Talk:2010 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Unprotect?

So, the driver numbers are now out. Do we wish to try unprotection? It can always be reimposed if IPs make an excessive amount of unconstructive edits. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would honestly say that the protection should remain until at least all of the drivers, as well as the 13th team, are announced. But what do I know? Bolmedias (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not the driver numbers that were the problem - it was people adding drivers to the table at the slightest rumour of their being in contention for a seat. Most of the major ones are done, but looking at the page on Mercedes GP, people are repeatedly adding Nick Heidfeld as a driver there, despite there being no confirmaton. And there's still the issue of the Toyota-Sauber-Stefanovic situation to be resolved, as well as Renault's rumoured back-out. So I agree with Bolmedias: protection should remain in place until the driver table is full a the very least. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So, as soon as all drivers are known we can lift semi-protection then? Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the display of the {{pp-semi}} to show the full template. I agree that it is ugly, but it better informs those who cannot edit the article how to find out why they cannot edit it, and what their options are. I notice that in the time the article has been protected there has not been a single IP request here to make an edit on their behalf. This could be because IPs have nothing to guide them into how to do this without the full template showing. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi

Do we add Jules Bianchi as a Ferrari test driver or something similar based on http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=353207&FS=F1 and many many other articles. Bianchi should surely now be included on the driver table in some capacity. Officially Mr X (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

His role is undefined. Ferrari currently have him, Fisi, Badoer and Gene on their books. He could be reserve, or he could just be on a young driver programme. Nothing is confirmed yet. Even his manager Nicolas Todt says his role is undefined. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80402 - mspete93 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article status

You know, once the driver table is complete, I reckon we should apply for FA status. The page is pretty comprehensive and keeps up-to-date with everything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the criterion for FA is that the article is stable. Even during the season this article will see a lot of change, e.g. with race reports and results being added at the end of each race, so I think FA is a fair way off just yet. Schumi555 08:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It would likely fail. Too many tables. Not enough coherent text, and what there is, is written bullet point style. Flags would have to be removed. etc etc --Falcadore (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have disagree strongly with featuring an article about a future event that is not in the distant future. Wait until the season is over. Also, from a purely review standpoint, this is not an article right now: It's an assortment of various lists of changes and races. --Golbez (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Golbez raises an important point - this article desperately needs rewriting in coherent prose. At the moment it's little more than a collection of lists of factoids, added as and when they came into the media. These factoids need order, scope, context, inter-relation and (in some cases) judicious pruning. Knepflerle (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}. I've removed the edit request, as I can't see what the request is. Please re-add as necessary. Thanks. GedUK  19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Would anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving of this talk page? It's getting a little unwieldy. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I'll go ahead and do it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I Agree it is getting a little unwiedly... I have no objections to Archiving. (Zeoace (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

Lotus

Autosport article suggests the Lotus entry will be known as 1Malaysia F1 and compete as a Lotus works team. In that case, it may be known as 1Malaysia-Lotus. Or something. But right nw, we have two conflicting names.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the source to F1.com It says the same thing the FIA had when it came to the other three new teams. The company that was granted the entry is 1Malaysia F1 Sdn Bnh, but the team is Lotus F1 Team. Just like Campos Meta being the company, but Campos Grand Prix being the team. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe Sdn Bnh is a Malaysian designation of a corporation, much like Pty Ltd or GmbH. Secondly, the Autosport article maes it pretty clear that Lotus will be based in Norfolk until such time as they can move to facilities in Malaysia, which will probably take a year to complete at the least. I believe this means that they will be considered a British team, not a Malasyian one for the time being. My case-in-point is Force India, which is owned by Indians, backed by Indians and named for Indians, but competes as a British team because its base of operations is at Silverstone. Once Lotus move to Sepang, they will be a Malaysian team.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I was just thinking: if the above is true, what does that make Red Bull and Toyota? They're listed as and considered to be Austrian and Japanese as oppose to British and German ... it's going to have to be one or the other. Malaysian and Indian is probably the way to go to avoid confusion ...Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the F1.com source. It clearly states the nationality. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Further, the location of the team base has nothing to do with nationality. Red Bull (Austrian), Renault (French), and Force India (Indian) are all based in England but do not compete as British. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I Heard they were in the process of trying to get a proton engine ready for this car, not the cosworth. -edit- I must have been mis led somewhere the offical statement has a contract for the cosworth.

Formula One is about to become Formula Cosworth!Fsarmony (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really because Mercedes will probably supply four next year. - mspete93 [talk] 15:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bah, this is nothing! It really was Formula Cosworth between 1968 and 1982 - Ferrari was the only other engine manufacturer to power a title winning team in that period. 4u1e (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true, it'll be Formula Cosworth-Mercedes! Hopefully Renault will line up to Bahrain. Fsarmony (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

just to bring to atention, ex-driver Alex Yoong was named head of young drivers development for the new lotus team. I don't know if it's relevant to this season, but here's the source: http://www.crash.net/f1/news/155160/1/yoong_f1_return_confirmed.html . Thanks for reading. a brazilian f-1 fan 12:09 december 7 (Brasilia Time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.42.40.146 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sauber name

As clearly stated here, the 13th entry to the championship has been awarded to BMW Sauber, not Sauber. They will change their name, but I think, for officialness's sake, we should indicate this somehow on the table. What are the opinions of others? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. The entry was given to BMW Sauber, but by that it means it was given to BMW Sauber the team - the actual people and organisation who form the team - and not to BMW the manufacturer. It is known BMW want out and have for some time now. Indicating on the table is unnecessary because BMW' involvement will case to exist. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Full Constructor Names

Some of the constructor names listed in the table are not the full names of the constructors. Without wishing to engage in another argument about Campos Dallara, the two constructors in question are Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso, who are listed under 'Constructor' as just 'Red Bull' and 'Toro Rosso' respectively. Now, listing STR as just 'Toro Rosso' I can understand. Even the FIA abbreviate it to just STR. But Red Bull is listed as 'Red Bull Racing' by the FIA. I think that once the updated Entry List (including Sauber) is released by the FIA, we should list constructors as they are listed by the FIA. And if that means that Campos are referred to as 'Campos Dallara' for a second time by the FIA, then we should follow suit. But what do I know? Bolmedias (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The team name is Red Bull Racing, the constructor is Red Bull. I think the FIA says things like RBR Renault and STR Ferrari because Red Bull Renault wouldn't fit on their TV graphics, or in this case, because it won't fit in the column of their press release. Please don't talk about Campos Dallara, it doesn't prove anything even if it's listed that way 15 times. At some point Campos will unveil the chassis and they'll either call it a Campos, Dallara, or Campos Dallara. Then we'll know. Eightball (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're OK with shortening Toro Rosso, why not shorten Red Bull? The³5₉ (Talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the expanded "Red Bull Racing" is more appropriate, because it helps to properly distinguish the team from related properties like Red Bull Technology. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Red Bull cars are always described as "Red Bull RB1" etc, not "Red Bull Racing RB1", which seems to me to provide the answer. If the FIA say "RBR" then we'd have to put that if we were following the FIA to the letter. We'd have no grounds for expanding the name if the FIA don't do that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The constructor is going to be whatever comes in front of RB6 when the car is unveiled. Eightball (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Silverstone

On Monday, it WAS revealed that Silverstone is to hold the British Grand Prix. Please update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.172.213 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has already been updated with this information. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoax info removal

For the record, I have removed the unreferenced, anonymously-added statement[1] that the British Grand Prix would be removed from the schedule, because it is outright contradicted by many other sources of information ([2] stating Northern Racing will run the BGP from this year, for starters)..

