Talk:2013 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Finally back!

I certainly hope that this page will survive this time. After all there is more information now. I think there should have been another deletion debate in March when the 2013 season page was last deleted. --Krawunsel (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Calendar

I think we should do as we did with the 2012 article, and have the contracted grand prix section of the table, and the contracted for 2012, but not 2013 section. Editadam 19:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definately! We should include the New Jersey race in the list, next to the other races that have contract for 2013. GPs that don't have contract for 2013 are: Turkish, Belgian, Singapore and Japanese. These should be listed seperately. - Dubfire 08:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A little correction: I see that New Jersey is now included, and list has all the GPs that have contracts. But still, we should have the "contracted for 2012, but not for 2013" section. These races are: Belgian, Singapore and Japanese. - Dubfire 08:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

French Grand Prix

Is the French Grand Prix confirmed, or is it just speculation? The source listed could be just speculation. Editadam 19:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, another source has been added. Editadam 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a just a rumour. The article from f1fanatic cites another website that indicates Bernie Ecclestone could shortly confirm the Grand Prix. It was 2 months ago, still no confirmation. The other source only cites 'French media', so we have nothing official to work with. I've removed the French Grand Prix from the table. Maimai009 11:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding back in now or wait till Jan/Feb'2012?: http://www.thef1times.com/news/display/05202 The French Grand Prix could be back on the calendar as early as 2013 if things fall into place, with a final decision expected in early-February, according to a delegate tasked with bringing the race back. "We have entered the stage of completion and we can say that final decisions will be made very soon, in January or early February." The race is expected to return to Paul Ricard having last been held in 2008 at Magny-Cours.

More info on the Time F1 page, not much said about it but as I said, would be worth it? (Zeoace (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC))

It's still speculation isn't it? --Falcadore (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we add it to the chart now? From here:http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/September-date-set-for-2013-French-GP-return,35288.html --Josh Mertz (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I quote: France’s return to the F1 calendar is now so close to confirmation. Close, but no cigar. So no. Wait until confirmed. --Falcadore (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

German Grand Prix

For some reason, people seem to be adding and removing the point about the German Grand Prix moving between Hockenheim and the Nurburgring. I'm not sure who it was, but someone decided that there was "no issue" with the race. However, the race is moving from Hockenheim to the Nurburgring in 2013 - consistent with the event-sharing arrangement between the two circuits - and this qualifies as a calendar change, even if it is a regular, scheduled one. We've mentioned it on every season page since the event-sharing agreement was reached, so I don't see why it should be removed now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realise it was on prior pages, but now that I look it makes sense to have it.--Brody59 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

South African Grand Prix

Who keeps removing this from the page, as Bernie Ecclestone has suggested that there might be a South African GP. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/16225954.stm If you actually look at this link instead out deleting it, then you'll see it's the 5th paragraph down.

A "suggestion" is simply not good enough. It has to be Ecclestone saying, "Yes we are definately going to South Africa". Wikipedia is not a news magazine. Don't add soft news. --Falcadore (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it should remain in their to show the possibility of a race actually being held in South Africa in that particular season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCH17 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No it should not. Wikipedia has specific policies against the publication of rumours. It does not matter who says it it could be Ecclestone, it could the groundskeeper at Kyalami, it could be a 14 year-old in his bedroom somewhere, a rumour is still a rumour. Might is not and never will be any kind of confirmation. If you want to publish rumours, mights and maybes there are hundreds of Formula One forums for you to publish it that do not have Wikipedias standards of quality of content. Please have a read of WP:CBALL for assistance of what should and should not be published on Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Alonso

The reference link for Alonso says he only got contract for 3 seasons starting in 2010, so for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 season. Not 2013.

http://www.ferrari.com/English/TS/News/Pages/090930_F1_News_1.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Argentine Grand Prix

There was news today that the Argentine government has a three year contract to have the Argentina Grand Prix from 2013-15. More info here: http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/Argentina-close-to-deal-for-2013-F1-return,38270.html ---Josh Mertz (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say that at all. It says Close to a deal for a likely race, it's all mights and maybes. Not good enough. Wait until the deal is confirmed. --Falcadore (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Alonso

He has extended the contract to 2016,during the 2011 Spanish Grand Prix weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.223.104 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And he is included in the driver table. He has been for some time. This is an edit from 10 April - two days before your comment - that clearly has him listed at driving at Ferrari for 2013. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ricard and Spa

Prisonermonkeys here; I'm posting from a public computer for this, so I'm not going to log on.

Anyway, please note that until such time that it is confirmed that Paul Ricard and Spa will alternate, any statement that they will is highly speculative. Please leave it be for the time being. 121.218.168.230 (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Valencia and Barcelona

Aren't they alternating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.220.211 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been rumours to that effect, however we require official confirmation from FIA/FOM before adding any information here. Thanks QueenCake (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

European GP replacement

Now that Barcelona and Valencia have been confirmed as joint hosts of the Spanish GP, the European GP has been discontinued. However, I keep seeing edits to the page that state the race will be replaced by some other Grand Prix (Portugal was the most recent addition). Please do not add anything to the page without a reference to support it. A quick search of Google News reveals nothing about a proposed Portuguese Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

However, it says on the Wikipedia page of the European GP that it's still going to run for another seven years, so what's going to happen there? PCH17 (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

European GP

If Barcelona and Valencia alternate,it could go to other track.Why not one of the German tracks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.221.99 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Because we deal in what is, not what might be. Yes, the European Grand Prix could be moved from Valencia to one of the circuits in Germany - but there is no evidence that this will happen. We haven't got a single source that says "The European Grand Prix will take place at this circuit", so we can't include that in the article. Besides, the future of the German Grand Prix at the Nurburgring is in doubt because the organiser is in danger of going bankrupt (but until they do, we can't mention it in the article).

In short, we can only say what has already been said by somebody who is in a position to know what will happen. The calendar is controlled by Bernie Ecclestone, so if you find an article where Bernie (or somebody else involved in the project, like Tavo Hellmund in Austin) says "This race will take place here", then by all means, include it in the article - but the person being quoted must be named, and it must be a direct quote from them. Otherwise, it is too easy for people to make things up and claim something is happening when it is not. And Formula 1 is notorious for rumours that are presented as fact. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed races

Wikipedia has clear policies on not including unverified information - especially future proposals, which means we cannot include France, Mexico, Argentina and the Spanish race alteration because they are all nothing more than stories in the media. It does not matter even if Bernie has said there could be a race in France, or the Argentine President has said they are having a race next year, until the races are contracted - which will be confirmed by an official announcement by both parties - not by a remarks and rumours designed to fill up column inches, they cannot be included here. Compare how the New Jersey race had confirmation - so it's on this page, and these others don't.

Ideally we would wait until the end of the year before starting new season articles, when we'll have race/driver/team information released by the FIA, but as that's unlikely to happen stick to the same standards we have for including drivers for including new races. QueenCake (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Falcadore (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, the alternating of the Spanish GP venues is confirmed, and there are adequate references to support this. Secondly, I think it's important to state that countries such as France and Argentina have proposed a race in 2013. What you've stated above about Wikipedia's policy is somewhat irrelevant in this case, as the information on the various proposals is verified, but no agreements have been signed. France is especially important on this page due to the length and nature of the discussions between France and Bernie. I will say that the Rome GP bid failure section is irrelevant. --Brody59 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would remove those details from the page - but this is more tha simple media speculation, or someone saying they would like to host a race. Bernie Ecclestone himself has commented on those races, and since he controls the calendar, that places him in the best position to comment on the subject. If we can't include these details, then we can't include anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it doesn't matter what Bernie may say, unless that happens to be an announcement (which will be shown on Formula1.com) of a race having a contract, which will be complete with a circuit, contract length, location, etc. We don't include information on every whim and fancy just because the person who says it happens to be important - notice the lack of sprinklers or shortcuts in the rule changes even though Bernie has spoken about them to.

