Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Manor?

Shouldn't the constructor name be Manor in 2016? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source stating that the constructor name will change (e.g. this)? We don't just assume these things. Tvx1 13:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't have any source that it is going to stay Marussia either and Manor is the far more likely option, I'd say... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't go by likelihoods. As long as no change has been announced we have to consider it stays the same. Tvx1 14:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to do that. Both version have no sources yet. Writing TBA for a constructor name would be the cleanest version. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Because at the present, they are Marussia. And as long as they haven't announced a change, they remain Marussia. I'll remind you that this table isn't meant to predict the future. We report on how it stands today. And on this day, the active constructor is Marussia. So we obey that. Tvx1 14:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree and say that Marussia is not an active constructor. There is an almost 2 year old car built by Marussia raced by a team named Manor. I repeat: There is as little indication that the car's name will be Marussia MR04 than for any other name. It will probably not change is pure speculation and a pretty bad one, considering the team name has already changed. I still opt for writing TBA for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but Marussia is an active constructor. There was a constructor called Marussia, with an entrant called Manor Marussia, on the entry list for the recent-most Grand Prix. And while the original car on which the current one is based is nearly two years old, it has been heavily modified since and its current guise isn't that old. I never said "it probably won't change". I said that as of today it hasn't been changed and as we cannot go beyond established facts of the day we have to obey that. To put it simple, the constructor that has made a deal with Mercedes is Marussia, not Manor. Tvx1 15:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The deal with Mercedes was done by a team called Manor who race in a car built by a constructor formerly known as Marussia. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, look at the source I provided. The constructor is still known as Marussia and the team is Manor Marussia. Tvx1 19:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase — I think you're confusing the team name with the constructor name. The team name is what the team call themselves. The constructor name is what the FIA calls them. More importantly, the constructor name is what the FIA credits results to. While I agree that it is likely that the constructor name will change to Manor in 2016, they need to formally lodge paperwork with the FIA to make that change, and we do mot have a source to say that they have done so yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But that still means that the agreement was between Mercedes and Manor and not between Mercedes and Marussia, because the deal was made with the team and not the theoretical entity that is the constructor named by the FIA. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And you now wikilinking the constructor to the former Marussia team is completely the icing on the absurdity cake. So the 2016 Manor car is supposed to be built by a team/constructor whose article we end in 2014?? That makes no sense whatsoever! I still say: Please let us write TBA. That is the cleanest way to do it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The team known as Manor is operating as Marussia. It's an awkward situation to be sure, but that's the name that the FIA recognises. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Until otherwise stated, it would be counterproductive to refer to teams in prose as "the team currently known as Manor Marussia will switch from Ferrari to Mercedes." and "The teams currently known as Red Bull and STR will no longer use Renault power units." ... and the like. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We should probably go ahead and merge the Marussia and Manor Marussia articles, which I believe makes sense, but I would say it should be merged into the Manor Marussia article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Manor Marussia" is not and never was a constructor. While there is some scope for interpretation in the regulations, we cannot go making up constructors because it is convenient. The articles should be merged, and they should be merged into Marussia F1 because that is the constructor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the 2015 entry list, the column assumed to be constructors is referred to as "name of the chassis". Seeing as Manor quite literally are using the 2014 Marussia chassis for 2015, then it makes sense that Marussia would be the constructor for 2015 (even if it's a 2014 car). However, if Manor is indeed making a new chassis for 2016, I don't think we should be going around claiming that it will be called a Marussia - especially when there's sources that state Manor kept the Marussia name solely for their prize money from 2014. Given that, I propose that Manor Marussia F1 Team be kept, as they do have engines for 2016 and that is the current name of the F1 team, but that the chassis be TBA-Mercedes. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We just use the term "Manor Marussia" in prose to differentiate between the 2014 team known as Marussia F1 Team and the 2015 team known as Manor Marussia F1 Team. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would just wait until we know for certain what they intend to do. Sure, it might take a few months, but there's no hurry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that means you think we should leave it as Marussia or change it to TBA and then add the name later. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Twirlypen — leave it as Marussia. That's the name they are known by now, even if they intend to change it in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out at the project talk page, that is incorrect. The car is known as Marussia. The team, Manor Grand Prix Racing, Ltd., is entered as Manor Marussia F1 Team. The only thing that should be refered to as Marussia are the constructor results and the car. The team is Manor/Manor Marussia. Marussia folded in 2014. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And are you looking to change the team name or the constructor name? The team name is okay (but "TBA" is probably better), but you can't change the constructor name. That's just making up a constructor that never existed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it say TBA-Mercedes in the context that the constructor will literally be called TBA. Really? Anyway, seeing as the sources exist that state Manor Grand Prix Racing (the actual name of the team) only kept the Marussia name for the 2014 prize money (which doesn't unreasonably suggest that Manor fully intends to drop it as soon as it's no longer profitable), it's a stretch that they will use it again in 2016 unless they miraculously score points by the end of 2015. I actually think the team name should be changed to just that (Entrant: Manor Grand Prix Racing/Constructor: TBA-Mercedes). Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the entrant be "TBA" with a footnote explaining the situation (succinctly) and the constructor name being Marussia-Mercedes because that's what we know them to be for now. You are correct in saying that it is a stretch that they will use Marussia as a constructor name, but we cannot prove that they will not—and any change needs to be supported by a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of everyone's sanity, I suggest not changing anything until others weigh in on these specific proposals. Also, again, we don't know them to be Marussia. Marussia is the car. They are known as Manor Marussia, or even just Manor. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"They are known as Manor Marussia, or even just Manor."

