Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Manor revisited

I have just added Manor back into the article on the back of a James Allen article. I think it was a mistake to assume that they could not compete when Graeme Lowdon has indicated that they are still trying to save the team. They may be a remote chance of making the Melbourne grid, but it's pretty clear that stuff is happening behind the scenes (both internally and externally) to save them. I don't think that they should be removed until they or the FIA indicate that they will not race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I always thought it was odd that we include Caterham but not Manor despite both being on the entry list. Twirlypen (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I always had mixed feelings about that as well. The fact is that we never actually proved with sources that entry was no longer valid. As long as we can't we should include them in the article just we don't a signed driver unless we can prove their contract is no longer valid. Something else of interest I found in the James Allen article: apparently Caterham have received a permission to use 2014 power units in 2015. Tvx1 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it was the announcement that Marussia had closed down that motivated their removal from the table. We were never able to separate out who owned what. At the time it made sense, but in the face of the Allen article, it's a little more clear-cut that Marussia has been jettisoned while Manor hang on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/marussia-formula-one-team-plans-auction-equipment ... I don't know what Chilton's contract situation is like, and I can only read the first sentence in the Google preview. Is anything contained in this that would satisfy putting Chilton in as a driver? Twirlypen (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to play it conservative and say no. Chilton's contract was with Marussia and Marussia no longer exist. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, Manor operated a F1 team (Manor Grand Prix Ltd.) on behalf of Marussia, which is a fairly common model in motorsport. That team then went into administration, and Manor's management are currently trying to save the team and enter next year under their own name. It appears to be a rather forlorn hope now the team's assets are up for auction, but perhaps they will manage to keep the F3 team running at least.

Either way, they still have an entry for next season, and until we know Manor will not be appearing, they should be kept on this list. QueenCake (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's become clearer now. Separating out who owned what was the hard part. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with re-adding Manor, but if you read the auction description you'll see that their GP3 cars are also up for sale, so it doesn't seem that the junior formulae team and the F1 team are separate entities. Still, so long as they're on the entry list and trying to make the grid they should be in the table. I just...have no idea how they're going to pull that off. Maybe they still own the IP to their car design? Eightball (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put the Manor chassis name based on their partial reveal. The car may not have been complete, but it seems evident enough that they want to name the chassis MNR1 if they are able to fulfill their entry at any point in 2015. Twirlypen (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Subject to confirmation"/"Provisional"

I am very hesitant to include footnotes about the precise circumstances surrounding Manor's inclusion and the Korean Grand Prix. I am aware that the WMSC has listed them as "subject to confirmation" and "provisional" respectively, but I feel that including them falls within the scope of WP:WEASEL. What do these terms actually mean? What form will the confirmation take? When will they be confirmed? I feel that using these terns does three things:

• First, it (somewhat) contradicts the community stance that Manor in particular should be included until such time as they withdraw entirely.
• Secondly, it's WEASEL because it amounts to "they're on the list, but they might not be at some point in future, so in case that happens, we've included this footnote so that we're technically right".
• Finally it suggests that we don't know what is going on, despite our reliance on highly reliable and verifiable sources.

Because we don't know enough about either situation, I think including those footnotes raises more questions than they answer. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't think they form a problem with WP:Weasel. Firstly, they are not at all like the examples (i.e. some say, many state, it is believed that, most feel, it's widely thought,...) presented in that guideline. Secondly there is a very important sentence in the guideline we should consider: Views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. That is crucial, because this means that as long as it is written exactly like that in the source we attribute it to we are allowed to use an expression like "subject to confirmation". Our message regarding Manor is clear. They are currently on the entry list, but it has yet be confirmed that they will actually compete. Likewise for the Korean GP: it is currently on the calendar, but it has yet to be confirmed that it will actually take place. Tvx1 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It may not fit the example given for WEASEL, but I think it's still a case of using weasel words. It essentially writes a Get Out Of Jail Free card into the article—we have committed the article to say that Manor have an entry. If they do not compete, then we can just point to the "subject to confirmation" note as evidence that the article was technically correct all along. That's what WEASEL is trying to prevent: editors write "most sources agree that X, Y and Z", but then someone finds a contradictory source, and when they point it out, the original editors say "that wasn't one of the sources we were referring to". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the easy one to solve: we can't remove Korea because if they are listed on the calendar. It doesn't matter if the race will happen or not, or whether it is "provisional" or not; it has to remain. We could add a note saying "provisional", but we don't need to.

As for Manor, the same situation applies: we can't remove Manor because if they are listed on the most recent entry list. It doesn't matter if they will race or not, or whether they are "subject to confirmation" or not; they have to remain. We could add a note saying "subject to confirmation", but we don't need to.

Yes, I did basically copy, paste and swap words from my first paragraph (using a Pyrope-ian tactic) to make the second. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not see this discussion had started before I made my revisions. Please forgive this. I'm currently out enjoying a game of American football at the bar, but my opinions are pretty clear. Twirlypen (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've modified it to be as unobtrusive as possible.

I still think it's wooly. "Subject to confirmation" sounds like Ronspeak for "we're hedging our bets". There's no indication of what that confirmation might look like or when it might be received—it just turns the situation into an open-ended problem as a substitute for clarifying the situation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, anything officially referred to "subject to confirmation" should be included. If we do anything different, we will be violating WP:CRYSTAL – we can't stay it definitely will or won't happen, while we can say it might. So we are best leaving anything "provisional" or "subject to confirmation" in – no matter how unlikely the situations are – until we have absolute proof that they will or won't happen. —Gyaro–Maguus— 08:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If the definitively official sources say so, then it should be reflected here. It's not our job to make presumptuons claims. Twirlypen (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you are wrong and you clearly do not understand WP:WEASEL. The addition of those qualifiers was NOT an attempt to be intentionally ambiguous or misleading, it was quite the contrary. Their omission would be dishonest; it would mean misrepresenting the references. The Korean Grand Prix is NOT on the same footing as the German one and Manor is NOT on a par with all the other entries. Burgring (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It satisfies WEASEL, even if it is included in the source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you are in a minority of ONE with that view. Justify it, or correct it. Burgring (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you read AGF. You just accused me of 4RR without precedent. Looking at the edits in question, it was two separate edits that I undid twice - and the second time that I undid them, I was trying to introduce the proper footnoting that you see in the article, but wasn't able to put them through. Because of the limitations of my device, I can only edit bits and pieces at a time. But you decided to misrepresent that to try and bully me into backing down, despite what I have just demonstrated.