Secondly Brody, the alternating of the Spanish GP has not been confirmed. The single reference provided is a Guardian article which contains a one line quote apparently from Ecclestone that apparently the races will start alternating in 2013. However this information is not verified from any official source - the FIA, F1 and both races websites currently have no mention of this.

Thirdly, even if we are deciding Bernie comments are grounds for inclusion here, that does not warrant the inclusion of Argentina. It's sole source is the Argentinian President saying there will be a race, but she has absolutely no bearing on the F1 calender. At the very least, this should be removed as unverified information. QueenCake (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

1) The difference between the calendar and Bernie's ideas for shortcuts and sprinklers is that Bernie is the ultimate authority on the calendar. If he says a race will happen, we can reasonably take his word for it since he controls the calendar. However, things like sprinkers and shortcuts would require changes to the sporting regulations, and Bernie has no power to influence those.

2) Just because an "official" website does not report on it, that doesn't invalidate the existing source.

3) I think we can accept de Kirchner's comments because she represents the government and the government will fund the race (assuming it happens). Therefore, she is in a position to be able to speak about it and be considered reliable. If the race doesn't happen, we can always remove it, or more it to the "Failed bids" subsection (which I think should be included; I would hardly describe Rome as "irrelevant"). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Like Prisonermonkeys says, Bernie is the ultimate authority on the calender and we can reasonably take his word that what he says will happen. He has no control over the regulations, so "Shortcuts and Sprinklers" has nothing to do with this.

2. Bernie is on the record as saying that the Spanish GP will be held at Barcelona in 2013 and Valencia in 2014, and therefore is reliable enough for inclusion. Until we hear otherwise, I believe that the protocol is to stick with the most recent reliable development.

3. "Failed Bids" have been included in previous seasons but in a different context (See 2010 Formula One Season, New Entries Process), thus a mention of Rome is important. Most likely we will see Argentina, Mexico and maybe France fall into this category as well, rendering them important to include as well. If the bids don't fail, then they will be included under "New and Returning Races". Either way, they need to be included.--Brody59 (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I see we're at an impasse here, but I think you'll find the WMSC retains ultimate control over the calender, hence when they release one that'll trump anything else. I'm not going to argue this by myself any further, but if this is staying for now I am going to insist that the Spanish race alteration be moved to the proposal section. Without confirmation, this should not be reported as fact as it is currently. QueenCake (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As already stated, Bernie has stated categorically that the race will alternate. That is good enough for verification and inclusion in this article. Until we hear otherwise, we have to use the most-current and most-reliable source. --Brody59 (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Bernie offer that as his personal opinion, or as an official announcement? The former should not be included, the latter should. If you're not sure then it probably wasn't an official announcement. --Falcadore (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the opening paragraph of the reference given:

Spain's two Formula One venues in Barcelona and Valencia will alternate from next year, and a return to France is looking less likely. Bernie Ecclestone, the F1 chief said: "The [Spanish] race will be here in 2013 and 2014 in Valencia." The 81-year-old also expected Canada's Montreal race to agree a 10-year contract renewal from 2014 despite demands that the circuit be upgraded.

I'd say that's pretty conclusive. Just because the likes of Autosport and Formula1.com didn't report it, that doesn't make it unofficial. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that does make it unofficial. A remark in a newspaper is not an announcement, and until it is official we cannot present it as undisputed fact. QueenCake (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty official to me. Official enough to include as fact until we hear otherwise.--Brody59 (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. it's a direct quote from Bernie, and as we have established, Bernie is an authority on the calendar. Even if the calendar cannot be approved without the WMSC agreeing to it, Bernie is the one who is directly responsible for organising it, and is therefore in the best position to comment on it. He quite clearly says that the races will alternate, so I fail to see how his saying it to The Guardian instead of Autosport makes it any less official. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. But it is not in any way shape or form an official announcement. It's just Bernie saying I think this will happen. --Falcadore (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what media outlet Bernie says it to - if it's not an official announcement it's not official. The only website we could take Bernie's comments as fact would be F1.com, but since he said nothing to the sports official website it can't be regarded as a fact. I suggest the sentence be started with "It was reported that...". QueenCake (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere did Bernie say "I think..." in regards to the Spanish GP. What he said, as we've already established numerous times, is that it WILL be at Barcelona next year then Valencia the next. In my dictionary, WILL is a pretty definitive word. We have to, as I've repetitively stated, stick with our most current and most reliable source, which is the above quote. --Brody59 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You've missed the point. If it is someone just saying it, it's not an announcement. Doesn't matter who it is.

Perhaps now is an opprtune reminder that Wikipedia is not a news magazine. We publish when announced and confirmed. --Falcadore (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey

Okay, I know Bernie said that he doesn't think New Jersey will be ready in time - but I've removed this from the article. This seemingly contradicts the above discussion, but please bear with me: there is a difference between what Bernie says as fact and what Bernie says as opinion. When he was talking about Valencia and Barcelona sharing the Spanish GP, it was clearly fact. But when he says he does not believe that New Jersey will take place, it is clearly his opinion. Because of this, it should not be included on the season page (though maybe on the race or circuit page). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Or it just supports the idea that organisational announcements can be considered content of future articles rather than leave it for individual edittors to interpret whether Bernie is providing an opinion or teasing with a non-announcement announcement. --Falcadore (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What Falcadore said, we either take everything Bernie said as fact or we ignore it and wait for a proper announcement. Wikipedia cannot decide if one source (Bernie) can be reliable on one article but not on another, especially when it's on the same topic. QueenCake (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if we remove the content about Valencia and Barcelona sharing a race, we're effectively saying that The Guardian is not a reliable source, because The Guardian printed a direct quote from Bernie saying it would happen.

We can, however, look at the language used by each source to decide whether or not it is accceptable for inclusion. When Bernie described the Valencia-Barcelona sharing arrangement, he said it will happen. When he described the state of New Jersey, he said that it might happen, but it might not happen and that he needed more information. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys, you have to look at the language. I've already stated what I think about his comments on Spain, but what he says about New Jersey is his personal belief. They have a contract for the race in 2013, officials say it's going to happen, and therefore we have to say it's going to happen. I'm a bit confused as to what Falcadore and QueenCake want in the article, but the context tells me (correct me if I'm wrong) that they want to put in that the race won't happen, which is basically a contradiction of your above argument. --Brody59 (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe their argument is that we should only consider an "official announcement" to be confirmation of an event change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is my argument. Otherwise we're dangerously close to the line between an encyclopaedic article and a page full of barely reliable rumours and speculation. There is nothing wrong with waiting for official announcements like we do for drivers - otherwise why not include Domenicalli saying he likes the idea of Vettel at Ferrari? It's no different to Bernie saying he likes the idea of this latest load of rubbish that is the London GP. We have no requirement to cover everything that is written in the media. QueenCake (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But we can't just ignore something that is clearly stated as fact. Bernie said "Valencia and Barcelona will share the Spanish Grand Prix". Later, he said, "I don't think New Jersey will be ready". The difference there is in the wording - one is clearly a fact, the other an opinion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clexarly a fact when it is announced by the relvant authoriy. If what Bernie has stated about the Spanish Grand Prix IS fact, then surely it has been independantly been confirmed. It's been several weeks, if it has NOT been confirmed then surely it is suspect and should definately be removed. There is no reason for Spanish authorities not to have confirmed it if it was fact. As powerful as Bernie is he is not omnipient, and as mentioned it is not Wikipedias role to report anything. We are not a news site. If it is in any doubt we don't write it at all. Encyclopedia reports what IS not what might be. --Falcadore (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bernie is the relevant authority. He is the only person in the world with any ability to comment on the state of a future calendar with any degree of certainty. And here we have him quoted by a mainstream news source, clearly stating that Valencia an Barcelona will share the Spanish Grand Prix. We cannot simply ignore that just because a specialty news source has not reported it.