Not according to the FIA. The FIA currently recognise them as Marussia, and will continue to recognise them as Marussia until such time as they apply to change the name. In the absence of any source stating that they have changed their name or intend to change the name, calling them anything else is speculation and original research—it is creating a constructor that never existed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What's OR is the insistance that the FIA doesn't recognize the team name at all in favor of the constructor name for the chassis. The only thing credited to Marussia are results. The FIA blatantly recognizes the team as "Manor Marussia F1 Team" entering a chassis known as "Marussia". It's right there on the entry list. It's even where we got the team name from to begin with. I don't know how much more plainly I can say it:

Marussia = car
Manor Marussia F1 Team = team
Marussia ≠ team

Cars are not teams, nor are team names dictated by the name of their chassis. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

But constructor names are. The sporting regulations specifically state that the name of the chassis must be derived directly from the constructor name. The team currently use the Marussia MR03B, which means that the constructor name must be Marussia.

As for the team name changing, please show me a source where the team's 2016 name is officially recognised as anything other than "Manor Marussia F1 Team". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A consensus appears to develop to use TBA-Mercedes for the time being, which I strongly support. I still don't understand why many here claim that we should continue writing Marussia as a constructor just because they are the constructor of the current car. We have no source indicating that the car will bear that name and it is also a very unlikely option, considering that there is no Marussia anymore who could build a chassis. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is why the team for 2015 is known as Manor Marussia F1 Team instead of what they actually are, Manor Grand Prix Racing, because they only had the car built under the Marussia name. That is the team's functioning name beyond the carousel of names they have used since 2010, and that can be sourced. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 11:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone even bother checking the sources that are provided in these discussions? Right from the start I provided the entry list for last weekend's Grand Prix. So here it is again: The entry list for the 2015 Japanese Grand Prix. It literally states Marussia Ferrari under constructor and Manor Marussia F1 Team under team. What more do you want? Tvx1 11:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not too hard to understand. Of course they give Marussia for the 2015 Japanese Grand Prix, because the MR03 was built by Marussia. But the 2016 car will not be built by Marussia. This is very simple. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"I still don't understand why many here claim that we should continue writing Marussia as a constructor just because they are the constructor of the current car."

Because we need to show continuity—we need to show that the team that competed in 2015 is competing in 2016, and since we don't have a team name, we have to keep the constructor name. Because we're talking about future events. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, that's what you think. But we don't know that for sure. The facts are that Marussia has already talked about the plans for their next car with the press. Tvx1 11:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, we're not talking about what the name will be, we're talking about what we can source and prove right now. Currently, there is no source saying the name will be changed, so we're forced to continue with their current name: Manor Marussia. We're all F1 fans, we all know how this works, and I highly doubt anyone here expects "Marussia" to be part of the team name in 2016. We're not arguing against you on that point. But that's still technically speculative, and this isn't a place for speculation. Eightball (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, no one seriously believes the car will be named Marussia, and there is no source indicating that it will be. So why should we write Marussia there? I don't get it. PM writes Because we need to show continuity. If that were the case, then the table should look like this:

Entrant	Constructor	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Drivers
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	Ferrari	P	5	Sebastian Vettel
				7	Kimi Räikkönen
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Jordan-TBA	TBA	P	11	Sergio Pérez
				27	Nico Hülkenberg
Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	TBA	TBA
				TBA	TBA
Lotus F1 Team	Toleman-TBA	TBA	P	13	Pastor Maldonado
				TBA	TBA
Manor Marussia F1 Team	Virgin-Mercedes	Mercedes	P	TBA	TBA
				TBA	TBA
McLaren Honda	McLaren-Honda	Honda	P	14	Fernando Alonso
				22	Jenson Button
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Matra International-Mercedes	Mercedes	P	6	Nico Rosberg
				44	Lewis Hamilton
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Stewart-TBA	TBA	P	3	Daniel Ricciardo
				TBA	TBA
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-TBA	TBA	P	9	Marcus Ericsson
				12	Felipe Nasr
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Minardi-TBA	TBA	P	33	Max Verstappen
				TBA	TBA
Williams Martini Racing	Williams-TBA	TBA	P	19	Felipe Massa
				77	Valtteri Bottas

Now you're just being petty.

It doesn't help that we have the Manor Marussia F1 article, which to be blunt, probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. Hopefully we can collapse it into Marussia F1 soon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What anyone believes doesn't matter at all. Wikipedia operates on what we can prove. And you simply can't prove that it will change. You're just assuming it will because it happened in the past in similar events. Tvx1 11:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

When PM says "continuity," he means sticking with the current name until proven otherwise. Eventually an updated 2016 entry list will be released and it will settle this once and for all. Until then, we can't do anything but stick with the current name - Marussia. Would it help to put in some kind of note clarifying this? "Team name TBA pending 2016 entry list" or something? Just spitballing here. Eightball (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::As far as I can see, Prisonermonkeys has already taken care of that. Tvx1 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol, is that new or am I blind? Anyway, I think that helps a lot. Prisonermonkeys, IF Marussia is indeed renamed to Manor next year, would it not makes sense to just rename the "Manor Marussia F1" article to "Manor F1 Team," or whatever their new name is? Despite the name, as of this season they are a distinct entity from Marussia F1, as they're under new ownership. Eightball (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It would, if the 2015 activities are moved to the Marussia article. That would be similar to how we dealt with Lotus/Renault in 2011. Tvx1 11:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I give it one more try before I give up: The point to stick with the current constructor name until it is proven that it will change is nonsense, because: 1) You cannot prove that it will stay the same, just as little as you can prove that it will change. 2) Since both option cannot be proven, we should write TBA. 3) If we don't write TBA, we do we choose the less likely option?? It just makes no sense! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't "pick the less likely option". We report the current status. And currently they are Marussia. Writing TBA is telling our readers it might change. And we have no proof that there even is a remote intent for it to be changed. Tvx1 11:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, once more: No, they are not. They just race a car built by Marussia. There is a difference there! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball — no. The FIA will recognise Marussia and "Manor" (or whatever name they use) as two separate constructors. It's like this: Marussia originally started out as Virgin, but they are similarly separate. Likewise Jaguar becoming Red Bull, or Honda becoming Brawn becoming Mercedes. The FIA recognises all of them separately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Was Marussia always considered an entrant of "Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd?" If so, I'd agree with you. But if they changed the company name for 2015 then I'd think we'd consider 2015 Manor Marussia a separate entity from 2014 Marussia. Love these FOM rules about names/prize money. We cannot win. Eightball (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't. There was never a constructor called "Manor Marussia". We cannot invent a constructor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Or else we'd have to consider Marussia Virgin a separate entity from Virgin as well. Tvx1 12:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I checked, Virgin/Marussia/Manor has always entered as Manor whatever, etc. Ltd, so the point I was going to make is irrelevant anyway. Eightball (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know why we are picking fights where there is none. I have read this discussion over and over and I just cannot find anyone suggesting that the constructor be changed from Marussia-Mercedes to Manor Marussia-Mercedes or Manor-Mercedes, except PM emphatically stating that it cannot be done because those constructor names don't exist. Nobody is suggesting that the constructor be changed from Marussia-Mercedes to anything except the few of us that suggested TBA-Mercedes. The only column being affected by this Manor/Manor Marussia talk is the Entrant column. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you explicitly state which column you want to change instead of just proposing a name change? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should be spearheading any further discussions if you didn't know that my references to Manor Grand Prix Racing meant the entrant team name and TBA-Mercedes meant the constructor, especially when I explicitly stated the difference several times in this discussion alone; here's one:

"What's OR is the insistance that the FIA doesn't recognize the team name at all in favor of the constructor name for the chassis. The only thing credited to Marussia are results. The FIA blatantly recognizes the team as "Manor Marussia F1 Team" entering a chassis known as "Marussia". It's right there on the entry list. It's even where we got the team name from to begin with. I don't know how much more plainly I can say it:

Marussia = car

Manor Marussia F1 Team = team

Marussia ≠ team

Cars are not teams, nor are team names dictated by the name of their chassis."

Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's where things get complicated—teams have as many as four names:

1. The team name, or the name they use to refer to themselves (like "Infiniti Red Bull Racing").
2. The constructor name, or the name that the FIA uses and to which all results are credited.
3. The trading name, or the name that the team uses when conducting business like dealing with suppliers.
4. The holding company nane, or the name of the entity that owns the entry if that entity is separate to the team.

So given the complexity of it, do you honestly think that it's unreasonable to ask that editors are clear in which name(s) they are suggesting that we change? Especially considering that Wikipedia also uses entrant name in the article, and we have editors who have different levels of understanding. While it might be clear to you as to which name you are talking about, that doesn't mean that it's clear to anyone—much less everyone—else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that I and at least a couple others have made clear in our arguments that the constructor (as in, the constructor column) should be TBA-Mercedes, no actually. I think just about anyone, familiar with F1 or not, would pick up in this discussion that we are referring to the constructor's column, where everything is listed "Constructor-Supplier", and not the entrant column, where absolutely nothing is listed in that fashion. Stop using the "casual readers could be really really really dumb" argument. We are not arguing with casual readers, we are arguing (as always) with you. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And as has been pointed out, this is not an article being writtem for the future. This is an article about the future based on information available in the present. Given the rigmarole involved in changing a constructor name—Marussia being a perfect example of this—changing the constructor name to "TBA-Mercedes" implies that the name will be changed. And because it is so significant, you need a source to support the idea that the constructor name will change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it implies that the name is not known. This is further sourced with RS stating that Manor Grand Prix Racing kept the Marussia name for 2015 because A) Marussia built the car they were using for 2015, and B) to access the prize money won by Marussia in 2014. This piece of information is more than suitable to indicate to our readers NOT that the constructor name will surely change, but rather that it is simply not known. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And if they were keeping Ferrari engines, maybe I would agree with you. But given that they are changing to Mercedes power and because they may keep the name should they score points this year, "Marussia-Mercedes" best represents the situation. Because once again, we have to use the constructor names that the FIA uses, and they are currently known as "Marussia". So, you want to make the change? Prove it with a reliable, verifiable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And if they had scored points, your argument would hold water. However, they currently have not, and there is nothing that suggests they will either unless 2005 USGP happens or miraculously half the field retires. Their power unit is outdated and so is the car. You can't say "we have to go by what they are currently known as" and then go completely against that by saying "well they might score points in the future". If you want to use the "current" argument, then they are currently known as Marussia, currently are using the name due to the 2014 points, and currently have not scored anything in 2015. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And they are currently known as Marussia, and have not currently given any indication that they intend to change. The deal with Mercedes was carried out by Manor Grand Prix Ltd., the parent company that also owns Marussia. So once again, we're back at square one: where is your proof that they intend to change? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring previous comments doesn't mean they don't exist. I already posted proof in this discussion. You can go find it. They have given plenty of indication that they intend to drop the Marussia name as soon as it's not profitable for them - IE: once they stop using Marussia's MR03B and Marussia's prize money. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I find it very strange that the current version of the table pretends that we know the constructor name will be Marussia (for which we have no proof and what is very unlikely), but that we pretend not to know what the team name will be (in this case I would absolutely agree that we have to assume that it will remain the same until proven otherwise!). Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're assuming that we are writing for the future when we are writing about the future for the present.

"They have given plenty of indication that they intend to drop the Marussia name as soon as it's not profitable for them. "

Prove that it will not be profitable in 2016. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Umm, prove that it will. I can prove that they have ZERO POINTS and that Marussia Motors (a defunct Russian automobile company) is currently contributing exactly ZERO MONEY aside from the prize money from 2014 (which affects the 2016 team budget in exactly ZERO ways). Zwerg, that is what I have been saying the entire time, but apparantly we are back to PM's way and everyone else has to provide the burden of proof (which has already been done - but if you do, they will ignore it anyway or just challenge it as an RS), or else the discussion gets dragged out to the point of ridiculousness and the article/project grinds to a halt until they are satisfied (read: gets their way). It's one damn thing after another, the only breaks or periods of calmness we have around here are when they're blocked. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Some other editors also appear to have missed the article that states that the team's use of the Marussia name is explicitly temporary. I believe it was Tvx1 that said there was no indication that they intend to change it. This is a blatantly false assumption. They do intend to change it and it has been proven with sources. To what is what the mystery is, which is why TBA states that nobody knows what it will be, plain and simple. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"apparantly we are back to PM's way [...] the discussion gets dragged out to the point of ridiculousness and the article/project grinds to a halt until they are satisfied [...] It's one damn thing after another, the only breaks or periods of calmness we have around here are when they're blocked."

