Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Manor

So with the team emerging I'm wondering whether it's time we start an article for them. Information on Manor for 2015 has been already been added to the Marussia F1 Team article while the lead all the while reads it was a F1 Team. So should we start a Manor article similar to us having a separate Virgin and Marussia article, as well as having a separate Team Lotus (2011) as well as Caterham article? Tvx1 18:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this the best place to discuss this, or would WP:F1 be better? Also, they're a different team (like Virgin & Marussia or Spkyer/Midland F1/Force India), so IMO they should have a different article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think they're probably the same team, but they're certainly a different constructor. Tvx1 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

When I said team above, I meant constructor. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems the article Manor Motorsport is already being used to document on the Manor F1 Team. Do we continue using this article or do we dedicate a specific article to the F1 constructor? Tvx1 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Manor Motorsport article is perfectly sufficient. No need to break off the F1 info from the main page. QueenCake (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that using the Manor Motorsport article is fine. Keep in mind that this situation - i.e. one company entering under the own name after years of operating teams on behalf of other organizations (Virgin & Marussia) - is confusing even outside of Wikipedia. There's not going to be a perfect solution. Eightball (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice they are to be officially known as "Manor Marussia". Last time we had this scenario, with "BMW Sauber" in 2010, we stopped the BMW article in 2009 and included the 2010 season on the Sauber article. Based upon that precedent, the Marussia F1 team article ended in 2014, and the Manor Motorsport can be used for 2015 onwards. Is that fine for everyone? QueenCake (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of their official name, should we reflect this in the article where they were previously refered to as just "Manor F1" to "Manor Marussia F1" or simply "Manor Marussia"?? Twirlypen (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been a bit of a problem in recent years in the GP2 articles, namely Russian Time. They started out with their own article, but got merged into Motorpark Academy because MA were running the team. But then they terminated the agreement with MA and had iSport International run the team, so the whole article was moved over to iSport, even the results they got with Motorpark. But then that agreement came to an end, and now the team is being run by Virtuosi Racing. Fortunately, common sense prevailed and now the article is back in one place at Russian Time. I see the same potential problem lurking here - as soon as we start crediting results to different articles when the constructor name is the same, it creates a complicated mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We should credit the results to whichever constructor the FIA credits them to. If they continue to credit them to Marussia we follow suit. Tvx1 03:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, for the same reasons QueenCake mentions. Sauber was known as BMW Sauber in 2010 even though BMW had sold the team back to Peter Sauber. They only maintained the BMW name so they could get their share of the TV money. This is the same thing Manor is doing this year. Precedent (and logic) says we should consider the team to be Manor, not Marussia. Eightball (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That analogy doesn't necessarily hold up. The 2010 BMW Sauber was clearly a different constructor. The cars during the BMW era were known as BMW Sauber F1.06 and so on, while the 2010 car was a Sauber C29. There's a clear difference there. However in this case, so far the constructor has remained Marussia and for all we know the car might just be the Marussia MR04? How strong would our claim that it's a different constructor be then? I suggest that for the time being we wait and see what happens before making a final decision. Tvx1 18:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if we're talking about the same thing, so to clarify, this article should stay as it currently is. The constructor name on the entry list is Marussia and that's how it should be displayed, just like how BMW Sauber was still BMW Sauber for a year despite it simply being Sauber and having no BMW involvement. BUT, the team itself is not Marussia. It has no ties to Marussia whatsoever and the name is solely there to maintain their claim to the TV rights money. So in terms of the team's article, it should be Manor Motorsport, not the old Marussia article. Marussia is dead and gone and that fact is really not up for debate. Eightball (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just wait and see. No results have been credited yet, no car has been revealed yet. If it turns out that the Marussia MR04 accumulates results for Marussia I'm inclined to continue using their article. Tvx1 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

With the first Grand Prix about to get going, it's about high time we make up our minds here. Pretty soon we'll have to update an article with results, so it would be helpful to know which one. The entry list for the Grand Prix list them as Marussia-Ferrari just like for their previous Grand Prix. And their is still nothing official on the car name. Tvx1 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In 2010 we called them "BMW Sauber" and linked to "Sauber". This season, we can call them "Marussia" and link to "Manor Motorsport". —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

With the difference that all the BMW Sauber activities are detailed in the Sauber article, while that's not currently the case for Marussia and Manor, and the confusing detail that there is a Manor Motorsport competing in GP2 this year. Tvx1 13:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I still favour keeping this season on the Manor Motorsport page. There's enough of a clean break between the two entities to warrant having them on separate articles. QueenCake (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of GPUpdate

I have removed the GP Update source on van der Garde and replaced it with one from F1 Fanatic. GP Update has displayed a pretty blatant pro-Dutch bias in the past - they have been one of van der Garde's favourite vehicles for talking up his prospects in the past - so I do not think that they satisfy WP:RS in this case. Even if there is nothing objectionable in the article used, the publisher as a whole is questionable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If the article is not questionable than there are no grounds to remove it. If in doubt compare with other sources and if you can find no contradictions you can use it. If you want to question the article in question, prove that it's unreliable. We cannot make this decisions based on personal feelings. BBC and other British sources have shown pretty blatant pro-British bias on occasion and we keep using them as well. Tvx1 05:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the article. I am questioning the SOURCE - the organisation publishing it. GP Update has been used by van der Garde in the past to essentially publish propaganda - stories in support of him getting a seat for 2015. GP Update fails WP:RS because of its inherent bias. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to prove your claims. And so far after double, triple and even quadruple checks with other publications I see nothing supporting your claims regarding this case so far. If you're really that confident about your case, you're free to raise your concerns at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Tvx1 05:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sauber's appeal has been rescheduled for tomorrow 9:30 AEST[1]. Tvx1 06:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am referring to the events of last year, not the events of last week. GP Update regularly ran stories about VDG closing in on a seat all through the second half of 2014, stories that no-one else ran because they were clearly leaks from VDG's camp designed to keep his name in the public sphere.