(null comment for the purposes of adding a date into this section so it can be auto-archived). DH85868993 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes GP/Brawn GP

Based on the official entry list released today, the "Mercedes" name change has not currently been approved, hence the entry is still under the name "Brawn GP". Whilst a name change has been applied for and is certainly likely to happen (based on all previous similar occurences), it is not guarenteed. Should we change the table to reflect this - perhaps naming it as per the entry list but with an asterisk denoting a name change has been applied for? Oli.meggitt (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think common sense suggests that we list it as Mercedes Grand Prix with a note saying the paperwork has not been completed. (As has already been done). - mspete93 [talk] 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz has been given permission to rename the world championship-winning Brawn team Mercedes GP ahead of its first season as a team owner in six decades in 2010. http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=47531 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.105.13 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari Test/Reserve Drivers

I'm looking on the ITV-F1 Website o nthe artical regarding Bianchi, half way in to the artical it says and I quote "Ferrari has not yet specified Bianchi’s role. He could be nominated as the official test and reserve driver, although the team already has Giancarlo Fisichella, Luca Badoer and Marc Gene on its books in addition to race drivers Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa." http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=47498, should the Ferrari test/reserve list be changed to match this to include Marc & Luca? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.208.107 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gene and Badoer are 2009's test and reserve drivers, while Fisichella had been signed as one for next year. - mspete93 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

When Fisichella was signed to race for Ferrari in 2009, they announced that he'd take the reserve driver role for them in 2010. The media seem to have forgotten this, though. Gené and Badoer are also contracted to Ferrari for testing purposes, and they should be noted in the table underneath Fisichella. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 00:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Will anyone be adding them then, to the table, I don't like doing edit's to tables!

I shall now. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Points Change

Apprently they are submitting new points system for next year; http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=47532 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.105.13 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Shown here (Autosport) too. Hasn't been approved by the FIA yet, but still worth mentioning in the article. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-season testing

While I agree that a section on testing is warranted now that it is a rarer occurance, I'm not sure that this week's young driver test qualifies as pre-season testing for the 2010 season, seeing as it uses '09 teams, cars and liveries. It would be far better on the 2009 page. I'm sure that the FIA would call it an '09 test because it is open to the '09 teams. I've seen similar things going on in World Series by Renault and the like. I am not against the inclusion of testing (I think it is a good idea), just whether this test is pre-season or end-of-season. What does everyone else think? - mspete93 17:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 cars and teams, yes, but 2010 drivers for several teams. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As pre-season testing has virtually no bearing on the sporting results of the season I would like to see pre-season testing split off into its own article for all F1 seasons concerned as a method of trimming down what will inevtiably create yet another table in articles already bleeding tables at the gills. A list of testing lap times also has very little value to the overall article once we get to about April each season anyway. --Falcadore (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The significant and salient detail here is that these are actual or potential 2010 drivers, whether or not they are driving 2009 vehicles. These are drivers preparing for the 2010 season; therefore, it would seem appropriate that their activities are documented here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, more importantly, a lot of the teams are testing out parts for their 2010 cars. 86.8.72.165 (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I see nothing wrong in tables, I can understand how a testing table would make the page longer so I simply suggest that when all the tests have taken place it may be a good idea to collapse the table so it is there for reference but not dominating the article. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Who needs a table? Just write it out as a brief section. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A table tells you what text tells you in a much more organised way and allows someone to browse down the list and make comparisions very easily. Text is still important but won't be read half as much as the contents in a table. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a block of text would work for a set of times. I'm beginning to warm to a seperate article that could go into much more detail, in both text form, to explain the tests, and table form, to show brief results. - mspete93 18:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't need every single test lap time, only the fastest lap time is really necessary, if even that. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Relax - that's all I was going to suggest. - mspete93 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd go further and say that the fastest lap time from every day of testing is also wholly unnecessary. The tables tell you nothing about the test sessions themselves. If people want quick facts there are websites for that, this is not what Wikipedia is for. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Wikipedia already consistantly does that for F1 qualifying and race results and test results in other racing series so surely there is a flaw in what you are saying. I bring back the point that people want different things when they look to an article (some want to be able to look down a list of test times quickly and be able to make comparisions which is something text does not allow) and the table also has the benefit of linking to full test result webpages. A collapsed table logically does no harm to the asthetic appearance of the page and only adds to the factual information it provides. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Because last I checked qualifying and races count for something. Do you not notice that we do not have charts for practice times? I wonder why... The³5₉ (Talk) 20:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, you don't have to be correct on this one. Just because I have made this edit does not mean it is wrong. Test results are not trivial and play a crucial role in pre-season activity. I'm not listing every time as you seem to suggest - it is one time (the fastest time) from each whole day session of testing for the fastest driver. The table itself looks good and gives just enough information, for those people who choose to expand the table to give a better angle on what they may have read in the text. Try and take a step back to see the benefit of a table like this and don't dismiss my ideas so quickly by entering a petty edit war. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Test results are trivial because they're not under race conditions, they're not run under any sort of regulations, there's no talk of track or ambient conditions, there's nothing in any way relevant. All you're doing is listing a lap time and a driver. That's wholly trivial. We do not do things just because some people might want them. There is no benefit to the table besides to add useless trivia to an already large article. If people want to know about pre-season testing, they can read. A redundant chart adds absolutely nothing to the text that is already there. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree with most of what you just said. If information is interesting and available, then include it (that really should be the golden rule of editing an article). Testing can be very interesting. The second golden rule should be to make an article as comprehensive as possible. Offer the information to people because a lot of people wouldn't know where else to look for a lot of things and Wikipedia is where they will come to first, to at least be directed to another website. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Testing lap times are still incredibly minor in the context of the whole season. Dump the section. Might as well be documenting alterations in paint schemes during testing. --Falcadore (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The significant and salient detail here is that these are actual or potential 2010 drivers, Which will become meaningless after the drivers are officially announced, it's unneccesary over-detail. --Falcadore (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, more importantly, a lot of the teams are testing out parts for their 2010 cars. but as they most likely will not be complete cars, certainly in 2010 will be again meaningless in the context of the cars actual performance once the cars are completed. Folks, I would ask that the information added to the article be considered in its importance to a completed articles once the 2010 season is completed rather than its importance now. Just a slight touch of relativity if you like. --Falcadore (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with the majority here, this is going over the line from encyclopedia to specialist interest. We are not here to cater to the basest levels, but we are also not here to make ourselves dedicated to a select few for whom every random bit of data is important. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree too. This stuff is at best of passing interest to the majority of F1 fans, let alone casual readers, and without lengthy explanation of the timings and reasons for cars being slow or fast (which would probably fail WP:OR AND WP:SYN), a description of pre-season testing can be over-specialising at best, and misleading at worst. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"If information is interesting and available, then include it", "make an article as comprehensive as possible" - WP:NOT includes a whole host of exceptions to these proposed principles, in the aim of keeping our articles readable (particularly pertinent here is WP:IINFO on excessive statistics). In this case, there is also the good point raised by Bretonbanquet that to give this material sufficient context would take far too much detail - and it is better to remain silent than potentially mislead. Falcadore's point about the long-term significance is also valid. This is material we can safely omit. Knepflerle (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

