Talk:2017 Formula One World Championship

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)

Vandoorne "signed a contract"

I'm not keen on the wording of the article reading "Vandoorne signed a contract". I know that the existence of a signed contract is the standard we use to include content in the table, but Hülkenberg's move to Renault opens up implications for the wording (as do other notable examples, such as Button and Williams, and van der Garde and Sauber). As soon as I see the wording "Vandoorne signed a contract", I immediately think "well, is he going to see it out?".

I know that this sounds like a quibble, but for the sake of clarity, we should assume that if a contract is signed, it is the intention of all parties involved that it will be seen to its conclusion until such time as it is proven otherwise. The wording of the article should reflect that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

So what wording do you suggest than. Bear in mind that we cannot use "will" as that is in breach of WP:Crystal. And no, we should not assume things. José María López and Luiz Razia are two examples who spring to my mind as to why we shouldn't. Tvx1 10:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — You want to go with WP:CRYSTAL? Really? We've been down this rabbit hole before. Here's the argument in a nutshell: if we can't assume that all parties to a contract intend to fulfil it as stated, then we can't include anything in the driver table because they might not see that contract out.

Do you want to remove the table from the article, or should I? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"José María López and Luiz Razia are two examples who spring to my mind as to why we shouldn't."

Isn't that an assumption in and of itself? You're saying "a contract exists, but it might not be fulfilled" based on nothing more than two isolated incidents (one of which—Lopez—was arguably beyond his control) and the vague supposition that some unforeseen event might prevent the contract from being fulfilled. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep your cool please. No we shouldn't remove the content in the table or the table itself because we can verify these contracts exist today. However we cannot verify now who starts the 2016 Australian Grand Prix; That's why we have WP:Crystal and we cannot write things like "x will happen". If you can suggest a better wording for the content in question which keeps satisfying that policy, please do so.Tvx1 11:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"However we cannot verify now who starts the 2016 Australian Grand Prix"

No, we can't, but you're ignoring the implications of what you're suggesting—that drivers might make it to Melbourne, but then again, they might not. And you're using the suggestion that they might not to dictate the way the article should be written, despite no evidence to the contrary.

"That's why we have WP:Crystal and we cannot write things like "x will happen""

And for the same reasons, you cannot imply "x will not happen".

"If you can suggest a better wording for the content in question which keeps satisfying that policy, please do so."

Let's assume for the moment that there is no alternate wording. What is the lesser evil? Suggesting that a driver will race because they signed a contract, or suggesting that a driver will not race because of an outside event that has not happened (and may never happen). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, so long as you're using Lopez and Razia as an historical example to demonstrate why a contract might not be fulfilled, I'll direct your attention back to Hülkenberg as an example of why saying that a driver has a contract is not sufficient.

"Keep your cool please."

How about I decide how I am feeling, and you just concern yourself with the content of the article? You have no way of knowing how I feel right now, but if ever my mood changes, I'll be sure to let you know about it. If, for example, I was feeling irritated, I would say words to the effect of "some dickhead is trying to undermine me with an ad hominem attack by insinuating that I am making decisions based on emotions". Since I haven't said anything like that, you haven't got a leg to stand on claiming that. But I'll give you a hint: continuing to imply that I have lost my temper when I haven't is a sure-fire way to ensure to raise my hackles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you write something like, "Do you want to remove the table from the article, or should I?", that's clear reaction borne out of emotion. Now please comment on the content instead of on the users. No-one is suggesting anyone will not race. Now, do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future? Tvx1 12:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"No-one is suggesting anyone will not race."

No, you're IMPLYING it. You just cited two examples where contracts existed, but were never fulfilled, and we just had Hülkenberg get out of his Force India contract. Anyone taking a broad view of the article will see it. And what's worse, you're justifying it under CRYSTAL while breaking CRYSTAL to pieces. In saying "we don't know who will race in Melbourne", you're predicting a future event that will prevent the contract from being fulfilled.

The contract says that the driver will race provided that all conditions are met; it creates a status quo. In order for that status quo to change, there must be some external event that forces change. We don't know what that event is. We don't know if it will even happen. But you edits amount to "we can't say for sure because something might happen, even if we don't know what that might be". That, in itself, is breaking CRYSTAL. You may not be speculating in the article, but you're letting that speculation guide the decisions that you are making and in the end, you're misrepresenting the situation.

We should be observing the status quo established by the contract, not second-guessing it because of the potential for something to change it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're reasoning is once again a logical fallacy because in no way is the content in the article currently tying to speculate, predict or imply anything. It's literally representing current facts verifiable through the sources backing them. I'm certainly not " letting speculation guide the decisions that I'm are making" I'm letting policies and guidelines guide my decisions. The relevant policies here are crystal and verify and judging on your previous reply I'm seriously beginning to doubt that you actually understand the former. In fact, I'm not sure you even understand what predicting the future means. Predicting the future would be stating something like: "Driver X will drive." or "Driver X will not drive." What I did was simply stating fact, as it is the simple truth that we don't know at all what will happen in the world five months from now. I only cited those Lopez and Razia examples to point out why your wording is a no-go. I have not used them in any way in the article. It has never been our intention in the season articles to have our pre-season driver tables predict the starting grids. We have always labelled it "Signed teams and drivers. The goal has always been to tell our readers who is currently signed up to drive in the upcoming season in question and the prose underneath the table should follow that. Thus your claim that "saying that a driver has a contract is not sufficient" is wrong as it is in reality the only verifiable fact that we can say. No I will close of my reply once again with a (copy-pasted) request for a collaborative, constructive reply: Do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future? Tvx1 12:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

'in no way is the content in the article currently tying to speculate, predict or imply anything"

But your justification does. Your entire argument for keeping the wording as it is hinges on the idea that we cannot say for certain who will race in Melbourne. Like I said, the contract establishes a status quo, a guarantee that future events will take place provided that all conditions are met. We can reasonably assume that all parties will meet those conditions because that's what the contract says that they will do. Therefore, the only thing that can prevent the contract from being fulfilled is some external event, which, as I have said, has not happened yet and which we have no way of knowing if it will come about. Therefore, your entire justification is based on speculating about the possibility of a future event.

"Do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future?"

Yes, I do: we say that Vandoorne will race because that's what the contract says that he will do. Tell me, do you have any reliable, verifiable evidence that says Vandoorne will not race? Or is it just a vague supposition of what might happen? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Vandoorne will race is not different wording that does not involve predicting the future. It's exactly what you entered in the article and why we're having this discussion. Being constructive/collaborative does not involve clinging on to your own wording. Now, please stop accusing me of trying to predict the future. Why on earth do you have any reliable, verifiable evidence that says Vandoorne will not race??? At no point have claimed he will not nor does the article in its current state. In fact I couldn't care less what will happen in five months now. What I care about is representing the facts that as they stand right now, verifiable through sources. We can't state that something will happen in wikipedia's own guaranteeing voice because a)it's really common sense that we can't and b)wikipedia policy. So once again, (copy-paste) do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future?Tvx1 00:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"At no point' have claimed he will not nor does the article in its current state."

No, you haven't said it, but you're wilfully ignoring the point: you're using it to guide your entire argument. How many times do I have to say it? You're letting the assumption that something could happen override our knowledge of what will happen. The contract says that, should everything continue as expected, planned and intended, Vandoorne will race. What evidence do you have to refute that?

"In fact I couldn't care less what will happen in five months now. What I care about is representing the facts that as they stand right now, verifiable through sources."

You're making the same mistake that you always do: you're so fixated on what the article looks like today that you forget about what it will look tomorrow. The best articles are articles that are written to be current, but with one eye on the future.

"Being constructive/collaborative does not involve clinging on to your own wording."

Nor does acting like a self-appointed gatekeeper. You don't own the article, so please stop behaving as if you are the final authority on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't said it, but you're wilfully ignoring the point: you're using it to guide your entire argument.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm using policies to guide my judgement. I've already said that before but you apparently refuse to accept it. That doesn't change it being true.

The contract says that, should everything continue as expected, planned and intended, Vandoorne will race. What evidence do you have to refute that?
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The answer is there in your statement. You state a big if yourself and we obviously can't guarantee these things will happen. That's why we can't use "x will happen" in Wikipedia's voice. I'll repeat as well that neither I nor the article are claiming that Vandoorne won't race.

You're making the same mistake that you always do: you're so fixated on what the article looks like today that you forget about what it will look tomorrow.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That's because the policies force me to. And it's very logical they do.

The best articles are articles that are written to be current, but with one eye on the future.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Keeping on eye on the future does not equate to presenting content as facts to our readers in wikipedia's voice when they aren't yet. We have already explained that last year during the Lotus/Renault and Marussia/Manor issues.

Please stop behaving as if you are the final authority on the subject.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't. You're the only acting authoritative here. You were once again reverted by more than one editor and then barged onto the talk page demanding that your wording be reinstated. I have ended every of my replies with an attempt to get a constructive suggestion that keeps satisfying the policies. It's an attempt to find a compromise that satisfies everyone as well as the policies. You refuse to collaborate with that attempt though. So here goes again, (copy-paste) do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future?Tvx1 10:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"You state a big if yourself and we obviously can't guarantee these things will happen."

Do you ... even understand what a contract is? How would you describe it, if not a legally binding document that outlines the expectations of two or more parties to realise a future event?

"You're the only acting authoritative here"

Really. You're the one demanding alternatives and refusing to acknowledge the inherent problems in his own argument. For some reason, you cannot seem to grasp the way you're using CRYSTAL to justify your edits. So, here it is again, in the simplest terms:

A contract is a guarantee of a future. The only thing that can prevent that future is an unknown event. You say "we can't guarantee that future", which means that you think that that unknown event might happen. You have no evidence of this. Therefore, you are predicting that the contract might not be fulfilled despite the nature of the contract outlining what will happen, which is CRYSTAL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I understand what a contract. You obviously don't. I doesn't guarantee what you wan't to present to our readers is a verified fact. Again, I'm not predicting any contract won't be fulfilled. Predicting and might are not synonyms. They are quite contrary to each other in fact. You obviously don't understand what "predicting the future means". It involves attesting that something is certain to/no to happen. That almost always involves the use of the word "will". I haven't done that, so please stop these nonsense insinuations that I'm predicting the future. I'm only ensuring that the article's wording is in line with policy. We are bound by policy. Lastly I'm not demanding alternatives. I'm suggesting that we start being collaborative and try to find a compromise that satisfies all. So (copy-paste) do you have a suggestion for a different wording that does not involve predicting the future? Tvx1 15:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"I'm suggesting that we start being collaborative and try to find a compromise that satisfies all."

You may well be the first person to suggest something without actually suggesting anything.

"Predicting and might are not synonyms. They are quite contrary to each other in fact."

Except that this isn't about prediction. It's about speculation. If you're acknowledging the possibility of some external event preventing the contract from being fulfilled, you're speculating. You're saying "we can't guarantee that Vandoorne will race" despite the contract saying that he will, so clearly you think that something might happen to prevent it. That's speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We report verifiable facts. The verifiable facts are that these drivers have contracts to race next year. We do not have any way of verifying that they will actually race. Report the verifiable fact and let the reader make the inference themselves, it is not up to us to say that something in the future will or will not happen. We cannot verify that. Robert Kubica had a contract to race for Lotus in 2011. Did he actually take part in any races that year? No. Stick to facts Prisonermonkeys, not speculative, forward-looking statements. If you want to write a prognostication blog ahead and do that, but Wikipedia is not a blogging site. Try Wordpress. Pyrope 22:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

" Robert Kubica had a contract to race for Lotus in 2011. Did he actually take part in any races that year? No."

And that falls under force majeure. When the contract was signed, he had every intention of racing and the team had every intention of running a car for him. But his accident was an external event, something that nobody anticipated, but prevented him from racing.

It's entirely possible that Vandoorne will get a bad case of gastro two days before the race and be unable to participate (or any one of a thousand and one other things). We have no way of knowing if that will happen, but by the same token, we have no way of knowing that it won't. This is where my issue comes into it: sure, the wording of the article is technically correct, but it's built on the premise that something might happen to prevent Vandoorne from racing, whereas the contract says that he will race. We've traded the certainty that every reliable source provides based on the possibility of something preventing it. If that something were to happen, it would require additional sources to verify.

Saying that Vandoorne will race is the more representative version because every reliable source available says that he will. This is the only site I can find that doesn't say it, and it doesn't say it because of the potential for some vaguely-defined and amorphous thing to happen at some indeterminate point in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Keeping WP:BALL in mind, it would seem most appropriate to wait to add drivers until the team announces their driver lineups. Wikipedia is NOT the place for speculation.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The team has announced their line-up: Alonso and Vandoorne. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the article is built on the premise of what's a verifiable fact right now and what's acceptable by policy. The certainty which you claim every reliable source and every contract provide simply does not exist. We have already provided you three examples why: José María López, Luiz Razia and Robert Kubica. I can add another two: Érik Comas and Christophe Bouchut in 1995. The latter of whom never made his scheduled F1 debut. Tvx1 13:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"The certainty which you claim every reliable source and every contract provide simply does not exist."

So you admit that there is the potential for something to happen that would prevent the contract from being fulfilled. I'll ask you again: do you have any specific evidence to suggest that something will happen to Vandoorne, or are you just guessing?

I find it very strange that you support the continued inclusion of the calendae in the discussion below, even though the certainty that you claim does not exist here does not exist there. And then you wonder why I get frustrated when there is no consistency to the way articles are edited. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What lack of consistency are you on about?? The entire team and drivers section is labeled "Signed teams and drivers (and that's for a reason). The whole calendar section is introduced with prove clearly stating it's a provisional calendar. The whole article is written with the consistent editing of presenting verifiable facts. And I don't know why you continue to imply this, but for the umpteenth I'm NOT claiming something will/will not happen. In fact you, and you alone, are insisting that we should state something will happen. Tvx1 00:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"I'm NOT claiming something will/will not happen."

I don't know where you're pulling this from. I never said that you were claiming something—I said that you're basing your decisions on speculation, so even if the wording is technically correct, the reasoning behind it is faulty, and that undermines the content of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You resuesting evidence from me that something will not happen is a clear claim that I had stated. As I have stated many times before, I'm basing my desicions on policies. You utterly refusing to accept that doesn't make it untrue.Tvx1 10:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What is this argument even about? What do each of you want? Wicka wicka (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wicka wicka Your guess is as good as mine, mate. I feel an Attenborough voice-over is needed. Unfortunately, like the usual animals Attenborough comments on, it seems constant banging together of heads has rid these poor editors of their brain cells. Such a shame. I actually had to re-read that a few times to figure out what they actually wanted to happen.

For what it's worth, I agree with Prisonermonkeys (I think - it's kind of hard to keep track) in that as long as a contract is signed, and Vandoorne's been announced (which he has) it's reasonable to assume he will race next season. However I don't see any reason to change the wording - if we're taking the definition of a contract Prisonermonkeys posted above, there's no need to read "signed a contract" with any doubt. And if anything does happen, we can change it.

Tl;dr - Vandoorne's probably going to race in 2017, wording doesn't need to change. Allypap81 (talk) 23:10, 29 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)