Talk:2017 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Because this page is related to the upcoming FIA Formula one 2017 season) --90.213.142.54 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

McLaren Honda Power Unit.

There was a change removed due to un cited sources that Mclaren would have the Honda powerunit for 2017. As far as I am aware they have a 15 year contract but I can't seem to find a source so thats probably false.Georgeday868 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you don't have a source, it can't be added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The only credible source I could find said "multi-year", which would apply to 2015 & 2016 only. Twirlypen (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

BBC source?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33479911 Pch172 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that gives us some specific information. A 10-year contract. Tvx1 16:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It also describes a crumbling relationship. Nonetheless, it's a current contract. Twirlypen (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

2018 Redirect

Don't lose your pants, guys. It's just a redirect to get rid of the redlink in the infobox. Twirlypen (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

As seen on my talk page here and here, the only reason presented has been generally "I don't feel like reverting edits", which does not fall under A7 criteria. --Twirlypen (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If all the references used in the 2016 article are removed what is left? If it is not an article independant of the content in the 2016 article then that is a reason for deletion and is why this article has been deleted before. (CSD A10) The content must have a high level of material specific to the 2017 season. --Falcadore (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that an AFD from 2010 has relevance to 2017 Formula One season? The 2010 AFD did not delete the article on the 2013 season that was over 2 years away. Yet the period for this article is under 2 years away. So the AFD is irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If those references also apply to 2017, and should be removed based on them being previously used, then I'll find new sources. (Good heavens, the calendar is 90% similar to 2016. I've never ever seen a calendar change so unsubstantially in my life!) Further, I'll then remove all repeated sources used multiple times across the project since that is some sort of unspoken rule, as many of the older race reports are quite simply just copies of each other (moreso than this one is of the 2016 article, even) with some different names in place. Twirlypen (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No I don't consider it relelvant. Which is why I refer you to the deletion performed on April this year. Just three months ago.

And finding different sources that say the same thing doesn't change a damn thing. The CONTENT has to be independent of the 2016 article, not just the references. --Falcadore (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The intro and infobox is standard among the project, so there's no sense in debating that. As already pointed out, there are calendar differences between 2016 & 2017 (albeit only slightly), even two years ahead of time, we know this and it is sourced. The driver table, also due to the way we set it up (not showing teams until at least one driver is confirmed), will also not drastically change from 2016 until most likely well after 2016 has started (which wasn't a blocking point on the 2016 article I might add). I deeply apologize that I was able to source 3 of them this far away. We already have the tyre and potential rule changes in here, which aren't part of 2016, so quite frankly I find your argument for similar content to be substantially weak. None of this was known 3 months ago. Twirlypen (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the only thing backed by the similarity argument is was the GPoA information, but even that's changed now since the 2016 provisional calendar was released. Twirlypen (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The rule exists so people won't create articles into the 2020s and beyond with little actual real content. The fact that headings may be standardised doesn't alter anything. The drivers section and the calendar section are just extensions of news for news for the 2016 season - so those signing are not independantly notable. The German Grand Prix being alternated is also not new, it is long established. The wording itself demonstrates that the Grand Prix of America has been scheduled and delayed multiple times before, so again this is not new. So removing all that, all you have left that is genuinly new for 2017 is that technical regulations will change but we have no idea what it is, making it purely speculative, and you know what Wikipedia does with speculation. Leaving a tyre contract. That isn't enough to sustain an article is it? --Falcadore (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is why this was deleted as little as 3 months ago. The content was identical. But now the calendar is out, so there are differences. So what if there's one or two differences in the calendar? I had thought the concensus had been achieved on multiple occasions to include GPoA so long as there is an existing contract. Should we just wait until February of 2017 to create this article then? When the rules, lineups, & calendar are finally finalized for the final time, for real? There are way more content differences between this and 2016 than, let's say, nearly every race report article from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Twirlypen (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The content is different, no matter how awkwardly it's twisted around that it's not. I'm looking at both of them side-by-side and the fact that first the argument came up that the sources were reused (properly, I might add), and then because the content was similar, though not identical, is just comical at this point, considering the only portion of the article that shares any content similarities whatsoever is the lead. If the FIA has contracts with the same 21 venues year after year, that's NOT my fault and does not fall under A7 speedy deletion criteria, especially since everything is sourced, and neither is the argument "I don't feel like reverting edits". The fact that content similarities was brought up at all is just straight up comical when you look at 2016 & 2017 side by side. Please note I purposely left out the new entry tender because it very well might get accepted for entry in 2016, thus would not apply to this article. Twirlypen (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, comparing side-by-side. The lead is the same except for one sentence refering to dates. The data concerning Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton is the same. The calendar is only different because 2016 has announced dates and is essentially a list of contracted races, so it is in effect a list of races highly likely to occur. A prediction. It is around 12 months out from a calendar being announced. And the rest is covered above.