←Since Falcadore is having fun quoting my earlier statement above, let me clarify my position. As I said at the time, including the information here would seem appropriate (insofar as it would not be inappropriate). In other words, it would be better for this testing information to be in the 2010 article, not the 2009 article (as had been proposed). I did not comment on the level of detail, which I believe (as Falcadore and others do) to be overly excessive. I hope that clears things up. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Has pre-testing been including in any other, and by definaition, less notable articles and needs clarified, de-tabled or removed? --Falcadore (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed it in a lot of GP2 and F3 season articles. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just about all the European single-seater series in recent seasons. - mspete93 19:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Get on removing them then? Or bring it up at WP:MS first? --Falcadore (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You lot are all bloody vandals. Where is the sense in getting rid of accurate information? It doesn't please those who want it and has no bearing on those who don't. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way Falcadore, maybe you would like to remove them rather than ordering us to do so. - mspete93 21:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be funny wouldn't it? Actually being able to order people to do things. Makes me go all shivery. Oh the power. I've conquered a tiny fraction of a small piece of the internet, just what in the world could I go to from here?

Believe me or not, it was a genuine question as to whether the issue should be brought up at WP:MS. --Falcadore (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So...are we removing the current pre-season testing and chart now? The³5₉ (Talk) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucas di Grassi

Lucas is confirmated to drive for Manor/Virgin in the next season. I think it's necessary edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gucesar (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

He is not confirmed. I have already inserted a little note to explain the media reports. P.S. Add your new discussions to the bottom of this page in the future. - mspete93 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain Grand Prix time

{{editsemiprotected}} According to Bahrain, its time zone is UTC+3, so with the race at 15:00 local time, that is 12:00 UTC, not 13:00 UTC. Elangeland (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Tim Song (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources?

I'm putting this up for discussion here rather than steaming in and sanctioning an editor for what appears to be good faith editing. When a new driver is signed, what is the preferred source? It is team and/or driver announcing this themselves, or a source that meets WP:RS announcing it?

Officially Mr X (talk · contribs) recently added Jarno Trulli to the table, citing this source. I believe that USA Today and the Associated Press both meet WP:RS. The addition was removed by MotorsportPete93 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "Wait for Monday confirmation".

I can see both sides of the argument, so I'd like this to be discussed. Hopefully a precedent can be set which will avoid these disputes in the future. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, the best sources are theones that directly quote sources. Preferrably the driver or the team commenting on the signing. While USA Today and the Associated Press are both valid, their source requests anonymity, which opens up a whole new can of worms. If we let USA Today and AP through on that count, we're going to have to let other articles through, ones with sources that request the same anonymity. But as we saw with the Alonso-Ferrari signing, it's very easy for journalists to cite anonymous sources as a way to sound like they know what they're talking about (or, more likely, to sound like they know more than rival papers do). And while the most credible of sources like USA Today and AP go through the motions of fact-checking, how do we know the others do it? How do we even know their sources are right? I got sucked into that myself, the night Brawn became Mercedes - I put Button as their driver, because that's what the source said. I mean, take this AP article for instance: what is it coming out of Spain? What possible connection does Lotus have to the country? They're Malaysian, they're based in Norfolk, and the driver they'e reporting on is Italian. But the story is coming in Spain, the home of bad Formula One journalism. That's not to say it's untrue, but it's enough for me to question it.

The short version is this: unless an article has a direct quote from a driver or a team who is named within the article (ie "sources inside the team" doesn't cut it), an article shouldn't be used as a source. Just to err on the side of caution; we're going to look silly if we use this AP article, and Trulli isn't announced as a driver tomorrow. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As there's an announcement on Monday I don't see why we need to add a driver into the table without official confirmation. I'm more than happy for Trulli to be mentioned in the note for the Lotus drivers however, as it's 'common knowledge' and it probably will happen. P.S. The same site is quoting Bild and saying Scumacher has signed for Mercedes. Also, the BBC would count as a reliable source, yet we didn't put Button or Rosberg in the table when they said they had signed. - mspete93 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mspete, that sounds like a good compromise. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - mspete93 15:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Campos Dallara