I am sure that User:NE Ent will be very interested to read this comment given that he told you less than forty-eight hours ago to "play the ball, not the man". I am sorry that I have to drag him into this, but when you make comments like this, you leave me with little choice. You have not adequately made the case—certainly not to the extent that you think you have—because if you had, I would have been persuaded to change my mind. And here you are, sniping at other editors to try and discredit them in the eyes of others—a suggestion that you scoffed at two days ago when it was suggested at ANI.

The burden of proof rests with you. You are the one suggesting that the name will change; therefore, you are the one who needs to prove it. And so far, you have only provided a single source, which only says that the team will use the name in 2015. There is nothing about their 2016 plans, so making statements about their 2016 plans on the back of that source is presumptuous. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

First you want me to provide a source, so I do (which does in fact state the terms of their use of the Marussia name in 2015 - if you did in fact read the article). Now you want me to provide multiple sources. You're flip-flopping just so your argument stays afloat, gradually demanding more and more proof each time the previous criterium is met. Seeing how this discussion began, I don't think assumption has anything to do with it at this point - my responses have solely been based on the stubbornness you have shown, and the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One prove that my statement about peace and quiet in the project are not baseless nor unfounded. So go ahead, call in the cavalry. This is absurd. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Second, stop claiming that I am advocating that the name will change. I am advocating that the name is not known based on previous sources that state the reasons Manor continued to use the Marussia name for 2015 (which, for the seventeenth time, is because they are using Marussia's 2014 car and wanted Marussia's 2014 prize money). Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I did read the article you supplied. This is the only paragraph that addresses the bsming issue:

"The entry's company name is still listed as Manor Grand Prix Racing Limited, but the team name has been revised to include the Marussia title. They will be known as Manor Marussia F1 team as the chassis will still carry the Marussia title, despite the sponsorship deal ending, which is likely to ensure they remain entitled to their prize money from 2014."