GP Update is clearly as biased when it comes to Dutch drivers as the likes of the Spanish papers are on the subject of Alonso. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have predominantly used GP Update as a source for my edits for the entirety of my activity here. For it to all of a sudden fail RS (again, according to your own personal opinion) just because it is a Dutch publication reporting on the activities of a Dutch driver is simply absurd. VDG pursuing (and again, as the courts have ruled, getting) a seat is nonetheless factual and therefore does not violate RS. Please, for the last time, stop making these decisions for everybody. Twirlypen (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I guess we'll just start using motorsport.com and Pitpass as well. I mean, they write about Formula 1, so they must be acceptable sources, right? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to be a baby about it, then just go through my entire contribution history for the past 15 months and undo everything I've added using GP Update. Seriously. Twirlypen (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've failed to see you raise this issue at the noticeboard Tvx1 provided you. Please, when you do, tag me. Twirlypen (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not like GP Update have ever sponsored van der Garde before ... except for the times when they did during his junior career. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws. The head of Red Bull never actually announced that MV or CS would be racing for Toro Rosso, because, according to a previous argument, nobody on the Toro Rosso team have any standing on who their drivers would be – it had to have come from Red Bull. That's is how ridiculous this current argument of yours sounds right now. (For everyone else, yes, I know they are obviously racing. They're on entry lists, etc.. just pointing out the absurdity of the stance being used here.) Twirlypen (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, until the issue is raised on the noticeboard conveniently provided to you, this will be treated as nothing more than kicking and screaming by a disgruntled editor with some kind of superiority complex. Twirlypen (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And you'll be treated as an editor with poor judgement given that you seem to think that GP Update can provide financial assistance to drivers and still be considered a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I bet. By the way, STILL nothing on the appropriate noticeboard... Twirlypen (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing there. I haven't found a picture of a car or helmet with a GP Update logo. But when I do, I'll be sure to upload it straight away. I'll be interested to hear your counter-argument as to how a website can be considered reliable when they have a vested financial interest in a driver's performance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As I will be interested to hear how GP Update has been allowed by every other editor of the project for the duration of my activity here conveniently until they post the first article contradicting your personal opinion, nevermind that 98% of what they report is substantiated by major news networks. Looking forward to it! Twirlypen (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if what they reported elsewhere has been substantiated elsewhere. Their sponsorship means that they are compromised. Anything they report individually is unusable, and if something is being reported elsewhere, then provided that that other source satisfies WP:RS, it is the most appropriate source to use by default. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Pitpass is used as reference #38 in this article, which was added waayyyy before December 2014. Until you raise (AND RESOLVE) this issue at the appropriate noticeboard, GP Update can and will continue to be used. Twirlypen (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Look who's making sweeping, arbitrary judgements now.

And thank you for pointing out the presence of the Pitpass reference. I will nuke it immediately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sweeping judgements? I've used GP Update many dozens of times without issue from anyone. Further, I pointed out that a Pitpass reference was used way before Dec 2014 because it was at least a month before your hiatus, and it's well-known within the community of your hawk-like tendencies regarding proper sources. I've had well-substantiated information entirely reverted by you on the grounds of a source that failed your standard of RS (instead of, you know, just adding a better source). This just shows me that less-than-reputable sources are okay by you as long as the information they convey agrees with your personal feelings. Twirlypen (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive—as taken from own website:

"Along the way, staff and readers alike have also enjoyed seeing the site’s logo in the heart of the action, thanks to sponsorship connections with F1 teams Minardi (2005), Midland (2006), Spyker (2007) and most recently 2010 debutants Hispania. A number of up and coming drivers have also been backed along the way, including Britain’s Sam Bird and Dutch GP2 race winner Giedo van der Garde.'"

We cannot use GP Update as a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. For the fourth time, please gain consensus using the proper avenues. You alone do not decide when a source becomes unreliable. (Copy/paste) Until you raise (AND RESOLVE) this issue at the appropriate noticeboard, GP Update can and will continue to be used. Twirlypen (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And before you say it, I've used GP Update for 15 months without dispute. Consensus on my end that it IS reliable is implied. Twirlypen (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just demonstrated a CLEAR conflict of interest between GP Update and van der Garde. You should be in the middle of the article right now removing that content and replacing it with a more appropriate source, not demanding a consensus for something that is a clear-cut case of unreliability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(Copy/paste) Until you raise (AND RESOLVE) this issue at the appropriate noticeboard, GP Update can and will continue to be used. Twirlypen (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Possible* conflict of interest. Sponsoring a team with your news website does not make them an unreliable source. Just the same as Wikipedia's own policy on conflicts of interest, it's not forbidden, it simply requires careful considerations. They sponsor VDG, fine. They have more articles on VDG than other websites, fine. The sources used in the article are not unreliable, so there's zero need to replace them. This would be like blacklisting ESPN just because they have coverage deals (and hence money) with certain collegiate conferences. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

POSSIBLE conflict of interest. Not NO conflict of interest. And the objectionable content in this case specifically relates to van der Garde, whom the site state that they sponsor. That's good enough for me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Objectionable why? You state the source was correct and backed by other sources. The only thing you want changed is the URL we are directing the reader to. Where exactly is the conflict of interest in this specific citation? And if your problem is with sources related to VDG, why are we blacklisting the site from being used anywhere else in the article for any other source? Because they has sponsorships for F1 teams that no longer exist? And your claim of POV and bias seems to change. First it was pro-Dutch, now it's conflict of interest. Which is it? Are you just claiming bias and hoping to fill in the blanks on how as you go? The³5₉ (Talk) 09:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's good enough for you, then, for the fifth time, raise it at the noticeboard provided. (Copy/paste) Until you raise (AND RESOLVE) this issue at the appropriate noticeboard, GP Update can and will continue to be used. Twirlypen (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait, so NOW "sometimes it's reliable and sometimes it's not" is valid now that it supports your cause?? This is borderline insane. Twirlypen (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you even checked the notice board that you keep directing me to?

Also, if you read the likes of RS and CONFLICT, you'll know that the most appropriate way to address this issue is to remove the offending content until the issue is resolved. You do not have the power to declare a source usable in the face of such a serious problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a copyright violation. Blatantly removing something you disagree with while a discussion is ongoing is wrong, period, and you damn well know it. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

While you're lecturing everyone, please keep in mind that you're literally the only one offended. Twirlypen (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And nor do you have the power to declare a source used for at least the past 15 months unchallenged unreliable based on your personal opinions alone. (Copy/paste) Until you raise (AND RESOLVE) this issue at the appropriate noticeboard, GP Update can and will continue to be used. Twirlypen (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of insane, I'm not the one who thinks that it's entirely okay to rely on a source that has a vested financial interest in the career of the subject it is reporting on. 09:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's usually the definition when someone is convinced they are correct without any consensus whatsoever and being the sole holder of a particular opinion. Twirlypen (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The359—my dislike of the use of GP Update has nothing to do with what they report, and everything with the way they have paid to support a driver financially, which creates a conflict of interest. It's the same reason why I felt Joe Saward was an inappropriate source to use for Lotus and Caterham. If Lewis Hamilton started wearing an Autosport logo and Autosport ran pro-Hamilton stories, I would feel the same way.