The bit on the entry list that says Campos Dallara does NOT mean you change the constructor in the table to say Campos Dallara. It means that the team is referred to as Campos-Dallara in the same way that McLaren is McLaren-Mercedes and Red Bull is Red Bull-Renault. A better example is Sauber-Petronas, since Petronas wasn't the engine supplier but was included as part of a sponsorship deal. The constructor is still simply Campos (or maybe Dallara, but we'd have to determine that when they announce the chassis). Eightball (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you've got a point, but Sauber-Petronas was named as such because Petronas were their engine suppliers... Bolmedias (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Ferrari were their engine suppliers but they were badged as Petronas for sponsorship purposes. Either way, I think we should only do it your way if the constructor part on the entry list said Campos Dallara-Cosworth. Eightball (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I guess you're right. It's just as well that Virgin isn't listed as 'Virgin Manor' otherwise this argument would go on forever :P Bolmedias (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would Dallara be badged on Cosworth engines? I see nothing to indicate that this is at all similar to Petronas-badged Ferrari engines, that was a sponsor. Dallara isn't simply a sponsor, they're technically the chassis builder. It makes sense to me that Campos wants them included as part of the manufacturer. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably these are the names that will be shown on FOM TV graphics. Strange if they don't show the engine, whatever its badged as. - mspete93 [talk] 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's EXACTLY what they are. Look at the entry list and you'll see: STR FERRARI, LOTUS COSWORTH, and then CAMPOS DALLARA. If you're going to say Campos is Campos Dallara based on only list entry list, then you'd have to change all the other teams accordingly, and we all know that would be incorrect. Eightball (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently the only piece of info we have is that the constructor is CAMPOS DALLARA. According to the regs, constructor name must have chassis and engine, so it's Campos Dallara(-Campos Dallara) or Campos-Dallara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.59.27 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We have precedent, refer to 1989 Formula One season, and refer therein to BMS Scuderia Italia and Equipe Larrousse. Since this is the method we have used in the past, and it is both clear to understand and logical I propose we implement this immeidiately. --Falcadore (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the FIA list is simply abbreviating some of the constructor names for the sake of space, such as with STR or "Mercedes" being listed as an engine for some, while Brawn has "Mercedes-Benz". I think the list simply left Cosworth off for the sake of space. Campos Dallara-Cosworth seems to be the clear intention. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're making a pretty huge assumption there, that is the definition of original research. I tend to agree with Falcadore, but the best way to implement that would be to wait until the car is launched and see if they call it a Dallara or a Campos chassis. REMEMBER: The constructor is whoever owns the design. Eightball (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"the name of the team (which must include the name of the chassis)" There's no Dallara in Campos Meta 1, so is it name of the chassis at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.59.27 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How is assuming Dallara, a company not even associated with engine construction or building, serving as the engine name any less of an assumption and original research? It's not original research to say that the FIA list is abbreviating some elements in their constructor's column. We know how the constructor is designated, but the question is whether it's Campos or Campos Dallara. We've had far stranger constructor designations in the past (Iso Marlboro or Haas Lola which was not owned, constructed, or developed by Lola). The³5₉ (Talk) 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying Dallara has anything to do with the engines, just that they are calling the team Campos-Dallara rather than Campos-Cosworth. Nonetheless, IT IS 100% ORIGINAL RESEARCH to try to act like you know what the FIA is doing with the list. To disagree is utterly ridiculous. Eightball (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record Eightball, you are not agreeing with me. Please go and look at the precedent I sited, and do so before replying, 1989 Formula One season. Team Column: Campos Meta 1, Chassis: Dallara, Engine: Cosworth, with a short form of Dallara-Cosworth. --Falcadore (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually agree with you entirely, but we've yet to determine who the constructor actually is. The constructor isn't the company that builds the chassis, it's the company that owns the IP to the chassis. Since two teams can't use the same chassis anymore, at least not in the same way that was allowed in 1989, then it is more likely that Dallara is building the car under contract with Campos and it will be called a Campos chassis. Eightball (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Scuderia Italias were refered to as Dallaras for years because Dallara built the cars. Perhaps Dallara-Cosworth is the most appropriate Constructor-Engine combination. Similar Larrousse entries being referred to as Lola-Cosworth or Lola-Lamborghini. --Falcadore (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we list the Constructor for Campos Meta 1 as 'Campos' or 'Campos Dallara'? With most teams, the second name in the constructor refers to engines, but in Campos' case it refers to the company who is building their chassis. I personally believe that it should be 'Campos-Dallara' but what do I know? Bolmedias (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh god we timed this perfectly. Eightball (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You noticed that as well? :P Bolmedias (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of now, I would leave the constructor field as Campos until we have something more clarifying, since the source is in no way clear about the meaning of the word Dallara in that field. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that "Dallara engines" are creeping into various articles. Are we really going along with this? Yes, the constructor name is under question for now, but the engines will not be badged as Dallaras, or I'll eat my shoes. Those entry lists do have errors in them, and a certain amount of information is not very clear. And do we really have to move articles to match the entry list every time one comes out? Why not just wait till the final entry list? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What articles are saying Dallara engines? Eightball (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it, and one edit on one article doesn't mean we have a problem. And to your second point: just because we hold ourselves to encyclopedic standards doesn't mean we should limit ourselves to the inflexibility of them as well. The information is here, it's solid, and it's not hard at all to update these articles. Just do it. Eightball (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a couple of articles and I already fixed them. Slavishly tying ourselves to every single facet of every entry list (which are a long way from "solid") is not holding ourselves to encyclopedic standards - stuff like the Dallara engines thing makes the project look silly. You have to apply some common sense to this stuff. Don't tell me what to damn well edit either. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ONE GUY thought the list implied Dallara engines, and you've already corrected that. What is the problem here? Editors make mistakes all the time, those are the breaks. And how can you say the entry list isn't solid when it's the most up-to-date source from the sport's governing body? Quite frankly you're just lying. Eightball (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From your first post here, it looks a lot like you thought it too. And so you think something which changes practically on a daily basis is solid? Up to you, I guess. But you can take back your accusation of lying or I'll take you straight to an admin. Where the hell do you get "lying" from? Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The entry list does not change on a daily basis, that too is a flat out lie. The list is released periodically, on announced dates, by the FIA. The FIA is the ultimate authority in F1. If the FIA's entry list says a team is called Campos Meta 1, for example, that is the team's official name. Period. To say that list is not "solid" is factually incorrect aka a lie. And no, I never said the engines were Dallara, which I made pretty clear when I said it was more analogous to the Sauber-Petronas situation because Petronas were actually sponsors. A third lie, you've achieved the hat trick. Please quit misleading editors, it's not good for the article. Eightball (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are really something. Ever heard of WP:AGF? You think entry lists only change when the FIA publish them? You think somebody saying something you disagree with is a lie? Maybe you should take a break for a while. If you'd like to post some more abuse and personal attacks, feel free. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying disagrees with the facts. It is therefore a lie. It has nothing to do with what I believe or personal attacks. The official entry list does not change daily, it changes when the FIA publishes a new one. And when that happens we update the article according. To propose otherwise is absurd. Eightball (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the Dallara thing is like Petronas would seem to most to be equating Dallara to engine badging here, which they clearly are not. Dallara is not just a sponsor like Petronas so the situation is not even similar. And I think we proved just a few months ago that these entry lists do change, when we had different entry lists from a few days apart giving different names for Campos and Manor. We had a whole debate about it, and it seems the attitude from that debate has yet to be fixed...

The list is not solid because we don't know what the FIA means by the use of Dallara in the constructor name, and we do know from just looking at the list that it seems the FIA has abbreviated some elements of the constructor names in that document (and no, that's not original research, unless you want to tell me "Mercedes" and "Mercedes-Benz" are two different engine suppliers).