There is absolutely nothing here about changing the name in 2016. There is nothing about not using the name, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of the thing itself. I mean, all the article really says is "the team will continue to use the Marussia name, even though they are not working with the company Marussia anymore" and speculating on why they might have chosen to do that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't know where all of that was coming from earlier in the season. I expressly remember a discussion that had this very subject around the center of it. Possibly the one where we (as a community) couldn't decide if the car was the MR03 or the MNR1. It was between Manor coming out of administration and the start of the season. Unless I'm the crazy one and imagined the whole thing. I don't know anymore. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys Yes, we are writing about the future for the present. And at the present time there is no longer a Marussia company that could built a chassis for 2016 so at the present we cannot write that the constructor will be called Marussia. That is just irresponsible because we write that against our better knowledge! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Our "better knowledge" doesn't count for much if we don't have a source to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to pre-discussion format. No consensus was ever reached to change it. Based on the argument of "this is the current name of the team", then, as you insist, a verifiable source must be included that the team intends to change it's name, because, in your words, having TBA implies that the team will change it's name. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care anymore. Just do whatever the hell you feel like. You always do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is getting ever more ridiculous. We had a discussion about changing the table, started by me. No consensus was reached to change it, so Twirlypen restored the pre-discussion version, which is the right thing to do. That is certainly not "doing what the hell he feels like", since he feels like changing it to TBA. While I am extremely unhappy with the fact that we did not reach a consensus, I concur that we do not change the table until we get a provisional start list (or any other sort of proper confirmation). Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we please, please stop all this fighting? This is not a battle to be won. We are not a war here. We just need to find a way in a constructive manner to best represent the situation to our readers. Using the 2015 names for both the entrant and the constructor is the best way, because we cannot prove that they might change them. This is the exact same way we dealt with Lotus, Renault and Virgin for the 2012 season before they changed their names to Caterham, Lotus and Marussia respectively. I will add that the same rationale applies to Lotus currently. Despite Renault signing a letter of intent to take the team over, we have no proof (yet) that they will change its names. So the changes made yesterday were utterly out of place. I'll remind you that Renault bought the Benetton team back in early 2000, but kept running the team as Benetton for both 2000 and 2001 before changing it to Renault in 2002. Tvx1 12:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We ask that every time. It never happens. Because we don't form a consensus—what we have is two factions who bunker down and repeat their position over and over and over until the other side gets tired and gives up. Nothing that we do is constructive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The constructor is currently Marussia. We call them Marussia because that's what they currently are, not what they are going to be. We don't know what they are going to be. It could be Manor. It could be something else. It probably won't be Marussia, but that's irrelevant. Why? Because WE DON'T KNOW. There's no source. There's no statement from the team saying "this will be our 2016 name." There's no updated 2016 entry list with a different name. We have literally ONE option, and that's to refer to them by their current name. Why is this so difficult to understand? Eightball (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I must say I find it hilarious that Eightball, of all people, remains the most friendly and constructive contributor to this discussion. A wholehearted thanks for that to them. Tvx1 12:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's because I sympathize with everyone's perspective. As F1 fans, we're all well aware of how name changes work wrt prize money, and thus we know that it makes little sense for the Marussia named to be maintained beyond 2015. However, as wiki editors, we can't make that assumption. We have to wait until an official announcement is made. Until then, we're forced to keep the current name - Marussia. Eightball (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't sum it up any better. Tvx1 12:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Any of you guys know when the provisional entry list for next year is typical released? Eightball (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In November, I believe. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe entrants have until the 30th of november to pay their entry fees. So, a provisional entry list is usually published in early december. Tvx1 16:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just advocating that if anything should have been TBA, it should be the constructor column. However, given the arguments of what teams are currently known as are what we go by, then it made no sense to have ANY column be TBA. In fact, I agree that it's better this way. However, it goes against the Lotus flag being blanked too. The note should remain because their situation is well-documented with sources, but they are currently a British team and there is no indication that they won't be in the future. Renault may even keep the Lotus name for all we know. So in the interest of consistency, the flag should remain British until proven otherwise that it won't be. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And I see someone has already done this exact thing. Disregard! Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't who it was who wrote that Manor made the 2016 power unit deal with Mercedes, but that claim was wrong. Manor Marussia F1 Team made the deal with Mercedes. And please notice how Manor Marussia is mentioned multiple times in relation to 2016 in that source. Tvx1 14:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, Andy Cowell states in that article that they are happy staying at three customer teams (Marussia, Williams, and I can only assume to be Force India if he is not counting themselves as one of them). That's a LOT of TBAs currently counting on Ferrari... Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Kvyat/RBR

I'm sure this was already talked about at some point because I remember a period where Kvyat was added a bunch, but Horner is quoted as saying he has no intentions of replacing Kvyat for 2016. I am guessing this would not hold water before I even add it. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

By the logic applied above, he should be added "because we have no reason to believe it will change"........ Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. If Horner went on the record, then obviously there is a source that could be used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Like this one, where he is quoted, "I don't see any reason to change [the driver line-up] ... We don't have to be in any rush to make a decision but both the drivers are on long term contracts and it's a successful partnership."?? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I get it. It makes no sense. But these are the rules and policies of Wikipedia, not the community. Some projects choose to look the other way on certain obvious things until an outsider calls them out on it. We all know that Lotus (or whatever they will be called) will use Renault engines. But as I explained to another editor in a previous discussion, the principles of ALLORNOTHING also apply to these kinds of discussions. One outcome does not correlate to the outcome of another. That is why we continue to have discussions, even on topics that might seem like the same rules apply. If a discussion is needed, then a discussion will be held. I would consider Horner (a team principal) being quoted at the end of August as not intending to change his drivers as satisfactory enough to include Kvyat, but I also know some other editors demand something more concrete, like a handwritten, stamped letter from Dietrich Mateschitz himself, read aloud in front of the FIA. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If, like the espn-Source suggests, Kvyat is actually on contract for next year, I don't really see a reason not to include him. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Horner said he is, with no intention to be replaced. This actually makes his exclusion purely OR. I'm adding him. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's actually a far better source than the 2013 one we have for Ricciardo... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Ricciardo's source gives a solid three-year statement, which in nearly all cases is better than "long-term" or "multi-year". Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, but the source is still 2 years old and we all know what a fast-changing business it is... Also, practically speaking: Red Bull said they would not compete if they don't have a competitive engine. They do not at the moment. So at the present point, shouldn't both teams be taken from the table? That is the best knowledge we have at this point... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Heavily oppose. Threats ≠ action. The drivers have contracts, and until Red Bull emphatically says they will not compete (leaving out the ifs, etc. afterwards), then they and STR should remain in the table. Deducing that Red Bull will not compete because they do not currently have a competitive (or any) engine for 2016 is SYNTH, as a source does not exist stating their definitive exit. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, up until the deal with Renault fell through officially, the source used for that was from 2011 stating a fresh 5-year deal starting in 2012. It's all about what can be proven with sources, while simultaneously leaving out the OR and SYNTH aspect, which goes on a lot here ("multi-year still means they could get dropped" etc, etc. that we hear a lot). Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Zwerg Nase. For the umpteenth time, this table does not intend to tell our readers who will certainly compete in 2016 (which would be a violation of WP:Crystal). It intends to tell our readers who is currently contracted to compete in 2016. Whether or not these contracts get honored is beyond our concern. Tvx1 09:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I should bring it up ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RBR Engine supplier