So it is far from comical. Or is it your point that they are not identical because the 2017 article leaves out some of 2016s content? In that event, it doesn't even remotely remove the fact that it has been copied from another article. --Falcadore (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Every single GP race article is copied from the previous year's event. Yet, we somehow can wrap our heads around the fact that, even though they started as a copy, they very quickly ended up being different. Watch the upcoming 2015 Belgian Grand Prix article once the redirect is taken away. Watch it and then nominate it for deletion, since I am assuming you're not being a hypocrite, when it becomes clear that the relevant information was copied from the previous season's event (IE: lead, race information, etc. before the event is actually run). How is this any different now that there are actual differences between 2016 and 2017? And as far as drivers, it was not even 6 months ago (still in 2015) that the 2016 article had 3 or 4 drivers, and that was never an issue then, so that's irrelevant here. Also, I have different sources for them as well. In fact, a quick check reveals that the 2016 article was created on 28 July 2014 and deletion was rejected then too. The 2015 season article was created permanently on 28 April 2013. What's today? Oh, July 29, 2015. This is completely in line with previous seasons. Twirlypen (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 article was created in March of 2012, the 2013 article in October 2011, etc etc etc etc etc etc with most of them being nominated for deletion (unsuccessfully, at that) by you. That appears like it's just a case of not liking it, despite the sources and obviously plain differences backing it up. Twirlypen (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Create, since there is some specific news for the year" – the exact edit summary of the creation of the 2015 article, at which point creation was no longer contested the deletion nomination was rejected. There are 2017-specific points here whether you like it or not. Lack of consistant, daily contribution at the beginning is irrelevant to the creation/deletion of an article. Twirlypen (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I for one objected to the creation of the 2016 article this time last year. The only argument that was presented for its creation was "This is the time of the years details for next season wil appear". Only at that point "next season" was 2015 and not 2016. This year again next season is 2016, not 2017. From its creation in mid-2014 until the end of 2014 nothing new appeared in the press regarding 2016. The only thing that happened on that article for months and months was vandalism, addition of unsourced speculation and a bit of edit-warring regarding the status of Alonso and Vettel. A lot of what is in this article is essentially speculation. Even those three included contracted drivers positions are not final by any means. We had Vettel with Red Bull and Alonso with Ferrari for quite some time on the 2016 article, because both were contracted. They both later terminated those contracts. And of course things like Robert Kubica and Jules Bianchi happen as well. The fact that this is a carbon copy of the 2016 content was evident through the German Grand Prix' inclusion. As became obvious during the 2015 German GP debacle here, the Nurburgring's contract became invalid once it changed ownership and no new deal has been signed as of yet. It's inclusion was simply copied along with the sources, which only referred to the Hockenheimring's contracts, from the 2016 article. I have only one simple question, Twirlypen. What's your rush in creating this article. Why are you in such a haste of publishing information on season that's two years away? A season which specifics (e.g. rules) have hardy been defined at all at this moment. Why it's it unnaceptable to wait until the 2015 season has been wrapped up and the article completed at which point 2016 has become the current season article? On a side note, Graeme Bartlett, at no point did Falcadore refer to a 2010 AFD. They referred in fact to criterium A10 for speedy deletion. Tvx1 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That may have been their intention that was clarified later. But a G4 speedy delete applies to a previous consensus based delete. A repeated speedy delete request should just use the same code - in this case A10. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 article was created in March of 2012, the 2013 article in October 2011, etc etc etc etc etc etc with most of them being nominated for deletion (unsuccessfully, at that) by you. That appears like it's just a case of not liking it, despite the sources and obviously plain differences backing it up.

The fact that a number of other editors also thought the 2014 article should have been deleted meant having the discussion was definately valid. If only a couple of editors agreed with me, then you would have a point. But you don't. Accusations of I DONT LIKE IT would then appear to be wide of the mark.

I can't find the deletion discussion, however when looking at the earliest history of the current 2013 article and finding no mention of a deletion discussion suggests it was deleted the last time it was raised prior to it's October 2011 creation. --Falcadore (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, this is well within the timeline of season article creation for at least the previous five seasons, only because that's how far back I checked, so there "no rush" to create anything. I'm sure if I went back a further five seasons, it would confirm this timeline and window of creation. Also, there is unique information pertinent to the 2017 season wholly separate from the 2016 season, again such as the calendar and the tyres (which will be selected at the end of September), so it's not a "copy of the 2016 article". Therefore this nomination, by it's own very definition, fails A10 criteria.

Going down the list of criteria as outlined in WP:ACSD#Articles:
A1: No context: Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. – N
A2: Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project – N
A3: No content: Any article consisting only of external links, category tags [...]. – N
A5. Transwikied articles: Any article that consists only of a dictionary definition [...]. – N
A7. No indication of importance: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. – N, due to the article being well-sourced, indicated above.
A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings) – N
A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic – N, as there are unique attributes to and content pertaining to this season and this season alone.
A11. Obviously invented – N

Sorry, but there's no need to rush and if I take away all of the unique things then it's exactly like 2016 doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criteria. You might think that falls wide of DONTLIKE, but it really hits the mark, especially when the main objection is "I don't feel like reverting" - which, by the way, violates WP:AGF by definition as well. Please just accept the fact that this article was created in a manner consistant with previous seasons and within Wikipedia guidelines. Twirlypen (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop saying the calendar is unique to 2017. It's speculative with no one source gathering the information together as a calendar.

The unique attributes are ALL speculative. Is that something you are having difficulty with?

"I don't feel like reverting what on earth does that mean? I have no idea what that is supposed to be driving at. It's certainly never been anything to do with my objections. --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's sourced with credible references stating that the FIA (sanctioners of the Formula One series) has a contract with each event and venue listed to participate in the 2017 season series. Whether or not it cumulates to be the same as the 2016 calendar (which it isn't - Italy and Germany are not on it) is pretty irrelevant. It's not difficult to understand. Also, this article is now substantially different than the one previously deleted, not nearly identical as stated on the template at the top of this article. Remove it as blatantly misleading. Twirlypen (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't feel like reverting is another user's main argument, not yours. Twirlypen (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I made the mistake of exluding G4 in my review. Whoops. Anyway, here it is.

Criteria for WP:G4:

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." Which immediately further goes on to say... "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement." Alas, this also result in – N

This argument of yours is getting borderline absurd. You've done this with nearly every previous season's article. "It was deleted before, therefore it should always be deleted until I approve" is not AfD criteria. The fact that this has gone from "Please request G7" to, "Okay, I'll request A7 then" to, "Okay, maybe A10" to, "Definate gotta be G4" just shows how much rope this discussion is sliding down and the amount of straws the detractors are reaching for. Twirlypen (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett seems to be the only other user remotely in this discussion that understands the criteria. What are your feelings on this? I seem to keep getting railroaded with different nonsense "criteria" that I keep having to disprove time and time again. Twirlypen (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In yet another telling turn of events, this article was INDEPENDENTLY graded as "start class" – meaning by someone not participating in this discussion though familiar with the project. While I understand that the grade is arbitrary, it certainly merits noting that the project's quality scale indicates that "No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted." Twirlypen (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was me that rated this start class, this was based on how much content was in the page. I don't think this should be speedily deleted otherwise I would not be disputing deletion would I? However another user:DH85868993 assessed importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to wear myself out with these precedences, in this case ONE new circuit and ONE team being enough of a difference to warrant its creation. Can we pretty please be done yet? We literally had this exact discussion last year. Twirlypen (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