And for fucks sake, stop accusing people of lying. If you think anyone here is attempting to lie then you're completely off base. Disagreeing with that is implied by a document is not lying, and you cannot say without complete proof that you know the intent of the use of the term Dallara in the FIA's document. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Differences of opinion do not constitute lies. That is something you might consider learning at some point in order to interact with people in a civil manner. Accusing someone of lying when actually they just disagree with you can be considered a personal attack. I did not say the official entry list changes daily. I said the entry list changes daily. Even you can see the difference there. You know full well that when a driver is announced, the entry list here is updated and is considered factual without the need to wait for an official entry list. You also know, I assume, that the new entry list is at best ambiguous, or you wouldn't have started this thread. So stop accusing me of lying and interact properly. The wikiquette alert that concerns you is here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that, for every other entry in the Constructor's column (e.g. McLaren Mercedes), the FIA intends for the team to be known as McLaren-Mercedes, not McLaren Mercedes-Mercedes. You are assuming the latter, and that's just silly. Eightball (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's silly, and that's suggesting that someone like The359 would assume something as ridiculous as that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Campos Dallara-Cosworth. It's exactly what he's doing. Why is it always you two? We're going to go back and forth for days, I'm going to win this, and then like a month later I'll be proven right. I've lost count of how many times this has happened around F1 articles. Eightball (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it always us that proves you wrong? Sorry about that, it must be difficult to accept. Anyway, it's not only us, it's just about every regular contributor here. You're going to win? You're doing this to win? And here I was thinking you were trying to contribute. Nobody thinks it will be Campos Dallara-Cosworth, and nobody has said that anywhere. Get a grip. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On edit, The359 has said that, or rather he said that appears to be what the FIA are suggesting. I disagree, though - note that I'm not accusing him of lying. We "disagree". Personally I suspect it'll be either Campos-Cosworth, or Dallara-Cosworth. I don't care which, and would never have started a discussion about it. Maybe the FIA aren't sure either, why would they be? They can wait till Campos announce it, so I think we can too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's likely but my interpretation is that yes, the FIA's document implies that it is "Campos Dallara-Cosworth", which would not be all that different from "Haas Lola-Ford", although the exact constructor designation there is open to debate (Haas, Lola, FORCE, etc). I too am sure that it will be Campos or Dallara and hopefully not both, but it's F1, stranger things have happened.

Eightball, if you're in here thinking either of us gives a damn about "winning" or coming into it automatically thinking you're going to win and that nothing is going to change it, then you're a waste of time from the start. We don't go by who wins, we go by what the sources can back. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have had long, drawn-out arguments with both of you multiple times in various F1 articles. It's never anyone else. It's always you two, and you both team up and be wrong together until eventually we maintain the status quo and a month later my view is confirmed. It's happened a lot, so much so that I dread making correct edits to this page because I can count on 359 reverting them because bacon is crispy. Eightball (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to make two points, not that I expect my feeble and unknown voice to distract you apparent regulars from your [admittedly amusing] spat.

Firstly, I think it quite likely that the name Campos Dallara-Cosworth will be settled upon. Perhaps it'll be shortened to Campos-Cosworth to fit the convention, but if something like Campos-Dallara or Dallara-Cosworth gets used I'll eat my hat.

Secondly, and far more importantly, the season is still what, three months away? Plenty of time for deals to be done and companies to change their minds. All of you take a pill and wait until something official appears from Campos themselves.

--SmartShark (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Campos-Dallara issue is rather complicated. It is likely that the cars will indeed be called 'Campos Dallara', without mention of engine supplier Cosworth. However, this could be due to the that Dallara badges the engines, which seems unlikely, but rather due to the fact that both the cars ánd the engines are badged 'Campos Dallara'. This results in the following: like the Ferrari's are, strictly speaking, 'Ferrari/Ferrari', i.e. car/engine, as BMW Sauber's were in fact 'BMW Sauber/BMW', these cars are called 'Campos Dallara/Campos Dallara'. Just my 2¢. Lustigson (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

Hey, i've noticed a mistake in Changed Teams section. Robert Kubica will leave BMW Sauber to drive for Renault in 2010, as a replacement for Alonso. Shouldn't 'Renault' not include a hyperlync to the Renault F1 team page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.63.27 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a mistake. Besides, the entry before Kubica is Fernando Alonso, and that clearly mentions he is leaving Renault for Ferrari, complete with internal link on the Renault. To have Kubica's Renault mention linked would jus be a little redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Renault

Renault are comfirmed to stay as Renault next year; http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8407138.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.105.13 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They're not confirmed, just BBC sources. The article states an official announcement is likely next week.

It is likely that the team name could change slightly to incorparate the new owners but the constructor will remain Renault. Therefore NO NEW ARTICLE SHOULD BE CREATED if this is the case, it will just be a continuation of the Renault team. Anybody disagree? - mspete93 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends, the article I read said the car would still be called Renault but the team might have a different name (and Renault would be minority shareholders), in which case we would need a new article. But it sounds more like the only thing that will change is the ownership structure, which wouldn't require a new article. Although, now that I reread your comment, it sounds more like a possible name change would be "Lopes Renault F1" (since one of the bidders is named Lopes), which would probably fall into the latter category of not needing a new article. Eightball (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As with manyh issues at Wikipedia, wait and it will become much clearer. We are not supposed to be first with the news. --Falcadore (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to discuss it now to prevent rash actions (which I am sometimes guilty of I admit) in the heat of the moment when the news is announced. I say we discuss it further when the information becomes availible (i.e. official announcement) on which we can decide on the matter. I see it as highly unlikely we need a new article, but what do I know? - mspete93 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A new article should only be created if the team name is revised. If they become known as Prodrive-Renault, for example, and it is made clear that the team will eventually be owned entirely by Prodrive, then I think a new article could be reasonably created with a bit of double-up on the Renault page. It seems Renault want to phase their sale, rather than do it all in one go. The need for a new article really depends on the nature of the sale. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is Prodrive and we do need a new article, move Prodrive F1 and do it there rather than creating a brand-new page. - mspete93 11:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sale to Genii announced, and team will continue to run as Renault, so no need for a new article, just carry on with Renault F1. (This was probably fairly obvious, just thought I'd round-off the discussion) - mspete93 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Renault bought by Genii Capital not Genii Campital

Typo error needs changing under "team changes" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.4.131 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

note mistake

Can someone correct the note mistake in the Teams/Drivers table? Notes 2 & 3 are the wrong way around!!! --86.25.170.239 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cs-wolves(talk) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sauber Numbers