I will accept your apology here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, yes, I pointed out that you reverted 4 times, which you did. They are there in the edit history: 1. [1], 2. [2], 3. [3], 4. [4]. You claim you were introducing "proper footnoting" in two of them, well there is no evidence in the changes or the edit summaries of that. Indeed the changes and the edit summaries show them to be deliberate and wanton reverts. You then go on to blame your tools and even accuse me of misrepresenting you and bullying you!

As as if that wasn't enough; you then finished digging your own hole, jumped in, buried yourself and concreted over the top with this gem "I will accept your apology here"! And with that, you gave me the best bloody laugh I've had for years, thanks! The only shame is that I was drinking coffee at the time, and had to wipe my screen down. Burgring (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that just demonstrates that you're not a particularly decent person. I have two years' worth of edit histories that document the way that I do things and why, and these edits are consistent with that. Nobody else has ever had an issue with it. At the very least, you have failed AGF by accusing me of wrongdoing on the back of an edit summary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced that either of those 4 reverts were part of a good-faith attempt to add what you call "proper footnoting". Partly because your edit summaries betray you and partly because you have failed to explain your claim that my original change contravened WP:WEASEL, indeed you still appear to be defending that charge. The edit summaries in question are:

• "That feels like WP:WEASEL" on the first revert removing my addition of "(Subject to confirmation)". How does that support your claim to be attempting to add EXACTLY the same phrase as a "proper footnote"?
• "Inferred by TBA status" on the second revert removing my addition of "(Provsional)". You clearly inferred that you thought my addition was redundant.
• 'To me, this says "they're on the entry list, but we don't really believe it will happen"' on your third revert, your second attempt to remove "Subject to confirmation". You clearly meant that as a revert, with no attempt to move it to a "proper footnote".
• "Same as before" on your fourth revert, your second attempt to remove "provisional". No attempt to change that to a "proper footnote" either.

Prisonermonkeys, your bullshit is convincing no-one. You are sailing very close to the wind here. Burgring (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by a failure to assume good faith. You claim that there was "no attempt" at changing to proper footnotes, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, I edit in stages and the changes did not stick. It takes me three or four edits to do what most people can do in one, and because of the sheer size of those sections, I do it a little bit at a time so that if something fails, I don't have to start over.

But, no. You have decided that I just wanted to edit war and so you have ignored both two years' worth of edit histories that demonstrate the above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop here. As the above discussions have clearly demonstrated repeatedly throwing accusations at each other doesn't produce any helpful results. Could we for once honor the discussion pattern —Gyaro–Maguus— has outlined? Burgring, if you are of the opinion that an user has broken a strict policy, then take that to the relevant noticeboard. This talk page is meant for discussing article content, and not user conduct. Believe me, I have made that mistake and it causes nothing but destroying your own credibility. Tvx1 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, it does not support WEASEL. WEASEL states "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." Now, this is not (a) what some random people have said (b) what some random people think (c) what some random people feel (d) what some random people believe (e) what some random people have shown (f) what some random people have demonstrated (g) what some random people have proved. This is about contractual information.

Manor have an entry for 2015 whether you like it or not. However, they are unlikely to take up the position, due to the their financial position. But until will have an official source stating that they ultimately and definitely will not compete, we cannot remove them. And until then, we must keep on with using "subject to confirmation" because that is how the sources currently place the entry. To remove it would not be accurately representing the situation (considering the sources), and to remove them from the list will do likewise. WEASEL? No.

As for Korea, they have a contractual guideline that forces them to be included in the table. Now, chances are, this is just a ruse to fulfill said contractual guideline, hence the "provisional" status. However, we cannot say it will happen, and we can't say it won't, for basically the same reasoning as to why we couldn't place the German flag on the German race. So until an official source comes in updating the situation, we are forced to take this middle ground because that is how the sources currently place the race. WEASEL? No.

Also, please actually read WP:WEASEL, WP:TPG, and yes, that is a 4RR violation. You made four reversions in total, none of which were to revert vandalism, within six hours. The definition of WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". Now, I don't know what definition you use, but yours definitely is wrong. Burgring, you don't need to apologise. —Gyaro–Maguus— 10:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

GM, the second revert was done to introduce the footnoting system you currently see in the article. As I edit from a mobile, I am faced with the limitations of the device. The edits affected the team and driver table and the calendar. However, I cannot edit both sections at the same time. I have to edit one, save it, and then edit the other. I do it in stages because my device cannot always handle it when there are large slabs of data. If you look at the edit history of this article, you will see that many of my edits to the discussion "Once more" were in fact added to the section "semi protected edit request" directly beneath it because the section "Once more" is so large that attempting to edit it directly causes my browser to crash. The team and driver table in the article is close to this point, so I have to edit small pieces at a time to try and preserve the work I add. In this case, I edited the footnotes out of each section, then went back and attempted to edit the revised format in - but the changes didn't work.

Burgring is well aware of this. He has participated in several discussions where the limitations I face have been brought up. He cannot reasonably claim to be unaware of this, and hence he owes me an apology. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If I was not aware of this, then how can you be so sure Burgring is too? —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you aren't, since I regularly ask for aid on fixing mobile-related issues in articles.

I know Burgring has been involved in several discussions where these limitations have been raised. I make no secret of it, and even regularly bring it up. Furthermore, a check of my edit history will regularly show edits to multiple sections of an article within minutes of one another, a sure sign that I am working around those limitations. And all of my edits are tagged as having been made from a mobile device. This stretches back for at least two years, ever since I started editing from a mobile exclusively. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This was getting off-topic so I've moved to your talk page. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Am I taking crazy pills?? I can understand having a lengthy, drawn out discussion over an opinion how something should look... but this is a reflection of FIA sources. It seems pretty clear cut to me that an asterisk and/or subject to confirmation isn't misleading in any way. Twirlypen (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, PM, I too use my mobile for Wikipedia (when I'm not at work). I don't know whether it's because you use an app or the mobile website that's causing your limitations. May I respectfully suggest you use the desktop version of the site so as to avoid confusion and trouble regarding 3RR? Twirlypen (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I have tried. It creates too many complications. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Back on topic - the format of how it's displayed isn't a huge deal to me, whether it's an asterisk, parentheses, or footnotes as it is now. But it should reflect the sources. Twirlypen (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you actually made three sets of revisions to the article. The first two being clear-cut reversals of Burgring's additions (together forming 4 reverts, which technically might be seen as a violation of WP:3RR) which were re-reverted by Burgring and Twirlypen. The third and final set was correctly reformatting the notes Twirlypen had reintroduced. Personally, I don't think you violated 3RR though because I saw that you're actions formed two sets of reverts rather than four separate ones. If you have technical problems editing an article you can always ask someone else to help you out. Nowhere is it stated that you have to make edits yourself.