We need another admin to come and decline the speedy delete. It seems as if no one wants to delete, but others are not yet ready to detag it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, Twirlypen, calm down. Stop commenting on the contributors because that leads nowhere. I still don't see what's the benefit of already having an article now on a season for two years from now. My "I don't like reverting", as you like to put it, has nothing to do with WP:AGF. It has to do with trying to prevent us with making the same mistakes as before. That the 2016 article had nothing but incorrect and reverted content added to it for months and months after its creation is a fact. That it had to be protected a couple of times is also a fact. In response to your apology on the creation of previous future season articles, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. A number of wrongs doesn't make a right. You failed to assert why in any of your mentioned cases why it benefited the encyclopedia and the readers to have these season articles created that early. And I hate to break it to you, but Falcadore's assessment is right. It was a carbon copy from the 2016 article and it is mostly speculation. I already told you that long-term driver contract can fail to be honoured for a list of reasons and even races contract's can be terminated, like we saw when the Nurburgring came in the hands of new owners during 2014 ultimately leading to the 2015 German Grand Prix not taking place. The fact that is was a carbon copy of the 2016 content was evident and several instances of poor referencing. The German Grand Prix was copied over with its sources on the 2016 race happening in Hockenheim and nothing actually on any track hosting it in 2017, while Lewis Hamiton's inclusion was copied with the same poor reference stating that his new contract could be announced in due course instead of one that actually confirmed his new contract. The too early creation of the 2016 article shows quite clearly that contacts sometimes aren't honoured. The 2016 article this time last year contained a Ferrari driver who never eventualised and two "contracted" races who aren't even on the provisional calendar (India and GPoA). This article contains two drivers who's status is based on them having a multiple-year contract that has them on the 2016 grid, a list of contracted races synthesized from their contracts putting them on the 2016 calendar —on of these races actually having failed to honour their contract for the four previous years—, two non-contracted races about which we basically say we don't know what's going to happen with, a literally speculative note that there might be some regulation changes and finally a note that there might be a new tyre suppliers. There's just to much mights and not enough confirmed details to have an article on a season so far away in the future. Heck, more details have been confirmed about the 2022 FIFA World Cup than about the 2017 Formula One season. Tvx1 12:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, really? Now one wants to delete this?? This discussion has just four participants, two of whom say keep and the other two whom very clearly say delete. Tvx1 12:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere - I think Graeme Bartlett wants it converted into an AFD rather than debate the topic. Procedure rather than content. --Falcadore (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a few pointers, number one, we used to create articles in the March of the current season for two seasons ahead. Number two, the articles leading and including the 2011 season were created in 2006. However, this should be deleted, as until the strategy group agree to implement (and not propose), this article has very little other content. Pch172 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The strategy group can't even decide to implement changes, only to propose. The FIA has the only authority to actually implement changes. Tvx1 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Being okay with a list of contracted races being included in the article, but not a list of proposed agreements by the strategy group is a conflict in itself. "Races are okay, but not other things." It's not misleading as its written; it's legitimately sourced at the same time. It doesn't say "this is what's going to happen", just what has been proposed and, thus far, agreed upon. No SYNTH or SPECULATION about it. It's all sourced. Also, while the tyre selection is imminent at the end of September, having prose now stating a tender was issued in May (which I can't seem to find on any version of the "carbon copy" 2016 article), also doesn't violate SYNTH or SPECULATION. Formula One HAS opened a tender, and tyre companies HAVE made offers. This is confirmed, readily sourced material unique to the 2017 season. Twirlypen (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And where did I explicitly say that I am perfectly okay with that list? The fact that it was copied from the previous season without even a minor check is proven by the discovery, upon others performing a thorough double-check, that another two races are in fact not in possession of a 2017 contract. In on the 2016 talk page you have given yet another example of contracts not always being honoured. The farther away in the future the season question, the longer or shot that these events will happen becomes. Just because things source doesn't mean there is not a hint of speculation about it. Even reliable sources can speculate. You still haven't answered the question why it is so essential for our encyclopedia and our readers that this article exists right now already. Tvx1 21:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Our readers =/ all readers. You did explicitly say "great, now I've got a lot of reverting to do" ... there are avenues to take IF we need to. Still not a criteria for deletion. Twirlypen (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I did mean all readers. The our related to the entire encyclopedia. Tvx1 11:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question: A) There's information unique to the season. However minute or miniscule the details you may consider them, they are still unique. B) It is well within the timeline that the previous five season articles were created (15-20 months beforehand), so there is nothing outlandash or extreme about how early it is.

While I do realize that "further and further away" the less likely these events are to happen, you must also consider that the readers are not being misled. It states "The following teams and drivers/events are currently under contract to take place in 2017". The sources say this. These events & drivers are factually proven to be currently under contract. This is not misleading or synth or crystal or weasel. We cannot be and are not responsible for basic reading comprehension of readers if the argument of "a casual reader might misinterpret that as they are definately going to happen" comes up. Twirlypen (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You see, this, this, this, this and this is why I think we created this article to soon. You still haven't given any argument, save for "we have always done it like that", why it is so essential to have this article created right now. Tell me how did the 2016 article and the readers benefit from being created in july last year and not, say, six months later, taking a look at the first six months of that article's history? Tvx1 12:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, begrudgingly having to revert vandalism is not a criteria for deletion. The article can be protected if needed. Twirlypen (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Great way of dodging the most important questions raised....again. Tvx1 18:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you want? There's not a lot of daily updates this early on, but there's information pertinent to the season that justifies the article's creation. You're discussing this in the wrong spot. If you feel that an article's topic irrelevant to current events (which is roughly 97% of Wikipedia, I imagine) is means to justify it's deletion, I'm sure there's an appropriate WP discussion board to raise that issue. You can bring up the 2028 Summer Olympics there while you're at it, which is 4 entire summer Olympics away, as opposed to 2 seasons this is - so this isn't even the most extreme example. Twirlypen (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Further, to answer this oh-so-important question as appointed by you, a topic does not require widespread attention from a casual reader to justify creation, such as the List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race. Let it go already. Twirlypen (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Or better yet, the aforementioned Moto GP portal, which at a glance, hasn't even been updated in at least almost two years (I'm glad I can read news from 2008 there). Maybe we can nominate that for deletion as well, since clearly no one is interested and interest is a must when it comes to bringing additions to Wikipedia. Twirlypen (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it is an evolving page that will be filled in as new information comes to light --213.161.88.98 (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The merit of the existence of an article depends on its actual content, not on content it might get one day. Tvx1 17:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It already has new information. Twirlypen (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And speedy delete was declined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's have a proper deletion discussion about it then and see what the extended community feels. Tvx1 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A few issues