Either way, we have another source stating that they have been told the draft calendar for 2013 will be released in "early July". Personally, I'm expecting it this week or immediately after the British Grand Prix. So we'll know soon enough which one it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So? Why does it matter even if Bernie has some authority, we still don't have to report it if it's clearly not official yet. It really starts to undermine our credibility if we report things as fact when they clearly are not - when they don't happen (and it's likely most of these proposals won't) you'll have big questions why we here spent time saying that they will.

Hopefully the FIA calender will come out soon so we can remove much of this. This London GP is the worst, anyone who's even heard of London should realise it's absolutely impossible to hold a motor race through the heart of the city - the amount of work that would be needed on the roads alone makes it a ridiculous dream some marketing bozo thought up. I don't even know why it's written here, at least France has the facilities in place. QueenCake (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting that there are two proposals for a race in London. One was the Santander PR event, which is highly unlikely to ever come to fruition. The other is for the London Olympic Park - which was confirmed by Bernie Ecclestone and a second source, the LLDC - and I don't think you can write that one off quite so quickly. Yes, the circuit itself would need to be built, but there is a precedent: the Russians are building their circuit around their Olympic Park in Sochi, and the Australians did it at Homebush Bay for the V8 Supercars. Therefore, it is plausible that a race in London could go ahead, so you can't remove any of that content on the basis that the second proposal was a PR event. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just Bernie for you. Yes, it is plausible he will have a race, but it probably be the same deal as Tony Cochrane when he rallied for 7-8 years to get the Sydney Telstra 500 off the ground. And now there has been a change in government the last contracted race for next year (2013) looks to be the last. Also...When is this calendar coming out? I can say I am 99.99999999999999999999999999% sure what it is going to be. I'm sure that the only changes will be the change of the European Grand Prix with the Grand Prix of America and the race slot WON'T change. With the London GP, don't hold your breath. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2012 (AEST)

It is not Wikipedias roles to give a lot (or possibly any) attention to proposals. Wikipedia is not a news source, we don't have to write anything about it at all. It is not Wikipedia's role to provide compilations of soft news about things that might happen. Personally until there are announcements saying, "YES, this is definately happenning" we should not mention it at all. Enough of the officially announced events do not take place (looking at Rome GP) fall over and fail to happen that covering of unannounced rumours are of very much a second or third tier of importance. I personally would wait at least a day before thinking about writing anything in order to let "Oh-cool-novelty-value" pass by. If you think wikipedia has some form of duty to report on these non-announcements, it very much does not.

For your consideration, I quote to you from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This is important is it actually speaks directly on the subject of sporting event news.

Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

I think that suggests quite strongly that coverage of London street races and Mr. Ecclestone making comments not in the form of announcements should get little or no coverage at all. --Falcadore (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No Bernie Ecclestone on his own is not the relevant authority. The relevant authorities are:

a) the Spanish based organisers who run the two Grands Prix and,

b) the FOM/FIA.

Unless Bernie is specifically representing one of those bodies (by saying so) then it is not good enough. --Falcadore (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there we go - there is now a reference from a dedicated motorsport publication that has Bernie specifically stating that Valencia will be removed from the 2013 schedule. That should be good enough, given that the previous reference didn't satisfy some people. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It was never the publication that was the problem. The problem is it is not stated who Ecclestone is representing when he made the statement. --Falcadore (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Auto-archive for this page

Does somebody who knows how to set-up an auto-archival system (the same as the 2012 page) want to set it up for this page? Topics are getting very old. --Brody59 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

IP locking

After seeing an Ip address fill the page with wrong information, and then seeing said updates take several more to undo, i'm thinking maybe we should consider having this page locked for IP's until the next season actually starts. I'm probably overreacting but i still think it's something to be considered. BosleyTree (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. This happens from time to time; it was one IP address doing it, so it was probably just someone making a fantasy grid or their predictions for 2014. There was no sustained IP vandalism going on, so semi-protection isn't needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Signed Team and Drivers table

As the 2013 season is also outside of the agreement between the FIA and F1 teams, shouldn't the format be the same as in the 2014 season? PCH17 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No. --Falcadore (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The FIA are thinking about re-opening a battle for a 13th team slot. Should we put this in as being a proposal, or not as people may think of it as speculation? Or have I just answered my own question? TollHRT52 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (AEST)

Add it in when it is officially announced. Soft news belongs in Wikinews, not here. --Falcadore (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

News about him coming back for 2013: http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-news/f1-michael-schumacher-extends-mercedes-deal-for-2013?artid=137472 But I've tried looking for the original article, but no luck, especially as translating from German using Google isn't the best. Pch172 (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton and Mercedes

Okay, I've bent the rules a little bit here and added Hamilton to the driver table with Mercedes. I thought I should at least take the time to explain my reasoning for it and why I think it's an acceptable edit for now.

For the most part, I'm trying to get ahead of the curve and head off any problems on the page. When this news breaks, I'm expecting all hell to break loose on the blogosphere. I'm of the opinion that whatever Hamilton does is going to be very controversial and divide fans. Consequently, I'm expecting a mad rush to the page, and in the interests of making sure we record everything and get it right, I thought the best thing to do would be to add that content using a reliable source while the page is still stable.

As for the source itself, Tom Cary is pretty good. When I was writing the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix protests page, I got a lot of content from him. I remember he broke news of the Force India petrol bomb incident and was consistently first with details of the attack, which were later verified by others, so he certainly passed WP:RELIABLE. I'm willing to treat him as a reliable source on this.

Please note that while I have jumped the gun a little bit and added this in without waiting for the official official confirmation, this is not intended to be a permanent addition to the page. Once the news breaks, I expect much more iron-clad sources will be added, though I won't have access to a computer to add them myself. For now, this is intended as a temporary solution intended to keep the article stable before the announcement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna say, it hasn't ben confirmed yet. Also, what about Force India? They haven't officially signed Di Resta or Hulkenberg, and Alguersuari was reported to be joining either them or Sauber. TollHRT52 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2012 (AEST)

The source provided is reliable enough for our purposes. It's only for a few hours, to stabilise the page against an influx of edits when Hamilton is confirmed.