The editing in of Sauber has included giving them 26 and 27 but I can't find a source for this. In fact doesn't this throw the whole number table in doubt as Sauber might well get BMW's numbers back? Duds 2k (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not an official confirmation but it does say they will get 26 and 27. BMW's numbers have been taken, and this entry is probably technically seperate seing as they had to reapply for the space to be the 13th team. All other 12 were taken so Sauber will get the 13th set of numbers. This is the FIA press release which says they are the 13th team. That would suggest they would get 26 and 27. However it does say they will publish a new entry list. Also, it says it is BMW Sauber's entry, so it is possible they could get their numbers. - mspete93 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say it is BMW Sauber's entry, that just the name of the team still, like how Mercedes is still Brawn on the entry list. They have the 13th spot and thus #26 and #27. Eightball (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does say that it is BMW Sauber's entry - and it is, as BMW applied for the Qadbak-invested team back when Lotus got the place and it was BMW Sauber that held the reserve place since then. BMW Sauber have been awarded the place, its the same team, its just that BMW will now sell the team back to Peter Sauber. - mspete93 18:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading the press release. When you say "BMW Sauber's entry," what you are implying is that it will be treated as a smooth transition from last year, i.e. using BMW's numbers. That's not the case. The article says BMW Sauber applied for and was given an entry into the 2010 season. This is a NEW entry, because they didn't sign the Concorde Agreement in August. Eightball (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I know it is - I was saying BMW Sauber made the entry, so it is their entry. Not their entry that got them in the 09 season, but their newly applied-for entry after failing to sign the concorde, as they were right to do, unlike a certain Toyota. We might have to wait for a new entry list until we know more about the Renault situation. - mspete93 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, the fact that it's a new entry means they won't get to keep their numbers. Eightball (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said in the first line of my first comment. But we can't be sure. The FIA will publish a new entry list. This hints that it may not be as straightforward as you think. - mspete93 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You said this: "Also, it says it is BMW Sauber's entry, so it is possible they could get their numbers." And my whole point is that it's not BMW's 2009 entry and thus they won't get the numbers BMW earned in the 2009 WCC. And they are publishing a new entry list because they can't just go back and edit the old one. Eightball (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why they would need to publish a new entry list (and tell us in advance that they would) if it was as straightforward as #26 and 27. We don't know. Stop trying to guess. You don't know what the FIA will decide to do. Mercedes don't get new numbers do they? - mspete93 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes is using the same entry and is essentially a renamed Brawn team. Eightball (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And they are publishing a new list because it's a new team, team name, engine supplier, title sponsor, etc. There's a lot more to it than the numbers. Plus, they aren't making a new list just for Sauber. They release the things regularly. You're reading into this way too much. Eightball (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the above certainly demonstrates we're right to leave them blank for now. Hell, they might use 27 and 28. They've been on Ferrari powered cars before ;) 87.194.50.110 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Above was me Duds 2k (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see. The numbering system is not as hard and fast as some people think it is. Sauber (not BMW Sauber by the way) will probably get 26 and 27 but then again, they might not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I've said from the end of my first comment, leave them as TBA. - mspete93 21:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly is there TBA in Sauber numbers? If car numbers 1-25 are confirmed, what's left for Sauber? The idea they might receive numbers e.g. #0 & #13, or #101 & #102 is absurdly overcautious. And if it's about the (as far as I know) unbased idea that they will have BMW Sauber's numbers, other teams should also have TBAs, shouldn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.59.27 (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't add things because we "think" we "Just know them", we add them because there's a source. There is no source for Sauber car numbers. They're TBA in the most literal sense because they have in fact, not been announced. There's still a reasonable chance they'll get slotted in wherever their 2009 results have them (I can't be bothered to check where) and the others will change but again we don't TBA the rest of the grid because they WERE announced until the change is announced. We're all pretty damn sure the 2nd Toro rosso driver will be Jaime for instance but it's not announced so we don't it. Make sense? Duds 2k (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kubica

Kubica may not be driving for Renault after all (BBC). Can someone add a note to the table. Looks a bit complicated for me . Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants a note yet, as it's all speculative. As of now he's still under contract with Renault and we're not supposed to decipher what "more information" means. XXX antiuser 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Grand Prix

Okay, I think Stefan GP is worthy of having its own page created. They've been pushing to get into the sport for a while, and are confirmed to have purchased the remains of Toyota, including the TF110 chassis, and it's believed that if they don't make 2010, they'll apply for 2011. We've created pages based on less substance, like Prodrive F1. So I'm going to go ahead and make one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And likely get rejected in 2011. I think creating an article for a racing team that might exist in 2011 in December 2009 is exceedingly premature, and a likely AfD candidate. If Stefan Grand Prix were racing in another category, then sure. But if all they have done is bought some equipment that they might never use, then no.

As for Prodrive F1, they were a team that not just applied, but had substantial infrastructure from existing mtor racing activities with manufacturer supprot, and got accepted into the 2009 season. That the team subsequently did not race is a different issue. --Falcadore (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Prodrive can not be used as an example, as it was accepted an entry, the same as Campos, USF1 etc. That's why a page was created. They can only enter in 2010/11 if someone else drops out, so therefore it is very speculative. - mspete93 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They applied for 2010, as did many others - it isn't worthy of an article. Applying for 2011 will be no different. Less competitors, but no guaranteed places available. - mspete93 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lotus F1 Team

Will present tomorrow their two new drivers, Jarno Trulli and Heikki Kovalainen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they'll present drivers tomorrow, but we really don't know who. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is almost guaranteed to be those two but that isn't the point. - mspete93 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Stupid question: how do we know Trulli is 18 and Kovalainen 19? The Autosport article makes no mention of numberings, and for all we know, if Trulli is lead driver, he could well have his choice of number and pick the 19. There's nothing in the rules to say the lead driver has to carry the lower number, is there? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In this situation the "lead driver" is pretty much entirely determined by the number. Lower teams don't typically have a lead driver like McLaren or Ferrari might. But I was wondering the same thing as you. I guess we could just keep Lotus in the same spot in the table to signify that they have 18 & 19 but replace the actual numbers with TBA. Eightball (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning is that "lead driver" status - if a team uses it - really boils down to how a team treats their driver, not by the number they are carrying. An since Lotus is a new team, their numbers are really only a formality. As we saw with Bruno Senna, he might be the first driver signed, but he can carry numbers for whatever reason (in his case, sponsors). The problem here is that we know the numbers and we know the drivers, but we don't know the order they go in. We've only got a 50% chance of being right. I'm against the idea of leaving either the numbers of the drivers out because to me at least, the idea of Wikipedia is that the information be as whole and compelte as possible. Knowlingly leaving information out goes against that, and it's going to create all manner of problems with people constantly editing nubmers or drivers in if we take them out. If we're wrong - though I think Trulli as 18 and Kovalainen carrying the 19 is right on the money - we can quickly swap them about when we know more since it's purely cosmetic. And no-one can say we knowingly posted false information if we do have them wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving them as TBA would be a bit daft. Sometimes its better to use common sense and override our own guidelines. Apparently they only signed Kovalainen at the FIA gala. It's clear that Trulli will get the first number as he was almost certainly signed first and he finished higher in '09. Also, all the press releases and news stories have mentioned Trulli then Kovalainen. I will be very surprised if I am wrong with this one. [Insert a joke about eating a hat or something here.]- mspete93 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am 110% with you guys on this but I know for a fact that if we put Trulli at 18 and Heikki at 19 SOME PEOPLE are going to throw a fit because it's not completely confirmed. Eightball (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Teams might decide to change their numbers anyway, so we can never be certain of them. I think it happened in 09 with Ferrari and Toro Rosso. - mspete93 17:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And there are some people (not me. dear god, not me.) that would suggest that we not include any numbers at all because we can't be 100% sure that they won't be changed at the last minute. If it's just up to us then definitely let's keep Trulli at 18/Heikki at 19, but don't be surprised if people start complaining. Eightball (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, they've got all the opportunity in the world to state their case. If they dont, they haven't got much to complain about. Popular consensus so far - even if it is three or four of us - is that the article is fine the way it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone's added the TBA to Sauber with Kobayashi now so I think a format should be stuck to, either make Kova and Trulli TBAs or give Kobayashi number 26 until we know any different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.72.165 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sauber are not TBA because of the unknown order of their drivers, they're TBA because we don't know what number the TEAM will have. There's been no source giving numbers for Sauber at all whereas we DO know Lotus will have 18 and 19. Duds 2k (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a similar problem once and the way we solved it was to show each driver with both numbers i.e. instead of 18 for Trulli and 19 for Kovalainen, 18/19 for Trulli and 18/19 for Kovalainen. However I don't think it should be changed unless someone complains because it's blindingly obvious that Trulli is their senior driver. Eightball (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This solves the problem. - mspete93 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Test Pilots