I have two issues with this article, first of which is the list of races, where it says "list of races contracted for 2016, but not for 2017" as they are technically irrelevant to this seasons page unless there is a contract, or if they in the end don't happen, should be mentioned in race changes. Also the information about the GPoA I would prefer off the list also, because really it isn't happening, users talk about the contract being signed, yes that's fair enough, but the race hasn't happened, therefore the contract has been broken and no longer is relevant, but others will argue that. CDRL102 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, when I submitted the article, the calendar wasn't set up that way. I had it set up where (what I, at the time, believed to be) only confirmed races were on it, and I had prose underneath stating the differences between 2016 under "Calendar changes" (which can be seen here). Meaning, as of right now, there is no German, Italian, European, or Bahrain GPs for 2017 because there are currently no sources saying so. Ergo, by default, it is, again as of right now, a calendar change from 2016. Another editor revised it to the format that had been in use previously (and unknowingly made the article even more similar to last year's, inadvertently aiding the above nonsense discussion).

As far as the GPoA, we go by what the sources say. We can't just say that it's not going to happen because it's what we think (even if we are 99.8% certain). This is currently what we are using and it does not state that the contract is void, only that they are seeking other parties to take it up. If you are able to find a reliable source stating that the contract has been nullified and no longer exists, then by all means, we can and will use it to update it. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 07:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer the Calendar not have have the 2016 races section on it, however if you are keeping it, the races that say To be advised should technically have their 2016 circuit as the circuit as it is the circuit under contract for 2016. CDRL102 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In all earnest, I was and still am uncertain on how to best deal with them. One one hand, it seem logic to use their 2016 circuits, on the other hand it would confusing to include two tracks we now for certain are not on the 2017 list without any explanation. There cases are quite different too. Monza simply has their contract running out, and both them and Imola are considered for 2017 onwards, while Hockenheim has never been contracted or expected to have been so for 2017 in the first place. Regarding, GPoA it's simple though. We can't remove them. Just because they failed one of their contracted races doesn't not mean it has been voided. Tvx1 16:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hockenheimring hasn't entirely ruled themselves out for 2017, though it would take a miracle sellout from the German crowd in 2016 for them to take it up. Though, back on topic, I'd probably agree with CDRL102. If the 2016 events are listed in the calendar, they should have the 2016 venues. At this stage, there isn't anything wrong with stating in the prose that both Italian venues are in talks to host the event in 2017, since it can be cited (like the tyres and rule changes). Given such, perhaps the section title should be "Tentative calendar changes" instead of simply "Calendar changes". The latter implies a degree of certainty. I say tentative instead of proposed because an event potentially getting dropped isn't really a proposal. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So, what should we do with this information? Tvx1 16:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the 2016 venues in for the 2016 listed races since, as of right now, there doesn't seem to be any hard objections. If they do come up, we can further discuss it. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Pirelli

How, exactly, is Pirelli renewing their supply deal notable enough for inclusion? Nothing changes. For example, when a driver's contract is up for renewal and he ultimately decides to stay with the team, we don't include a line under the driver changes section that reads (for example) "Lewis Hamilton's contract with Mercedes expired at the end of the 2016 season. He renewed the deal for another three years at the 2016 British Grand Prix." because nothing has changed. Now, a line preceding the team abd driver table that reads "The following teams and drivers are scheduled to compete in the 2016 World Championship. All teams will use Pirelli tyres." I could understand because we have done it before. But by positioning the tender process under the regulation changes section, we insinuate that something has changed when nothing has (or at least nothing that we can prove because we cannot compare the current contract to the new one), and we give undue weight to a process that ultimately resulted in no change being made. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we insinuate what is written, which plainly states that a tender was opened, the companies that submitted bids, the process in which they were selected, and the results of the selection. What on earth could possibly be misinterpreted that would suggest that there was a change? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The way it appears under a section called "regulation changes".

Right now, the section amounts to "there was a tender process and a decision was made to keep the same tyre supplier". What details of that are significant enough for conclusion? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

First, can we not argue in two places at once? Second, as I said on my talk page, wider tyres are still a very real possibility. Having some background on the tender process is hardly a hindrance to the article. If it's just a matter of placement, it can be subbed into a "Background" section instead of "Regulation changes". Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Then how about we wait until we have some detail to add, rather than presuming that changes will be made without a source ti support it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You think too much about things and split hairs that frankly don't need splitting. Stop worrying so much about implications and insinuations and start reading what is actually written. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let's do just that:

"In May 2015, Formula One opened a tender for tyre manufacturers to become the sole supplier from 2017 to 2019, with Pirelli and Michelin submitting bids. A recommendation was expected by Formula One CEO Bernie Ecclestone for final approval by the WMSC on 30 September 2015, but the decision was deferred until the 2015 Russian Grand Prix, where Ecclestone announced a commercial deal with Pirelli."

So, what is actually written here?

"In 2015, the sport sought out a new tyre supplier. Two bids were received: one from then-current supplier Pirelli, and one from Michelin, with a decision to be made by the end of the year. In October, the sport renewed its deal with Pirelli."

How on earth is any of that notable? If you want to take it a step further, you get this:

"The sport will continue to use tyres supplied by Pirelli."

And your solution is to change the heading from "changes" to "background"? An event occurring does not make it notable enough for inclusion simply because it happened. This article is for the 2017 season, and so it addresses the issues and events that impact upon the 2017 season. How does renewing the deal with Pirelli satisfy that condition? Pirelli have said that they will supply whatever tyres the sport wants depending on the regulations—and we don't know what the regulations will look like, much less how Pirelli will comply with them. So in the end, all we have got is a lengthy paragraph that says "there was a tender process and the sport chose to keep things the same". Don't pretend that an irrelevant edit is a good edit by dressing the section up with a new name and claiming that you have fixed the problem. Until such time as you can show a tangible relationship between Pirelli's new contract and the performance during the season, it will remain a bad edit and one that gives undue weight to a tender process that we know nothing about except the date that it happened. If the paragraph is to be kept in its current form, then it should go in the Pirelli article, not the 2017 article, because there is a long-standing consensus that says continuity between seasons is not notable enough for inclusion. By your logic, we should mention every driver who is staying with their team, every team that is keeping their engine supplier, and every race that is staying at its circuit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

See the aforementioned "wider tyres" rebuttal. Also, as you so vehemently point out, nothing has actually changed yet, so having a section named "Changes" that doesn't have changes is, well, quite puzzling. However, they are background points to the season, so having it titled "Background" does make a little more sense. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"See the aforementioned "wider tyres" rebuttal."