As for Force India, if you read the source supplied, the team states that both drivers have a contract, but the team will not impede them if they get an offer for another team. I don't really know what your point you are trying to make about Jaime Alguersuari, because he has been linked to several teams, so all you're really doing is proving the point that he cannot be added to the table. He has an entry under "Driver changes" because he has said that he has a contract, and Pirelli has confirmed that he will leave their testing role. He is not in the driver table because there is no verifiable information on where he will go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Being reliable does not mean that we can allow rumors. If the source specifically states that it is not yet confirmed, then it is a rumor. Just because that source is reliable with factual information does not mean we can make exceptions for items which he clearly states are not 100%. Whether or not hell breaks loose is not really our problem, and to sacrafice integrity in order to avoid trolls seems foolish. By time it is announced, we will have a reliable source within half an hour or so, and then we can keep the page correct. It seems pretty clear to me. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we add Alguersuari to the table, I was saying that the Force India team hadn't confirmed their line-up, and Alguersuari was a possible inclusion. It was something I just wanted to alert editors to, whilst adding reliable info to the title subject. TollHRT52 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2012 (AEST)

Yes. Announced, or not at all. --Falcadore (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can put it down now, even though it wasn't removed in the first place. TollHRT52 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2012 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.197.53 (talk)

"STR" or "Toro Rosso"

On the pages for the F1 seasons from 2006 to 2012, Toro Rosso is listed as "Toro Rosso" in the constructor column of the teams and drivers section. Here, they're listed as "STR". Is there any reasoning behind that? Because if there isn't, it should be changed to "Toro Rosso" for consistency. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who put it there, but in F1 telecasts in the little box that shows the driver and team, It is listed as "STR-Ferrari" not "Toro Rosso-Ferrari", and not just because of the fact it doesnt properly fit. TollHRT52 (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2012 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.29.134 (talk)

FOM is just a broadcaster, they are not in charge of the championship titles. They also used to (I'm not sure if they still do) list Red Bull as RBR-Renault, simply as a short hand. The team is Toro Rosso-Ferrari. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:F1 convention is to refer to the cars as "Toro Rossos". DH85868993 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Grand Prix of America

I was just wondering if the Grand Prix of America is suppose to be called that way? Because on the FIA website, it's called the Grand Prix of Jersey (New York). Should we rename it or leave it?

Fabzzz (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A similar discussion is in progress at Talk:Grand_Prix_of_America#Article_move:_Grand_Prix_of_Jersey?. DH85868993 (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced signings

I've taken the liberty of removing a lot of unsourced driver signings (under IP address 86.142.11.201), as they were little more than speculation and not in keeping with the guidelines for the table. Much as people may be keen to see certain pairings, or favourite drivers on the grid, please let's try and keep it to confirmed signings. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's better than the string of different IP's that made huge changes all at once a few days back, at least these ones are just speculation rather than silly names. BosleyTree (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but as the guidelines say:

"ATTENTION! PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING ANY EDITS TO THIS PAGE

DO NOT ADD TO THIS SECTION UNLESS YOU HAVE RELIABLE, CREDIBLE SOURCES TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. ANY INFORMATION WITHOUT REFERENCES WILL BE DELETED ON SIGHT. NO MATTER HOW "LIKELY" IT IS THAT A DRIVER WILL BE SIGNED BY A TEAM, EVERYTHING IS TO BE CONSIDERED PURE SPECULATION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE TEAM OR A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE (ie F1-LIVE, AUTOSPORT, GP UPDATE, etc) REPORTS ON IT, OR ELSE IT WILL BE REQUESTED THAT THIS PAGE BE FULLY PROTECTED"

and again:

"DO NOT add drivers to this table without a reference. Unreferenced additions will be deleted"

If a rumour comes with a suitable source I guess we could always add a "Rumours" section or similar to account for it, but the main table isn't really the place. Otherwise we'll be spending more time removing drivers from seats they didn't have in the first place than actually putting the right drivers in them. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a guideline, that's a warning. Simply having an article from a website that can normally be used as a reliable source does not make the specific rumored source within the article credible. Wikipedia policy does not allow for articles to become rumor mills. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have clarified - I was seeking to explain why rumoured drivers needed to be left out of the table, rather than actually saying "we need a rumours section". If one was deemed appropriate within Wikipedia policy and fulfilled the relevant source criteria, then I was arguing that such rumours belong in that sort of section only. As things stand, I don't believe the article needs one and my main focus was on explaining why the table should be kept for referenced signings only. Hope that clears things up. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Person who keeps adding unreferenced sources to this and other articles

Please don't do it without a reliable reference. If in doubt about anything, then put it on the talk page first and not in the article, because otherwise don't add rumours, that's apparently for wikinews, not an encyclopedia.

• Ferrari are considering Paul di Resta, Felipe Massa and Nico Hulkenberg for next year, but since the Force India drivers are in the article, then it could stay, but this is to be discussed, and I have therefore put "citation needed" on it.
• Romain Grosjean hopes to keep his seat, but no reliable source is yet to appear for this. Again, he is "citation needed", as to give somebody a chance to find a reliable source.
• Pastor Maldonado has been confirmed at Williams for the next few years, but the source confirming that has disappeared. Whoever found the original source, could you please insert this back into the article, as for now, it's citation needed.

Pch172 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a single person. Further, since they're from IP editors, they're not going to be reading the talk page at all. There is already a warning buried within the article to try and stop this, but there is no way to really convince those who want to do it. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a simple and efficient method, to stop those edits: edit=autoconfirmed --Gamma127 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pch172, please do not put in citation needed templates simply because you think it is likely that Massa, Grosjean and Maldonado will continue racing with their respective teams. Opinion is no substitute for fact. Until such time as you can find a reliable source stating that Driver A will race for Team B, please leave the driver field blank.

This is why your citation needed templates are inappropriate:

1) As you say, Ferrari is considering one of three drivers. And although there are sources supporting di Resta and Hulkenberg at Force India, Vijay Mallya has said that he will not stand in the way of either driver if they are offered a contract with a front-running team. Even if Force India change their stance and keep Hulkenberg and di Resta absolutely, that does not automatically mean that Massa will stay with Ferrari. Other rumours in the silly season have linked Heikki Kovalainen to that seat, so it is conceiveable that neither Massa, di Resta not Hulkenberg will race for Ferrari.

2) It doesn't matter what Romain Grosjean "hopes" will happen. If he doesn't have a contract, he doesn't have a contract, and he cannot be included in the table. If all it took was a driver saying he "hoped" to race for a team, pretty much every driver on the grid would be listed as driving for Ferrari.

3) In the case of Maldonado, he has recently made comments that he is "keeping his options open" for 2013. While this is not enough to justify removing him from the table on its own, there is no source available that states he will be driving for Williams in 2013. Because we cannot prove that he is driving for them, we cannot include him. The original source given was taken from a magazine that nobody seems to be able to confirm.

Putting a citation needed template into an article does not make speculative edits okay. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't moan at me, because it wasn't me that inserted those drivers into the respective teams. Also, I was giving the person that inserted those drivers into the table a chance to find a reliable source, and if no reliable source was found, I would deleted it myself. This is now a probable cause of action since they're from IP editors Pch172 (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not that the edits were made in the first place. The issue here was that you added citation needed templates to the article, which opens up the door to speculative edits. If people see that, they will make whatever edits they like to the page, add a citation needed template and force everyone to go looking for the relevant source before either adding it in or removing the driver entirely. If you see unsourced edits in the future, delete them, unless you have a source to substantiate it. Don't worry about "giving the people a chance to find a reliable source" because that's not what we do here. Limit the article to what we can prove with a source.