Four users have now pointed out that there is no problem with WP:Weasel and that you're being over concerned. So, I don't think the current state of the article is problematic at all. Furthermore, by your interpretation "To be announced" seems to be weasel words as well. So how do you suggest we deal with that? Tvx1 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I filed the WP:AN3RR report on Prisonermonkeys here, but anyway, he is gone for a month, so it is just as well I am partying three times this week. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And PM filed an unblock request. Tvx1 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Which has been declined. Twirlypen (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

PM's still arguing the block though. Tvx1 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest entry list

Here's a complete FIA pdf for any editors of interest. RC (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

References

I reverted your GF edit because it's LOTUS that's newly subject to confirmation by the FIA, not Caterham. Also, there were many issues with grammar, and further, the consensus with the project is to use common names, such as Red Bull instead of Infiniti Red Bull Racing ... or Mercedes instead of Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team ... best wishes. Twirlypen (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see Caterham IS marked as "subject to confirmation" on that entry, so I restored the note. Tvx1 (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right - I missed that. Thanks for catching that in that mess of an edit I just undid instead of combing through each section. Twirlypen (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

190.46.187.21 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 13:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Korean Grand Prix removed

After a speculation of the Korean Grand Prix to be on the 2015 calendar, it has been removed. Change it :) 212.10.67.34 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Done: in the future, please provide a reliable source for the removal of content. Happy new year. Twirlypen (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is still on the calendar as far as I am aware. I'll put it back once I've checked more sources. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Autoweek source mentions that the FIA published this new calendar, so surely it exists somewhere on their website for us to view. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Googling "Korean Grand Prix removed" brings up quite a few 1 and 2 day old results. I know we like to use the FIA before anything else, but to the point that we consider anything else unreliable? Twirlypen (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources from the FIA are the most credible as they are the ones who organize the event. Eventually if anything is changed or incorrect, they will get to it by the time the first race gets underway. We are in no rush. *JoeTri10_ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the latest calendar from the FIA, which does not include the Korean GP: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/basicpage/file/20141223/2015Calendar_new.pdf DH85868993 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the earliest stories I could find from a big (not saying reliable) source was Motorsport.com. From this article, which included a link, I read the events list DH noted above, and saw that it stated that there are 21 races, but the Korean GP is removed, leaving a list of 20 races (count them yourself). The document includes no actual date (note that the 2014 version does, but the URL implies a release on 23rd December 2014. So we have a calendar which contradicts itself, and appears to be a draft in my eyes (though we cannot treat it as such).

However, despite this, the F1 website hasn't changed (it still includes the Korean GP on the 2015 calendar, AutoSport didn't report it and includes it on its calendar, ditto for the BBC, F1 Fanatic and Sky F1, and GPUpdate excludes the race from its calendar but a recent story still includes it.

Overall, I'm somewhat surprised by this lack of reporting, and I'm not too sure what to do. We can't say "there are twenty races" because that both goes with and against the source, nor can we remove the Korean GP, because while it goes with the source, most sources (including most of the reliable ones) don't report on it. Unless we include a lot of notes, of course.

Regardless of whether we should remove it or not (my revert has been reverted, and I won't revert back), we can't simply not include a mention of it on the article (in text form), especially as it actually may have repercussions (the extra engine per driver that may be allowed). —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted my revert of your revert :-) I take your point that the "December 23" calendar does look like an internal working document more than an "official announcement" like the September 12 (Beijing) and December 3 (Doha) calendars. And it does seem as though all the news reports about the Korean GP being removed from the calendar are based on that document, rather than any official announcement from the FIA. So perhaps it would be more prudent to wait until there's an announcement from the FIA. But you're right that we need to address it in the article somehow. Perhaps a footnote to the effect that "there have been reports that the Korean GP has been removed from the calendar but to date no official announcement from the FIA"? DH85868993 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer the footnote to say something along the lines of: "The FIA has released a version of the International Sporting Calendar that has excluded the Korean Grand Prix from the calendar,^[##] however, no official announcement has been made regarding this change." While saying "reports" is true, I think citing the source the reports cite is better. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the calendar not under it's provisional status up until the date of the first test or race? Adding a footnote noting that the calendar listed is provisional and may change before the season starts should be enough of an explanation maybe? *JoeTri10_ 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The extra power unit thing I feel needs some clarification. From what I am to understand, teams are allowed the extra unit on the condition that there are over 20 scheduled races once the final calendar comes out — meaning that once it's announced, that's it. There would be 21 scheduled races and the teams would still get to use a fifth power unit whether they end up canceling just Korea or 8 others and the season is 13 rounds — just as long as the final calendar has over 20 scheduled races. I think it would fall down to which calendar the FIA considers it's final draft. Twirlypen (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That is basically the situation. We don't know which calendar applies. Anyhow, the official reason is a contractual issue, but of course what actually is the case is that Ferrari (edit: or Renault) want an extra power unit and the FIA was willing to obey, so they found a way to allow for it. I believe the cut-off point is the first race of the season – and I expect the Korean GP to remain until then – because at that point, teams need to know how many engines that they can use over the season because they don't want to overwork or underwork the power units unnecessarily. Once that race is done and the teams know to use five power units, the work is done and the race can be removed. If the race is removed before Malaysia, we know the truth behind it, and hopefully everyone else does too. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I too think that we should include it until we have a official announcement by the FIA and/or FOM that it has been cancelled. And this backs up Gyaro's view. The race would have to be on the final schedule at the start of the season before they will be allowed a fifth power unit. Tvx1 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not know this was Ferrari-specific. I had thought it was a measure to delay lowering the power unit limit that would ease the load on all teams. By the Italian Grand Prix last year, round 13 of 19, the first driver went over the 5 limit (Kvyat), Maldonado & Vergne in Japan, round 15 of 19, Kvyat (again) and Vettel in USA, round 17 of 19, and Grosjean in Abu Dhabi, the final round. Note that these were ALL Renault-powered cars. Ricciardo was the only Renault driver unaffected, plus the Caterhams if you want to count them only doing 17 rounds, and not one Mercedes or Ferrari driver was inflicted with a penalty. Regardless, with a limit of 4 in 2015 over what we percieve to be 20 rounds, coupled with Honda joining the mix, midfield teams struggling for money, and (I could be wrong) a freeze in developement, I think the FIA is trying to throw everyone a bone otherwise many more teams will be incurring penalties by the time August rolls around. Twirlypen (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am just speculating that is Ferrari-specific, but I believe you have a very good point. Because, to be honest, Red Bull have spent a long time complaining about the engines. And it is not like Red Bull have a vested interest – two teams, a circuit, and admittedly one of the most open teams on the grid (alongside Mercedes), determined to give F1 a good image – so it probably is them pushing for it. I wouldn't rule out Ferrari's involvement though – they'd want the comfort of not forcing they awful engine over its limits. Maybe some behind-the-scenes discussions (in which Mercedes nor McLaren were not involved, but both Ferrari and Red Bull were) saw Ecclestone agree to find a loophole. A loophole that neither Mercedes or McLaren would see as an attempt to avoid an issue – and with Ecclestone's reasoning, one they couldn't argue against.