At this stage, it is only a proposal and is subject to change. Which makes it speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to side with Prisonermonkeys with this one. While I feel that a tyre manufacturer receiving a new contract, whether it's the same one or a new one, is interesting information, I don't think either that it's notable enough to be included in the manner it currently has been. That is with a specific subsection and diary of events style of reporting the situation. All in all, I feel Prisoner's first synopsis of the bullet point is better suited for the article. The "wider tyres" issue indeed is nothing but speculation. Heck the entire article was created and kept based on the important argument that we there was enough unique content because we could tell a "drastic change of the rules" would occur. In the meantime, more an more of the proposals get rejected and more and more voices are raised that they are running out of time to implement drastic changes for 2017. I still don't understand why some editors are in such a perennial rush to convey driver lineups, calendars and rule changes sp far in advance. Tvx1 15:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What's been rejected, other than the refueling? The things I add/delete are done so with the support of sources, and are typically the sole reason most members of the community revert edits - even if they are believed to be true. How is this not case for some editors? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 22:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has bern rejected, but nothing has been confirmed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Which none of the content suggested or inferred as it was written. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is speculation. And even if it is sourced, this project has a general preference not to include speculation. Tvx1 23:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Stating that the proposals were put forward for approval by the FIA isn't speculation. However, saying that the proposals would be accepted would be speculation - which, the article never stated or otherwise implied - there was even a footnote further explaining this. We had this discussion already. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 00:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't go documenting every permutation and combination of possible outcomes. Look at the 2016 season article—Gene Haas has gone on the record saying that one seat will go to a Ferrari development driver. But we don't include it because it could mean Gutiérrez or it could mean Vergne; we simply don't know. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is felt that details should be omitted until such time as they are confirmed as taking place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nose stalks

Can anyone source or otherwise provide a photo of the nose stalks? I feel it would be helpful to the casual reader. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Technical changes

A recent interview with Grosjean talks about the various technical changes that have been proposed for 2017. Were any of the changes illustrated in the photo accompanying the interview ratified? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 11:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Red Bull and Toro Rosso's Renault engine deal

I added Renault as Red Bull's engine supplier, but understand that they may continue to be badged as TAG Heuer's. I understand there's been some discussion about this issue, but didn't see anything about it in the Talk section. Please make any changes or revert to the previous version if necessary. Lustigson (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Twirlypen, you should have read your source entirely before making sweeping changed based on it. It contains the following statement from Christian Horner:

"After the reconstruction that Renault has undertaken, clear progress has been made which has made it logical to continue with the TAG Heuer badged engine."

That is self explanatory.Tvx1 01:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thumbs up Lustigson (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies on not being thorough. I had read "both teams would be free to brand the power units whatever they'd like" or the sorts, and didn't get to the RB quote. At first, I figured that to be TBAs for both teams, but then later concluded that as it is now is most appropriate. Cheers and good work guys. Hard times struck me. Miss this hobby. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Table infrastructure

@MetalDylan — there is no need to add additional, hidden columns to the tables that will not be needed for months. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The halo

From one of the sources given:

'In a media briefing at Albert Park Whiting announced that development of the system is progressing well with the FIA aiming to bring in the concept next season."

Given this, the FIA's intent to introduce the halo is clear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Great that they have the intent, but it doesn't mean the 2017 introduction is confirmed. Tvx1 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Using that logic, we should remove all of the drivers and races because although they might intend to go ahead, they're certainly not confirmed. You're the great champion of "the articles should reflect the FIA position precisely" point of view, but now you're going against that for no apparent reason. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is nonsense. They have not added the rule to the rulebook yet, so we can't convey this as confirmed rule change yet. That's as simple as it can be. We are reflecting the FIA's position perfectly by not including it. Their stance of "we would like to have this included" is not sufficient to list this as a confirmed rule change. And as you are full well aware none of the races and drivers are confirmed. They are contracted and we list them as such. That's correctly representing the sources. Tvx1 10:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you see now why we couldn't claim cockpit protection would be introduced for 2017? Tvx1 16:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Monza will stay for another 3 years

Here it is: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/sports/2016/09/02/f1-monza-renews-gp-contract-until-2019_8ec433f3-0b6a-4276-844f-c52683c2f275.html DrNig (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

According to this, the contract still needs to be signed.Tvx1 18:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Races contracted for 2016 but not 2017

I know this was discussed before, but I still don't get it or see the point in it. I mean, we don't have the same for drivers contracted for 2016 but not 2017, so why do we have it for races? CDRL102 (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The "but not" drivers list would just about be the 2016 table entirely. Races often get deals in excess of 5 years, many over 10, and thus most races are contracted to happen by the following season's article. Driver deals rarely exceed 3 years anymore. Even Lewis has had two 3-year deals with Mercedes. Most are just year-to-year. That means every season there will only be a handful, at most, of drivers contracted. Same with the rest of the team info. If nothing is known other than their participation, we don't include them. It avoids a giant blank table on top of another giant full table. Basically, it's just unsightly. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say we should have it for drivers, because yes that would be stupid, but I also think it's stupid to have a section under races for 2017 saying, those under contract for 2016 but not 2017. Why do we have it, it's almost irrelevant to this page. CDRL102 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's relevant to the present and it wouldn't be far-fetched that an observant reader not seeing the Italian Grand Prix, for example, may wonder where it went or what happened to it. This small portion of the table gives readers an answer with a source, and goes away once the first provisional calendar is released and is replaced with prose as a calendar change. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

From the recent edits, this is the exact reason I think the Races Under Contact for 2016 but not 2017 should be removed. It's very confusing in the case of the Italian GP. I really just think it needs taken out, only races contracted for 2017 should be in that table. CDRL102 (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It was just a misunderstanding which has been solved now. Tvx1 08:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the Autosport source below provided by Tvx1, the unsigned contract exists but, since it's unsigned, it's about as valuable and worthy as an unsigned contract with Estoril laying in a drawer somewhere. The table very plainly says "races under contract for 2016, but not 2017". This is more than sufficient for the average reader. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandoorne at McLaren in 2017

McLaren has replaced Button with Vandoorne for 2017, confirmed by Ron Dennis

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/17455120/mclaren-replaces-jenson-button-stoffel-vandoorne-2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.64.2 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Saw his number is marked as TBA on the wiki page. It's actually car number 47 according to this page. Drivers keep their number for their entire F1 career, and he did race at Bahrain in 2016 . I can't edit the page with semi-protect on. MercAB3 (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@MercAB3 — the rules governing exactly which number a driver use are vague and undocumented. When Andre Lotterer drove for Caterham in one race, he used #45, which was the team's reserve number. But when Alex Rossi did half a season for MRT, he was allowed to choose his own number; he picked #53 because his original choice, #16, was assigned to Red Bull as a reserve number. However, when Esteban Ocon joined MRT, he was allowed to choose his own number, and picked #31 even though (as I understand it) it was assigned to another team (Ferrari, I think).