If I'm "moaning" at you, then quite frankly, it's because you've done something to deserve it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

South Korean Flagicon

What has happened to the flagicon of South Korea ()? TollHRT52 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (AEDST)

It's probably a problem with the image itself. I've raised the issue over at the relevant WikiProject, but it might take a while to get sorted out. Until then, there's not a lot that we can do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Little mistake

Hey there, just wat to say that there's a mistake in the dirver line up. Nico Hülkenberg is not with Ferrari next year ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.186.43.228 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

When did that happen? I never remember that occuring. TollHRT52 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2012 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.176.121 (talk)

Does it really matter when it happened, just so long as it is removed? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And Nico Hulkenberg hasnt been confirmed at Sauber, he has still a contract with Force India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.21.87 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Grosjean

Although the source supplied has Boullier stating "He has been reassured about his future and that he is going to stay with us", he goes on to say "I cannot commit today", so this source is fairly useless. Please actually read the materials you supply as a source, rather than just the title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Force India pair

I don't think we should have both Hulkenberg and Di Resta in the table yet as the source doesn't say they have a contract. It says that the team 'wont interfere' which doesn't mean they will 'keep' both either. I did read the article and it said both were there for the long term but from what i've seen and heard over the past few weeks through both the BBC and SkyF1 broadcasts is that neither driver actually has a contract with the team with both drivers are not sure of their future in the sport.

I could be wrong but i'm just curious as to why they should be there. And no i'm not suggesting that either is going to ferrari or whatever. BosleyTree (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If the team confirm they will drive for Force India in 2013 they go in. If they are unconfirmed they do not. Simple. --Falcadore (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I know, so i'll take them out of the table since neither has a contract. Just getting clarification. BosleyTree (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Except the source specifically states that they do have a contract, they are simply free to seek out better contracts so long as Force India is given ample compensation for breaking their existing contracts. Which is the same with any contract for a driver, really. So to say they have no contract is a blatant falsehood. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, that is the only source that says that di Resta will be there next year for sure, as we now know Hulkenberg is gone. I don't think it is reliable but I'm sure it will be debated. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that Hulkenberg is gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.21.87 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree to The359. Both have a contract with Force India. And even a confirmed driver who is on the entry list could loose his cockpit, if the team decide that. Look at Trulli: He had a contract with Caterham and he was on the entry list for 2012. But than Petrov came and he lost his cockpit. This could happen to almost every driver of this table. --Gamma127 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that Hulkenberg is gone. During commentary for the Korean Grand Prix, David Croft said that "it is something of an open secret in the paddock that Hulkenberg and Gutierrez will race for Sauber next season", but that is not confirmation of the move. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove them both, as well as Massa, until it is confirmed by the driver's website, the team's website, or the official F1 website (read what I said here). Sas1998 (Talk) 16:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The source supplied has a senior team member who is named and quoted as saying both drivers have a contract for 2013. The source itself is from a reliable source, and so it meets all the conditions needed for inclusion in this article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page for a couple of weeks following a request at RfPP. Knowing the F1 silly season, that may well not be long enough, but it should help get you over the Ferrari story today at the least. Rerequest at WP:RPP if it needs to be reapplied later. GedUK  11:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Speed/NBC

I've removed a section from the article detailing the change in broadcast rights in America from Speed TV to NBC. The reason for this is that changes in broadcasters are generally not notable. This is the season page, and changes in broadcasters do not affect the overall season.

I'm well aware that the 2012 page details the switch to Sky. There is a reason for this - it is a major change. Sky now supplies the world feed, the footage that is broadcast to each and every customer broadcaster, like Speed. This is something that cannot be overlooked by Wikipedia, even without the controversy attached to it (which only makes it more notable). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering what you meant by the edit summary Prisonermonkeys, but I'm afraid you've got it wrong. The only world feed of Formula One is produced by FOM, Sky are just another customer buying the coverage from Bernie and adding in their commentary. It's no more or less notable than any other broadcaster change, either we include all or none. Personally, I'll go for none. QueenCake (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It'd be worth noting at the very end that SPEED lost the contract to NBC, but only with a small paragraph, much like what was done with the Sky/BBC deal but maybe not as much but still noteworthy. As stated before, the FOM does all the broadcasting, its the channels that add in their own commentary. BosleyTree (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You could not mention every change in broadcast rights. If you put the Speed/NBC change into the article, you have to do the same with every other broadcast right changes in the whole world. And I think that is to much for this article. --Gamma127 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think it should not be mentioned in the article, as broadcasters have no bearing on the season. Would belong there though. Plus, there is no particular reason one country's broadcasting changes should be given a special treatment (in this case USA), which makes me wonder why the Sky/BBC thing is still in the 2012 season page. Hasn't it been discussed before ? Anyway, that's not the point here. Maimai009 15:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Gamma: You should know that is not how Wikipedia works. What drives wikipedia isn't a sense of fairness that everything should be mentioned, what drives it is notability. A change of broadcaster in a small oceanic island country is not going to achieve notability, but a change from BBC to ITV or S

I think it should be included. Although it has no impact on the outcome of the season, it is still related. If the information was included in the 2012 article then it should be included in the 2013 article. Sas1998 (Talk) 18:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is already a page for Formula One broadcasters. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely forgot about the broadcasters page, so it would probably be best to put it there if anything. BosleyTree (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Massa

The Source details that he is "likely" to be confirmed at Ferrari, but however, hasn't yet been confirmed, or does he have a contract, so should he removed from the drivers table for the time being? Pch172 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you think? The source says it is "likely" Ferrari will keep him, not that they "will" keep him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove. Wikipedia is for factual information not speculation. Also remove Paul di Resta and Nico Hulkenberg; neither of these have yet been officially confirmed. I also notice Hulkenberg has been moved between Sauber and Force India several times. All three need to be removed. Sas1998 (Talk) 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Di Resta and Hulkenberg are contracted with Force India over 2013 season so I dont understand why they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.21.87 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Because some people think the source supplied is not good enough because it is not an "official" announcement of the team's driver line-up. However, the source quotes the deputy team principal as saying that both drivers have contracts to race in 2013, and the in-text reference contains the actual quote. It is good enough to be used as a reference in this case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because they have a contract does not mean they are definitely racing for that team next year. All these rumours about Hulkenberg moving to Sauber means that it is not confirmed he will be driving for Force India. I don't think that drivers should be included in the table if they are not yet confirmed. Perhaps we could use a footnote to say that it is not confirmed. Opinions? Sas1998 (Talk) 18:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We had this argument last year with Vitaly Petrov. It was decided that we would not use footnotes, because it effectively created a loophole where we could say one thing and then take it back within the body of the article, which would compromise the page. We can prove that Hulkenberg has a contract with Force India. We cannot prove that he has a contract with Sauber. Wait until there there is an official announcement from Sauber - and not a moment beforehand - before moving Nico Hulkenberg from Force India to Sauber. No footnotes, no addendums. There might be rumours that he will be driving for Sauber, but rumours don't prove anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it's not for rumours, which is why he shouldn't be included. He has a contract, yes, but he won't necessarily be driving for them Sas1998 (Talk) 17:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We can prove that he has a contract with Force India. We cannot prove anything else. Therefore, until such time as an annoucement is made, we are to assume he will continue racing with Force India, regardless of what the rumours might be. "He won't necessarily be driving for them" is not a good enough reason to move him from where he is now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hulkenberg to Sauber

I know everyone on here is really tetchy on reliable sources, and rightly so. But holding out on Hulk's move seems a bit silly seeing as it's been reported on the BBC (here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19940929), I'd tend to take that as a reliable source! Twsf (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The source says: Sauber have not yet officially confirmed Hulkenberg. That should be enough not to include him at Sauber. We can wait until an official announcement is made, there is no need tu hurry. Maimai009 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no hurry to add Hulkenberg to Sauber's driver line-up. Twsf, you can rest assured that if and when Sauber confirm him as one oftheir drivers, he will be swiftly moved to the appropriate column. Yes, the BBC might be reporting it as a done deal, but as Maimai rightfully points out, the article makes it quite clear that nothing has been announced. As per a long-held consensus, drivers may only be added when someone within the team - or driver themselves - is named and quoted (to prevent articles relying on the word of "anonymous team insiders") as saying that the driver will change teams.