Twirlypen—if I only started advocating for the removal of GP Update as a source today, it's because I only became aware of the issue today. If I had known about it fifteen months ago, we would have been having this conversation fifteen months ago. But apparently my entire argument is invalidated because I wasn't arguing for it at a time when I didn't know about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, PM, please be aware that you have effectively violated 3RR once again within 2 weeks of coming off your 7 week block. Twirlypen (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As taken from WP:3RR:

"The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

[...]

"Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced '"'contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)."'"

The conflict of interest within the source represents biased and contentious material. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, these are all based on your personal opinion that you share with absolutely nobody else in the project. You're on a slippery slope. Be careful. Twirlypen (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

All I have lobbied for is the removal of the source until such time as a fuller consensus can be established by the RS noticeboard - a course of action that you recommended. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider this objectively:

1) Van der Garde has received money from the website to further his career. 2) Van der Garde is in the midst of an unprecedented legal case to determine the future of his career. 3) That website has given extensive coverage to that legal case.

Surely you can see the potential for a conflict of interest. And you cannot dismiss it out of hand because the content of a single article is consistent with other articles. The only way to conclusively demonstrate that there is no conflict of interest is to prove that he is no longer receiving money from the website. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd give my view:

Yes, VDG has a conflict of interest with GPUpdate. So we should avoid sourcing VDG stories from GPUpdate. In the same way that the BBC gives undue weight to British interests. The BBC practically went on a "Save our Button" campaign to help Button retain his McLaren seat. They reported each failing of the McLaren team in testing. Obviously, the BBC, through their charter, are not allowed any actual links to any companies, but still they produce non-stories on British interests like this which is titled on the F1 hub as "Alonso crash details puzzling to Coulthard". If I am also correct, don't Autosport have COI too that they have disclosed?

In conclusion, we can use GPUpdate as a source, but preferably not in regard to stories relating to the COI they admit to having. In these situations, we should attempt to find other sources on the matter – like F1Fanatic – which don't have those COI. Each reference to their own. I believe this point requires no further discussion. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring aussies should be fast asleep by now but trust me they'll sure have more to bother about in a few days time ... Darrandarra (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Three remarks here at the moment:

1) I don't think a 3RR violation was actually committed by Prisonermonkeys. I see three reverts, not more than three as stipulated by the policy. It's edit warring though and given the recent history I don't think they should have made that many reverts nevertheless. Talk pages should have been exclusively used to flesh this out.

2) Prisonermonkeys, I didn't know that this article is a biography of a living person??

3) I don't think I can actually say I agree entirely with —Gyaro–Maguus—. I still don't see what's inherently controversial with the contested story. Nothing from other sources has arisen that even gives a hint of this story being unreliable, so I still don't see justification for replacing this just for the sake of changing URL. I believe it's for the betterment of the article to use an as wide as possible range of reliable sources. So I don't think replacing a source's story with an other source's one just because it might be publishing other stories which have some bias is justified. This compromises us taking a neutral point of view and will lead us to advertising particular sources over others just because we like them better. We are all adult people. I'm sure we are all more than intelligent enough. So I'm confident that we can sure as hell spot when a particular story contains bias and therefore should not be used. When I suggested that we be wary of using a particular source, I mean we should take particular care to review the story we want to use and see if it conflicts with other sources running that story. If if doesn't, there's no problem with using it. Above all, we should avoid letting our personal feelings getting involved in making that assessment. Tvx1 16:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1, GPUpdate is a reliable source in general, and it should be obvious when not to use it. In this case, the information in its source is the same as other sources, therefore we can use any of the sources, and shouldn't have a preference against one of them. If a GPUpdate article looks biased, then don't use it (the same way you wouldn't use some of the pro-British/pro-Button BBC Sport articles), but I don't think it should be blacklisted from ever being used on this page. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nor should it even be blacklisted from ever being used regarding any Dutch driver. Tvx1 17:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What a huge heap of arguments over a petty (and obvious) thing. And there will be blood ... I mean many more discussions like this in not so distant future. Will it be a matter of weeks or only days when a certain editor gets (again) some block (and block evasion) time? Time only will tell us. I can take insults too but I shall not be called a "jingoistic rag" as was the gentlemanly expression aimed at our dear Dutch reporters in the first revert, the said expression then somehow getting reformatted into a civilized form of a "conflict of interest". Yours truly Darrandarra (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, Sauber's appeal has been dismissed [2]. Tvx1 07:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, the extremely biased, pro-Dutch website is one of the very, very few sources reporting that VDG in fact does NOT have a current superlicence. Twirlypen (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand now why I mentioned we shouldn't just assume that he had one simply because he sued Sauber, but rather prove it through sources. Tvx1 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I'll eat my feet on that one. Twirlypen (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiterated again here... just to prove that this particular Dutch publication that reports on a Dutch driver doesn't necessarily hide facts on them that may be negative to his ability to drive. Twirlypen (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Seat-gate/van der Gate

Once the whole court case has been finally completed, would it be viable to create an article on the VDG/Sauber saga? I have a feeling it would be a no, but I'm interested in what people think. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, it's not "Seat-gate". It's "van der Gate".

Secondly, it is already covered in sufficient detail on 2015 Australian Grand Prix. It will likely be covered elsewhere, including Sauber, Giedo van der Garde and Sauber C34, and probably elsewhere.

Thirdly, the case is unresolved. If it should be settled, or if the courts should ultimately rule in Sauber's favour, van der Gate is less notable than if the court rules in van der Garde's favour, so a wait-and-see approach is best for now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

For now, definitely no. However, if it becomes a big, recurring issue (such as VDG goes to court before every race), then maybe then a new article is needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would it need to appear on Sauber C34? it has nothing to do with the car. And like I said, I'm not rushing into making this - I wanted to see it's potential viability. Holdenman05 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Sainz

Looks like the previous discussion on Sainz's name has been archived. I am bringing it back up again because the FIA is listing him on timing sheets as "Carlos Sainz", not "Carlos Sainz Jr." - is this something that we should be taking into consideration? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

On this he is listed as "Carlos Sainz Jr." so no. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Having Carlos Sainz on our articles but having his name linked to Carlos Sainz Jr. would be utterly confusing to everybody, casual reader or not. Twirlypen (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Failed race bids

Should the Thailand Grand Prix ([3]) be covered under "Failed Race bids" or has it always been too speculative? After all, it went as far up as the government of Thailand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's too speculative I think. The Grand Prix of America, Indian Grand Prix and Korean Grand Prix all had contracts in place for a race this year, but they aren't happening. Pretty sure Thailand hasn't got a contract. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This is why I am opposed to the inclusion of races that are not happening—it opens the door to speculative content like this. Thailand, France and South Africa have all been mentioned as possible candidates for a race in recent years, and in the case of France in particular, the line between speculation and a contract has become blurred.

