Jump to content

Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:04, 29 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Renault "are not French"

In which batshit crazy world did I wake up in this morning? Because apparently in this parallel universe, French manufacturers are not actually French until they tell us they are French, and it is entirely unreasonable to assume that because they have always been French, they will continue to be French. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What interests me far more is why this change is included at this point anyway when all sources clearly state that the deal is still not finalised... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Obviously Renault are French but racing teams have to apply for their racing license and the change isn't confirmed yet, from what other users have taught me we shouldn't just jump the gun and claim something without the relevant source to back it up, and by the way throwing around insults on users talk pages isn't constructive or helping the matter at all Prisonermonkeys. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Were not interested in the car manufacturer here. We're interested in the Formula One constructor. There nationality will be determined by which national motorsports governing body they register the constructor with, if they even change it from the current British registration in the first place. And these are things you know full well. This has all been mentioned when the nationality of Red Bull was questioned years ago. Please stop assuming a possible nationality change until such time that the official instances announce such a change. That is, if they do so at all. Tvx1 23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, Renault were a British team in 2011, and some manufacturers have raced under other nationalities in various production-based series in the past, depending upon what local unit or dealer is carrying the bill. It's not entirely certain that they'll be French, but it's likely enough that assuming so is the sensible option whenever Renault fully take over the team. QueenCake (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
No we NEVER assume things. We reflect the sources. Another is British Caterham being a Malaysian F1 Constructor. And apparently, naming the constructor Nissan or even Infiniti is also being considered. Tvx1 00:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The source makes it pretty clear that Renault now own the team. Even if they choose to keep the Lotus name in the future, we have to concern ourselves with what is most representative of the current situation. We KNOW Renault own the team; they MIGHT keep the Lotus name. Keeping the entry as Lotus implies that the team will compete as Lotus and we don't know that for sure. Even if we have to change it back to Lotus in a month, that doesn't vindicate the choice to keep the name as Lotus now.

We have to keep the article as representative of what we know. We know that there is a change of ownership, so show me a source confirming that they will stay as Lotus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We know that there is change of ownership, not a change of name. In 2000 Renault bought Benetton, the name stayed Benetton. There is no implying of what will happen at all. This is exactly the same as the earlier despite about Marussia, where you supported keeping the current name. The current name of the team is Lotus and no change has been announced so we keep it as Lotus. That IS the current situation. We don't write about the future. Tvx1 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I supported keeping the Marussia name because we had no alternative information. Here we do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
No we don't. Only that there is new owner. Nothing whatsoever regarding a new team and/or constructor name. Identical to Marussia. Ownership changed from Andrey Cheglakov to Stephen Fitzpatrick but nothing about a potential name change has been announced in what's now almost a year since the ownership change. Tvx1 00:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Identical? Not even a little bit.
When Fitzpatrick took over Marussia, he did so at the last minute; here, Renault are buying Lotus before the FIA publish provisional entry list. Fitzpatrick was a private individual and we had no idea who he represented until the deal was done and the team kept the Marussia name; Renault are a company with a long history of involvement in the sport and Ghosn's comments specifically refer to "a works team" rather than a supply deal. And finally, Marussia were up-front about keeping the Marussia name because it allowed them to keep the prize money whereas Rebault have said nothing about keeping the Lotus name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: Well, yes and no... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Renault explicitly said that they wouldn't keep the Lotus name. Not sure that we can include "Renault" yet before the FIA confirms it, but still, Lotus is gone. Eightball (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. We don't have confirmation they applied for a name change yet. Tvx1 14:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that standard, we have "confirmation" for basically nothing on the page. The head of Renault F1 (Cyril Abiteboul) has said their name will change from Lotus to Renault in 2016. We trust him when he says they'll buy the team. We trust Red Bull when they say TAG Heuer will brand their engines. Why don't we trust Renault when they say they'll be Renault? Or should we just redirect this entire article to fia.com and be done with it? Eightball (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Because it is not the head of Renault's decision whether or not a name change will be accepted. That needs an application approved by the FIA and the other teams, as the presented sources point out. Moreover, he hasn't said they will change it, he has said they will apply to have it changed That is an important difference. Just be patient. There is no rush to change this information. Tvx1 16:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The top of the page says Hamilton will be the defending world champion. How do we know that? He hasn't officially been awarded the title yet. Is there a contract in place saying the sport will even be called Formula One? Just be patient, we need to remove all content from the page until we have official written confirmation of every word and every fact. Renault will be called Renault. We know this because the head of the their team has announced it. The FIA does not deny name changes in these cases. It's going to happen with or without you. Stop being pedantic and work WITH us to make this the best page possible. Eightball (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