As an extra to your list of the FIA's reasons – Honda wouldn't not want it, those struggling for money would want just four engines to save costs, the engine development freeze is mostly unrelated to this issue (though with five engines over four engine lifetime developments become less important), and the FIA would only throw the bone if they felt it would give the sport a bad image. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Teams accumulating penalties every other race over 4 power units midway through the season would certainly not look good. By the final few races, qualifying would essentially be meaningless and I can comically imagine everyone starting a race from pit lane, as we watch the safety marshal waiving a green flag in the distance in front of the safety car idling behind an empty grid. Twirlypen (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it has officially gone now. The new 2015 ISC states 20 races and excludes the Korean GP. The F1 website has not updated (though I believe it is usually slow to update these things anyway). Someone has already removed it from the article. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And to address concerns (including my own) that the linked document might just be a draft/working document rather than an official announcement, this BBC Sport report says "...the FIA said on Tuesday that it had now been omitted from the final version of the calendar. A spokesman said Korea had been added at commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone's request and removed when it became clear it was not viable." so I think that's pretty conclusive. DH85868993 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Surely this all now means that the teams will only be allowed four power units for the season? Tvx1 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would highly assume so. *JoeTri10_ 17:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

Can somebody please remove the dot point on the Korea Grand prix that reads "The Korean Grand Prix was scheduled to return to the Formula One calendar after being removed in 2014, at an unconfirmed venue.[58] However, on 6 January 2015, the race was dropped from the 2015 calendar.[60]"

It is listed as a change to the calendar, however, nothing has changed. It was not on the 2014 calendar, and it is not on the 2015 calendar, even if it was for ashort while. Looking at some of the other discussions, there is some confusion about whether this has anything to do with the extra engine or not,but there is no confirmation from anyone about it. It should be removed unless the FiA say it was added for the extra engines.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Existing sources appear to support the text presently included. No clear consensus that these are incorrect.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The calendar was changed to include the Korean GP, then changed again to remove it, which I read as two changes that cancelled themselves out. Regardless of the actual reason (the discussions above were speculation anyway), it needs to be there, because it was a notable and well-reported happening. The calendar changes section is not simply a list of what changed from the previous season, but it goes into more detail. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

GyaroMaguus, using the argument you've presented above, I have made mention regarding the further delay of the Grand Prix of America. Twirlypen (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the GP of A should be mentioned. It'll probably have to be mentioned on 2016 when it fails to be on the calendar next year too. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree about GP of A. It was meant to be on the calender but isn't so should be mentioned. Hopefully one year it will either be on the calender or cancelled. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Speak not of such things, GM! I live an hour from the proposed venue and have actually taken the time to drive part of the proposed route. I hope it gets added eventually, even if it's 2020 because wow — that backdrop is a publicity and marketing wet dream. I've gone horribly off topic here. Twirlypen (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Marussia/Manor F1

I made a small edit, adding a bit more information about Marussia/Manor F1, using [5]. I believe that this information is relevant, but please tell me if you disagree. Also, there's definitely NOT anything certain and official about them being on 2015 grid, so please don't make major edits (like saying they'll be there) until it's official, and there's a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems good to me. The information is relevant. Marussia/Manor are still included in the entry list for 2015 by the FIA and this is an important development in them actually managing to achieve that. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be confusing to refer to them as Manor in the table (which is correct), but as Marussia in this addition. I am to understand Marussia Motors has closed and the Marussia F1 team name has gone with their closure, no? Twirlypen (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing, I only used Marussia the article referred to the Marussia boss. I tried to avoid using either names where possible, but think it probably should be Manor F1. Although it's not clear if he'll be the Manor boss. Anyone else agree it should be edited to Manor? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to Manor as well. That's the name that appears on the entry list.Tvx1 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to Manor F1. I think all new information about it should call them Manor F1, unless it's talking about last season (or earlier). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Test drivers

I would like to add the test drivers, many of them have already been confirmed. But I am incapable of editiing the teams & drivers table accordingly. Could someone add a column for that? I can insert the drivers afterwards. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No, since we (the WikiProject) agreed to not add test drivers as per se, rather, we include only the drivers who have partaken in free practice sessions but haven't raced. So, in the future, there will be a column including some test drivers, but not all. (If you are wondering, there was quite a discussion sometime ago over the matter). —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To sum up, we only include Free Practice drivers and only include once they actually drive in a Thursday/Friday Practice session. Tvx1 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Test and reserve drivers are included on the individual team articles. Some teams have one, some have 4 or more. It would jam up the table considerably to include everyone even though only a handful will ultimately actually participate in a Grand Prix weekend event. Twirlypen (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, for instance Ferrari have 4 test drivers, but it's likely that none of them will actually participate in a Grand Prix weekend. However, when the season starts and some test drivers are used on Friday practices, then it's appropriate to add them. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for clearing that up! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Mexican GP layout photo