If we limit the section to races that represent an actual change to the calendar, we avoid the problem altogether. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If it is purely speculation (as far as we can tell) (e.g. France, SA, Thailand), do not include. If they had a contract to hold a race in 2015 but won't host one (e.g. Korea, India, GP of A), include. If there is a change in the situation from last season (e.g. Germany should a contract be decided), we include. Simple.

PM, there is a difference between speculation (like Ecclestone saying he wants a Thai GP) and potential/actual changes to the calendar that don't result in anything happening at all (like Korea, etc). Drop the goddamn f*cking stick already!

—Gyaro–Maguus— 20:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear-cut case of why currently contracted races are included in the article, while fingers-crossed-I-wish-this-would-happen races are not. The line with France is pretty easy to distinguish. Do they have a current contract for 2015?? No. Did they once have a contract that was previously and prematurely terminated? I don't know, but as that'd make the contract not current, it doesn't belong. Such will be the case for the GPoA if/when that contract ever gets terminated before 2028. If the FIA nixes the contract in 2020, it won't show up in the 2021 article. But until it does, we are obligated to report on the current races contracted to take place. Twirlypen (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no blurring between having a contract and being speculation. It's a clear cut line. Do we have clear-cut proof from the sources that a race has a contract? If yes, include. If no, don't. It's that same line that explains why were are no longer including India in 2016. We are not opening any door to speculative content, because everybody wo has answered this query thus far has firmly said no. That shows we keep the door firmly shut. Tvx1 20:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was never a contract signed. Therefore it was speculation and we don't have a place for speculation in Wikipedia. Holdenman05 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is a place for speculation in Wikipedia. The first paragraph of WP:SPECULATION states "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". (I'm not saying Thailand and France should be included in this article, I'm just pointing out that many people misinterpret WP:SPECULATION as saying that "Wikipedia should not include speculation", which is not what it says at all). DH85868993 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have seen various reports claiming that there is a contract for Thailand and France, and reports claiming that there isn't a contract for Thailand or France. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And where are those reports? I have found nothing that Thailand has/had a 2015 contract and for France I have found this from just last may stating that nothing was signed. Tvx1 23:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It has come up several times since 2009. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Talks/discussions ≠ signed contracts. I thought that was an easy assumption. Twirlypen (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Free Practice drivers

I see Free Practice drivers have been added to the teams and drivers table. I was wondering whether it would be better to wait to add them until they have actually been entered for a Grand Prix for such a role. I ask this because I added Will Stevens last year as a Marussia FP driver on the back of source stating that he had a contract to do so. Ultimately his Free Practice outings did not occur because the team went into administration. Therefore I think it's better to wait. We're in no rush to add them, are we? By the way, no source was added to support her inclusion. Tvx1 00:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, don't add them until one of them has driven. To confirm, Susie Wolff didn't drive in FP1, did she? Assuming she didn't, then they don't need to be added yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going off the model that we used last year, where drivers were added, but we didn't cover the rounds where they drove. Wolff confirmed on the Melbourne broadcast that she will be making at least two appearances this year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, based on this and this, the latter in which PM specifically stated that we only add them once they actually drive. Twirlypen (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Did I? Don't remember it, but it was a year ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You did, and I even linked to it. Also, it wasn't a year ago. It was exactly 3 months ago. Twirlypen (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We never actually established a "model". One user just added a FP driver with a source that (s)he had a contract for that role and other users like you and me continued that practice. I realized it was not the best way through the Stevens situation and since we have an example of a driver being contracted for FP outings who never actually drove I think it's better to wait until they are actually entered for a Grand Prix. The discsussion Twirlypen refers to is not from a year ago but from three months ago (i.e. just before your lengthy block). Tvx1 01:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, whether it's 3 months ago or 3 years ago or 3 days ago, the facts remain the same that teams often contract multiple reserve and test drivers, though a large percentage of them will never get behind the wheel at a Grand Prix event. Susie Wolff may indeed participate at these two FP1 practices, but at the same time, Valtteri Bottas may get injured for a month and Susie actually gets to race. Let's just wait and see and add it when it happens. Twirlypen (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, why are we acting like we're anticipating another dispute? I'm not disputing that I said it, only commenting that I don't remember saying it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In any event, do we agree that on the subject of Free Practice drivers, we wait until they actually participate? Twirlypen (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Contracts can be broken and misinterpreted. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That should be especially clear given the current affairs over at Sauber. Twirlypen (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Table markup

Prisonermonkeys, which text was spilling over into which cells? Tvx1 06:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Mercedes team name, some of the engine names, and one or two driver names. And the Raikkonen and Vettel combination at Ferrari were out of alignment, staggered across multiple lines. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Mercedes name spilling is easily solvable. I'm puzzled however on the engine and driver names. I had elegantly split the largest engine and chassis names over two lines (thus reinstating how the table has looked for nearly a month) so I can't see why they would still spill over. As for the drivers names, I'm completely baffled there. There's no more column to the right of them so I can't even see what they would be spilling into? The issue with Vettel's name could have easily been solved by putting a nowrap around his flag, name and refs. I deliberatly made those edits on my mobile device to make sure it worked allright and everything looked fine with me. And what was the issue with the calendar? You reverted that as well. Tvx1 06:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

They're not spilling over. They're just out of alignment.