Given the Vandoorne only made one appearance, I think that the best thing to do is look to the Lotterer example and assume that the number Vandoorne used in Bahrain was a one-off until an entry list is released. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

An even better example is Will Stevens, who was assigned number 46 when he drove one race for Caterham in 2014 but picked number 28 when receiving a full time contract with Marussia for 2015. Also note that this year Esteban Ocon used number 45 while driving in free practice for Renault, before picking number 31 when he was drafted in by Manor to replace Haryanto for the remainder of the season. Very clearly, not all numbers are permanent. Tvx1 11:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, I completely forgot about Stevens (which says a lot ...). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, you are correct regarding number 31. Ferrari has been using that one for testing this season. Tvx1 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Vague and undocumented" is quite the understatement. The original sporting regulations explicitly stated that drivers would choose a new number before the 2014 season and must use that number permanently through their entire career. It further adds that any new drivers who join after 2014, either in the offseason or during a season, will chose a permanent number in the same way. If we follow these rules to the letter, it is obvious that the 47 Vandoorne used in Bahrain SHOULD be his permanent number...but as we've seen with the examples you've given above, that's clearly not the case. My conclusion is that the FIA only applies this rule to a driver who is signed as a permanent racing driver, as opposed to a reserve driver filling in at a single grand prix. If this is documented somewhere, I sure can't find it, but nonethless I agree that Vandoorne's number should be TBA for now. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Article 9.2. of those sporting regulations also states Each car will carry the race number of its driver as published by the FIA at the beginning of the season or the race number that has been allocated to his replacement under Article 26.1(b)(iii). That's probably what happened with Lotterer and Stevens in 2014. Tvx1 16:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, good catch. "Allocated to" being the key phrase there. Mystery solved! Wicka wicka (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact we had already solved that mystery a long time ago. Unfortunately, every time a driver who has previously appeared as a free practice driver or a one-off replacement receives a full-time contract an editor barges in insisting that all numbers are permanent. {see here, here, here, here and here) Tvx1 12:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

""Vague and undocumented" is quite the understatement"

That's the time-honoured FIA tradition of only writing half a rulebook and then making the rest of it up as they go for you. Although to be fair, this is an incredibly minor rule area to be working in, so it doesn't need much: so long as every permanent driver gets a chance to choose their number, the mechanics of how numbers are assigned/chosen in extraordinary circumstances don't really matter; Ocon being able to choose a number assigned to Ferrari appears to be a response to Rossi being unable to choose a number assigned to (and never used by) Red Bull. The inconsistencies might be frustrating for Wikipedia editors, but we are quite possibly the only people that it affects, so yay us. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I will remark that Max Verstappen already picked a number which was already assigned to an other team (McLaren) BEFORE Alexander Rossi came about. Also, Vandoorne used number 32 in an earlier phase of his McLaren career. Tvx1 12:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, like I said, the policy seems to be that so long as a driver gets to pick a number, then how they do it doesn't matter too much. The only person who fell afoul of it was Jules Bianchi, who put in for #7, #27 and #77, but all three were taken.

As for Vandoorne, he was asked by Belgian journalists as to which number he would use, and he said that he hadn't given it any real thought. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sergio Perez Signed and Confirmed?

Although the source we have for Perez's confirmation to Force India may have come from a rather hopeful Vijay, it does not seem to be the case that Perez will driver for the FI team in 2017. A reliable counter source in Autosport outlines not only this fact; of that his sponsors ultimately decide his future, but that Renault are also in talks with signing him. I bring this to light because an inside, but not a 'trusted' source has come fourth to say that Perez is indeed going to Renault. I don't announce Perez to be included in the Renault slot, but instead leave him TBA until a more solid and recent source comes about. *JoeTri10_ 00:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As has been reiterated nearly every year, our table is list of signed drivers. The source states that Perez has a contract with Force India for 2017. Only if his contract is terminated and/or one with another team is signed we can remove him from the table. Tvx1 02:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This (https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/09/sergio-perez-says-hes-staying-at-force-india-f1-but-mclaren-nightmare-still-haunts-him/) seems to indicate that he is in fact not certain of a place yet, from a quote by Perez himself so obviously the contract is not guarenteed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjack (talk • contribs) 12:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. Tvx1 14:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Although i expected highly that Checo would be at Renault, the situation has manifested into a point where even he has no idea on what his sponsors and subsequent teams will do as he wants, at the end of the day, a seat at Ferrari, and that is what i think his sponsors are trying to secure. The official website has recently published an interview with him stating that he's nervous of what has been finalised and what's been rumoured and that he just wants to wait and see. *JoeTri10_ 23:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources that are more recent than the one currently used exist, then they ought to supercede the older source. However, the more recent sources must be clear that he does not have a contract. As in, sources that say he may be let go or replaced are invalid. Unless someone with authority within the team or Perez himself plainly states that he is not signed, then he has to remain on the table. We cannot make conclusions on Wikipedia. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, Pérez has a contract with Force India, but the terms of the contract are being re-negotiated. I should say that I am reading into a variety of sources here, so it's synthesis on my part. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sauber Engine Supply

Back in July, Sauber announced they'd be running 2017-spec Ferrari engines. However, this morning, we are hearing that they will be running 2016-spec engines, and that this decision was made months ago. Several sites are reporting this news, but all sites are phrasing very carefully that Monica Kaltenborn told this to F1i. Therefore, so far, it is only a single-sourced piece of info and not official yet.Real tlhingan (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ferrari Engine Designations