I don't think it's a good idea to use an old layout, even if its caption says that it's old. It just feels misleading and, even if on a very minor and relatively insignificant level, compromising to the standard we want to present. Any thoughts?? Twirlypen (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

When I put it up, I didn't realise it was an old photo, my apologies. Someone else added the captions saying it's the old layout, but I agree, it's just confusing having it there (I'm going to remove it). If someone could make a new one (I'm not sure how to), that would be super. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I already did when I started this discussion. I've been working on the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez article as far as the track updates go, but I too am completely obvious oblivious how to make a new layout. Twirlypen (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't you mean oblivious? Tvx1 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Whoops. Twirlypen (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Renault Engine name

The URL was unnecessarily too long, and was shortened to its simplest length by another user
The following discussion has been closed by Twirlypen. Please do not modify it.
I don't think the source is being linked properly due to its complexity. The entire link should be "http://www.renaultsportf1.com/IMG/pdf/rsf1-presskit-2015-en_v6.pdf ... it's the only link from Renault that I could find from work that definatively has the power unit named this. Other blog-type sites also use this term, but I wanted to use the one from Renault. The link as "copy and pasted" did not have underscores in the portion of the URL "... Sport F1 distribution list&utm_campaign..." ... I have put them there here to show what the full link is. Any ideas how to fix this? Thanks. Twirlypen (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Adding the underscores seems to have solved this. Twirlypen (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Lotus

Is their participation still subject to confirmation? I never thought it was in doubt, and [6] seems to have no doubts they'll be racing. After all, they've released a photo of their 2015 car. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The latest FIA Entry List has them as subject to confirmation, and so it is here. Twirlypen (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[7] is used in the table for reference, but [8] is most recent as far as I can find on the FIA site. Twirlypen (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The recentmost version should be in the article. Tvx1 (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The "subject to confirmation" comment relates to the team's name (due to a change in sponsors), not their participation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.126.238 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok, that makes sense then. Because it's not confirmed that they won't be called Lotus-Mercedes, I guess? Thanks for clearing that up. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hang on Joseph2302, this is just the IP's personal view of what the source might mean. And I don't quite agree with it. Following that reasoning that would mean that in addition to Lotus, for Caterham and Manor it would be only their team name that is subject to confirmation as those are the fields that have the asterisk in the source. But as we obviously know from other sources it IS their entire participation which is "TBC". Tvx1 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you guys not read the news? Because this is pretty old by F1 standards: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/lotus-could-tweak-team-name-for-2015-report/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.155.10 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The FIA says they're subject to confirmation. Whether that means actual participation or the name they are going to use is rather irrelevant. Twirlypen (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia v Malaysian GP

I'm sure this has probably been debated in the past, but if it's called the Malaysia Grand Prix, should we reflect that on our calendar? Twirlypen (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say no. I still encounter both ways of spelling it just as often. For the sake of consistancy over the years we'd better leave it like it is. Tvx1 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Signed Teams & Drivers Table

On 2014 Formula One season, the teams and drivers table is sortable, by either constructor name, power unit name, or driver no, but you can't do this on the equivalent table on here. Do people think this feature is worthwhile or not? If it is, then I can add it in a couple of minutes. I think it's a nice feature. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The sortable columns were in the table as part of its design because no decision could be as to how to appropriately order the table. This called for a differently designed table, in which drivers from one team were placed together, which for some reason is not the case here. If this is not done the table will not sort properly. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

They haven't been made sortable yet, because the table is still in its pre-season mode. I suggest we wait until the table is complete (i.e. Caterham and Manor's situations are sorted) before redesigning the table conform the 2014 one and making it sortable. Tvx1 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Utterly appalled to see...

I was pointed to this by a reddit post - the picture of a chimpanzee on this article, that is captioned as being Lewis Hamilton, must be removed and replaced *immediately*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.244.199 (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it's being done repeatedly by different accounts. The same edit keeps getting undone and reapplied multiple times over the past week at least. 110.22.59.249 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. If it keeps happening, the page will be protected. DH85868993 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to block those users from editing this page? Because that picture could be considered as racist. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it's possible to prevent a specific user from editing a specific page. And even if it was, they could always just create a new account. So protecting the page itself is a better solution. (Noting that the current level of activity - one edit every few days - wouldn't be sufficient to justify protection at this stage). DH85868993 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The previous two editors had been immediately indef blocked for an edit of this nature — why not this most recent one? The user page specifically taunts that they are just here to be disruptive. Twirlypen (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, administrators can block account creation. I'm beginning to think were dealing with sockpuppets here. Maybe we should make a trip to WP:SPI? It might as well be kids just trying to be funny. Tvx1 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say so, though if I remember, the other two editors were indef blocked and account creation was barred. I'm not sure of the lengths administrators are allowed to go to stop a persistant vandal go around a semi-protect. Twirlypen (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

2 more vandals on here today, one unregistered (who's blocked now), and one who I've warned. They might well be linked to each other, since they both posted the same random flag. Don't know if it's related to the stuff the other day though. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, you might want to have a check who has been using your computer recently because the recently-blocked IP address seems to be yours.

On 15 december the IP made the following edit to 2014-15 FA Cup: 2nd Round needs to include MK Dons vs Chesterfield being replayed

Around 30 minutes later you registered your account and another five minutes later you made the following edit to the same article: Added information about MK Dons vs Chesterfield being replayed. Removed needs updating warning I added earlier.