As for the calendar, I'm afraid it was collateral damage. I couldn't see what markup you had changed and what you had left alone, so I felt that it was safer to restore to a version that I knew would work rather than try to change things back individually. I would have avoided it if I could have, but my markup is rusty. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So basically the issue with the Mercedes name is solvable, and the issue with the driver names can be dealt with by using nowraps on the troublesome names. Whether or not we want engine and some chassis names elegantly split over two lines or desperatly on one line is a matter for dispute and the calendar even worked fine. No need for such a drastic revert, was there now? Tvx1 07:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I have been out of here for two months. And in that time, the mobile version has been given a complete overhaul. Given the choice between reverting to a version that I know works to correct a problem and attempting to introduce changes to complex markup with no idea what implications the updated interface has for the changes while my skills are rusty, I am going to choose the former. I am sure that you would, too. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 - with your most recent updates, Mexico City and Kuala Lumpur are spilling over the right-hand borders of their cells. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem Prisonermonkeys, just add extra non-breaking spaces ( ) to the left and right of the text in the title cell of their column until it no longer spills over. Tvx1 07:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Super! Now the exact same tactic can be used to deal with the mercedes team name. Tvx1 07:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright. You make the changes and I'll follow through. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest we use your sandbox to fix all the issues with my version of the table before entering the final version into the article? Tvx1 09:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 — we know how to fix the spill-over. The issue is the wrapping of text in the driver column. It may be as simple as sticking a nowrap in and then adding some non-breaking spaces on the end, but for now it might be best to do everything but the drivers, and then do the drivers as a separate edit. That way, we can revert without losing extensive work elsewhere in table if the fixes don't pan out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, why am I seeing a black border around the driver table, but not around the calendar? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I redid the teams column. If Mercedes is spilling over you know how you can solve that.

I think the drivers' table has a black border because a border=1 is coded into its properties which hasn't been done for the calendar. Tvx1 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. Can we avoid the linebreaks for the time being? If there are any issues with the driver column, it will help if we change as little as possible because it will make diagnosing the problem easier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Tvx1 02:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 - I have also added a blank results summary in under the sporting regulations. It's just a carbon copy from 2014, blanked and updated for the 2015 calendar, but I haven't touched the markup, so can you take a look at that too, please? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok Prisonermonkeys I did the drivers column. I nowrapped every driver that was split over multiple lines on my mobile screen. Meanwhile, I'll have look at the results summary. Tvx1 02:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 - looks good. There are no issues, but the entire right border of the driver table is now missing. I am having a similar problem with the results tables at Volkswagen Polo R WRC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the results summary. I've noticed that missing border as well but have no idea what's causing it, let alone how to solve it. Any objection to reintroducing those line-breaks now? Tvx1 03:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they're necessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not. But there are clearly many users who prefer to have them because without them the table is unnecessarily wide. Especially the power unit column is extremely wide. We can elegantly split that over two lines and thus considerably reduce the width of the table without the increasing the height of the table because these cell already have a two row height thanks to the drivers column.

I wouldn't call it elegant. I would call it awkward and untidy. If users are having problems with it, it is a result of the size of their monitors, not a fault in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed it was a "fault" with the table. You, with one of the smallest screens among the contributors, should be well aware how painstaking it can be scrolling from left to right through the table. Bear in mind that it's only going to get wider in the upcoming weeks. I really think we should take some leniency on perfect aesthetics if we can improve the accessibility of the table. Tvx1 03:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't find it to be a problem at all.

Anyway, I have an idea on how to narrow down and tidy up the table. Going to try it now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That has improved as well. You raise a good point with it. Once we have an entry list we shouldn't be individually sourcing everything that is covered by that entry list as well. All in all I think your version is a good compromise. Tvx1 04:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

All we're missing now is the Ferrari engine name. I can't find it anywhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 - I have been thinking about the missing border line in the tables, and it looks to me as if the driver names are spilling over the far side of their cells. I tried playing around with the 2016 tables as well, so I think I might be onto something. I'm also going to tag GyaroMaguus here because he's a markup guru as well and I am curious to hear his thoughts. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Update - I tinkered with it a bit, and managed to extend the black borders by adding nbsps to the extreme right align. I still haven't got the border to appear, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

But the right border is missing on the calendar as well. And none of the dates seem to be spilling over to me. Besides every possible table on the wiki has this missing border issue if you provideprogram one. Tvx1 23:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I just put some nbsps in the date column, which extended the top and bottom borders of the table.

So, do you think this this is a Wiki-wide issue and not just something that we are experiencing? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm certain it is. It happens to every table that has the border programmed which I have looked at so far. Let's do a test:

1	2	3
4	5	6

Small table, no chances of spilling, yet no right border. Tvx1 00:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You called? I have no idea how to solve the black border problem. I also believe it to be bug, but probably one that won't be dealt with in a conventional manner as the Android mobile app doesn't use that type of table, and I assume the mobile web app may be updated to be closer to the apps. As for alignment of text in the columns, I see nothing overlapping or falling under two rows, so that is all fine. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

How bout ditching the borders all together? Tvx1 17:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can remove borders from a wikitable. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can! Our tables currently have a border="1" parameter included. Remove that parameter and the border is gone. Like I just did with my example above. Tvx1 21:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the table above on my phone in both the standard browser and on the Android app. In both occasions, the inner borders remain, and are very faint on the browser. Therefore, I would approve of the removal of 'border="1"', though I would suggest testing it first to check that it works properly. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem —Gyaro–Maguus—, you can edit any table on the article and click on the preview button to test it. You will then see if it works. By the way, by changing the url in your browser on your desktop device from en.wikipedia.org to en.m.wikipedia.org you can use the mobile version on your desktop device. Tvx1 00:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(a) True, assuming the preview functions work properly on the mobile and app and (b) I should have remembered that mobile is available on desktop. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, GyaroMaguus - I found this markup (in the Ralf Schumacher article of all places), which fixes the border issues:

border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 1em 0 0; background:#f9f9f9; border:1px #aaa solid; border-collapse:collapse; font-size:95%;"

I tried inserting it into the driver table, but it's not working, which I'm guessing is a result of the sortable markup because it works in all of the other tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'v been able to make it work by using class="sortable" border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 1em 0 0; background:#f9f9f9; border:1px #aaa solid; border-collapse:collapse; font-size:85%;" for the sortable table. On the upside this layout reduces the overlapping considerably. So, Prisonermonkeys, could take a look whether you could remove some of the nbsp's? Tvx1 19:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 - I had a look at it, but there's not much that I can do. Also, there's a thin box that run for the height of the table on the right hand side. I don't know how to get rid of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know what you mean there. Tvx1 06:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing an extra cell on the right hand side of the team and driver table, one that runs from top to bottom. From the looks of things, the table has a border with a width of 2 running around it. But on the far right hand side, the border splits in two, with a narrow border down the right. It's as if the table is surrounded by two boxes, with one slightly wider than the other. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Really seems to be caused by your device rather than the table itsself. I don't see it on my desktop or my mobile device. Tvx1 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 - that's weird. I put the rounds column in to address an issue with the Alonso/Magnussen ordering, and it fixed the problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bbb2007, please stop removing the markup from the tables, especially on the grounds that the previous version "looks better". This markup has been included to correct some issues that users are having in viewing the tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a simple question here. Why aren't we using templates for our drivers' tables, calendars, results tables, etc? These tables are used in dozens and dozens of articles. Tvx1 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, does anyone know how to make them? I don't, but they seem really useful, used them in Cricket projects. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not possible. Templates are trancluded in their entirety every time they are used, and you could not add each seasons information without modifying the template - which would then show, say, this season's results on every F1 season article. QueenCake (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. We are currently using infobox templates without a problem. On each article they are used they have some article specific content which is only used in that article. But the general base layout is used identically on every article it's applied. Tvx1 01:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the technical details well enough, but infoboxes work somewhat differently. I've never come across a similar thing for standard tables. QueenCake (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I just want to briefly interject to say thank you guys for putting so much effort into getting the markup/layout right. It's not easy. Eightball (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are the borders so black in this seasons pages? In my opinion this makes the borders stand out too much which takes focus out of the actual information. The rest of the wikipedia seems to use lighter and less pronounced table borders. --80.223.129.187 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Chassis name references