As discussed in the talk page for Talk:2015 Formula One season

• the 2016-spec Ferrari works engine was designated typo 059/5
• the 2016-spec Ferrari customer engine was designated typo 061

Real tlhingan (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hülkenberg

Please do not add Hülkenberg to Renault or remove him from Force India until the deal is confirmed. The usual standard - a quote from Hülkenberg, his management, or a person within either team who is named - applies. The Autosport article dated 14/10 makes it pretty clear that the deal has not been finalised as Hülkenberg is still under contract with Force India. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The deal has now been confirmed. DH85868993 (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Something like this usually happens — Autosport runs a story filled with innuendo but nothing concrete beyond "Autosport understands", which people take to be confirmation when it's fluff with a click-bait headline. It's happened a lot since they introduced the paywall. Even if we could take their reputation in lieu of a source, they're not always right; they ran similar stories tipping Esapekka Lappi and Juho Hänninen to be Toyota's WRC drivers in 2017, but the anticipated date of the announcement came and went without a word. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Lance Stroll

There's a bit of an edit war brewing about Lance Stroll's rumoured upcoming signing announcement. Neither the team nor the driver have announced anything, only the manager, which happens to be the boy's father, and it's from a single source (Journal de Montréal is the source of the manager's quote). I know the Journal de Montréal, it's a reputable daily newspaper in Montréal (2nd largest city in Canada), but it's still just one source. Here is the original news story from the Journal de Montréal --> (it's in French) Real tlhingan (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One source is all that is needed. If the Journal de Montreal is reputable (and JAonF1 is), then that is enough.

Also, read the Wikipedia article carefully—it never says which team Stroll has a contract with. Ergo, no comment from a team is required to substantiate it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It is speculation by Stroll's father. JAonF1 adds no weight to the claim, it is merely quoting from the story in the Journal de Montréal. -- de Facto (talk). 06:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Speculation would be "Lance Stroll might be racing next year if we can agree to a contract". This is completely different, given that he is part of Stroll's management and is saying "Lance Stroll will race in 2017". Hardly speculative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We simply should not list Stroll in the article based on this source. That is because it fails our standard of stating that the driver in question has signed a contract. That's the difference with the example of Simona de Silvestro you quoted on Joseph's talk page. Arguing your case simultaneously on the talk page of four users [1][2][3][4] and ANI is not even remotely helping your cause. Crucially, no one has so far agreed with you. That should make it easy to reflect on your position. You have stated your concerns on using such reporting a short while ago in the above section on Hülkenberg and now you are asking us to make an exception for Stroll. Please practice what you preach. In any case we should avoid blanket statements like "driver X will make his/her debut" because that is simply predicting the future and we are not a crystal ball. José María López and Luiz Razia are two examples which spring to my mind as to why such wording is a bad idea.

Lastly, we have already pointed out your misunderstanding of the 'weasel' guideline two years ago. I thought you had realized it back then, but it seems your are still insisting. Tvx1 13:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One thing we absolutely need to keep in mind is that managers always work to keep a positive buzz around their client. Statements such as "He will be racing in F1 next year" can be used to create such a buzz for sponsors, other teams that were on the fence about signing him and other drivers he was competing with for a seat. It is not a statement that he will indeed race next year, only a statement that he is putting that vibe out there. I am Canadian and nothing would please me more than to see a fellow Canadian in F1. If anybody remembers Jacques Villeneuve, the atmosphere at the Canadian GP will be electric. But he isn't officially announced as being so just yet. Rumours say that Williams are waiting for him to turn 18 later this month because their title sponsor is an alcohol brand, and this makes sense and is believable, but Williams themselves didn't say that, it's just a rumour floating around out there. Unless and until somebody says something specific about a contract and not wishful thinking, the boy shouldn't be on the list of signed F1 drivers. You can't just be racing in F1 without a team anymore, these ain't the '50s. Real tlhingan (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"You have stated your concerns on using such reporting a short while ago in the above section on Hülkenberg and now you are asking us to make an exception for Stroll."

Except that this is not the case at all, and you know it. With Hülkenberg, I was referring to a specific article published by Autosport that suggested that a deal with Renault had been signed, but it was clearly unsubstantiated by the content of the article because it never directly quoted anyone—instead of "'Nico will be joining Renault', his manager said", the article was full of innuendo, like "Autosport understands that Hülkenberg has an agreement with Renault". It's one of those click-bait titles that make it look like Autosport has an exclusive. But here, you have a reliable source quoting someone close to Stroll and in a position to comment on his career. It satisfies every condition that we ask of a source, and yet you have chosen to disregard it based on a purely subjective opinion. Furthermore, nothing that was added to the article was unsupported by the source. If it said Stroll will join Williams, you would have a case, but it didn't; it just said Stroll will make his début. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No it does not satisfy every condition of we ask of a source regarding a driver chance, because it fails the basic requirement of stating the driver in question has signed a contract. I cannot see how I can explainmake this any more clear to you. Tvx1 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"it fails the basic requirement of stating the driver in question has signed a contract"

How can Stroll drive without a contract? If Stroll Sr. is in a position to comment on Stroll Jr.'s career and says "Lance Stroll will race in 2017", that should be enough. Based on these comments, it is reasonable to assume that a contract has been signed. This additional requirement of having to say "he signed a contract" smacks of moving the goalposts after the fact as a means of disregarding an otherwise legitimate source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the whole point why we can't use his comments. We don't assume things. I have already told you that Patrick Vandoorne had made similar comments about his son's 2016 prospects last year we know how that panned out. Our standard has always been the same. A source that explicitly states the driver has been signed (inferring that is insufficient). It's nothing freshly introduced now and I don't see why we would have to drop the standard now and create precedents. Tvx1 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Judging Lawrence Stroll's comments based on the outcome of Patrick Vandoorne's is a logical fallacy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The standard that you are using is that a father's comments on his son's career cannot be used. The problem is that Lawrence Stroll manages Lance, while Patrick Vandoorne doesn't manage Stoffel—McLaren does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