Also, it might be a BBC article and they generally qualify as a reliable source, but the article itself is written by Andrew Benson, who does not have the best reputation among fans. I honestly don't know why this is - I've never seen him print anything truly questionable (unlike certain other journalists) - but when enough people pass the same opinion, then I'm inclined to humour it long enough to hold off on adding it as a source. If Benson prints something that the likes of Jon Noble, Keith Collantine and/or Adam Cooper also print, it's generally fine, but if he is the only person printing it, I'm hesitant to use it.

PS - If anybody knows why fans are unimpresed by Andrew Benson, could someone please let me know why? If there is a genuine issue with his writing, I'd prefer to know about it so I can do something about it in future if he prints something that might be worth including in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, but whatever a number of fans think about Andrew Benson is completely irrelevant on Wikipedia. It is the source, in this case the BBC, that is judged when determining a reliable source, we don't decide on each individual writer that works for the BBC. You only need to make an assessment on an individual writer if the reference is a personal blog or one-man effort. QueenCake (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2012

• [http: //www.f1deals.com/ f1deals]

Edvardbrns (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia is not advertising. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for people to arrange holidays. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• rofl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.21.206 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Grand Prix of America

The grand prix of America is no longer included on the 2013 calendar listed on this page. However, although the major of weehawken allegedly said the race is postponed, this has thus far not been confirmed by the FIA nor by Formula World Championschip Ltd. . The Formula 1 official website has since the announcement of the postponement of the race on 18/10/2012 twice reposted the calendar for the 2013 Formula One Season (on 19/10/2012 and on 24/10/2012) with the Grand Prix of America still included subject to confirmation. Additionally Mr. Ecclestone (who has confirmed the postponement) is all but a reliable source, as has been proven in the past. I therefore think the Grand Prix of America should be again included on the 2013 Formula One Season calendar on this page with a subject to confirmation note until either the FIA or the Formula One World Championship Ltd. or both officially confirm that it has been postponed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read some of the sources supplied for the race's entry under "failed race bids". The FIA and Ecclestone make it pretty clear that the race will not be run in 2013; there is no local mayor "allegedly" saying the race has been delayed. Therefore, it cannot be included in this article as if it is going ahead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have read the source supplied and nowhere do they state that the FIA has officially announced it will not take place. One of the sources (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/103529) cites two interviews to sustain that the race has been postponed. One interview with Mr. Richard Turner, the Mayor of Weehawken, and and Eurosport interview with Mr. Ecclestone. Furthermore the same source clearly states that the most recent calendar published by the FIA has the race included subject to confirmation, which is what i tried to make clear in my previous suggestion. I also did not suggest to include the race in the calendar in this article as if it would take place, but to include it with a note that it is subject to confirmation; which is currently still the official status. You can check the Formula 1 official website to confirm this. Another reason why i made this suggestion is that currently this article gives you the impression that it has been officially confirmed that it will be a 19 race season, which is not the case as the source for the postponement of the Grand Prix of America clearly states that Mr. Ecclestone is seeking for a replacement should the Grand Prix of America not go ahead. Since this is an encyclopedia wanting to supply facts, i think it is best to list the calendar as it is currently published by the FIA until they release a new one.Tvx1 (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would we require an official statement from the FIA when there are numerous other reliable sources that say it will not occur in 2013? Ecclestone is in charge of race contracts, not the FIA. We are stating facts - The race was on the calendar for 2013, but now the race will not occur in 2013. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Tvx1, you are correct in saying that the Grand Prix of America still appears on the 2013 calendar as issued by the FIA. However, we can prove that the race will not take place in 2013, even if the FIA has not released an updated calendar. The race was subject to confirmation when it was included on the original 2013 calendar, but organisers have since confirmed that the race will not be taking place in 2013. It has been delayed until 2014.

As for your concerns regarding the number of races on the calendar, you are once again correct when you say that Ecclestone is seeking a twentieth race for the calendar. However, until such time as he finds and confirms that race, there will only be nineteen races on the calendar. We can't say that there will be twenty races when we have no evidence that there will be. Ecclestone might be looking for a twentieth race, but there is nothing available on where that race might be held, or even if he can get it at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ma Qinghua

Please do not list Ma Qinghua as a driver for HRT. Although a source is supplied, we cannot actually verify it for the time being. The only English-language source I can find on this is Joe Saward's blog (which I personally feel fails WP:RELIABLE after his attacks on Vijay Mallya in the past), and even that only refers to "reports in China". We need an English translation to be sure, or if there is an established editor out there who is fluent in Mandarin and can confirm that the source is reliable. Given the time differences, I can understand why this might not have appeared on the likes of Autosport just yet. There is no need to rush to add Ma to the article, and if you have any concerns, you can rest assured that he will be added in the moment a reliable source is found.

As per convetion established by consensus, any reference to Ma joining HRT should contain quotes from Ma himself or someone who a member of the team and who is named (ie Luis Perez-Sala). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 5 December 2012

There has been changes to the F1 Calender 2013. This time the German Grand Prix has been moved to the 7th of July, so the 21st of July is reserved for a european Event. It is not known where. This is my reference: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2012/12/14150.html. Published: 5th December 2012, Retrieved: 5th December 2012.

(Non-Administrator Closure) Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Vacation^nine 14:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Entry Fees

I noticed a small problem with the cost of entry, 1pt is quoted as being worth USD$5,000 or EUR€3,895 which 1/100 of the basic entry fee. The problem occurs when USD$6,000 is quoted as being less the USD$5,000 at EUR€3,674. I would change it but I'm not sure which exchange rate is right or if it you would want to update it using figures from today.Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The FIA work in euros not dollars, so the exchange rates should of been calculated the other way round, likely to be the reason whoever added that in made a mistake. Going into that much detail is probably unnecessary anyway. QueenCake (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The source supplied makes it pretty clear that from 2012, the entry fee will be paid in dollars, not Euros. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

HRT in 2013

Should HRT be in the 2013 entry list? I thought they where leaving. Daniels Renault Sport 11:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As ever, speculation has no place here. If/when they actually say they are withdrawing HRT will be removed from the list. QueenCake (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there's any chance of the team leaving F1 altogether. It's for sale, but I'm sure it won't disappear. If and when it's sold, we can change the team name accordingly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Then again... haha.. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Daniels, you've been editing long enough to know that content cannot be added or removed without a valid source to support it. If HRT were leaving and had confirmed it, then it would have been reported by now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Prisoner, wrong once again!! You've been editing long enough to know that comments like that are not tolerated on Wikipedia (WP:NPA); "Comment on content, not on the contributor." 124.217.238.234 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a discussion of content to me, specifically removing content. There is no personal attack made here, just a stating of the obvious. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the IP identifies himself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If Pedro de la rosa leaves F1 following the HRT demise then 2013 will be the first season in the 21st century without a driver that ever raced in the 20th Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.240.50 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is trivia and not at all relevant enough to include in the article. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2012

Last Paragraph under heading of:

Driver changes

Charles Pic will move from Marussia to Caterham. Valtteri Bottas was promoted to a race drive at Williams replacing Bruno Senna, Bottas will partner 2012 Spanish Grand Prix winner Pastor Malonado who stays at the team for a third season.

