Talk:Sebastian Vettel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Formula One (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Motorsport (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Youngest ever F1 driver[edit]

This is a pretty woolly claim, since Vettel is not actually entered for the Turkish Grand Prix. He's a Friday test driver, and as such isn't really the youngest driver to take part in a Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

He is the youngest driver to be involved in a GP weekend though! He is a stand in driver which still, is officially entered- as such, official stand in. Nat Lockwood.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumisalo (talkcontribs)

  • I can only agree with Bretonbanquet above: "first to drive in a "Grand Prix meeting"" (whatever that means) seems like an unnecessary claim that doesn't add anything, to an otherwise extraordinary and phenomenal career.--GrainyMagazine (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Car Naming[edit]

According to the BBC coverage before the Chinese GP Sebastien names his car with a females name! --Thelostlibertine (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelostlibertine (talkcontribs) 06:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Current car name is "Kate's Dirty Sister" as Kate came to a end after shunt in the Australian Grand Prix. He also carries lucky coins in his pockets or boots when he is racing (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The 2011 cars name is "Kinky Kylie". -- (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


It seems rather unflattering - maybe there would be a better one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the only alternative available. I changed it to the current photo last month because it shows Vettel in the clothing of his new team, Red Bull.--Midgrid(talk) 18:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Holds 10 of holds 8?[edit]

The article says "Sebastian Vettel holds 10 entries in the list of Formula One driver records, of which he holds 8". Huh? Jpatokal (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the references to number of records, as I believe it is inappropriate: the editor who added it was referring to another Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid), whereas many of the actual statistics are not officially recorded and have no actual value, i.e. there is no FIA/Formula One "Hall of Fame" for the youngest driver to achieve x, y or z.--Midgrid(talk) 11:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Complete Formula One results[edit]

Umm, I'm here to ask about Vettel's complete F1 results. I believe that he was only a Test Driver for BMW for a while and therefore there is no need of a 2006 TD role. Several other articles would need this e.g. Kubica, Grosjean, Piquet Jr, Buemi, Liuzzi, Speed and many more. There have been many other unamed drivers who don't have TD roles e.g. Jules Bianchi, Hulkenberg and the old timer Jabouille. (Wiki id2 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Vettel took part in the free practice sessions in 2006 as the BMW Sauber team's third driver. The "TD" stands for "Third Driver", not "Test Driver", and is only used for the relevant drivers from 2003 to 2006 such as Anthony Davidson, Allan McNish etc. It will be used again this year when Paul di Resta takes part in free practice for Force India.--Midgrid(talk) 19:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest results[edit]

Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel headed Ferrari's Fernando Alonso in second practice at the Canadian Grand Prix as McLaren failed to repeat their early pace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colormere (talkcontribs) 14:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to Michael Schumacher[edit]

Is this section necessary? They're both German Grand Prix winners; all the rest of the material in that section is just fluff or irrelevant details about Vettel's chassis names.--Midgrid(talk) 18:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit more Whatzinaname (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Coming from behind[edit]

The SpeedChannel commentary team not qualifying as reliable, is Vettel the only driver to win the title without having led the points chase? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The second in history; James Hunt in the 1976 Formula One season also clinched the title without leading the championship before. GameLegend (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks awfully, old boy. :) Murray Walker degrees I understand 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with other articles on Formula One Drivers[edit]

When I compare the depth of this article with that of other Formula One driver articles, I can see that this is really lacking in information that I would like to see. For example, the page on Lewis Hamilton lists his driving records. It also has a section on Hamilton's driving style. Vettel is well known for qualifying pace - it's his strongest attribute in what makes him who he is. There should be emphasis on some of the qualifying margins e.g. "Vettel dominated qualifying again at the Chinese Grand Prix - lapping over seven tenths quicker than that of Jenson Button." He also had exceptional qualifying pace in STR.

Also reference to Vettel's various helmet designs would be nice to see. I would also like to have read how Vettel's many mistakes in 2010 resulted in negative criticism of his driving style, and quotes from a few important figures in Formula One who have said this. As Vettel is now a reigning World Champion, and looks likely to defend his crown, he should have as much or more information about him than the other drivers on the grid who have also won one championship, although I am slightly bias. AzEdw (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add this to the article yourself if you want, but of course, try not to be biased. Bigdon128 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 start to the season[edit]

I added that his current season start up to the 8th race is the second greatest in F1. Schumacher had a 7 win 1 DSQ. Vettel has six wins and 2 seconds. I know pretty much everyone would much rather have the six wins and 2 second finishes, so maybe the wording could be changed. A lot of it is word smithing and semantics. I see schumacher's year as more dominant, but vettel's as better/greater.Whatzinaname (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Penalty record Missing[edit]

his record for getting a penalty SIX Seconds into his career is not mentioned, it should be since he was the youngest/fastest to do everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


There are an alarming amount of fabricated records on this page. They are as follow:

  • Most consecutive top two results (in both qualifying and race)
  • Most consecutive top two results (in both qualifying and race), from the start of the season
  • Youngest Grand Prix winner for 2 different teams
  • Youngest Grand Prix winner at the same track on 2 occasions
  • World Champion having not been championship leader before in the season

These are not recognised statistics. They have all been made by pro-Vettel editors, who are making statistics simply to bolster the image of the driver. None of them have ever been recorded by any credible author. He doesn't actually hold the record for the final one. It's shared with James Hunt.

Please remove these accordingly, as my attempt to reduce the list to appropriate records are simply reverted and I am the one who is accused of being a negative influence on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THMW (talkcontribs) 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree - I think any "record" not included in the Formula One records article should not be included, unless it is as an aside in the main body of the article.--Midgrid(talk) 12:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I fear such a viewpoint, that the record(s) should have to be on the aformentioned page, will just result in these editors putting those statistics on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THMW (talkcontribs) 16:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You are going to have to define "recognized statistics", and then you ill have to cite part of the wikipedia rules that precludes such stats being on a wiki page. If, in your summation, the more abstract or minutia-like records bother you, you can take solace in that they are way down at the bottom of the page and don't district from the article, down at the bottom for the more wonkish F1 followers. Wikipedia is generally inclusive of information, unless it detracts somehow from the article. I don't see it here, as it is merely at the bottom, not even really in the article. 99.9% of readers will probably never even read it. as long as the more esoteric ones don't clog up the actual article itself, I fail to see the problem. Just glancing at hamiton's wiki, you he even has a record lsited for being a british driver. I'm sure there is some mention of his racial heritage, too. Neither of these are officially recorded stats in F1.Whatzinaname (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The first thing that needs to be fixed is that not a single one of these records is cited. Anything that can't be reliably sourced as a record should go, either as non-notable fancruft or WP:OR. As far as defining "recognised statistics" goes, it means statistics that can be accurately sourced from a reliable source. Bollocks like "Most consecutive top two results (in both qualifying and race), from the start of the season" is WP:OR, synthesised from the statistics. It's not a recognised record anywhere else, nor is it even slightly important. Hamilton's stats and records should be discussed at Talk:Lewis Hamilton and similar non-records listed there should also go. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree about some of them needing some kind of cite-able references, but I do not agree that is what was being referred to. He called the records "fabricated", not un-sourced. Quite the differenceWhatzinaname (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Not some of them - all of them. And if some of these records turn out to be unsourceable, then they are indeed fabricated. It amounts to the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't care if something gets sourced if I know it's true. Unsourced does not mean fabricated, far from it. Whatzinaname (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
They have been fabricated by one or more editors, regardless of whether or not they are true. I could put a record on Fernando Alonso's page stating that he won the 500th Formula One Grand Prix. It's a record, but it's not recognised by any reputable source. It's just a meaningless statistic, not a 'record' in its truest sense. THMW (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) It really doesn't matter what anyone personally thinks. I'm not saying the stat itself is untrue, but if there's no reference anywhere to it being a record then it's not a record, it's unsourced and will be deleted from any records table. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
well, it depends. some records are deduced logically. For instance, if there was a cite that he was the youngest driver to be on the podium, and you look at the cite and it says that he won the race. You can logically deduce he was the youngest to also win a race, as you can't win a race and not place on the podium. I'm not a stats expert o F!, btu that's where I assume the youngest to win with 2 different teams comes from. As if he surpassed the age of the last record holder with both his wins at STR and RB, it's simple logical deduction that does not require its own cite.Whatzinaname (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not strictly true. Read WP:SYN - you can't "logically deduce" a stat into a record. It's just a stat. To claim it as a record, it has to be down as a record in some kind of reliable source. Otherwise, practically any stat can be claimed as a record. Maybe he's the only guy to win a race wearing women's underwear - maybe you can find a reliable source to say it's true - but that does not make it a record. It would need a source saying it's a record before we can say it's a record. This also satisfies WP:N. So he's the youngest guy to win with two different teams - so what? Why is it notable? Who was the last "record holder"? Without a source to back it up, it's just trivia, lacking notability. Maybe a driver has finished 11th more times than any other. You can deduce it from the results table. So what? It's just a meaningless stat, not a record. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

a logical deduction means it's a true deduction. If the data(original cite) concurs and is true, then it is not synthesis at all. You are purely stating a fact. And let's not conflate notability with factuality. If you want to debate something's notability, fine, but most records for sports stars contain a great deal of informational statistics that in and of itself is not "notable" in the general sense. Look at all the F1 drivers and look a the bios,; they all say how many races they have driven. Unless you hold some record for most races driven, what is the notability for that? And a record is a statistic. So? You can say all records are "just a stat". But a record is something that hasn't been accomplished before, which in most cases makes it notable in a sports-sense.Whatzinaname (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're purely stating a fact, then it'd be fine. But you're calling it a record when nobody else on the planet has done so in a reliable source. You can't compare an obscure "record" like some of these we've mentioned with a stat for the number of races a driver has entered. 'Races entered' is basic biographical info which is easily citable from dozens of reliable sources. No, just because nobody has done it before, that does not make it notable. That simply isn't true. A footballer scores for Liverpool in the 26th minute and the 35th minute, then gets booked in the 40th minute. Maybe it hasn't happened before - is it a notable record? Of course not, and nobody would claim that it is. An F1 driver is the first guy ever to pit on the 6th lap while running 10th for Force India. Is that notable? No. These are slightly facetious examples, but there has to be a dividing line between the abstract and the meaningful, and that means a citation. If we're calling something a record, then a reliable source has to be found to say it's specifically a record - that is a simple law of Wikipedia and there's no getting round it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Slightly facetious? Haha. Whatever. Yes, being the youngest driver to win a race, or championship for that matter, with two different team falls into the realm of what kind of underwear he was wearing and your little vignette on force india. If you wanna be taken serious, you might want to get more serious. Speak to the notability of the actual stat you have issue with or stop commenting with ridiculous exaggerations. Whatzinaname (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I can figure out what you're trying to say. Well, I would personally rank some of the crap that has appeared on this article with the underwear thing. I did address the records I've got an issue with, but it didn't seem to get through to you. Nobody in the real world gives a shit about how many times in a row anyone's finished in the top two. If you want to be taken seriously, try understanding what I've said to you, do what everyone else does and follow the rules. The guidelines are there - if you want to add something as a record, find a source for it as a record. If you don't get that, or if you think a source isn't necessary for your blinding trivia, it will get taken off. Your choice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody gives a shit about how many times someone finishes in the top two, yet right in the bio section it lists how many podiums all formula one drivers have? So the top THREE is important, but the top TWO is irrelevant. Haha. it's pretty obvious at this point I can't take you serious any longer. You don't appear interested in improving this wiki, and probably not any other for that matter. You've seen and edited hamilton's wiki with some of the most absurd nonsensical records ever seen without a problem, but now you suddenly think winning racces and finishing in the top 2 is irrelevant, but being british is relevant. Big shcok.Whatzinaname (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously top three / podium finishes are relevant and important. Go and check some sources to see how many talk about the top three, and then the zero that talk about the wondrous "top two". Again, you lose an argument and you always revert to the bad faith rubbish "you're not interested in improving this blah blah". I think I mentioned before that that's not allowed, right? I don't edit Hamilton's article much, except to update the results. I haven't looked at his records, and I don't even like the guy, which you ought to know because I've told you before. Please reproduce where I said winning racces and finishing in the top 2 is irrelevant, but being british is relevant Oh sorry, you can't, because you just made it up, a total non-sequitur. Any more pathetic insults? Read the guidelines, follow the rules. It's that easy. If you don't want to do that, leave it for those that understand how it works. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason I added the top two results was that it was mentioned by both tv shows I watch my F1 on (BBC -UK and RTL GP -the Netherlands) mentioned it. Records are rarely broken, that makes them so special, so saying that no one talks about them is kind of like saying the Fourth of July is just any other day because no one talks about it on the other 364 days of the year. Besides, I visit quite a few F1 websites and I don't see that many talks about top three finishes either. Again, only when such a record is (about to be) broken.
The sad thing about this discussion is not whether or not the facts are there, but simply someone believing that 'stating neutral facts' is somehow creating a bias in this article. FACTS are not biased. Who are you to claim that a record that was mentioned as such on the television broadcast compares to what underwear someone wears? Just shows your insight into this... Three of Schumacher's all-time records are shared with other drivers. Does that make those FACTS any less valid? GameLegend (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The sad thing is when people add references that don't even mention the record they're supposed to be citing. There's no mention of the 10 consecutive top two finishes in the ref you provided, and no mention of qualifying either. The source that's supposed to say he's the youngest guy ever to win for two different teams doesn't say that - it just says he won for two different teams. The sources clearly need to agree with your claim. As I said before - stating facts is not the issue here - the issue is whether or not they are notable facts. Why is this so hard for you to understand? This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that these "records" are so hard to source strongly implies that this stuff is not notable. Nobody mentioned the validity of shared records, why bring that up? Keep your opinions on my insight to yourself in future. I've had just about enough of the bad faith accusations, and next time I'm going to report somebody. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody said that a bias was being created, where did you get that garbage from? Are you attributing that to me? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
OP: "who are making statistics simply to bolster the image of the driver"
OP: "He doesn't actually hold the record for the final one. It's shared with James Hunt."
The top two record stated by the BBC and RTL GP (and quoted all over the internet accordingly) is incorrect if stated as top two race results, as that is a record currently held by Alonso (9 top two RACE finishes in '06). Would you rather be a stickler and provide incorrect information, or use a tiny bit of OR to clarify what was meant to be said?GameLegend (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
As written, I believe they are referencing both his qualifying and race results together. You are also wrong about alonso holding the finish record. I'm pretty sure schumacher has him beat by a country mile in '02Whatzinaname (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
(2 edit conflicts...) Point accepted regarding the bias angle. I've just noticed where someone questioned the validity of shared records - personally I don't have a problem with shared records. I will add that, according to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, even if a fact is verifiable, it does not follow that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If consensus shows that some of these should be removed, then they will be. This happened with Schumacher's article, and Hamilton's, and now this one. It's nothing new. Yes, you guessed it - I'd rather be a stickler and provide correct information. If there's no source that mentions qualifying, then it's unsourced and should go. Where is this BBC/RTL claim repeated on the internet? Anywhere reliable? What did they actually say? If the record for top two finishes in races is held by Alonso, then Vettel's record is even more tenuous and abstract. Plus I'm sure you'll be rushing over to Fernando Alonso to add his record if it's not there already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
So... none of the records you just added in black type are accurately sourced? I've even left two of them in for now, because I'm so biased against Vettel. /sarcasm Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you "left them in". What an unsung hero you are. It seems that with you, though, like here Talk:2011 Monaco Grand Prix, even when things are notable and meticulously sourced with every F1 news source on the planet, it just doesn't cut the mustard with you, assuming whatever it is negatively reflects on something related to Lewis hamilton, the guy you don't even like.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks very much. None of the references that GameLegend added are acceptable, because they don't back up the claim he's making. Simple as that. If you'd read them, you'd know that. But yeah, I "left them in" for now, but they can't stay if things aren't changed. I know you like to just spout any old crap and call it a fact, but the rest of us like things to be sourced, and that means sources that actually support the claim. The 2011 Monaco GP discussion has nothing to do with this but I see you still don't have a clue what the problem was there - the issue was that you wanted to use the race report to include comments that Hamilton made that didn't have anything to do with the race. As a number of editors and an admin told you, it was the wrong place. Did you put them in Hamilton's article like we suggested? Or did you just not bother? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My point with the broadcasted statement is, that if you literally quote them, the wording makes the statement seem incorrect. So there NEEDS to be a choice, be a stickler or be correct. Top two finishes, implies race finishes, which you can see for yourself to be incorrect here. That's why I want to add the clarification that it is top two finishes when counting both the qualifying and the race result; however we want to word that, is another thing. GameLegend (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't heard the broadcast since it was live, and I don't remember it, nor can I check it, so it's not the greatest source to use. I checked with the RS noticeboard and it's acceptable but it must have a date with the ref, and preferably a link as well. One other thing that is absolutely certain is that we have to go on what they actually said. "What they meant to say" or "what they implied" is simply not acceptable. If what they actually said is incorrect, we can't just say, "Oh, but what they meant was this..." - it just cannot work that way, it's a synthesis of the source, and no peer review or GA review would ever accept it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Do we really want this trivia in all the driver articles? If you don't, nip it in the bud now. Britmax (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Formula one records are trivia now? ROFLMAO. The "trivia" isn't in many other driver's articles because the vast majority don't hold any records.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That depends on your definition of a record. Since you say that any verifiable fact is noteworthy, then hundreds of them have records, most of them utterly trivial, like some of Vettel's. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why you find the idea that records are trivial amusing: all records are trivia, as none of them put food on the table. The line we try to find here is where they become interesting enough to be relevant in some way. To take a previous comment of yours, "the first three (podium) are more interesting than having achieved more than one second place", this is a thing you seem to find incongruous. An answer to this would seem to be well, yes they are more interesting. Some records are simply more interesting than others, and this includes some sourced ones. I don't think we are arguing over the need to draw a line so much as where that line needs to be. Britmax (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Is your intent to delete every wikipage, then? As they are all nothing but "trivia".Whatzinaname (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
What part of Britmax's comment looks anything like an intent to delete everything as trivia? He's clearly saying that we need to draw the line between trivia and useful records, and you somehow construe that as a desire to delete everything. If you don't see that there's a line to be drawn, then what are you trying to say? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It's simply the logical conclusion of his semantic argument. The rest of his point made no sense "interesting enough to be relevant"? What does that even mean? What wiki rules is that editor basing such an absurd claim from? More interesting to whom? Him?Whatzinaname (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It really isn't any logical extrapolation of what he said. Coming from someone whose points rarely make sense, your criticism is interesting. You think that drawing a line between trivia and relevance is absurd? I'd hate to see any encyclopedia that you were in charge of. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - therefore it has to be decided what is worth putting in, and what is not. That is what we are doing here. You are implying that anything that's true (according to you) can be put in, sourced or not - which is arrant nonsense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
A formula one record belongs on a formula one drivers wikipage. Period. I didn't say "anything should be put in a wiki page". This is getting quite pathetic with you. Instead of actually discussing anything, you just make things up.Whatzinaname (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, in the complete absence of any sense from you, and any interest in formulating some kind of policy here except "include everything I say is a record", there's no point in discussing it with you. No conclusion can be reached with an attitude like yours. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── With the attempt at reaching a sensible agreement seemingly at an end, WP:V states the following: "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.". It also states: "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." and "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article." Having sourced several of these records myself, I am challenging those records that are currently uncited or which have cites that do not support the material. If no sources can be found, these will be removed in a few days as unverifiable and/or not notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, but that is reference to material that is challenged for it's veracity. Do you challenge the veracity of any of these easily verifiable records by simply looking at race results in formula one history? Your problem and tghat other guys problem doesn't stem from the fact you don't believe the veracity of the record, just you don't think the record belongs, for whatever strange reasons you have. You simply don't like the facts, you don't question their factual nature.Whatzinaname (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As I explained before, but it obviously didn't get through, I'm not challenging the facts themselves, I'm challenging the idea that these facts are seen as records. The article states that these are records, and the source material that you'll have to find must clearly corroborate that these are F1 records, like the refs that I found for the other records. Readers are not obliged to go and make deductions using the results tables of a number of F1 drivers in order to verify that the facts are true - it's all there in WP:V. Speaking of not liking facts, I see you removed from the article the fact that Webber was faster than Vettel at the end of the British GP, along with the reference. I've put that back. For someone who accuses others of bias, your own bias is chronic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This why your attempt to circumvent consensus with wiki lawyering with claims of sources being required is and will be a complete failure. If you do not dispute the facts, then you have no argument. "records that aren't records", is is meaningless. You don't get to determine if a record is a record. a record simple is or isn't. Let me know when you find a record that isn't a record and then we can talk. Even obscure records are still records.Whatzinaname (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What consensus? Bretonbanquet, THMW and I all disagree with you. We're not debating if Vettel actually holds these records, but rather if their inclusion in this article is appropriate. Leaving aside the issue of verifiability (i.e. that these records can be reliably sourced by third-party publications, and that they are recognised as significant records), in my opinion, the unlinked records violate WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. I remember a similar case from a few years ago in which an editor started adding "records" like "Most 14th place qualifications" and "Most races finished in seventh position" to various driver articles - these were all true facts, but were they notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia?.--Midgrid(talk) 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I've posted at WT:F1 asking for other editors' opinions on this matter.--Midgrid(talk) 22:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Consensus? You (Whatzinaname/ and GameLegend constitute a consensus over the rest of us? You must think we're all stupid. Midgrid is right - not only can you not directly verify that these are records, but they're OR trivial fanboy garbage that has no place in an encyclopedia. The guidelines are right there, call it wikilawyering if you like, but they still stand. I don't get to determine whether a record is a record or not - the sources have to do that, and currently, they don't. Let me know when you find a source. That's before we even start with the trivia violation and the fancruft violation. I also see that you don't think Vettel being caught by Webber "is anything to do with Vettel" - your obvious, clunking bias and edit-warring is very obstructive, and will not end well if continued. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Most wins before the age of 24???? You have to be kidding. This is like some kind of black farce. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What is wrong with that record? Close your eyes for a moment and forget you are editing sebastian vettel's page, and just assume for a second the person's wiki you are editing has no records except for the one you are currently thinking about. Would you have a problem with its inclusion in that hypothetical. So the guy has no recors, oh but wait, he's complied more wins than anyone else before the age of 24. You say no to that inclusion in the wiki?23:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talkcontribs)
What's wrong with it? It's utterly, utterly arbitrary trivia that GameLegend found in a blog. Yes, I say no to it in this or any hypothetical article. Maybe you'd like to see "most wins before the age of 25", 26, 27, 28 etc etc etc... or maybe 24½... Before you start, if a British driver holds the "record" for most wins at age 26 or 27, that's trivia too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought the 'before 24' one was just an interesting example of the situation you're getting in if you want to wikilawyer everything. You (and I for that matter) find it a rediculous thing to mention, but our views don't count in this, now do they. A source considers it notable enough to mention, so that's that.
While I know it doesn't matter in reaching a concesus, my personal view is that these records are actually about being the best/on top. The most 14th places or whatever isn't an achievement of skill, but fighting for the top spots is, which is why it was mentioned in several tv broadcasts.
One thing though, regarding the most consecutive top two results thing. The total consecutive was 'unsourced' because the record was only mentioned as most from the start of the season. However, in verifying notability, in my opinion this goes together. If most consecutive top two from the start of the season is considered notable, then the bigger picture can be regarded as notable as well, since 'from the start of the season' is a deduction from total consecutive in any situation. GameLegend (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Firstly, the source you added is a blog, so it fails as a WP:RS. Second, as has been explained, a verifiable fact can still not be worthy of inclusion if, by consensus, it is considered to be trivial. Wikilawyering accusations are fine - it's a word usually thrown around by people who don't understand the rules against people who do. I agree on your second point, but I would extend it to relatively meaningless combinations of winning, such as winning as two different tracks at a young age, and topping a practice session, which is not fully competitive. Your last point requires a degree of deduction on the part of the reader, and the sources are supposed to directly support the material. Not my words, those are the rules. Anyway, the ref for that is out of date now - a new one will be required after his runner-up finish at Silverstone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To quote WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Do you now see the loophole with trying to do things this way?
As for needing an updated source for ongoing records, I'm sorry, but that's just kind of silly. The source has verified the notability of the record, and we build on that. Or are you going to want a source every new race to say that Rubens Barichello has the most Grand Prix starts? Of course no one is going to publish that, since it's not interesting to mention every race, but that doesn't mean it's an un-notabale record, whether quoted after race 300, 309 or 316.GameLegend (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Not really, no. There's more than one way to skin a cat. One passing mention in a blog, "professional" or not... It's still trivia, and you've admitted that it is. You'll have to build a consensus to include it.
The source has not verified the notability of the record. It states the fact, that's all. Look, the same thing applies. There needs to be a consensus to include this guff. You're wrong, records like Barrichello's are updated within the reliable sources as they change. FORIX/Autosport updates Barrichello's record after every race, for a start, because it's a sensible, important record. This other stuff doesn't get anywhere near a top source like FORIX. I'm tired of bashing away at this crap - I say these records are trivia, and not notable either. Let's see what others say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
'One passing mention'? The article is called "Vettel making mockery of more records", so this is a record he considers notable. He dedicates two of twelve alinea's and a graph to it. He is considered a RS, so by your earlier points, our OPINIONS are irrelevant to that of a RS.
So despite the fact the BBC considers the record (consecutive top two finishes from start of season) notable, you say it is not? GameLegend (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
So what? What he might consider notable (he doesn't even say that) is irrelevant here just like our individual opinions - it's what we as a whole consider notable that counts. He mentions it in his blog and makes a little table. It's a very minor source, alone in the whole of the internet, and it really is a passing mention - hardly Autosport or the NYT, is it? As I and Midgrid have both said, this does not rubberstamp inclusion. Consensus will decide what goes in and what doesn't. Where does it say the BBC considers that other record notable? They mentioned it in the live coverage, though as we established, they were actually wrong about it. A mention in Brundle and Coulthard's chat does not infer automatic notability, otherwise everything they said would be on here. If enough people want it in, it can go in - what more do you want? So far it's you and Whatzizname - we need more voices. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
ESPN is a minor source? While Formula One may not be the biggest sport in America, you can not seriously say that ESPN is a minor source. ESPN is a more mayor source than Autosport.
If this record was not considered notable, it would not have been quoted by at least three tv broadcasters (BBC, RTL GP, RTL Germany (not the same as or related to Dutch RTL), and quoted in dozens of race reports, including CNN's and the Mirror's. GameLegend (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd say
♠Youngest Grand Prix winner for 2 different teams
♠World Champion having not been championship leader before in the season
should stay. These are the kind of abolute records usually found in driver bios. The rest are fanboy cruft. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Bretonbanquet and Midgrid. Not every stat is a "record", and even if a stat is identified as a record by a RS doesn't automatically mean it merits inclusion in the article, it still needs to be sufficiently noteworthy. From the existing list, I'd personally delete:
  • Youngest Grand Prix winner for two different teams
  • Youngest Grand Prix winner at the same track on two occasions and
  • World Champion having not been championship leader before in the season
and maybe a couple of others. DH85868993 (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
the younest with 2 different teams is acvtually more important it looks at first glance, as in both those wins they were maiden victorys for the teams he was racing for, giving them extra importance in the narrative of Vettel's racing career. I agree about not been the leader record though because it is borderline and he is co-holder of the record.Whatzinaname (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The "..with 2 different teams" record is still not a record, but a trivial fact. THMW (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
We have been over this. You can call anything a trivial fact, and all sports stars have all sorts of stats and numbers that many people wouldconsider trivial. But the records/info is not intended for them however.No one answered when I asked why do all the drivers show how many races they have been in. And the reason is obvious -- you folks against comprehensive records have no answer for it. Being the youngest driver to win maiden victories for two different teams is infinitely more notable than driving some random amount of racesWhatzinaname (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's simply rubbish. If that were the case, why do, FORIX/Autosport etc etc all list the number of races that each driver has participated in, yet none bothers with anyone being the youngest driver to win maiden victories for two different teams. That kind of thing belongs in the text, and that's where it is. Nobody needs a sodding table for this stuff. It's an encyclopedia, not a tedious stats dump for any random factoid that someone wants to highlight for their favourite driver. I'd also add that the "World Champion having not been championship leader before in the season", both for Vettel and Hunt, is not an achievement as such. Nobody sets out to do that, and it happens more or less by accident. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to move forwards to a conclusion, who can agree on this:
"Youngest driver to score a double", "Youngest driver to score a triple", "Youngest Grand Prix winner at the same track on two occasion", "Youngest Grand Prix winner for two different teams" and "World Champion having not been championship leader before in the season" will be removed from the records section, and just mentioned in the points in time in the career summary. GameLegend (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I THMW (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I have less of a problem with the double/triple records (surely we can cite those somehow) than with the top two finish records, two of which aren't sourced. I also dislike the "highest average points" record, first, since it automatically excludes everyone who hasn't raced under the current scoring system, rendering it pointless and misleading. Second, it's unsourced, and third, it requires someone to work it out after each race, making it WP:OR. I'm OK with deleting the others you mentioned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that, although like Bretonbanquet, I'd also be happy for the double and triple records to stay. DH85868993 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur, some of the nominated stats appear to have been created specifically for the point of being mentioned, which as someone who works in motorsport media, does happen. It certainly does not make many of these minor statistics notable. A lesson in article writing if you will, sometimes stats are created simply for the purpose of creating content, because people will be, for as much time as it takes to read it, interested in such thing. Most will lose interest by the time they finish reading it. Some of these stats are subset stats of others. For example most wins under the age of 24 is in effect derived from youngest winner. So as such are only really as notable as say 24-years-old is. If there is some special significance to the age of 24. For example, some football competitions exist only for players under the age of 23, or 17, so those ages then become significant in the compilation of football statistics. However in motor racing no such significance exists, rendering age specific statistics essentially useless and of no real importance.
Additionally per wikipedia's guidelines, the text of a an article is significantly more important than the factiods. Again for example, the number of races won in a season is much more significant a statistic than number of races won under a certain age, because a season's efforts represents the World Championship, the most significant statistic in all of motor racing. Where as the age of 24 is not a stopping point for any kind of significant measurement.
Good use of statistics is used to assist in the telling of a subjects story. Compiling lists of statistics simply because you can is fancruft behavior. The story comes first, not the factoids.
You can be offended as you like, or claim you do not care for the opinions of others as much as you like, neither is not of any assistance in good wikipedia article writing. --Falcadore (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 British GP team orders[edit]

Before this turns into an edit conflict, what needs to be considered is that stating 'Vettel finished second after orders...' incorrectly implies that he finished second because of those team orders. Since Webber himself admits that he ignored the team orders and still tried to overtake Vettel, IF it needs to be included, it needs to be reworded:

Although Vettel's KERS was malfunctioning at times, he was able to pass Massa on the track and took back second place. After a strong charge from Mark Webber towards the end, Webber was asked to "maintain the gap" and not try to make a move on Vettel. Although Webber ignored his team's requests and tried to pass Vettel, Vettel was able to hold him off and finish second behind Alonso.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GameLegend (talkcontribs)
I had already changed it before reading this, to "On race day, Vettel made a better start, immediately took the lead and led the first half of the race. A delay at one of his pit stops gave the race lead to Alonso, who passed him in the pit lane, and dropped Vettel back to third, behind Hamilton. Despite a malfunctioning KERS unit, he was able to pass Hamilton and held off Webber, who ignored a radio message from team principal Christian Horner to hold position, for second place, extending his lead in the championship." I think thisshould clarify the situation.--Midgrid(talk) 22:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think he said "maintain the gap". We should probably stay as close to the original comment as possible, if so. I would also add that if an issue involves webber and has nothing to do directly with vettel, the same logic must be applied to all F! drivers, and suddently we will have wiki's not about a driver but a bunch of assides he had no active role in. So be it.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
How has this got nothing to do with Vettel? Horner says to Webber "maintain the gap" - to whom? Vettel. And you say it's got nothing to with Vettel. It's clearly very relevant to this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What does that have to do with Vettel? It had no affect on the race, nor do we have any evidence vettel knew anything about it. So vettel didn't know about it, vettel had nothing to do with it, and it had absolutely zero effect on the race. This is pretty amazing coming from the guy who doesn't want hamilton's racism charges agiasnt the Monaco stewards in the Monaco race wiki merits notability. But this does? Simply amazing.Whatzinaname (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Do try and get over the Monaco GP thing - you talk like I was the only one who disagreed with you on that, and your total failure to understand what happened in Monaco is not making you look good. Neither is this to be honest - zero effect on the race? Didn't you watch it then? It was one of the biggest talking points of the race, and they're still talking about it now. No effect on the result, no - but that's team orders for you. It doesn't matter if Vettel knew about it or not, why would that matter? I suspect I'm being trolled here - go and find anyone else who thinks that these team orders had "nothing to do with Vettel", and I'll discuss it then. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Ya, I'm supposed "get over" your colossal double standards when it comes british F1 drivers versus non-british while you are editing a non-british drivers wiki. Fat chance, man.You made your bedWhatzinaname (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I've edited every single F1 driver's article, past and present, and if you think I've introduced bias in any of them, report it. Keep up the insults. I'm saving them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It had zero effect on the race, since Webber ignored the team orders, but as you said, it's a thing that happened that is being talked about. While I'm not wanting to open a discussion (I was no part of), in that sense, it's the same as with Monaco. It's something that has happened, something that was talked about a lot, but had no effect on the race. The only difference here is that it COULD have had effect, but, it didn't. GameLegend (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It didn't have an effect on the result. It clearly had an effect on the race - we all watched it happening during the race, and everyone was and is talking about it. Anything that happened during the race had an effect on the race, however small or large. The Monaco thing is a totally different thing - it happened after the race, had no bearing on either the race or the result, and was blown out of proportion by one editor, who won't let it go. Let's not drag this out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess it depends on your definition of having an effect. The racing itself, did not change. Without the team orders, Webber would also have attacked Vettel and would have also failed to overtake him. But anyway, I'm for inclusion, so it doesn't really matter. GameLegend (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

2010-2011? (Infobox)[edit]

Pls change to 2010, 2011 (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks... (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Youngest Double World Champion[edit]

This needs to be added as of Suzuka, 2011 race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Winless streak[edit]

Since Vettel's first win at Monza, he has never gone more than seven races before his next win. No other contemporary driver can make that claim. If Vettel can maintain this distinction through the end of the year (he should have start #100 by then), this will certainly be worth adding somewhere to the article (if it isn't already worthwhile). (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a trivial quirk of statistics, and it's recentism. So probably not I predict. --Falcadore (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A separate controversies section[edit]

I personally think that there is enough to warrant a separate section for individual and overarching controversies surrounding Vettel in the same way that the Michael Schumcher article has a section on controversies. There are enough sources and enough notability to separate them out from the main body of the text in to a separate section. Sport and politics (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Having posted this over three weeks ago I shall now add this as a section. Sport and politics (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the Michael Schumacher controversy section for comparison purposes of a similar drivers page section. Sport and politics (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I would point out Lewis Hamilton as the article to emulate. It has all the 'controversies' integrated on a topical basis – as per WP:Controversy. Also, I think devoting a whole section to 'booing' is a case of WP:Undue. Cliniic (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Demanding a consensus is gained before a section is added when a talk is initiated after being added and then has ZERO responses is saying potentially wait forever for other to respond before you are allowed to add something as you cannot demonstrate a consensus, it flies in the face of be being bold and discussing, as if there is an absence of discussion when started it stands to reason that being bold is the way forward or nothing would ever get changed or done.
The booing has received widespread coverage and has been extensive it is not like a few people booed after one race. The booing has interrupted post race interviews before and has continued for more multiple races. It is also implied/explicitly stated from multiple sources that other drivers are involved with the booing. So it is a controversy surrounding his sportsmanship manifesting as booing. Also i am not sure on the weight which should be given to the essay on controversial articles which is pointed to when establishing a consensus for this specific article. All it basically says is make sure that a neutral point of view is kept as far as is possible while maintaining accuracy. What it clearly does not do is establish a Wkipeidia policy or guideline for not having a separate section on controversy in articles. The Lewis Hamilton controversies are one off incidents involving single qualifying sessions or one off racing incidents. The Vettel controversies are ongoing and are the same thing happening again and again. This is clearly a case-by-case as to if an article should or should not have a controversies section.
If the inclusion of the section is viewed as NPOV or out of step with another Wikipeida policy or guideline then please raise the concerns here, it is just silly though to wave essays and other articles which do not establish or show pre-existing policy, guidelines, or consensus to attempt to block the addition of a section without proper discussion.
Sport and politics (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I was busy with other stuff and did not realise you had put this up for discussion. In fact, you could have easily just left me a message. Nevertheless, I do apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused you. Cliniic (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Schumacher's controversies and Alonso's controversies involve (borderline) cheating, condemned by pretty much everyone in the paddock (bar Flavio) and can't be counted on one's hands anymore.
The booing is something that has happened at a couple of race through this year, yet it is the booing, and not Vettel, that is widely condemned by pretty much everyone in the paddock. Worth a line or two in the 2013 section, but not a section on it's own. Multi-21 is complete non-issue in historical context. GameLegend (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If it is true the booing is condemned can you please provide sources for that claim as currently the sources for that section say things along the lines is Vettle has bought this on himself for x y and z reasons and needs to stop x y and z. The sources also contain accusations against other of "stirring up" the booing. Some not any where near universal or even most of the paddock have condemned the booing. I doubt Webber has condemned the booing. The BBC article titled Vettel rivals 'encouraged booing' seems to throw in to nonsense the claim the booing 'is widely condemned by pretty much everyone in the paddock'. Also the sources make clear it 'multi-21' is just one part and in no way all of the reasoning behind the booing. Sport and politics (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm curious: how do you think you know enough about the subject of booing to want to make it into a section, but you somehow missed that Brundle, Lauda, Hamilton, Dominicali, di Montezemolo, Alonso, Adam Parr, Coulthard, Murray Walker and Webber himself condemned it, and this is just after 5 minutes on Google. GameLegend (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Webber's quote "the atmosphere was not completely correct. But, anyway, it's their choice" is hardly a condemnation, more of a that was wrong but so what. Criticising and condemning are no where near the same thing. It is no where near unanimity amongst the paddock as claimed. Also the reactions shown demonstrate that this is highly controversial and that it is clearly notable. If it was not notable or not controversial no one would have said anything and reliable sources like the BBC and Autosport would not have covered it, it would have been left to the unreliable (in terms of no editorial oversight and secondary sourcing) blogs such as F1fanatic. Also John Watson appears to disagree with you about condemning the booing of Vettel. This whole back and forth and displaying of reactions goes to demonstrate the notability and noteworthiness of this and how controversial it has been. So this shows it is more than worth including. Sport and politics (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
1. It has been included.
2. Interpreting Webber's words they way you choose to doesn't even address the paddock-wide condemnation of the booing. 5 minutes on Google netted 10 people who condemned it (said it was wrong), while all you come up with is one driver (+ Rosberg in your original link, which makes two).
3. Even if you somehow make a case that a significant portion of the paddocks approves of the booing, two incidents, one of which is one of team-orders, do not constitute a basis for an entire section on controversy. It wouldn't for anyone, not for Senna, not for Prost, not for Hamilton, not for Vettel, not for Webber. GameLegend (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the booing is strange, and not warranted by Vettel's slight 'transgressions'. These are not themselves notable, and it would only be feeding the fire of bigotry to start a separate entry on this. Many other drivers have engaged in behaviours or incidents which really do merit booing, but not in this driver's case. He is sensationally successful, without achieving this by untoward behaviour. Some people resent success, that is the notable thing.

TonyClarke (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally feel that rather than split off, the controversies are significantly overblown compared to other F1 drivers in history, so perhaps reducing the coverage of the controversies would be an improvement. --Falcadore (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I don't actually think we should have separate sections for any driver because they are intrinsically negative. Any notable controversies concerning a driver should be merged chronologically with the text to maintain a NPOV balance throughout. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

BBC greatest drivers list[edit]

Should we mention in the introduction that Vettel was placed the 8th greatest driver of all the time in a 2012 BBC's poll, ahead of some actual drivers like Alonso and Hamilton? If nobody disagree i will feel free to add this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganulu (talkcontribs) 02:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is this list important? --Falcadore (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Why does your question imply that Vettel is not an "actual driver"? My answer in no, not in the introduction and probably not anywhere.Britmax (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I think he means 'current' driver.
Drivers like Clark, Senna and Schumacher have a notice of often being considered the best driver in history. That is relevant, and if Vettel will ever reach that, we can talk about it. But as of now, it is not relevant. GameLegend (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes I meant 'current' drivers, sorry, english isn't my first language. I thought the list was relevant for being from the BBC sport website and all the staff working there made it. Anaway if we don't agree, that's ok for me. 13:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Ganulu (talk)
I just want to know what is so important or noteworthy about this list. --Falcadore (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Name of Girlfriend[edit]

The name of Sebastian´s girlfriend is Hanna Sprater not Prater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Source? Tvx1 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I despise myself for having noticed this, but since I did it, you'll find that ten seconds with google will give you thousands of sources like this one...,4595266,25585790.html
Though Prater would be great for lovers of Vienna. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Ach nein, I was wrong! Prater gets thousands more hits than Sprater Charles01 (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Career Points[edit]

They stand at 1496 not 94.

Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)