I have removed all of the references for the chassis names since every car has begun the season, sans Manor-Marussia. Please undo this edit if any of these references are needed elsewhere in the article, though I did double-check to make sure they did not have reference names. Twirlypen (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

These references need stay since there is no source otherwise in the article that serves as a valid reference for their names (either individually or all-in-one). Tvx1 04:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to contest your reasoning, but at some point these references get removed as in previous seasons, either for the purpose I just did it (cleanliness of the table), or eventually all chassis are named on one reference. I suppose we wait for the latter, which is fine with me as well. Cheers! Twirlypen (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, we only can remove them if we replace them with a reference naming all the names. Just removing a heap of sources for cleanliness leaving an amount of the article unsourced is a major no-no. That's policy. Tvx1 18:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Roberto Merhi

Here's what we've got. Our sources used state that Roberto Merhi signed with Manor-Marussia for one race. However, I remember reading a source saying that his contract was for "the opening rounds" without being specific how many rounds that is. In any case, again the sources we are using say it's just for one race, which brings me to my point — Merhi did not participate in round 1 for Manor-Marussia. Is his contract over? If so, should he continue to be included despite not actually driving? Thoughts? Twirlypen (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say wait and see what happens. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think keep for now, however if someone else drives in Malaysia, then remove him. BBC, Autosport and F1 Fanatic all indicate he's signed for "the opening rounds". Joseph2302 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No actually we misrepresent the source in our article by stating "one race". The citation for that line clearly states "opening races". Tvx1 02:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

White table backgrounds

With all the tables on this page now using a white background, it means that there is no tone differentiation between the white and blank cells in the standings table. Should this be looked at?

I'm not sure why the tables here have a white background. I did change it to the regular background but it was reverted with the claim that the regular colour "negates the contrast of the header", which never seems to have been a problem anywhere else and is already achieved by the bold text and centre alignment. ^Kytabu_Talk 04:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Kytabu—I genuinely had no idea that there was a difference at all. I just thought that the markup was there for technical reasons.

Honestly, I don't see any problem with it. The lettering in the individual cells makes the entry easy to distinguish, and there are bigger problems with the colours, like the way the blue and purple are difficult to separate for people with colour-blindness. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The tables don't have a white background, they simple have no background. The problems is that header cells seem to have gotten a brighter color with the result that giving the table a background makes the contrast almost impossible to notice. Certainly on desktop devices. I don't really know why there's both a white and "blank" entry in the key anyway. It's almost impossible to tell the difference. Tvx1 05:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be your screen settings? I have no difficulty differentiating between #f2f2f2 (header) and #f9f9f9 (normal cell) or between #f9f9f9 and white. At the very least, the tables should be changed from no background to a white background, as if it spills over onto a different colour, it creates problems (on my phone the driver table spills over onto a grey area, creating a half grey, half white cell). ^Kytabu_Talk 10:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a different question. Would anyone have a problem with making the header color just a tad darker? Doing so will allow us to return the table background color. Doing so is no that much work as we already have to manually code that header cells colors anyway because the default way (!) does not work anymore on mobile. Tvx1 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way the table format was returned to the old one. Why? This causes it to look entirely different on mobile. There's was a clear agreement to use the formatting that provides a universal style. Tvx1 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the edit summary there were compatibility problems with the tables that have been put together. Seems every problem you fix creates another one... QueenCake (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Black borders on tables

Why are the borders so black in this seasons pages? In my opinion this makes the borders stand out too much which takes focus out of the actual information. The rest of the wikipedia seems to use lighter and less pronounced table borders. --80.223.129.187 (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Those borders in other articles are actually broken following an update to the wiki software. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the color causing this? The tables can't have the correct color without breaking? Also if you are suggesting that this is wikipedia wide problem with basically every other article that uses tables you should take this issue at MOS:TABLE. --80.223.129.187 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also the outside border of the table still has the lighter border, which in combination of the inside borders being black makes the table look broken currently too. --80.223.129.187 (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I now know what's being reported here. In some browsers (e.g. Firefox) the table grid lines (=inner borders) were pitch black. That of course is something we can't allow to remain that way. Tvx1 22:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't Bottas be a WD?

I just feel that as it was an injury that forced him to not start, that saying he withdrew would be more accurate. —Gyaro–Maguus— 07:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you qualify but don't start that is Did Not Start. The reason for it makes no difference. Withdraw is for when you withdraw from the meeting without formally taking part. --Falcadore (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Falcadore is right – DNS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This agrees with that. DNS it shall be. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. That source lists Fernando Alonso as DNS?????? Tvx1 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an obvious mistake, it should be Kevin Magnussen. Cybervoron (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, after the DNP/WD discussion regarding Manor-Marussia, I feel that Bottas fits the criteria for WD to a tee, and Kvyat & Magnussen fit the criteria for DNS because they started the formation lap but failed to make it to the grid. Bottas did not make an attempt to start the race on orders from the medical director to withdraw from the race. Just my two cents. Twirlypen (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally think it's DNS. The only similar occurrence I can think of is Timo Glock at 2009 Japanese Grand Prix, where he crashed and got injured in qualifying, and he was listed as a DNS there. IMO, DNS is for anyone who qualified, intended to race but then didn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen you are confusing the DNS with the reason for the DNS. By advocating WD under those circumstances it is the equivalent of replacing DNF with ACC or ENG or SUS or INJ or ILL. WD descripes the situation of a race team having arrived at the track and having taken part in practice but then taking no part in qualifying. --Falcadore (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifically it describes a team that appears on the race's entry list and then officially withdraws from the Grand Prix during the weekend. Tvx1 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither Kvyat nor Magnussen started the formation lap. Their cars broke down on the way from their garages to the grid. Tvx1 02:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Stevens and Merhi