This appears to point out that you made both those edits. Prior to the vandalism acts yesterday, the IP only made decent edits. That's why I suggest you'd check whether someone else used your device. Tvx1 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I definitely DIDN'T make these ridiculous edits, I only made the good edits in December on that IP. Is it possible that another computer on the same internet network could have the same IP address? I always lock my computer when I leave it unattended, so the only person it could be is someone on my internet network e.g. probably my sibling. If 2 computers can't have the same IP then I'm just super-confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly possible if you're behind a NAT, or you're using a public computer. More likely, if it wasn't you, the IP address has simply been reassigned since you last edited with it. (See dynamic IP) QueenCake (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Manor MNR1

We currently list the Manor MNR1 as the car Manor have entered for the 2015 season. I'm starting to wonder whether this is a correct course of action. The MNR1 chassis has been sold in an auction, so it's no longer available to the team. Furthermore we have a source in the article which states that they would be allowed to use the MR03 chassis for the 2015 season if they make it to the grid. Therefore I would prefer we err on the side of caution and do not list any car at all for them until they have effectively entered a car for 2015. Any thoughts? Tvx1 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at FIA Entry List, this implies that the Manor Chassis is subject to confirmation, as there's a * by the MNR Chassis name. I think this source is the latest FIA Entry List, and if it is, it's probably best to change the chassis name to blank or "To be confirmed". Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Plus wasn't the auction cancelled? Either way, what they call it will almost certainly be at the whim of the new owners of whom we know nothing at present so I think we can regard it as unconfirmed. Duds 2k (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the auction of the cars was cancelled [9], although some of their IT/admin stuff had already been sold [10]. Either way, I changed the chassis to TBA. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The auction including the 2014 cars (MR03) was cancelled. The earlier auction containing the 2015 MNR01 development was carried through however. Tvx1 (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Does explain why most sources suggest they need to run 2014 cars. Still can't assume they'll be called anything specific though. Duds 2k (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So for clarity, a series of auctions were [held in december], while a final one was [for 21 January] which was ultimately cancelled. Tvx1 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, an earlier comment of yours stated that the earlier auction involving the 2015 development was carried out, but the link you provided featured various parts, namely Chilton's 2014 nose, a 2010 steering wheel, and that a 2013 car would be up for auction in the coming days. No mention was made of any 2015 cars, parts, or development.

Yes, we have a source stating that teams may obtain disposition to use a 2014 chassis this year, and that Marussia/Manor may use the MR03, but that doesn't mean that they definitively are. We do (well, did) have several sources, including the most recent official FIA Entry List, stating the use of the MNR1 name/chassis, however. I get the probabilities and all that, but I just want to be sure that we aren't jumping the gun here... Twirlypen (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we know nothing about the chassis. Also, just to warn people, there's been a couple of incorrect posts from unregistered users. One added drivers for Manor & Caterham, and called their chassis MNR-1, and another removed Caterham for the table (presumably after reading a source like this: [11]). I've reverted both, but please can others also be aware & vigilant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to be misunderstood. What I'm saying is, we have the sources saying that Manor F1 has entered the MNR1, but they may get permission to use the MR03. To me, this says that until it is revealed otherwise, it should reflect the MNR1 chassis — not unlike the debate we went through regarding Hamilton's racing number a couple months ago. He may exercise the option to use number 1, but that didn't automatically mean he was going to use it. We have the sources confirming the MNR1's entry, even if subject to confirmation, so leaving it in the table wouldn't be misleading or withholding any information.

Same thing with Caterham. Administrators have authorized the auction but until it actually happens in March or the FIA puts out a release sooner saying otherwise, we should keep them in the article. Twirlypen (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing about the MNR1 is that in the FIA Entry List, it has a * by the chassis, meaning it's subject to confirmation. In all honesty, I don't hugely care, as long as it doesn't cause an edit war. Caterham seems pretty clearcut to me that they should be on the list. My previous post was supposed to be less about MNR1, and more about "Don't remove Caterham" and "Don't add random drivers to the table" (like someone did yesterday). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen, can you please point me to the sources that say that they have entered the MNR1. The FIA entry list only lists what the constructor names of the chassis will be (i.e.MNR). Just take a look at the other teams' "chassis" entered for the 2015 season on that FIA entry list. It lists Mercedes, Red Bull Racing, Ferrari, McLaren, Toro Rosso, Sauber, Williams, Lotus, Force India and even Caterham as "Name of the chassis"! We now however that the chassis' designations are W06 Hybrid, RB10, SF-15T, MP4-30, STR10, C34, FW37, E23 Hybrid and VJM08. Therefore the FIA entry does not tell us the MNR1 has been entered, only that if they enter a car it would be named MNRsomethingsomethning. Furthermore the name of the chassis is "subject to confirmation" in that source. The first source I provided is apparently wrong. The 2014 cars and equipment and not the 2013 ones were to be sold on 21 january. Here is another one. this one and the one I cited earlier clearly state that it is too late for them to make a 2015 specific contender. FYI, here you can find a complete list of the series of auctions as well as links to the complete catalogs of what was auctioned off. Here is more information on the cancelled auction.

By the way. A Caterham auction was announced today. Tvx1 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The RC Engineering link I used to originally add it to the table was satisfactory enough at the time that it was going to be named the MNR1. At the very least then, instead of MNR1, we should just leave it as MNR, since that's as it appears on the official entry list, and there's no other official release saying that Manor has applied for/been granted permission to use the MR03... yet. We can change it if/when that comes out.

As far as Caterham, as 99% likely as it is that they will go through with auction, I still feel apprehensive about removing them until the FIA says something removing them from entry or even Caterham administrators say something more definitive than "this likely spells the end." Though, admittedly, my stance on this isn't as strong. Twirlypen (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen, your source states what the 2015 car would have been named. What it patently does not do is state that they entered the MNR1, not even provisionally. I have provided two sources in my last post stating that they have not enough time to get a 2015 spec car ready. We are in no rush whatsoever to include a team's chassis. Let alone that it should be mandatory for us to do so. That's why I'd prefer for us to err on the side of caution and wait until we have clear official information regarding the car they enter for 2015. The FIA entry list is not usable regarding chassis designations. NONE of the 9 chassis' designations we have on our article is mentioned on the entry list. Furthermore that entry list shows Caterham in the "Name of the chassis" table. So why aren't you suggesting us to include a CT07 of some sorts?

Regarding Caterham's inclusion, they should stay in the table. Auctions have been announced, but none have been executed. All sources reporting about this state that they can be called off at any time. As long as they have not been removed from the official entry list they should stay. Just compare with the Marussia example. Four auctions were announced, three of which were completed, but nevertheless the last one was cancelled and an investor was found. Tvx1 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't suggest a CT07 for Caterham because there has been absolutely no indication whatsoever that Caterham had ever begun work on a 2015 car. This was prevalent back in August & September when their financial crisis were becoming more public. This is very unlike the situation Manor/Marussia have been in, where even though Marussia entered administration and ultimately folded, to be taken over by Manor, significant work and development went into the 2015 car. Yes, the source I provided says it would have been called the MNR1. Other news sites also refer to it as the MNR1, but unfortunately Manor doesn't seem to have an official website Google can easily find and neither do the FIA/Formula One sites. That is why I concede that it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be called that once/if it's finished if they exit administration as planned and now believe it should be removed, even if I think it's pretty clear that's what they want to call it and I see no earthly reason why the FIA wouldn't allow them to call it that.