I think that the entry of RBR Renault for the next season, should be checked because they're (supposedly) finished their engine partnership with Renault and that means, Red Bull don't have an engine supplier for the next year yet.

So, I think that the best idea to edit the F1 2016 page it's to put, to the Engine Supplier line, an TBA flag.

Entrant	Constructor	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Drivers
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull	TBA	P	3	Daniel Ricciardo
				26	Daniil Kvyat

References

Red Bull's contract with Renault is still in place, they just aren't sure whether it will go ahead or not. CDRL102 (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If the source can't be verified, then it can't be used. "I saw it on TV", no matter how fancy it's worded, fails WP:RS if it can't be verified. Material supported by unverifiable sources can be challenged by anyone and removed. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

[1] verifies that it might be Renault engines next season. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hasn't Renault emphatically stated that they will not supply customer engines in 2016? This just sounds like RBR talked themselves into a corner after getting snubbed by Mercedes and Ferrari. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Renault did. IMO, TBA is the best option until something actually gets confirmed. After all, Red Bull and Renault have a contract for 2016, which may or may not have already been terminated. Thus, there's no actual information on who the engine supplier will be, so keep it as TBA. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No Renault haven't. They have always maintained that they would honor their existing contracts if necessary. Tvx1 21:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that Sky upload their coverage to their website, it's a bit difficult to argue that it can't be verified. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. The coverage footage they upload to their website is only viewable if you are using a device that has a UK IP address. Tvx1 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It can't be verified by you. It can, however, be verified by others. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf." Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the sources you use carefully. The one you provided does not state they have a 2016 Renault contract. Quite on the contrary, it states they no power unit supply deal at all and that they are reconsidering Renault as one of their options. Tvx1 11:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not deny that Sky had that interview, but the first reference you used didn't link to anything. It was basically "I saw it, trust me". Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And your interpretation of WP:VERIFY amounts to "if I can't verify it, it's not a valid source". I will direct your attention back to WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OWN. Lately you seem to be acting as the gatekeeper for the articles; every edit needs to be approved by you before it gets included in the article. You need to stop trying to micro-manage every article and trust that other editors are capable of making decisions that improve the quality of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The waving around OWN and accusation of micro-managing should go into the irony page. That was good. It works for you, it should work for me, right? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Prove me wrong—stop policing every edit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Verstappen unconfirmed

I think he mean two years generally or 2014 and 2015. Eurohunter (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you need to speculate on what he may or may not mean, it's not grounds to add or remove content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2015

The Force India team name should be renamed to Aston Martin. planetf1.com/news/force-india-to-be-rebranded-as-aston-martin/ GSHARK265 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Article clearly states the deal has not been made or announced. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And I think that there are better sources out there than PlanetF1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Until it's actually confirmed, then no. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Jolyon Palmer car number

Hello, I believe that Jolyon Palmer used number 30 during the 2015 season. Should this be filled in for 2016 season already ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overtaking is an Art Max33 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Drivers in free practice get a number assigned depending on what team they drive for. They can choose a new number once they actually enter a Grand Prix. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Overtaking is an Art Max33 and Zwerg Nase: Correct, free practice drivers (and any driver that takes a seat mid-season) get assigned a random number, but Palmer will get to choose a new number next season. See for example Will Stevens, who is #28 this season, but was #46 when he drove in 2014. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you actually only get to choose your number when you enter the season at the very beginning, see Stevens, who had the 46 for an actual GP. Also, the question if the practice numbers are random is an interesting one, we don't seem to be able to find out how exactly they are assigned... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not not quite, Alexander Rossi chose his #53 mid-season. Tvx1 22:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

True... damn this is confusing! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase:

"Also, the question if the practice numbers are random is an interesting one, we don't seem to be able to find out how exactly they are assigned."