Should all moving test pilots have it's entry on the Driver Changes? Fisichella has (even if under special circunstances), but no other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.126.143 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If a rookie is signed on as a test pilot, I don't think it needs to be mentioned. You get people who come and go all the time and never make a racing seat. Full-time drivers who go from race seat to testing (and the other way around as well) should get a mention, but I think that's the only necessity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Bull Renault

This new source says RBR will use Renault engines for 2010: RBR Renault. I've given up on deciding what sources are okay (because apparently most aren't). Officially Mr X (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If a source is not a press release from the team/driver or features a quote from team/driver then treat it very cautiously. Best rule of thumb. And remember, Wikipedia is not a news source so there is no race to add news. Getting it right is far more important then getting it fast. --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we also confirm that Webber will be the number 1 driver and not Vettel. The website seems to give the idea that the senior driver is Webber and that he will retain his number 1 status over the junior Vettel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot recall anything to suggest Webber was the lead driver, 2009 or 2010. I think you will find that confirmation will not be forthcoming. --203.201.159.148 (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay cool. I suppose I'm as confused as Red Bull with the decision. Heads up he was the lead driver in 2009 (number 14) and Vettel was the understudy (number 15). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of teams don't have lead drivers, and numbers mean little. Rosberg has the lower number at Mercedes, but does anyone think he'll be the leader when they'll have Schumacher in the team? In 2009, Webber and Vettel competed freely until Vettel was the only one at Red Bull who could compete for the title. In 2008 technically Räikkönen was the lead at Ferrari, but Massa took it over around the middle of the season, and in 2009 Ferrari didn't have a lead driver even though Massa had the lower number. I believe Webber had the lower number in 2009 because his contract was renewed early on, before Vettel's transfer was finalised. XXX antiuser 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are irrespective of the titles fight midway in the season rather they are given earlier with generally the more senior/better/higher driver fielding the lower number except one number 13 IIRC is not fielded. They don't change numbers halfway because someone is doing better or changed contract. It really has nothing to do with competition in the sense that someone is doing better so they help that driver.

Michael Schumacher

The BBC article used as a source to "confirm" Schumacher's return to F1 is quoting Das Bild, a German publication that's not exactly a beacon of credibility. We should leave this out until it's confirmed either by the team or Schumacher's people. XXX antiuser 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I fell for that one. Sorry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's now confirmed - I've added it back to the article with a ref to Autosport. XXX antiuser 10:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that autosport article in no way confirms it. It says there is a meeting later where it is believed Schumacher will be announed. They could announce that Ross Brawn has decided to leave the team to grow giant marrows on a farm on Norfolk for all we know. There is no need for us to scramble around for the 'scoop'. We are not a news site. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, read the first paragraph of that article: "Michael Schumacher will return to Formula in 2010, after Mercedes GP confirmed on Wednesday that the seven-time world champion is joining its team next year". The team has confirmed it, thus it goes in the article. XXX antiuser 10:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My aplogies, I must have missed that autosport article by a couple of minutes from my earlier look at the site. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Button's picture

I visit this page very often and each time it loads that picture makes me throw up. If someone has a little bit sense of taste, they should change the picture of Button, because it's a kind of picture that you delete immediately after you see how bad it is (Button's eyes are closed, bad lighting), and you especially don't put it on a Wikipedia page. I wanted to change it, but I couldn't find a picture that was copy-free, so please if someone has one then upload it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of JB must be on a suitable licence for Wikipedia to use. As he is a living person, copyrighted images are not allowed to be used (there are a very few exceptions, but not here). A poor free-use photo is better than no photo at all. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay, but I'm surprised that no one can upload a picture like the ones on the previous seasons' pages: Hamilton's, Massa's, Räikkönen's or even Vettel's. There are good pictures of these drivers and there's no good picture of JB?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.68.64 (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then take your pick from Commons Galery  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is File:Button.Spain.09.crop.jpg any better (still from the Brawn era, but a little less retch-worthy)? Apterygial 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Spain picture is a little bit better, but also not good. I think no one wants to use a Honda picture, and there is no good Brawn picture. I think I can make my peace with this picture for the next couple of months, and after that hopefully someone will upload a McLaren picture of Button. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't edit this page, so someone who can please change JB's picture to this: File:Jenson Button at Singapore GP 2009 cut.JPG! Underhill85 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dubfire 17:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

Official name of the Mercedes team

An official press release by the team states:

From 2010, the new team will compete in the FIA Formula One World Championship as the Mercedes GP PETRONAS Formula One Team [...]

So the official name of the team is Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team.
The Teams and drivers table and the Sponsorship changes section should be corrected accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.63.96 (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We discussed this above. It was felt that the full name was redundant, and that using the shortened "common" name was alright in the table, so long as the full "formal" name appeared on the actual team page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced allegation re Qadbak (BLP violation)

The section "Team changes" states that that BMW Sauber "was sold back to Peter Sauber and it became apparent that Qadbak Investments was a shell company owned and operated for the purposes of fraud." The source given doesn't make any mention of fraud though. This allegation of a criminal activity regarding the people behind Qadbak is a serious violation of WP:BLP and needs to be removed as quickly as possible. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - Thanks Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference used was a bad link; the wrong one being copy-pasted in place. I'm certain I've read something that states Qadbak and Bahrain Capital Investments - a sister-company - were owned by Russell King, a known fraudster. I do believe this particular article - http://www.sonntagszeitung.ch/home/artikel-detailseite/?newsid=108305 - describes as much, though I do not read German. If it's written in German, it's written in English somewhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want to be sued yourself, that's something you want to be very careful about. --Falcadore (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That link only says: "Aus der aktuellen Ausgabe / Publiziert am 01.01.1970" (From the actual publication / Published on January 1, 1970". I don't think a Swiss newspaper would have written about the Qadbak/Sauber case fourty years ago. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Full Team Names

I've noticed that the full Mercedes name is listed as "Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team". This is pretty long, and the team is going to be listed as "Mercedes GP Petronas" most of the time. That, I know is hardly justification for shortening the team name, but looking trough some of the official team websites, it becomes apparent that other teams do it. McLaren describes itself as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes F1 Racing Team", but only appears in the table and most official literature as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes". I think the table should be listed as "Mercedes GP Petronas", with the actual page on the team giving the full name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. :) - oahiyeel ^talk 19:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find from now on in most circles and definately in the media the team will be referred to as Michael Schumacher's Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team, so we'll have to figure out a way to incorporate that.