Should Stevens and Merhi be counted as having competed in Australia or not? As they didn't actually drive at all, I think not, so their round numbers should still be TBA. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not. The standard that we have used in the past has been that a driver is considered to have taken part when they drive in a session. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, as per comments made by Bretonbanquet in the 2015 Australian Grand Prix article, Manor did not actually withdraw, but rather failed to qualify as they did not notify the FIA. Prisonermonkeys (talk)\

How they can not be listed in Signed teams and drivers for race 1, but added in standings as DNQ? They should be on the standings and on the signed teams and drivers. K.belev (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As they didn't practice either, shouldn't they be either DNP or WD, not DNQ? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, a DNP might be best. In order to WD, the team needs to inform the FIA of their intentions—but Manor didn't do that, which is why the FIA wrote to them. And while they did not take part in qualifying, DNQ implies that they attempted to qualify, but were unsuccessful. So a DNP might fit best. It's a rarely-used marker, so that's probably why it has taken time to settle on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Stevens and Merhi, I don't believe they should have be credited with having participated in round 1, due to the facts named above, as well as the fact that they DID NOT PARTICIPATE. If any further edits are made crediting them with having raced in the Australian GP, please direct the editor to this talk page when fixing it. Twirlypen (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears at least one editor has a history of ignoring concensus in favor of being disruptive. The link goes to a nearly identical discussion. Twirlypen (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What I always do in such cases, is look for precedents. So far I have found Forti at the 1996 German Grand Prix and Mastercard Lola at the 1997 Brazilian Grand Prix. In both the cases they are recognized as DNP and the races in question are not counted for the round column. Whenever we used DNQ we count the round for the round column. Tvx1 02:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, in each of those precedents, the team in question is omitted comepletely from the tables. Should we follow suit in the 2015 Australian Grand Prix article? Twirlypen (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of defeats the purpose of having "DNP" as an option, doesn't it? Maybe we should consider adding DNP in there, rather than removing it from here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

DNP is still used on the appropriate season articles, just not the event articles. Twirlypen (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

They should be added to that table. Tvx1 03:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't really use DNP as an option, and we spent a long time a few years back eradicating it. Fundamentally, it doesn't matter whether an attempt was made to qualify by actually taking to the track – they attempted (apparently) to get the cars started and failed. We don't have any evidence to suggest that they did not try to qualify, so they failed to qualify = DNQ. Lola in Brazil '97 and Forti in Germany '96 clearly made no attempt whatsoever. Manor should be shown in all the tables as DNQ, and the drivers should be shown in the driver/team entry table (season article) as being present in Round 1. Participation is not taking to the track and actually driving. It's being entered and not withdrawing, which is what Manor did. As PM said, no official withdrawal was sent to the FIA, therefore as far as the FIA are concerned the team was involved, however minimally. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The FIA summoned Manor to explain their absense from qualifying, where Manor stated their case to the satisfaction of the FIA to accept their withdrawal retroactively and imposed no punishment on the team. At least, that's what I interpretted when they announced it. This whole preseason has been such a mess... Twirlypen (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is anyone getting this idea of a withdrawal? There was no withdrawal, and a team certainly can't withdraw after they've failed to qualify. The statement read, "The stewards accepted that the team explained it had used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that its cars were able to compete in active competition, therefore the stewards take no further action during the event." In other words, it can't be proven that Manor didn't bother or had no intention to run, so no punishment will be handed out (by the FIA). I see we're still using 'DNP' for some reason, but that's no explanation as to why Manor didn't race, and it's not a "result". A team doesn't need to practice in order to race, it only needs to qualify. They didn't race because they didn't qualify... DNQ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If the FIA want to make an exception and want to ackowledge a retroactive withdrawal under exceptional circumstances, it is their good right. They govern the sport. They make up the damn rules. But it's irrelevant, because the sources don't explicitly state that's what happened. What I do know is that according to this they had no intention to run. Tvx1 12:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's their right, but they didn't do it. Unless there's a source for it, as you say, and there isn't one. Bernie says they had no intention to run, that's Bernie's opinion and no kind of fact. Bernie says a lot of things, and he's going to have a hard time proving Manor's lack of intention to run, especially after the FIA didn't see it that way. Luckily for everyone, Bernie's not the FIA, and the FIA have not said anything about a withdrawal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