I believe that they are assigned after all of the numbers are chosen. Each team gets the first two consecutive numbers that are free. Rossi originally wanted #15 or #16, but was told that they were reserved for the Red Bull's FP1 driver, so he opted for #53 instead. Should Jolyon Palmer choose #15 or #16, then either Red Bull will be reassigned their FP1 numbers (probably #45 and #46, the first two available), or the entire grid will be reassigned based on 2015 WCC positions.

As for Rossi getting free choice when Stevens did not, I would say that the FIA has softened their stance and allowed drivers free choice when they enter, probably if they are making multiple appearances. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually remembered your post here, where we were still left a little confused on the matter, concerning the order of how they were assigned. Re-reading it though, it does make more sense than I remember it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No that's just not right. It doesn't add up with the facts. Oliver Turvey used 33 for testing this season, after it had already been picked by Verstappen as a career number, while Pierre Gasly used 31 while testing for Red Bull this season, thus not 15 or 16.

As for Rossi, I think that the clear difference with him and Stevens (and in fact Lotterer) was that they were only drafted in as a one-off replacement (they only got a one-race contract), whereas Rossi received a more long-term contract. Tvx1 00:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it really matter? The only thing that it possibly affects in the number column for FP1 drivers, and if there is any confusion, we have sources to back up their use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you bother to flesh out a number theory in the first place? Tvx1 01:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

To answer somebody's question. It seemed the polite thing to do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and you are not usually polite anyway. Zwærg Nase (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the above comment was not written by me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed these comments made last night and didn't even realize it was a fake. Guess I should pay more attention. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User was just blocked. Let's see if it happens again... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Gene Haas

Gene Haas enters NASCAR under the Stewart-Haas Racing name, Not Haas CNC Racing. Haas CNC Racing was used from 2003 to 2008, Tony Stewart brought 50% of the team so it should be Stewart-Haas Racing Not Haas CNC Racing and gene it not a founder in NASCAR He is Co-owner with Tony Stewart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.245.161 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the same team with a new name. Haas founded it as Haas CNC, then Stewart bought into it and the team was renamed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not the same team. Zwærg Nase (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why does Haas CNC Racing redirect to Stewart-Haas Racing? My understanding is that Haas started the team as Haas CNC, and then Stewart bought in, at which point it was rebranded Stewart-Haas. The use of the redirect and the text of the article support this:

"Stewart-Haas Racing is a NASCAR racing team co-owned by three-time Sprint Cup Series champion Tony Stewart and Haas Automation founder Gene Haas. It was founded in 2003 as Haas CNC Racing after Haas, whose company was a sponsor ofHendrick Motorsports, elected to form his own team. In 2009, Stewart, who had been driving for Joe Gibbs Racing but was not happy with the team's switch to Toyota, wanted to get back to racing for Chevrolet. Haas, who has fielded General Motors cars since the team was founded, made a deal for Stewart to drive for his team and in return receive a 75% stake in it."

So please, explain how they are completely different teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, so now someone is claiming to be me. I am kind of flattered. Where do I report that wacko? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Looks like they've been blocked already. Guessing it's the same troll as User:Prisonernonkeys (and they impersonated at least 1 other person). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't even spot that. I just figured Zwerg has customised his signature. The impersonator usually only ever shows up when there is a disagreement among the editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Renault back to F1 in 2016

Please change Lotus F1 Team to Renault F1 Team, because Renault Buy lotus and will back in 2016 season. Jhowfragabr (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done:. The article already says that Renault bought Lotus, and includes this note: "Renault announced the purchase of Lotus F1 Team, but have yet to confirm the team's identity." RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Infiniti

With Red Bull having announced using Tag Heuer badged power units someone removed Infiniti from Red Bull's name. However I haven't seen anything in the reliable sources that states that Red Bull and Infinti have terminated their partnership. Why was this removed then? Tvx1 02:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I originally changed the team name to Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer, since I understood their press release as this would be their team name, since they stated the car would be the "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer RB12". But looking at their release now again, I believe you're right. The graphic clearly says: TAG Heuer and Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2016. I'll change it back. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it's been announced that Red Bull will lose their Infiniti branding in 2016. Obviously Infiniti is included in the TAG Heuer announcement because that is their current name. But I can't find that source so perhaps this is just a very strong rumor? Eightball (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would expect them to drop it, but it probably also depends on what name Lotus will be changed into, since they are considering Nissan there... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they are changing the name to Renault. Eightball (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

They have announced the split with Infiniti tonight. That answers that question already.Tvx1 21:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)