That claim is just not as true as it seems. It is NOT Renault's decision to change the name. The FIA and the other team decide whether they can do so. Moreover sources have been provided that retaining Lotus or naming it Nissan or Infiniti is also being considered. Again the head of the team announced that willapply for a change. That is not the same as they saying they wil change it. Moreover we don't write about the future (=what wil happen) but about how thing stand today. And today, on the 4th of december, the name of the team has not been changed. So we cannot claim it has. You have agreed yourself with the exact same approach during the discussion about Marussia. It is the only safe, encyclopedic way.Tvx1 18:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
However, Abiteboul (from Renault) and Carter (from Lotus) have said pretty clearly that the Lotus name would be ditched in case Renault purchased the Enstone team, as it's used under licence. The only person suggesting it will still be called Lotus was Mr. Saward (mostly in his blog (?)), but he made clear it was his personal vision of how things will unfold. At this point in time, the name should be listed as "TBA" as major figures said the intention is not to continue with the Lotus branding for the team. Keeping the Lotus name is not encyclopaedic, as it ignores declarations from major figures from both Renault and Lotus. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Again it's not their ultimate decision to make. It's not encyplopedic to write TBA because we don't write about the future. We write about the present and as of today the names have not been changed. Tvx1 19:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to call the team "Lotus" implies that the team will still be called "Lotus", but we have no source supporting that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

TBA (or TBC) is clearly the best option in this case. We do write about the future, this article is about the 2016 season for instance, and we don't yet have confirmation about what name the new team will race under in 2016. Until we have confirmation that a name change to Renault or something else is agreed to, or until an announcement that they will keep the Lotus name, then we can't use any of them, as that would be speculation. Renault have said they will make more announcements in January, that is likely when we will be able to update the page with more concrete information.
Also, as an aside, there seems to be lots of edits to the page being undertaken by all sides - really these edits should all wait until the discussion here has been concluded, as per the BRD process. Mattlore (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mattlore — exactly. We don't know that they will use the Lotus name. We don't even know if they are still called Lotus. For some reason, editors have an obsession with "the article must be current" when really the article must be representative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Again. We don't care about what will happen. We cannot write what will happen because that violates one of the core policies of the encyclopedia: WP:CRYSTAL. Because of wikipedia's policies we must write about how the situation currently is. And then team that has signed Maldonado and Palmer for 2016 currently has a name: Lotus. So we have no option but to keep Lotus (white a note that further explains the situation so as not to confuse our readers) until such time as a name change has been confirmed, since doing otherwise is a violation of WP:Crystal.Tvx1 21:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
We also have a source in which Cyril Abiteboul says that, in the event Renault purchases Lotus, they will change the name; having purchased Lotus, and with no evidence to suggest that the company has reneged on Abiteboul's comments, "Lotus" is no longer the most representative name for the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
You have misread that. He said they will apply for a name change. As said earlier above, it's not Renault's ultimate decision whether it wil happen. As long as they have not confirmed such an application, Lotus is the only representative name we can use. Again, think of Benetton as well.Tvx1 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
We have a senior Renault figure stating the company's intentions. Do you have any reason to believe that this is no longer the case now that Renault own the team? And if so, do you have a source? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The exact same source you use to support your change literally states that it's the FIA and the other teams who decide over a name change. Tvx1 21:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1 — no, the other teams decide whether or not a name change goes ahead. They have no power to decide what that name will be. When Marussia applied, they needed to submit a new name for the F1 Commission to consider. As far as I am aware, the only times they reject a name is when it is considered too similar to an existing constructor name, is offensive, or is not actually recognised as a word (as was the case of HRT, who originally wanted to be known as "Hispania"). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The source you provided literally states that the others team have a say and sources supersede your opinion. Tvx1 23:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
They have a say as to whether or not the name changed goes through. Right now, it's quite literally "TBA" because it remains to be seen whether the name change will be approved or rejected. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
They haven't even applied for a name change, so it shouldn't be TBA in the first place. Tvx1 00:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Abiteboul is a senior Renault figure stating that they will change the name. Please provide a source that proves otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is not needed. The ultimate decision wether the name will be changed lies NOT with Renault. And just because Abiteboul stated a month ago that they wanted to change the name, it does not mean the application has been sent. The FIA would have announced it if they had. The burden lies with you, because it is you who advocates changes to the article and not me. Tvx1 02:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, why on earth did you remove the Marussia information? There is a clear consensus to keep the Marussia name in the article and you're actually a part of it. You cannot act in defiance of consensus like that. Forget that, you have sourced that well enough. Tvx1 21:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1 — Did you read the source I provided? Marussia have formally applied to the F1 Commission to change their name. You know perfectly well that a consensus can change over time and that it can even be superseded by the addition of new information. I believe that this represents new information, because the formal application to the F1 Commission is the only way to change a constructor name. I see you have read the source and footnote since. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we at least stop screwing around with making major changes to the page while this is being discussed? We may be in disagreement but that's the worst possible outcome. Eightball (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a source for the year 2016 even existing? I propose that this page is deleted. Eightball (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Now you're just being petty. Just two months ago you agreed that we shouldn't write TBA for team names as long as the application for a name change has not been announced, when the issue was raised concerning Marussia, and now when the exact same proof is requested regarding Lotus/Renault it doesn't make sense to you. That doesn't make sense to me. And the identical attitude of ¨Prisonermonkeys doesn't either. Tvx1 03:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not being petty. I'm pointing out that your reasoning is inherently flawed. Marussia is an entirely different situation where we literally have no idea what the team will be called. Renault has purchased Lotus and explicitly stated that they will change the team name to Renault - there's simply nothing to discuss. All you're fighting for is an incorrect article. Why? Eightball (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
It isn't. Again, four the fourth time, he hasn't they would change the name to Renault. He said they would apply for a name change, while adding there is a myriad a brands they could request to change it to. The decision wether the name will change lies NOT with Renault. Importantly the source doesn't prove that application has been submitted. As long as you don't supply proof that the application has been submitted, similar to the proof used for Marussia) writing TBA and thus implying it might change is a violation of wikipedia policy (WP:Crystal). As of today the team name is still Lotus and can see no reason why it is so vital to change it before sources appear to actually tell they applied for a change. Tvx1 14:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for yet again proving the insanity and uselessness of WIkipedia. You so dedicated to BS rules and regulations that you'd prefer to just lie. Lotus will be renamed Renault - end of story, it's an objective fact, everyone involved has repeatedly said this. You are contributing NOTHING here. You're just make the page worse. Good job being a negative. You have less than zero value. Eightball (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not contributing to this waste of time any more. Keep your wrong page and your wrong attitude. I expect an apology when the entry list comes out and it has Renault written on it. Eightball (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see any confirmation of the Renault name anywhere. There are reports on a possible Nissan moniker due to the French government desire to push towards a merger of the two companies, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Really? You can't see the widely reporting interview with the head of Renault Sport, Cyril Abiteboul, saying there will be "no delay" in changing the name to Renault? Did you even try? Eightball (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
1) He said there was no reason to delay a name change. 2) That interview is older than the Nissan rumours, so maybe those are newer developments, and 3) and most importantly: Even if they have every intention of changing the name to Renault, they still first need to finalise the deal (hasn't happened yet) and second the name change needs to be granted by Ecclestone and the other teams. So no, we cannot post the name Renault here yet. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The Nissan rumors are nonsense, your source is bunk and not trustworthy. Call me when BBC or Autosport reports that. I am talking about the actual HEAD OF THE ORGANIZATION saying what they will do. And answer me this: do you even watch F1? If you did, you'd probably know that the Renault deal was confirmed TWO DAYS AGO...this is why the two of you need to be ignored here. You have obviously no clue what you're talking about and you've made that clear many times. The fact that you have any influence on the content of this page is a joke, frankly. Eightball (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not appreciate your conduct. If you are unable to discuss without insulting fellow editors, maybe your contributions to this Project should be called into question. On the topic: Please read my post above again. Or I'll just repeat myself: The name change still needs to be confirmed! As long as that is not the case, the name actually remains Lotus and should so be displayed here. And yes, I am totally going back on my opinion voiced in the Manor/Marussia debate because I now have a better understanding of the matter. Or, according to our magic Eightball here, I have no understanding of F1 whatsoever.... Take your pick, fellas. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't appreciate YOUR conduct. You are nowhere near well-informed enough to have any input into this discussion. Go away, learn more about F1, read more F1 news (how in the world did you not know the Renault deal was done?), then maybe come back and contribute. As of right now, your contributions are zero. And for someone who is trying very hard to make this the best article it can be, you are immensely frustrating and testing my patience. Would you edit a quantum physics article without any knowledge of physics? If not...why are you here? Eightball (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I guess that's like when we, the liars, had to apologize personally to you when the 2015 German Grand Prix took place in Germany because you can never be wrong. Please remind where the 2015 German Prix took place. If you want to back a change, please stop insulting other editors and supply proof that Renault has actually submitted an application to change the name to Renault. Thus far you have only supplied an interview with Abiteboul that does NOT say that they want to change it to Renault, but that they simply want to change it to something else and literally states that they were considering a myriad of brands they can change it to. Also the Lotus takeover announcement from two days ago literally states that parts of the deal still have to be finalized. It is clearly you who is not bothering to read the sources you refer to. Tvx1 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
You might want to read the sources on the "done" Renault deal again. The press release by Renault read: "Work continues on finalizing the terms of the acquisition of Lotus F1 Team in the shortest timeframe possible." And having said this, I will now search for where to report users for abuse. I will not stand for your attacks. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I will not stand for your incompetence. Do better. And it's childish that you feel the need to tattle and cry just because you can't make a valid point and support it. And this is yet another reason why wiki is garbage, why trying to edit here is a waste of time, and specifically why the F1 wikiproject is awful. Eightball (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
If it is so bad, feel free to leave. Meanwhile, Tvx1 and I will keep editing on the basis of valid points, which we have delivered. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
You are both liars and you both do nothing but make this page worse. I will not leave and concede to your trolling. Eightball (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
So familiar of the German GP debacle. Please remind us what happened in reality there. Tvx1 17:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I never said the German GP 100% would happen. All I said is that IF it did happen it would be in Germany and thus a German flag was required. You were wrong then and you're still wrong now. As I said before, everything bad about this article is your doing. You've contributed nothing positive and do nothing but delay progress. Eightball (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Refocus

It's sad that two editors had to get themselves blocked over a simple content dispute. Anyway, I hope we can now keep the article stable until such time Renault or the FIA actually announced that a name change has been applied for. Tvx1 15:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe the current way is best and I am sure we can expect more news soon to resolve the issues. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a small thing: I feel that it would be better for the general readers if we linked Manor Marussia's "TBA" to their team site. I doubt that many readers will go to the note to find the wikilink there. Any thoughts? Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
In a way it makes sense, but on the other hand we don't know of the new name will have anything to do with "Manor Marussia". Given that they have lay-off all the Manor Motorsport people, it's possible that they will take an entirely new constructor name which would result in us creating a new article. So provided a link to Manor Marussia wouldn't be entirely helpful then. Tvx1 17:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
But it would be a Marussia spin-off one way or another. As for now, the name change has not gone through, so actually, technically they are still Manor Marussia. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
And do you really think the footnote is insufficient?Tvx1 18:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is some more information regarding Lotus. An Autosport article that was published today, states that the Lotus F1 Team will appear in High Court later this week. This shows undisputedly that the Lotus F1 Team name is still in use and that the name changing process has not started, let alone successfully concluded, yet. Tvx1 17:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
But doesn't the same apply for Marussia? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
No, not really. Proof has been provided that they applied for a name change. That is satisfying enough to list them as TBA. Their name has been proven to be in the process of being changed. Tvx1 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but as of now Lotus is still called Lotus and Manor Marussia is still Manor Marussia. The latter are just further in the process than the others. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a problem with keeping it as Marussia for them time being while retaining the footnote. That would probably be the most accurate way to describe the current situation. Tvx1 19:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Have done so for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
In fact, through doing some research into our past, I have found that the last we had such name changes (in 2012) we kept the original, existing names until such time as the FIA confirmed the name changes. And on top of it all, if you look at that article's history more closely, you will see that Prisonermonkeys supported that position back then. TBA was never even in the picture back then. So, yes, keeping the current names is the best practice and is our years-long convention. Tvx1 19:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
And at the same time Stephen Fitzpatrick has announced that he wants his Marussia team to be renamed for his company, OVO Energy.Tvx1 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
And here is a link on a previous discussion the changing of team names in our articles, and the clear consensus was not to change them until they are actually confirmed. Prisonermonkeys even replied to that discussion that a team principal signaling their intentions isn't good enough. Tvx1 01:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And here is yet more info pointing out that the takeover still has to be completed during the remainder of them month, as well as that Lotus will still make active appearances later this month.Tvx1 15:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
First off, we are not discussing 2015, we are discussing 2016; that much should be obvious. Second, the fact that we've always done things a certain way does not erase the possibility of improving our process. I would argue, and I'd hope you would agree, that these articles have only gotten better over time. That improvement did not happen because we sat on our hands and were content with the level of quality we had already reached. Third, I do not think Lotus/Renault and Marussia/Manor are relevant situations to each other. With Lotus, we know the Renault takeover is going to be done, and we know the name will be changed. Both have been confirmed. With Marussia, as F1 fans we know the name was only kept to keep their FOM TV rights money, and we have every reason to believe it will be changed now that Marussia is entirely out of the picture, but that's nonetheless original research that isn't fit for this article. I now agree that I was wrong to fight for the Renault name, but Lotus is equally wrong. We have no specific confirmation of the former, but we do have confirmation that it won't be the latter. So what we know for sure is very little - in fact, I believe all we know is the drivers and the engine. That that's why it should say TBA-Lotus. Additionally, think of it from this perspective: a person reads a news article announcing that the Renault takeover has been completed. They read another story from the head of Renault Sport indicating the Lotus team name will be dropped. These articles are from reliable sources and feature direct quotes. They then come here and see...Lotus. Their only reaction is going to be that Wikipedia is clearly wrong. And they're right to think that. And if you DON'T agree that reliably reported quotes from the head of organizations are good enough sources for Wikipedia, then there's quite a lot that needs to be removed from this article. You can't have it both ways. Eightball (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Tvx1 has given all the confirmation above that you claim is not there. Moving on please. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No, we are not moving on. The team has said the name will be changed, just like they also said they'll be using Renault engines next year. Why, on the 4th, did Tvx1 think that a well-sourced quote from a team official was enough to change Lotus from their current engines, Mercedes, to the Renault engines they plan to use next year? And why, now that it's a matter of my idea versus his idea, does he take the opposite approach? Regardless, his reasoning above is inherently flawed. This is not about Lotus' current team name. This is about the team name of their 2016 entry. And that name is: to be announced. Eightball (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
We have established in our previous discussion about Marussia that we keep the name for 2016 as well as long as no change has been approved. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You have read literally none of what I wrote. I already explained why Lotus and Marussia are two different situations. Look, TBA is the way the page was BEFORE you went and got half of the involved parties blocked. Just revert it back to that, back to our prior consensus, and we can discuss further here. If you actually listen to me and read my points I'm sure you will agree; there's just no way around the fact that TBA is the correct choice for now. Please let me know where the confusion lies. Eightball (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that you read the points I'm making and respond to them. There is no need to get uncivil again. I apologize for my prior behavior, but given the fact that many people within the team have clearly stated that the name will be changed, and given that we use such sources for like 80% of the content in this article, I simply fail to see how we can do anything but include the team name (for 2016, NOT 2015, NOT the present team name) as TBA. Eightball (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all the list does not tend to claim what the names of the teams, drivers, engines... in 2016 will be (again WP:CRYSTALL). We're an encyclopedia, not a news site. It says literally above the table that it list the teams and drivers and power unit suppliers that are CURRENTLY contracted. That means today. Every time a reader comes to this article, they can click on the references that support the content and can see that the team/driver/power unit supplier is contracted at the time they're reading it. And the current name of the team that has signed Maldonado and Palmer is Lotus. I have given clear proof that Lotus is still in existence and will have activities for the remainder of the month and that your insistence that the takeover has been completed is wrong. The reason why the quotes from "the head of an organization" are sufficient for the power units is that the identity of the power unit supplier is a simple decision between the power unit supplier and the F1 constructor and, you know what, in this case the owner of the F1 constructor and the team is one and the same as the power unit supplier. A name change, on the contrary, cannot be decided by "the head of an organization" or even the entire organization. They can only request one. And so far, you have even provided proof they requested one (like we did for Marussia). The decision whether a name change is made lies with the FIA and the other teams need to give their support as well. A team cannot decide by themselves to change their names. Why do you refuse the simple fact that the FIA decides over name changes? This simple fact refutes your persistent claim that the name change has been confirmed. As long as the FIA has not stated that any name changes have taken place, no name changes have actually taken place. Only the FIA decides that a name is dropped and replaced by a new one. That's how this sport works. Whether you like it or not. Your reasoning is like claiming that if the "the head of an organization" announced a month ago that they would like to sign driver X and driver Y if they take over Lotus, the contracts with Maldonado and Palmer should be considered terminated the day that organization announces the first steps into the takeover. See the flaw? Oh, and one last thing, you got yourselves blocked. We didn't.Tvx1 02:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Renault engines at Renault

Hi everyone, I am back! Now, in the article it lists the Renault team (TBA) as using Renault engines. I haven't seen anything on the internet which confirms they will use their own engines, and there is no source here, so please could somebody direct me to one. If not, then it needs removing (which I am happy to volunteer to do). As far as I am aware the team still has a contract with Mercedes until such a time that an official announcement says otherwise. Thanks! SAS1998―Talk 21:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Do you honestly think that a team owned by Renault will not use Renault engines when Carlos Ghosn has explicitly stated that the company is returning because being an engine supplier alone was no longer enough for them? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Important to note that Renault have said that beyond 2016 they may change their operations, which could include stop making engines, so they may want to wind down engine operations as they already have done, and even stop in future years. You've said it right there, that supplying engines wasn't enough. All I am saying there is that we don't know what their plan is, you know the rules as well as I do. That is to say until we have a definite source we cannot make that claim, this would be classed as original research. Answer: No, it's not a joke. SAS1998―Talk 21:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
You actually raise some fair points. Tvx1 21:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I stopped reading after "may". Your entire argument is speculative; they might stop building engines. So please provide a reliable source that says that they will not use Renault engines. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Please read my entire comment before continuing, you will see that I was simply using that as an example, my entire argument is based on Wikipedia policy. Please provide a reliable source that says that they will use Renault engines. SAS1998―Talk 21:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I now remember this was used in the article before Renault announced the takeover. Surely that should be enough to support the Renault power units. Tvx1 22:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It still doesn't confirm official information but it's definitely better than nothing. SAS1998―Talk 22:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I've had a closer look at that article, and it says "The idea is to do Renault, but legally speaking, I can still run a Mercedes car next year." I don't feel that we are doing the right thing to say Renault yet, it would be better left as TBA until they say anything else about it. SAS1998―Talk 18:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And even if they'd use Renault power units, they could still "put a badge" with an other name on it. Remember that the Ford Motor Company used to own a F1 constructor that didn't carry their name (nor their nationality) and used engines that were called Cosworth. Tvx1 00:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Team name Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso engine

Infiniti Red Bull Racing, changed to Tag Heuer and Infiniti Red Bull Racing.

Engine still uncertain.

Source: https://twitter.com/redbullracing/status/672355995256020992

Scuderia Toro Rosso to 2015-spec Ferrari engines.

Source: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-approves-toro-rosso-ferrari-engine-plan/ Tomvandenberg97 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done On the first point, the Twitter announcement does not state a change in the team name. It clearly states that Tag Heuer is a "Team Partner" for 2016, hence Tag Heuer and Red Bull are working together. Red Bull Racing has many partners and sponsors, none of which are in the title of the team.