Last link should go to Pastor Maldonado - below para with the small change:

Charles Pic will move from Marussia to Caterham. Valtteri Bottas was promoted to a race drive at Williams replacing Bruno Senna, Bottas will partner 2012 Spanish Grand Prix winner Pastor Maldonado who stays at the team for a third season.

CJPawley (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - thank you for pointing that out. Begoon ^talk 11:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jerome D'Ambrosio

Has been confirmed as the 3rd driver for Lotus, according to his official website: http://www.jeromedambrosio.com/node/177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicilianjuly (talk • contribs)

Not done: - that page seems to be from January 2012, concerning the 2012 season, where he is indeed listed. Begoon ^talk 14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

FIA entry list

On the FIA site, here, there is an entry list released on November 30, if you need it. 79.16.84.195 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems legit, but odd that there are no confirmed Sauber or Toro Roso drivers, no Pic or Glock. Personally I'd say it's no good for car numbers either since there are so many gaps in it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's that odd at all - Sauber rarely confirm driver numbers until the final entry list, which will probably come between late January and mid-February. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the drivers' names wouldn't be present. At the moment, we're selectively utilising this source as gospel for the HRT situation and the numbers, and ignoring it regarding confirmed drivers. I don't rate it as a source, and there's a precedent for error-strewn FIA entry lists. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Unassigned car numbers

Okay, maybe it's just me, but I think this looks weird. In fact, I think it looks downright inconsistent:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	9	Rosberg
				10	Hamilton
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	11/12	Gutierrez
					Hulkenberg

It just looks wrong to my eyes. Half the teams have their numbers assigned to specific drivers, half the teams do not, and there is no real explanation as to why. So I suggest we do either one of two things until such time as the full entry list - or at least enough drivers are assigned numbers that there is no longer the split between two number (as is the case with Sauber) - is released.

Number one, we have no numbers in the table, restoring the table to what it was yesterday with teams and drivers listed alphabetically:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	Hamilton
				Rosberg
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	Gutierrez
				Hulkenberg

Number two, we explain the discrepancy:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	9	Rosberg
				10	Hamilton
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	TBA1	Gutierrez
					Hulkenberg

Notes:

• ^1 — With the release of the provisional entry list, Sauber, Force India, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Caterham and Marussia were all issued numbers for the season, but these numbers had not been assigned to individual cars.

The problem with the first solution is that we are knowingly holding back relevant information, and it does slightly contradict the above discussion where we decided to keep the table alphabetical - as opposed to based on 2012 WCC standings - until such time as numbers were assigned.

The problem with the second solution is that it's rather inelegant. It's more elegant than having half the teams with numbers assigned to drivers, half the team without any assigned numbers, and no explanation as to why, but it's still the lesser evil.

Nevertheless, I don't think we can keep the half-and-half split between assigned and unassigned numbers. It's inconsistent, and at the very least, needs and explanation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just input all of the numbers to individuals even though the FIA haven't confirmed them yet. Pch172 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't do that because we don't know which driver will be assigned which number. We can't knowingly put in false information. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it saying TBA. It provides the relevant information needed, and it doesn't look as 'messy' either. Inputting all the numbers now could end up being incorrect - we need to wait until something is confirmed rather than just trying to fill the spaces now with potentially wrong information. Sas1998 (Talk) 12:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2 numbers given to each team have been confirmed by the FIA, so we can enter all of that information somewhere in the article. What we don't know officially yet, is how some of the teams are going to allocate their numbers. Eff Won (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So why not something like this:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	9	Rosberg
				10	Hamilton
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	11 & 12 TBA1	Gutierrez
					Hulkenberg

Notes:

• ^1 — With the release of the provisional entry list, Sauber, Force India, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Caterham and Marussia were all issued numbers for the season, but these numbers had not been assigned to individual cars.

Rather than leaving the reader wondering why they've been missed out. Eff Won (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already an explanation given as to why some numbers have been missed out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about TBA - I think there should be two numbers in there rather than TBA, because, yes it is explained, but the numbers have still been assigned to a particular team. Sas1998 (Talk) 21:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be to combine the numbers from the first table with the note from the third table, i.e.:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	9	Rosberg
				10	Hamilton
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	11/121	Gutierrez
					Hulkenberg

Notes:

• ^1 — With the release of the provisional entry list, Sauber, Force India, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Caterham and Marussia were all issued numbers for the season, but these numbers had not been assigned to individual cars.

That way the table contains all the information currently available, but no speculation. DH85868993 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I still think that looks like an inconsistent mess. Either all of the teams should have their numbers assigned to individual cars, or all of them should have the "X/Y" format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that just because information is available, it does not have to be in the article. Considering how little the race numbers are actually worth (except the 1 of course), listing some of them as TBA is not going to make a big difference over listing the numbers but not assigning them to particular drivers. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Under that logic, you could also make the case for leaving the tams and drivers in alphabetical order and only adding car numbers in once every car has been assigned a number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Something that could be argued as a valid outcome, but difficult to police because everyone has the "I found information, I must add it to Wikipedia immediately!" syndrome. There is no real clean way to have the article with half the numbers and I have no opinion for any form as they all, quite frankly, suck. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The regular editors are a pretty diligent bunch. I'm pretty sure we could keep on top of it. And if we get a consensus and the aforementioned syndrome proves to be a repeat problem, we can always get an RFP. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the teams and drivers have to be out of order; they just look stupid. Keep the driver list the way the FIA released it. GeoJoe1000 00:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is their "order"? Just because the FIA entry list did things in numerical order does not mean we have to do it in numerical order, especially considering the problem with some drivers not yet being assigned numbers. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

especially considering the problem with some drivers not yet being assigned numbers

And the way the FIA entry list is missing some drivers - namely Gutierrez, Hulkenberg, Ricciardo, Vergne and Pic. I believe we've had this discussion before - possibly several times - and the general opinion is that the FIA entry list is really only good for car numbers.

The more I think on it, the more I'm in favour of listing all teams and drivers alphabetically and without numbers until such time as the inal entry list is released. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of a consensus to accept PM's change, I have restored the table to how it was immediately prior to PM's removal of numbers and order change. I have been very careful to preserve (as far as I can tell) all changes that have occurred to other parts of the article since PM's change. If there is collateral damage to changes, other than those which are the subject of this discussion, please feel free to fix those.

PM please do not edit your change into place again without a consensus here, that may be construed as edit-warring, and you may suffer sanctions for it. Eff Won (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see a point in this back and forth. In my opinion the order of the list is a very small detail as both versions contain the same information and the actual order of constructors (which defines the order of the numbers assigned to the F1 cars of the next season) is already available in the 2012 season constructors standings. Even if I personally like Eff Won's order better, I wouldn't (and didn't) change it. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I don't even know where to begin to address how incredibly obtuse and confrontational your last edit and the above comment have been, Eff Won. There is no consensus at the moment for the table in any form, so reverting just Prisonermonkey's edits is utter rubbish. His edits are no more or no less controversial than anyone else's attempts to try and fit the numbers into the table (IE not controversial at all). Prisonermonkeys didn't even change it to the version he wanted, as there are still numbers on the table!