Maybe MSMGPPF1T? ;) --Falcadore (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So, consensus? Should we simply fill the table with the "common" name (ie Mercedes GP Petronas) and let the actual team page carry the "formal" name (ie Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team)? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree.

That, I ca do - but I'm wondering about the others and where we stand on that: we can't rightly list Renault as Renault instad of Reanult F1, can we? The name that appears in race write-ups will simply be "Renault". I think those ones should stand; I just realised why it is that I have an issue with Mercedes: because Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team is redundant. If a team lists "GP" in their name, it's pretty much the same thing as "F1 Team". The team appears under the name "Mercedes GP, whereas other like Renault are "Renault F1". So I think Mercedes should be changed, but the others remain the same. I'll do that now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. Yes, it is long, but if that is the full team name, I don't see why it shouldn't be used in the table. McLaren doesn't describe itself as 'Vodafone McLaren Mercedes F1 Racing Team' in any other part of their website but the homepage, as far as a search can see. The 'F1 Racing Team' is only added to the homepage as a by-line to fully distinguish them as separate to the sports car program. If you were only to include 'common names', then you may as well remove F1 Team from every team. Force India is listed as just that most of the time, without the 'F1 Team' part (even the Wikipedia article name doesn't have the 'F1 Team' as part of it, unlike the other appopriate teams), but the official full name is listed in this table. I don't see why this is any different. If they want to call themselves such a long name, then so be it. I think that until the name is regularly shortened in press releases by the team, or a new FIA Entry List is released showing the shortened name, there is no reason not to leave it with 'F1 Team' included in the Mercedes name. SchueyFan (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Schumacher - Mercedes GP

http://www.crash.net/F1/news/154816/1/schumacher_mercedes_f1_move_is_going_to_happen.html

Schumi is going to move!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis trzn386 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for telling us! This is totally new to everyone; no-one saw this coming. We'll get right on to editing that one in ... while your contribution is apprciated, a general rule of thumb is that if it's something big, we already know about it. Look just above this section and you'll see it's already being discussed. And as a general rule of thumb, what you've linked to cannot be used as a source. It quotes neither Schumacher nor Mercedes; in order to be used as a reference, a new article must include some official word from someone directly involved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What did Luis trzn386 do to deserve such a cynical reply? This was his first post ever to Wikipedia. Please cut him some slack. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please don't BITE the newbies, especially when it is probable that their first language is not English. I've welcomed him to Wikipedia. Hopefully he won't have been scared off by the response. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Toro Rosso Chassis Name

Hi, As i'm a new user I can't edit the page, but the Toro Rosso car of 2010 is called the STR5. My source is http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/Dec/article_Toro_Rosso_crash_testing_2010_car_STR5.html. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody59 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but the site you linked to may not satisfy Wikipedia's reliability guidelines. There should be confirmation of the car name from a reliable source soon (Autosport is always good). But Brody59 raises an interesting point (albeit inadvertently). Why is this page still protected? Is there still a pressing need for it? Apterygial 09:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The page was protected because of frequent vandal attacks and people posting incorrect information, particularly in the drivers' table. People would add a particular driver at the slightest whiff of a rumour connecting them to a team, and i would happen every five minutes. Now that all of the major drives and drivers are accounted for, protection could probably be removed - but I think the page is still vulnerable to vandals, particularly when it comes to USF1's drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think interest in USF1 is nearly as strong as it was for the other teams - and the occasional reversion is a small price to pay for letting everybody help improve the page. Apterygial 10:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

An Italian source has been added, but here's another source as well in English which confirms it as the STR5: http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1toro-rosso-crash-testing-2010-car/ The³5₉ (Talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips on reliability. Will be more careful in future! --Brody59 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Points change

{{Editsemiprotected}}

I would like to add information about proposed rule changes to the 2010 season, most notably the proposed amendment to the already new points system. There is a "proposed" section. I am a very well educated formula 1 fan & writer and would like to help amend any Formula 1 articles in the future. Thank you.

It is about the proposal of points for fastest lap, and points for pole position Ferrari boss, Stefano Domenicali hinted & has proposed the change. Thank you.

Cubejam (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not believe that any rule change, proposed by one team boss in isolation of any consensus is sufficiently notable for inclusion. If it gets support from a number of team bosses, or the FIA, then sure, but given that a rule change like that will only be of assistance to the big teams, it's not likely to get the support of any of the smaller or the new teams. --Falcadore (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, why is this page still protected? Us "new" users can make a genuine contribution to the page. Just trial a lower level of protection, see if the page gets vandalized. If it does, at least you have a genuine argument for why it is still protected!--Brody59 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@Cubejam: have you got any independent, reliable sources for the changes? I thought the situation was as Falcadore states it: this proposal does not have the concensus of several teams at this time.

@Brody59: the protection isn't too restrictive: as long as your account is autoconfirmed (i.e. at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits) then you can edit the article. For example, if you had a further 4 edits, you would be able to edit the article, as you meet the "more than 4 days old" criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari Numbers/ Driver Order

Alonso will be the first number (Number 7) as he scored more points than Massa (who will be Number 8) in the 2009 championship. Someone please change. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.33.13 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The official F1 website lists Massa as number 7 and Alonso as 8. The entry list also places Massa as 7 and Alonso as 8. See here: http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/drivers/ - just because Alonso scored more points does not guarantee him the "better" number. Ferrari is allowed to assign driver numbers however they choose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick Heidfeld

What happened to him? Is he leaving F1 or joining another team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.171.23 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He was linked with Sauber but they annonced they will sign a Experienced driver not Heidfeld and he also linked with a Reserve/Test Role for Mercedes but he's only options are Renault and Campos but Campos and USF1 arent interested in Heidfeld so he's only options is Renault Really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.145.1 (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Campos Launch

Should I include Campos' launch date from http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-campos-to-be-ready-for-first-valencia-test/ ??--Brody59 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No. That article only says that Campos will be at the tests in Valencia. It does not actually give a release date; a team can launch their car before they test it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats the same with the Lotus launch then. The link says that they will be at the test on the 17th Feb but in the article it says they may "fire up" on the 5th Feb. Maybe check it out see what you think. Saltire89 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"May" is a modifier, like "might" or "could". It is not a confirmation, only the suggestion that something has the potential to happen. Therefore, it's not valid as a reference. As a general rule, we've had it decided for a long while now that a reference should only be included if it directly quotes someone within the team (and names them). So something like "We're going to launch our car on this day, in this place," said Adrian Campos is a good reference, one that can be included. But Sources within the team believe that the car could be launched as early as this date, and in this place is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk)