither of the sources given in 2015 Formula One season give MR03B as the name. I am starting to think we got it all wrong all this time... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have now tweeted the team and just asked them ;) Let's see if they reply. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase we can compare notes... I just emailed their PR manager :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that that media guide contains the results of every race this season prior to the British GP, I strongly doubt it was made before the season. Anyway, we're discussing whether this car is called Marussia, Manor or Manor Marussia and I don't think that is over at all. I still haven't seen any source regarding those names and we have to reflect the sources. We can't give it our own name.

Zwerg Nase, the Marussia Manor source in 2015 Formula One season does refer to it as MR03B. And here and here] are more instances of Marussia Manor referring to it as the MR03B.

CtrlXctrlV, we don't follow logic, we follow what the sources say. T v x1 16:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, for some reason the search function didn't show that... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page regarding the Manor/Marussia/Manor Marussia confusion regarding this 2015 season. Twirlypen (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You know, if different names are actively used to refer to it in the sources, we should seriously consider reflecting that in the article like how it's often done with films. T v x1 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Such as "the team re-emerged as Manor Marussia, often referred to simply as Manor, for the 2015 season."? I don't see how that would be unreasonable if we have credible sources referring to both names. Twirlypen (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well boys, got a reply from the Manor PR Director, Tracy Novak, and... I was wrong both with my preference for Manor or my Marussia Manor compromise. The team calls the car Marussia MR03B - see email correspondence here (just click to download the PDF; they are short of money and words, it seems, but at least she replied relatively quickly). The latest version of the article as it now stands, I feel, does not warrant any further changes after I attempted to neutralise this issue by not making any express reference to the different possible names. Zwerg Nase sorry for beating you with the answer, good ole email has trumped twitter :P I wonder if the team will now monitor our articles... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So wait, does this mean it IS the Marussia MR03B, not the Manor MR03B? Twirlypen (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine so—the car was homologated as a Marussia. It's an evolution of the MR03, but not a completely different car. The planned (but now apparently shelved) 2015 car would have been considered to be a new car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, here is another source that literally states the name of the chassis is Marussia. T v x1 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

San Marino Grand Prix flag issue

Why season articles use the flag of San Marino but the Grand Prix articles use the flag of Italy (see for example: 1993 Formula One season#Season review & 1993 San Marino Grand Prix)? Shouldn't there be consistency in the use of flags? And isn't the flag of Italy the correct one, since the grand prix is only held _near_ San Marino. --Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Since per MOS:FLAGS, putting a flag of one country next to the name of another country is a very bad idea, IMHO there should be no flag at all in the individual Grand Prix articles.T v x1 00:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

We use the flag of the host nation, which is Italy. Someone has obviously changed some of the articles and created this inconsistency. QueenCake (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Just like we use the flag for United Arab Emirates for the

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, not the flag for the city Abu Dhabi

. There have also been cases of national Grands Prix being hosted outside of their namesake, such as the

1997 and

1998 Luxembourg Grands Prix, each of which were held in and carry the German flag on their individual race report articles. However, the actual event article, the

Luxembourg Grand Prix, carries the home flag - ~~just as the San Marino Grand Prix article carries theirs.~~ Twirlypen (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

~~Which, the San Marino Grand Prix article really should have, by the way.~~ Twirlypen (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I believe the consensus was to have flags next to the locations to make their usage more common sense, not to the name of the race. Hence San Marino Grand Prix should have no flag while Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari, Imola, Italy should have the Italian flag. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason the Luxembourg Grand Prix has the flag of Luxembourg is, unlike San Marino, Luxembourg has hosted the race theselves in the past at the Findel street circuit. Indeed most of the LGPs history was at Findel.

San Marino has no such claim and deserves to be treated no differently than the Grands Prix of Rome, Syracuse, Bari, San Remo, Pescara, Naples, Messina etc --Falcadore (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I've redacted that part of my statement then. Twirlypen (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Save for the fact that the Automobile Club of San Marino organized those races. T v x1 15:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

UAE and Abu Dhabi is not comparable to Italy and San Marino, because San Marino is not part of Italy. San Marino is an independent country. IMHO, the San Marino GP shall have the flag of San Marino but the Imola race track should have the Italian flag. If then both flags are used (in different parts of the article), so what? It only makes things clearer. 83.251.77.222 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

San Marino is an independent state is it not? Like Monaco. Therefore is should have the San Marino flag. CDRL102 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm they are. Have visited both of them. And the tracks that host their Grands Prix as well. T v x1 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rossi in 2014 standings

I feel Rossi should be excluded from the 2014 standings as no where that I can see has him listed. Even the official FIA website - http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2014/2014-classifications - does not have him placed. CDRL102 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't place him either. We list him as unclassified (without a position). That's is not contradictory to the sources. The discussion that resulted in consensus to include him is here. T v x1 16:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

He was entered for, present at for scrutineering, and subsequently replaced/withdrawn from both events after they had technically commenced on Thursday. He should stay as unclassified with his TD/WD boxes. Twirlypen (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

2010 Korean GP - PR

I've opened a peer review for the 2010 Korean Grand Prix which can be found here. I intend that the article be brought to FAC in the near future and I welcome all feedback on how it can be improved. Z105space (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? I'm the only one with any input whatsoever? Twirlypen (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Renault "factory" team status

This issue has been brought up many times but it needs addressing, Lotus Renault GP shouldn't be included as part of Renault's constructors section as it wasn't a Renault factory team it was classed as a privateer with independent ownership. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I still agree. The problem is that on every occasion you raised this (here, here and here), reactions were mixed and were insufficient for a consensus to change. I must note that the rule that is always cited when this raised, that we group results based on the constructor name and car name pattern, is not consistently applied. With the recent Marussia example, we give the team a new article for their activities from 2015 onwards despite the team still being run as Marussia by the new investor(s), the constructor being credited as Marussia in every FIA document [9][10][11][12][13][14] and the team themselves naming the car the Marussia MR03B. We really should start practicing what we preach. T v x1 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If Renault do someday decide to return as a constructor then it will get a little messy because it will say that they reverted to an engine supplier in 2011 but then the article contradicts that by saying the team continued as factory team; Lotus Renault GP even though it changed ownership and race team status to a privateer, it makes more sense for it to be in it's own little section of the article explaining that it had separate non-factory ownership.Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

SQM, the issue has been addressed - several times, most recently only a couple of months ago (just because no changes were made doesn't mean the issue hasn't been addressed). But as Tvx1 pointed out, on none of those occasions was there consensus for change. My suggestion is to leave it for 6 months and if you still feel the same then, raise the matter again, in case circumstances, or the opinions of others have changed by then - consensus can change. DH85868993 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Actually, upon re-reading the earlier discussions more closely, the issue of where to locate the "Lotus Renault GP" section within the Renault in Formula One article was really only discussed in the most recent discussion (the earlier discussions mainly focussed on which article should contain the info and/or whether 2011 should be included in the Renault in Formula One infobox stats). However, as I said in that most recent discussion, it seems sensible to me that if we include 2011 in the infobox stats (on the basis that the cars were called "Renaults"), then discussion of that season also belongs under the "Constructor" section. DH85868993 (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If we continue that approach we're being awfully inconsistent, since we have started a separate article for the 2015 "Marussias", despite them being just as much called "Marussias" as their predecessors. Furthermore the 2011 literally stated that the Renaults kept that name in 2011 for similar reasons as BMW Sauber keeping their name in 2010, yet we approach them differently in their articles. It's really difficult to find any consistency in how we deal with these situations. T v x1 11:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Lotus Renault GP under Renault's constructor section is factually incorrect as it isn't a Renault factory team and its inconsistent with other articles like Sauber keeping the BMW Sauber name for 2010 and Manor keeping the Marussia name this year, At the present the Entone based team is referred to as Lotus during the 2011 season due its change in ownership and different branding the only reason the team still used the Renault name in 2011 was because of end of season payouts and the fact a rival team was already using the Lotus name at the time, it makes more sense for it to have its own separate section or for its results to be separate because what if Renault do decide to return as a constructor and they celebrate a milestone GP then the Grand Prix tally will be all wrong because they don't count 2011 as a season they competed, just look at (www.renaultf1.com) 2011 isn't there so they obviously don't count it so why should we just because it will mess with curtain users OCD. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I agree that there is inconsistency in the way we handle Renault and Marussia (you may also recall that I supported the idea of including Manor Marussia's 2015 activities at Marussia F1). I do think the Sauber/BMW Sauber situation is slightly different, because they went from Sauber to BMW Sauber back to Sauber.

@SQM: I don't see why listing Lotus Renault GP under the Constructor section of the article implies that it was a "Renault factory team". The article makes it quite clear that Renault sold its remaining stake in the team at the end of 2010. And if Renault do decide to return as a constructor, then we will re-evaluate the situation at that time. Just like we did Lotus Racing became Team Lotus and Team Lotus became Caterham F1, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the Renault in Formula One article is meant for Renault's Formula One involvement just like BMW in Formula One is for BMW's, Alfa Romeo in Formula One is for Alfa Romeo's and Mercedes-Benz in Formula One is for Mercedes-Benz, Lotus Renault GP wasn't factory owned by Renault it was owned by a private company using the Renault name for prize money, Renault reverted to an engine supplier at that time so it shouldn't belong in the Renault constructor section it was an independent privateer, treat it the same as BMW Sauber/Sauber in 2010 and Manor/Marussia in 2015. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy, I think your arguments are incorrect, because the constructor was still officially Renault, regardless who were the actual owners. If we apply your logic, the 2010 Renault team wasn't a manufacturer-owned team either, because Renault only held a minority 25% stake, the major stakeholder of Renault F1 Team Limited was Genii Capital, and they had the control of the team, not Renault. Then, following that premise, we should unify the 2010 Renault F1 Team and the 2011 Lotus Renault GP into a separate article or section, which I don't think has much sense. Besides, we must remember Lotus was merely a title sponsor back then. We don't create articles based on limited sponsorships as, for example, "Infiniti Red Bull Racing." I think the status quo is the better solution. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List of fatal Formula One accidents

@Fitnr: has moved List of fatal Formula One accidents to List of Formula One fatalities. Apart from the questionable wisdom of moving a featured list without discussion, I don't think the title is an improvement, and is now even vaguer than it was before. Much discussion has taken place on the title with no result. Maybe we should decide on a better title at this stage. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I made the move for two reasons. First, the list is a list of people who have died, not a list of events. Second, it's notevery death on the list is accidental in the sense of "happens by chance or without apparent or deliberate cause." Deaths that result from the negligence of drivers or race organizers aren't accidents in that sense, to assert that they are is POV. Fitnr 19:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not simply a list of people, it's a list of people and details of where and when they died, and what they were doing at the time; effectively a list of events. To suggest that they were not accidents is to suggest that they were in some sense deliberate or intentional. None of these accidents was deliberate or intentional. By your definition, nothing can ever be an accident as an underlying cause can be found for any crash or similar incident. Therefore, everything is ultimately somebody's fault. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To call a group of events "accidents" is to assert that none resulted from intention or negligence. Avoiding the word accident in favor of more descriptive terms ('death', 'crash', 'collision') makes no claims about underlying causes. Fitnr 20:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a very narrow definition of the word "accident". An accident is simply an event (usually unfortunate) that is unexpected and unintentional. No underlying cause or absence of negligence is inferred in the use of the word "accident". All the events in the list can be sourced as accidents anyway. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by giving an example of an F1 fatality that you consider an accident and one which you consider not to be an accident. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One of the principles of Wiki is that we use common and commonly understood expressions in the majority of cases. An accident is a (sudden) non-deliberate event and as such is the correct term. Viz. all road 'crashes' irrespective of blame are referred to as RTAs (road traffic accidents). Similarly the term applies to motorsport incidents. Eagleash (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of that page as it's name I feel is misleading, when it said List of fatal Formula One accidents - When I first read it years ago, I thought it would say Ayrton Senna as the most recent driver to die, then the marshals that had died. I don't think people who died in an F1 car should be in the same list if it wasn't a part of the World Championship Event. Maybe we could split it into separate pages; List of drivers killed driving an F1 car and List of people killed at a Formula One Event or rename the page and have several lists on that page for example a page called List of Formula One related deaths with three lists, Drivers killed in a Formula One Event, Drivers killed outside a Formula One Event and List of personnel killed at a Formula One Event. Hope this helps. CDRL102 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Since this discussion was started, it has been proposed that the article be moved to List of Formula One driver fatalities. Editors are welcome to contribute to the move discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation recommendations (circa 1970)

I reached the 1970 Formula One season page via one of the typo/copyediting lists and found out that it's also entirely uncited. Are there good, trusted resources that you use for covering older F1 races? I didn't love what I was finding on Google, and I wasn't sure about the reliability of what was cited on the individual 1970 race pages that I looked at. I've removed the non-neutral language from the race descriptions and am happy to do the leg work on citing but want some confirmation that I'm pulling data from the best places. Alaynestone (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I always have had great faith in Motor Sport magazine and their archive is available on-line here. Reports from then would most likely have been written by Denis Jenkinson (DSJ). The whole archive is being copy-edited and I'm not sure if 1970 has been done yet. (I should also declare COI as I have been one of the copy-editors — freelance!). 1970 is here and a quick look tells me it hasn't been CE'd yet! Scroll down for all 1970 issues. Eagleash (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, many of the older season articles up to even the early 2000s' reports have but a few sources if any currently present. That is certainly a major working point for the project. T v x1 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I was able to get through race 7 with free articles. Thanks so much! Alaynestone (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've always found it resets to zero after a day or so, when I'm not logged-in as an editor. Try again a bit later on. Glad you found it useful. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)