And really? Edit warring? Quite frankly you editing reverting a specific person's edits solely to scold them is the only edit warring that has happened in the past day. Suffer sanctions? Yeah, I think I need to have a chat with your blocking admin. Your purpose here seems to be solely sticking a thorn in Prisonermonkeys' side, and everyone is completely and utterly tired of it. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And if I may, dubbing an edit a "controversial change" sounds specifically like you are canvassing for support. You characterise an edit using emotive, negative language, to make it appear that the edit in question is unpopular, thereby garnering support for what you consider to be the most-appropriate way forward. Worse, you did it on the history page, which offers no opportunity for editors to discuss the change.

In light of this, I'm going to restore the driver table to the fully-alphabetised and number-free version until we can sort out the best course of action. I'll also request an RFP. This way, the page is entirely neutral, and editors won't be swayed by canvassing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We've got three days

As you've probably noticed by now, the article has been fully protected for three days. What we need to do now is figure out a resolution to this situation.

Here's how I see it:

The first thing we need to sort out is whether or not to include car numbers in the article. Once we have sorted it out, we need to deicde on the best way to implement this.

Personally, I think the best way forward is to leave the team and driver table as it is: arranged alphabetically by constructor, then by driver. We should leave the nubmers out until such time as every car on the grid has a number assigned to him (or her). The numbers are ultimately inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, and by leaving them out until every car has a number, we avoid ugly and silly half-filled-out tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As the chance of someone else doing a Brawn or another team going under before next year means we don't know what the numbers are, we will just be making them up if we put them in. So if we do this is synthesis, as there is no source for them. Wait until the announcment and maybe put an edit note in to reduce the drive by edits. Britmax (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's first agree on the facts: As far as I know, FIA allocates numbers first per constructor (two for each) in the order they finished in the last season, and then the constructors assign specific drivers for these numbers. This is reflected in the FIA list where the numbers exist but the driver name does not in the cases where teams have not made public their assignments.

Now, in relation to the first thing to sort out noted above, I support including this information per team, as made public by FIA.

Jumping to the second question, I believe that the best way would be to have teams sorted according to their standing and for every team we state the two numbers that they have been allocated to them (e.g. 1/2, 3/4, etc.). Drivers can appear in alphabetic order next to this, without being assigned specific numbers (for all of them, in order to support a uniform presentation).

In my opinion, this would be the best compromise between accuracy of provided information and uniform presentation. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't like that idea at all. It just seems messy and screams "we don't know everything that we should know to complete this table, so here's half the information for now". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

...which in fact is what exactly the case is. :-)

If we don't want to admit this, then a simple link to FIA's announcement would do until the information is full and verified. The list with the teams alphabetically listed seems a bit awkward to me... Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

How so? We've always kept the table in alphabetical order until the release of an entry list. I'm just proposing that we keep it that way until the final entry list is released, rather than the provisional one. The reason why I'm against the aforementioned "we don't know everything that we should know to complete this table, so here's half the information for now" approach is precisely because it's only half-complete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said earlier (07:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)), I don't have strong feelings for or against any final conclusion. My personal preference is viwer-centric: As a viewer of the page, I would expect to see RBR and (especially!) Ferrari on top and the 0-point teams at the end. However, it really doesn't matter much as we are discussing about the looks of this article for a transient period of a few weeks/months. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I say the current format works well until all seats and drivers are designated a number. GeoJoe1000 14:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the way it is now (without any numbers) works best. I personally am now neutral-mind about what it should look like with numbers, so the best way is to leave it if we can't decide yet. Whatever is done, it will always be wrong in someone's mind. However, I do agree with what Rentzepopoulos said about seeing RBR first, and Marrusia (or HRT...) last. Sas1998 (Talk) 18:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As the numbers we have are reliably sourced, I see no problem in adding a column for them to the table. It could be anywhere, and doesn't necessarily have to be the primary sort key, although I think it makes sense for it to be so. As with any other content, if the number allocations change at some future data, then the table can be changed accordingly. Eff Won (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because something has happened, that doesn't automatically make it notable enough for inclusion on the page. Especially when the information is only half-complete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Numbers can be added when ALL of them are officially allocated to the drivers. GeoJoe1000 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about this, but I would probably prefer to leave the numbers out of it until we have all of them. This FIA source is odd because half the confirmed drivers are not on it – to me this makes the source unreliable, or at least old. Not all the FIA releases are reliable as we know from previous seasons, and I suspect this list to be a month-old list just with HRT chopped off it. I think the driver line-ups shown are simply the lineups as they were when each team paid its bond for 2013, hence the dates on the left side of the list. For us to accept the source with regard to numbers, yet ignore it with regard to drivers, is not a great idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree 110% on that. I couldn't have put it better myself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

However, the FIA have given all of them, just the fact that the FIA haven't received all of the submissions. Personally, I think that the numbers should be left out for now, but the constructors listed in the order that they are going to be anyway. Pch172 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Without the numbers in the table, there's no sense in arranging it based on WCC positions, because there is no clear reason for placing them in that order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary consensus

It appears we have a preliminary consensus in favour of leaving the numbers out of the team and driver table until all cars have had a number assigned. Still to be resolved is the question of whether we keep the teams listed alphabetically, or in 2012 WCC finishing order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If we are not going to have numbers then it should be alphabetical. --Falcadore (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Without numbers, there is no clear indication of why the teams are arranged in order of WCC finishing position, and no clear indication of why that particular arrangement is important. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, keep it alphabetical for now until all of the numbers are confirmed. Sas1998 (Talk) 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Create Sub-Topics To Speed Opening of Primary Article

Just a thought, but perhaps some of the content that accumulates throughout a season could be managed in a way so that it isn't immediately depicted in the main F1 season article, such as race by race summaries. By the last few races of the 2012 season the page was very slow to open on my mobile devices, but I still enjoyed referring to the site like when I was attending a race at the track. Perhaps with more 4G LTE coverage this will not be a problem, or maybe I'm the only one who found it less than ideal. I was just thinking it might be possible to have each race summary set up as a link to their own pages or something like that to make the main page with its great content open faster. I love the page & its fantastic content though! Chacco (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The text in the article is not what is slowing anything down, it is the coding involved with the charts and references. The 2013 season article is 218kb in size, of which only 5kb is text. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Friday Test Drivers?

Should Heikki Kovalainen have some Friday test driver entries? How about other people (test drivers)?

When did Heikki Kovalainen drive on Fridays? I don't really remember any. Perhaps add Danill Kyvat into the list. His presence is fairly important because he will be having a full season in 2014. StandNThrow (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Kovalainen drove Friday practice at Japan, Bahrain, Spain, Belgium and Italy at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.217.219 (talk • contribs)

Fairly important to the 2014 season article. Utterly irrelevant to the 2013 season article. Unless you actually take part in a grand prix you don't get mentioned. Should spend more time describing the races than tabling minuatae. --Falcadore (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Then what's the point in having that category in the legend? It's one thing not to document that, quite another to imply in the legend that the listing includes it and then not put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.217.219 (talk • contribs)

By convention we don't list the TDs in the tables in the season summary articles. It's in the legend because the same legend (template) is also used in the driver articles, where the TDs are listed. DH85868993 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed not to put the TD's in the results matrices, yet I see Kovalainen's TD's present? Tvx1 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Error on Torro Rosso Brasil Grand Prix result

The reported problem has been fixed
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Mistaken on Torro Rosso Brasil Grand Prix result on Command Cup. 10 place (and one point) get Daniel Ricciardo (#19), not Vergne (#18). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.236.119 (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Official Race Edit Songs section

There is a consensus not to include this information
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Many may have noticed that the Official Race Edit Songs section has been added to this article. This is because the previous article it was included in was deleted because it was not a stand-alone article. Please leave this section in this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyBranton (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)