PM, is everything ok with you lately? Ya seem a bit fighty. Give this one up, you are simply wrong, and trying to employ fancy language that you don't understand isn't doing you any good either. We do not record rumours in an encyclopedia, and nor should we make forward-looking statements. What you are trying to do is both. If a contract is announced then we report "X signed a contract with Y to do Z", and provide a source. Stroll's father may well be his manager also, but if anything that actually makes his statements less reliable than an uninvolved family member. Put simply, how do you know he isn't making these statements in order to try and force Williams into action? Or a perhaps there is a third party? Or perhaps he is just bragging. Who knows? We don't, so we wait for a formal announcement that something has happened; past tense, as all encyclopedic content ought to be. Pyrope 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact, having now had the time to go and read the original source from which James Allen got his story (and seriously reconsidering Allen's reliability in the process) I will go further and say that this story absolutely reeks of a manager trying to get some leverage in a contract negotiation. In the original French language interview Stroll Sr. is quoted as saying «Nous étudions deux options ... Vous saurez tout dans quelques semaines.» They are studying two options and we'll know everything in a few weeks, huh? Wow, solid proof that, isn't it? Just in case you missed it, that was his father/manager actually making a very strong suggestion that things aren't settled and that no firm contract exists yet. Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe all just bovine byproduct. Rumours, kids, don't do them. Pyrope 00:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Put simply, how do you know he isn't making these statements in order to try and force Williams into action?"

I don't. But I do recognise the alternative—it's a short, slippery slope from here to questioning the motives behind every single source. It's well-documented that contracts aren't necessarily worth the paper they're written on because of all of the exit clauses. If we can't take a source at face value, how long is it before we consciously disregard legitimate sources because of potential unspoken alternatives? I see this instance of the first case of that.

"PM, is everything ok with you lately? Ya seem a bit fighty"

You tell me. When I opposed the continued use of GP Update for clearly buying into the spin put forward by van der Garde's manager, I was told that the source was perfectly fine. Now we've got JAonF1 repeating what Stroll's manager has said and I'm being told that the source cannot be used because it's PR spin. The only difference that I can see is the subjective opinion of the editors involved. At face value, the JAonF1 source is legitimate, and the edits in the article reflected its content. Can you blame me if I want some consistency in the way sources are treated? They're either reliable or they're not—there is no middle ground based on what is convenient. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Both the Journal de Montréal and James Allen are legit sources. But they are NOT saying Lance Stroll will be in F1 next year, they are saying his daddy and manager is saying Lance Stroll will be in F1 next year. That's what makes it PR spin. Real tlhingan (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As his manager, Lawrence represents Lance. In essence, he speaks for Lance. His familial relationship is tangential at best. Think about the ramifications of what you are saying—if we can't take a manager's word for it despite representing their client, how can we possibly accept any source? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

...and they have said that they have two options and haven't decided what to do yet. So what part of that constitutes an encyclopedic fact? Pyrope 01:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You only figured that out a few hours ago. When it was first added, there was no reason to doubt it beyond subjective opinion. Apparently I'm the only one concerned about the way sources are only considered valid under certain circumstances dictated purely by what an editor thinks of it. Like I said, I opposed the use of GP Update because it was posting PR spin, but was told that it was acceptable; now I'm using JAonF1 and I'm being told that it's unacceptable because of the PR spin. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: this is not a discussion about whether the source is reliable or not, it's about being able to rationally assess whether the data being referred to in the said source is fact, opinion, rumour or speculation, and presenting it (or not) appropriately in Wikipedia. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I explained to Prisonermonkeys very clearly on his talkpage earlier why the reliablility of the source was actually irrelevant, but that the quote could not be presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. He appears to have not understood. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, to use your own words your comparison with previous situations is a logical fallacy. It is for two reasons. Firstly, no one, absolutely no one, is claiming JAonF1 is an unreliable source. In fact JAonF1 doesn't even come into the equation as the actual source is "le journal de Montréal". Secondly, as already explained to you here, here and here when you objected to GPUpdate, a source is not either completely reliable or completely unreliable. There is a middle ground and convenience has nothing to do with it. What matters is whether the article/story contains anything worth noting on Wikipedia. As you yourself have stated in the above section on Hülkenberg, Autosport sometimes publishes click-baity, nonsense stories. Yet, do we blacklist them? No? Is our approach to GPUpdate and Autosport inconsistent to the one we make in this case? Not at all. We always make our own editorial judgement whether or not a particular story from a reliable source is usable for anything on Wikipedia. So please stop reducing this to "what an editor thinks of it", when not one, not two, but three editors reverted your additions of this information and a total of 7 editors have disagreed with you here, on their talk pages and on WP:ANI. Lastly, I will reiterate that we cannot include statements like "driver X will make his/her debut" because those violate WP:CRYSTAL. We have always had tables and notes on driver signings because we cannot verify right now who will start the Australian Grand on sunday the 26 March of 20167, while we can verify today who has currently signed a contract to drive in 2017.Tvx1 13:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Question of Malaysian Grand Prix

Should we note that Malaysia may be taking a year away from Formula 1? As I see it, this places Malaysia into an unconfirmed state such as the Brazilian and German Grand Prix. Should a ‡ be added?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, because the only sources that we have say that it will happen. If something changes in the future, then we will change the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen sources that indicate that this race is unconfirmed. I don't have them in front of me at this time, but feel free to do a search for yourself and see. If this is correct, and I will add sourcing later if need be, then this will need to be indicated.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Even then, they're still talking about what might happen. We can't do anything until we have confirmation of what will happen from the FIA and/or FOM, since they control the calendar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Then with that logic, we need to remove the entire 2017 race schedule.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. The FIA and FOM are the ultimate authority on the calendar. If they haven't said anything about Malaysia being downgraded to provisional status, then we can't list it as provisional. I went looking for those sources you mentioned—they were all rumour and supposition, talking about what might happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, with that logic the whole list should be removed because it is provisional and only might happen.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Only if you prioritise vague and unsubstantiated speculation over the word of the ultimate authority on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Provide your sources here on the talk page and we will review them to see if they are sufficient to mark the 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix as "subject to conformation". I will note however that the prose above the calendar clearly indicates it's provisional. Tvx1 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The source was through BBC, but for the 2018 season, not the 2017 season. I don't know what he was talking about the sources just being rumors, cuz they weren't, I just got the year wrong.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about this article then it isn't rumour, it is speculation. Either way, it doesn't constitute encyclopedic content. There is no fact to report in that article regarding the status of next year's race, just a CEO moaning about falling attendance. Pyrope 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)