Further, as to why I don't suggest we just use "Red Bull" or "Ferrari" as chassis names, there are clearly plenty of other official sources besides the FIA list that confirm these chassis names. Come on, we are both reasonable people, and I am capable of changing my opinion. So please don't talk to me in a manner that makes it seem like I don't budge. Twirlypen (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So apparently Manor can't use the 2014 Marussia Car, according to [12]. I'm adding a small note to the ever-extending Manor f1 team changes bullet point. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, that's exactly why I moved it to the technical regulation bullet further down the article. Your wording better suited it there too, IMO. Twirlypen (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't mean to come over harsh here. Sorry if I did. I certainly know that you are reasonable. Just making sure that everyone is on the same line here and that sources aren't misinterpreted here. As it stands we know that development on what would have been the MNR1 had indeed started but did not progress beyond a windtunnel model. Sources are unclear as to what happened with the MNR1 development since going into administration. Was it sold during the three auctions or was it included in the cancelled auction. What we know as well is that the rescued team planned to use the 2014 cars which has been vetoed in a disappointing move by Force India. Let's hope they can be convinced to change their mind. Regardless, Marussia are in a very difficult situation now. Tvx1 (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Disappointing, indeed. I don't know when exactly they officially vetoed the allowance, but if it was after testing was done, I can only fathom that it was due to the relative success Ferrari-powered cars showed. Do the 2014 chassis have a downforce advantage over the 2015 models? Would Manor have been able/allowed to put a seemingly more powerful 2015 power unit into their 2014 chassis? There appears to be a lot of unknown variables that go along with granting dispositon dispensation. Seeing as Force India won't be rolling out the VJM08 until the final test, they may very well feel that they are at such a huge disadvantage already that they don't even want to throw a bone to Manor. Twirlypen (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well at least it isn't over yet. Force India have expressed their willigness to reconsider their stance. On topic, this states that they are planning to use both the MR03 and a 2015 spec car this season. Tvx1 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Calendar Changes Subdivision

I've subdivided the "Calendar Changes" section. It seemed like it was getting messy with the additions, failed bids, etc. I figure the German GP bullet can be moved if/when a venue is confirmed, or simply the word "pending" can be deleted if it is decided the event will not be held. Also, it didn't seem that the time change was necessarily a "Calendar change," per se, but is still notable while at the same time not really belonging in any other section. Hope this all makes sense. I tried to model this section after the 2013 article. Twirlypen (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you did a pretty good job there. Keep it up. Tvx1 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. I only put the time change there since it didn't fit in any other place. But the way you've done it is much better. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Honda

Is Honda's history with McLaren/in Formula One worthy of mention as it's written in this section? Twirlypen (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the McLaren and Honda bit is relevant, but not the rest. Also, should the Honda link be instead to Honda in Formula One not Honda? That way users can read about the other Honda F1 things. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it should like to Honda in Formula One. Thanks for bringing that up. Tvx1 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence that begins "Honda returned to the sport in 2000..." needs shortening/rewriting, but the rest is fine, though if that sentence is adjusted, the end to the previous sentence may also need to be altered. I would suggest something that states just that Honda's previous involvement ended when they left the sport as a constructor in 2008 (maybe saying that Honda re-entered beforehand if it makes the paragraph read better). I don't believe the rest is relevant to 2015. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep eye out for vandalism

Editors here seem to keep adding info about Caterham and Manor that are unconfirmed. Please revert these changes until reliable sources tell anything new. If necessary, report vandalists to the administrators. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edits of a different IP address adding random drivers a couple of hours ago for the same misinformation, and gave them a warning on their user talk page. In the last week, there have been around 10 unregistered making changes on this page. Of these revisions, 2 were reverted as good faith edits, and the others contained factually incorrect information about Caterham and Marussia. As a result, I'm requesting semi-protection. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a year. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Trivial sentence??

I've been going over the "driver changes" section in a similar fashion to the calendar changes. I hope you all like it. Anyway, in rearranging the items, the sentence "The decision to appoint Button alongside Alonso gave McLaren the single most experienced driver line-up in Formula One history, with the drivers having over five hundred Grand Prix starts between them" in the Alonso/Button bullet point stuck out as something that might be more suited on the McLaren page, or at the very least maybe go somewhere else on this article. It just seems to stick out now, but I wanted opinions before I moved or deleted it because I do believe it's noteworthy. Thanks. Twirlypen (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm swayed to just leave the sentence. There's already a tidbit about Verstappen being the youngest driver right above it. Twirlypen (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a source for that sentence, because the manner in which it is included at the moment constitutes original research. Tvx1 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The part about it being the most experienced duo in Formula One history is OR, but not the mention of them having over 500 combined starts, as that can be easily confirmed by visiting each drivers article. Twirlypen (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Even that is technically original search. We can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source. We need to use an inline citation to an external source. Tvx1 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I tried a quick web search and all that's come up thus far has been articles confirming that they are the most experienced pair on the grid this year. As far as OR goes, I went back to 2005 and the other top 3 pairings I managed to find were 2012 Mercedes with 395 starts, 2005 Ferrari with 407 starts, and 2009 Brawn with 420 starts, so there seems to be some validity to the McLaren claim as most seasons before that did not have the amount of GPs and driver longevity more recent seasons do. Twirlypen (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, I'm not questioning the validity of the claims but rather highlighting the lack of attribution to a source. As outlined in the Wikipedia policies we have to attribute such claims to a source. Us adding the numbers op by reading the wikipedia articles on the previous seasons is not valid. If we can't substantiate it with a source we can't keep it even it is completely accurate, how annoying that might be. Besides, if no source finds it necessary to mention this "achievement" that's a clear sign it isn't really notable enough for us to include either. Tvx1 (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Be clear, I'm on your side regarding this issue. It must be cited. It'd be easy if I or anyone else could just add a reference, but I've searched and no such reference exists, which was why I brought this up to begin with. It falls under trivia. Twirlypen (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And you quite rightly did. That's how I realized a source is missing. A too think this is trivia. Tvx1 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's trivia, and I'm almost certain no source exists. I have changed it to: "The decision to appoint Button alongside Alonso gave McLaren the most experienced team lineup for the season, with the drivers having over five hundred Grand Prix starts between them." Although I kind of feel this is still trivia, and not really necessary in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really make it much better, does it? Tvx1 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

German Grand Prix

Please can people stop editing the German Grand Prix? There is no contract for Hockenheimring for 2015. Just because Bernie Ecclestone says the German Grand Prix 2015 will be at Hockenheim, it has not been properly confirmed, and the Hockenheimring has admitted that they don't have a contract for the race. Can people please stopped editing Hockenheim into the calender, until it is properly confirmed? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Could people actually read the articles they are referring to when editting an article? Every article that has thus far been referenced stated that the negotiations for the 2015 contract are still ongoing. So it's clear that no 2015 contract has been signed (yet). Tvx1 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a wikinote that will hopefully deter further jumping of the gun, so to speak. Twirlypen (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ecclestone has now admitted himself that the Hockenheim has no 2015 contract and that the German Grand Prix might not happen at all, although he will be meeting with the new Nurburgring owners. Tvx1 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's getting less and less likely. Tvx1 (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If the event does get canceled, how would this best be reflected? All of the following is hypothetical, so as to avoid a long drawn out argument like we've had before. As I understand, the event is on the calendar and under contract, but a venue could not be secured. I'm thinking something along the lines of...

Round	Grand Prix	Nat.	Circuit	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix		Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne	15 March
2	Malaysian Grand Prix		Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	29 March
3	Chinese Grand Prix		Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	12 April
4	Bahrain Grand Prix		Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	19 April
5	Spanish Grand Prix		Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona	10 May
6	Monaco Grand Prix		Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	24 May
7	Canadian Grand Prix		Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal	7 June
8	Austrian Grand Prix		Red Bull Ring, Spielberg	21 June
9	British Grand Prix		Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone	5 July
10	German Grand Prix	Event canceled		19 July
11	Hungarian Grand Prix		Hungaroring, Budapest	26 July
12	Belgian Grand Prix		Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot	23 August
13	Italian Grand Prix		Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza	6 September
14	Singapore Grand Prix		Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore	20 September
15	Japanese Grand Prix		Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka	27 September
16	Russian Grand Prix		Sochi Autodrom, Sochi	11 October
17	United States Grand Prix		Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas	25 October
18	Mexican Grand Prix		Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City	1 November
19	Brazilian Grand Prix		Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo	15 November
20	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix		Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi	29 November
Source:

This of course all depends on what we consider the "final calendar." Testing has already begun. Are teams figuring out mileage strategies for a 20 race season or a 19 race season? Of course, hopefully, it doesn't even come to this. Twirlypen (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It tends to be wholly removed from the list, like Bahrain in 2011. —Gyaro–Maguus— 08:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't have the habit of including cancelled races in the calendar. We didn't do so for the 1997 Portuguese Grand Prix (which was cancelled mid-season) or the 1998 Argentine Grand Prix. Mentioning in the prose underneath the table should be sufficient. By the way, as I understand the event is currently not under contract. Both the Nürburgring and the Hockeheimring have admitted not to have a contract. Tvx1 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough on just removing it. No sense in making an issue out of nothing. However, Tvx1, I am to understand that a contract DOES exist with the Nurburgring, going back to the 2008 agreement. However, fiscally or whatever reasons may exist that are moot to this discussion, Nurburgring is unable to host. But the contract still exists, no? This is why we can say that Hockenheimring is under contract for 2016, right? Twirlypen (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is the same as Twirlypen, that I believe they have a contract, but look currently unable/unwilling to satisfy the contract (in a similar situation to the Korean Grand Prix). The source being used on German Grand Prix is [13], which says there's an alternating contract until 2018. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe Tvx was referring to a contract to host the race in 2015, not the whole contract. Otherwise, we keep the German GP on the 2016 article (and further ahead when necessary) until we have reliable sources saying otherwise. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sources stating that Nürburgring currently does not have any contract: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. This source quotes the Hockenheim owners stating that they still have a contract for 2016 and 2018 (Hence why they currently are in the 2016 article), while this sources quotes the new Nürburgring owners (who bought it last year) stating that they have no long term deal (yet). To sum up. Hockenheim is contracted for 2016 and 2018, Nürburgring isn't contracted for anything, Nobody is contracted for 2015 and 2017. Tvx1 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Joseph, the source used in German Grand Prix (which dates to 2009) only mentions Hockenheim extending their half of the deal. It doesn't mention much about Nürburgring's share. Tvx1 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Table sorting

Tvx1, when the table is sorted numerically ascending, it is out of whack. It lists as follows: 11 Sergio Perez, 14 Fernando Alonso, 19 Felipe Massa, 3 Daniel Ricciardo, 33 Max Verstappen, 5 Sebastian Vettel, 6 Nico Rosberg, 8 Romain Grosjean, 9 Marcus Ericsson. Twirlypen (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I've noticed that as well. Basically what it does is sorting by the lowest first digit of the number regardless how many digits the numbers contain (as a result you get 11-14-19-3-33-5-6-8-9). I don't know why it does and haven't been able to solve it. I works perfectly on the 2014 article and as far as I can see I have coded it exactly the same way. Tvx1 02:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This does not seem to be replicated on the 2014 article though. I'm entirely confused. I even replaced your code with the language used in the 2014 article, with the same results. I may revert my most recent one because the numbers are not centered. Twirlypen (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. Although the 2014 version did not need my fix. I don't know why it works fine on that article without it. Tvx1 02:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The TBA's for Caterham and Manor are causing it. That's the difference with the 2014 version. So once the TBA's are gone we can remove my fix again. Tvx1 03:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The sort works that way because it sorts alphabetically, not numerically. Therefore a number beginning with a 3, like 323, sorts ahead of a number begginning with 5, like 57. Short of using number like 05 or 046 there is no solution. --Falcadore (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

New Entry List

On the new entry list, [19], there were a couple of notes at the bottom, was wondering if people thought they were important. (1). Stevens' participation is subject to him having a Superlicense (2). "Full compliance with the 2015 Technical Regulations required" for Marussia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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