German GP revisited

The Grand Prix has officially been canceled
The following discussion has been closed by Twirlypen. Please do not modify it.
Per [GPUpdate], Bernie states there has been no progress with either Hockenheimring or Nürburgring since we last visited this topic in January and that the event "is currently dead and will not be replaced." Apart from the CEO of Formula One saying that the event isn't happening (with no rebuttal from relevant parties this time), should we consider rethinking about placing the burden of proof on that it IS happening rather than on that it ISN'T happening? My stance is that while the event remains on the calendar (at an undetermined venue), that final list was put out before Bernie revealed that there has been absolutely no headway, and I don't believe revised calendars are officially posted mid-season — they simply just don't happen once that date comes. Further, the event simply cannot happen without a venue. The calendar could have Timmy's Backyard Grand Prix on it all season, but if it's obvious to the CEO that nowhere in Timmy's Backyard is willing to host a Grand Prix, should we keep Timmy's Backyard Grand Prix in our articles? Twirlypen (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC) The burden of proof is the FIA or Bernie. They are the highest authorities on the subject. We are in no position to make a judgement as to whether or not something has happened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I just put forth an article in which Bernie has stated that the event as it stands is dead and won't be replaced. Or does the CEO of Formula One no longer have authority over the calendar? I missed that article. Twirlypen (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC) That, to me, says that the burden has shifted to the organisers to provide proof that it is happening, since the CEO of Formula One has stated, without opposition, that it's not happening if things remain the same... aka... a change MUST occur on the organiser's side for the event to happen as advertised in the article. Twirlypen (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Also, here's [The Independent] and [Toronto Sun], you know, just in case THAT came up again... Twirlypen (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Except that Bernie has a reputation for threatening the immediate future of a race as a means to bring about a conclusion. He might have said that if there was no progress, the race would not go ahead, but how do you explain the way he hasn't confirmed the cancellation? Furthermore, any mid-season changed need to be ratified by the WMSC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I get what you're saying, it has to go through all the politics. I just feel like we are telling our audience, "If nothing changes, the German GP will take place because it still says so on a dated calendar. Despite overwhelming, credible evidence that the FIA isn't willing to cut the organisers a break and venues aren't willing to bend over for Bernie, the event will still happen." Twirlypen (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Did you miss the "to be announced" as Germany's entry in the venue column? That clearly tells our readers that the race is currently on the calendar but is not certain to happen yet. Tvx1 09:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC) It might feel like we are misleading our audience by sitting on a potential source, but this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Bernie might have threatened to cancel the race, but there has been no follow-through from him or acknowledgement from the FIA. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I just disagree on the clarity part. You feel it "clearly" tells our readers that it's not certain to happen yet, but to me it's telling them that it will happen because it's on the calendar. At this point, saying it will happen would be news, as there's plenty of sources citing reputable individuals (not just Bernie – also folks within the venues) heavily suggesting that it's not going to happen. But alas, that would be original research. But we also can't say that it is going to happen in the face these sources, as that'd be crystal balling. So it appears I've succussfully argued myself between a rock and a hard place here and don't see this getting solved. Sigh. Twirlypen (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) We're not claiming it will happen. We're claiming it is on the calendar. Fundamental difference. I actually removed the map of races that will occur in 2015 because of that. Neither are we going by "a dated calendar". It is still on any calendar currently present in the sources. FOM still lists it, FIA even has an event page for it up and running. If we would remove it from the calendar now, we would literally have the ONLY calendar not including it. That would be in direct contradiction with the sources so we simply can't do that. Tvx1 10:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC) So, the German Grand Prix has been removed from the calender, based on [4] and [5]. But these sources say it won't be hosted at Hockenheim or Nurburgring, they aren't official FIA documents saying that there definitely isn't a German Grand Prix. Whilst it's almost certain there won't be one, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it is possible that another venue could hold the German Grand Prix, until such a time when it is officially cancelled. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC) The BBC article, at least, doesn't just say that it won't be hosted there, it literally states "there will be no German Grand Prix this year, the boss of the Hockenheim circuit has told a German newspaper." To me, that's more than an assumption, that's the CEO of the last remaining potential circuit telling a reputable newspaper that the German GP isn't on, and then a reputable news organisation relaying that information. The FIA's confirmation on this will likely come at the end of this week and will concrete things, but short of that I'm not sure how much clearer you can make it. Dancraggs (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) My argument is really that the Hockenheim CEO cannot say "There 100% isn't a German Grand Prix", they can only say "There 100% isn't a German Grand Prix at Hockenheim", because theoretically another venue could host it. I guess I'm being picky/overcautious about the situation, but it's still only like 99.9% certain there isn't a German GP. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Then we wait until the end of the week. There's no rush to remove it. We wait for official confirmation. Tvx1 19:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Also, if/when we remove it after official confirmation, please can we remove it from all the tables, not just the calender, but also the results, drivers and constructors' standings. Otherwise the article is self-contradictory. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC) That will happen. Off the top of my head, there's the calendar, the Grands Prix table, drivers and constructors results table templates, results table on individual driver, car, and team articles, and templates like current F1 Grand Prix venues and such. Don't worry, once announced, it'll be 2 hours before everything gets covered. It seems we are aching to just get this over with and out of the way, but it's true, we gotta wait for FIA confirmation. Twirlypen (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, I know that is how it should be done, however when the calendar was changed earlier, all the other tables weren't done. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Because the people making edits aren't regular editors of the project and don't know the seemingly extensive changes that need to be made at the loss of a race. I don't hold it against them, 9 times out of 10, it's in good faith. Twirlypen (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Now we have confirmation. Tvx1 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

New championship summary

If you want to continue doing the new style of championship summary, that's fine—but if it doesn't get updated, then I don't think that it is unreasonable to revert to the older style. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking to someone in particular, please tag them. Otherwise, I assume you're speaking to me, since I'm adding content to the Championship section. What seems to be the issue, and what older style are you refering to? The clunky prose "Mercedes is first, they finished first and third in race one, first and second in race two, third and retired in race three, etc, etc" that we used last year? Because I'd be against that entirely. There's no differnce between writing summaries for each race in team by team paragraph style than a round by round summary I suggested earlier, other than how it looks. One looks way cleaner and clearer than the other, and I think you know which side I stand on that.

As far as even reporting results, do we even need to write about every single result for every single race for every single team? We have tables and race articles for them. Maybe we can write about the progressive storyline of the season (not unlike what I'm trying to get started now). Keep the lead updated of course, but I'm thinking we don't really need to note every single result in the championship prose section. We did that last year and it was a total mess. You have to read through 11 different, somewhat long paragraphs to find information in each one on what happened at the Italian Grand Prix. Twirlypen (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just putting it out there for anyone who is editing that section. You're the ones with the vision of what it will ultimately look like, but if that vision follows the same lines as what has been written in previous versions of the article, then priorities are going to be out of order—focusing on smaller teams and the struggles of McLaren, with nothing about the championship as a whole. You might find the older version clunky, but at least it addresses the individual races and outcomes for every team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we have tables and individual race articles, right? Don't get me wrong, at some point certain outcomes will be worth noting beyond the tables we have specifically for that purpose, but as of right now, anyone would be hard-pressed to consider Force India's 7th and 10th place finish in the first round exceptionally noteworthy. It just so happens that the stories right now include the smaller teams. I can't control what's noteworthy, I'm sorry. Twirlypen (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

However, seeing the viewpoint you're coming from, I have added Mercedes to the section, which also helped tie together Red Bull's post race response. Twirlypen (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Swiss flag positioning

Currently we have:

McLaren

  Sauber

Toro Rosso

How would people feel if it were like this:

McLaren

   Sauber

Toro Rosso

Trivial, I know. Just spitballing ideas. Twirlypen (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks a little bit better IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Easy. Just do it like that

Team		Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Drivers		Rounds
	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	SF15-T	Ferrari	P	5 7		Sebastian Vettel Kimi Räikkönen	1 1
	Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	C34	Ferrari	P	9 12		Marcus Ericsson Felipe Nasr	1 1

Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Solid solution. That also negates the different displays my offering shows in different browsers (I posted that on desktop, and it looked terrible when I viewed it again on mobile). Twirlypen (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think that's an issue that demands immediate attention. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC) It doesn't work. Flags are all crunched up on mobile like that. Flags HAVE to be in te same cell as the text. Tvx1 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

PM, I specifically stated that this was trivial and I was just tossing ideas out there, hence I didn't demand immediate attention. Twirlypen (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, just trivial stuff. Create a sandbox for it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)