On the second point, the last statement in your source specifically states that Toro Rosso has made no announcement about their 2016 engine supply. The article will be changed when the team makes their announcement. The359 (Talk) 10:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a gut feeling we might see a surprise return of TAG engines though.Tvx1 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
And we did but I think we're wrong listing Tag as the Power plant, it's branding. The engine is a Renault, having the constructor as Red Bull-Tag is correct but the engine is still Renault imo Duds 2k (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
We have always listed them using the branding in similar cases in the past. Tvx1 23:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Case in point, 2001, which saw Asiatech, Acer and European engines.
Doesn't mean we have to do it now, the branding is covered by the constructor. All it does it make the page less useful. Duds 2k (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not a case of us doing something. It's a case of adhering to the sources. In the above examples the engines were not only rebadged, they also carried a designation that was suited to the engine name. For instance, there was the Acer 01A and the Asiatech 001. Tvx1 16:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Besides, the prose makes it clear that the engines are rebadged Renault.
Also, what (if anything) is the relationship between TAG Heuer and TAG (Technologies d'Avant Garde), the group who rebadged Peugeot engines for McLaren in the 1990s? I'm thinking that we might need to expand on the prose a little bit for the purposes of disambiguation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It's exactly the same company. They simply acquired a controlling stake in the Heuer watchmaking company during the mid-eighties, which explains the merging of the names. Besides, I thought it were Porsche engines, rather than Peugeot engines that were rebadged and that it happened during the 80's instead of the 90's. Tvx1 00:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Tvx1, how hard would it be to do five seconds of research and actually get the right answer instead of being a liar, as usual? TAG Heuer and TAG are NOT the same company, my god. TAG bought Heuer in 1985 and renamed them TAG Heuer. They then sold TAG Heuer to LVMH in 1999, but they kept "TAG" in the name because they had become far more well-known under that moniker. They are NOT the same company, period, end of story...please STOP doing nothing but making this page worse, it is absolutely infuriating to watch. Eightball (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I obviously missed the fact that they were sold in 1999. Facepalm. But does TAG still exist on its own or was it merged with Heuer back in1985? Our articles on the companies are awfully confusing. The TAG article even states that they are still involved with McLaren while the sources state that it was actually Tag Heuer that was involved with McLaren until recently, before moving to Red Bull obviously. Tvx1 18:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I made changes to the TAG article in that direction. Confusing indeed. If what Eightball says is accurate, it needs to be changed and clarified. However, once again calling editors liars, absolutely unacceptable... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Your changes were reverted fairly quickly. Tvx1 21:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, but that still leaves the question wether it is TAG or TAG Heuer who own shares in McLaren and if they sell them now that TAG Heuer has jumped ship from them. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This would be easier to explain if TAG Heuer had dropped the "TAG" portion when they were sold to LVMH, but the answer is that it is TAG (the investment vehicle owned by Mansour Ojjeh) that owns shares in McLaren, not TAG Heuer (the watchmaker formerly owned by TAG, now owned by LVMH, that formerly sponsored McLaren and now sponsors Red Bull). I hope that's clear because after writing that sentence I am no longer certain of my own name. Eightball (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And do you have any sources supporting that claim? Tvx1 16:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Force India - Aston Martin Pending Deal

Recently, I added a note about Force India being close to finalization on a deal that will rebrand them under the Aston Martin brand.. Their COO said they are close to finalizing the deal. Their owner Vijay Mallya has been going on about how the deal will help the team throughout the future, and in the long-term. I'm not saying we should change it to say Aston Martin Racing, I just think the note should stay there, because the deal is close to finalization, however, another editor removed the note, and after I reworded it, it still isn't visible to guests. So, my question is, should the note stay there? There are special notes about Marussia requesting to change their name to Manor, and Lotus being bought by Renault and an expected name change, so I believe leaving the note about Aston Martin there, and potentially adding it to the 2017 season article (and making it visible to guests) is proper. LumaParty (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Lotus is noted because a sale has been finalized, and Manor is noted because a request has been officially lodged. Nothing official or final has come from Force India or Aston Martin. The359 (Talk) 22:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The359 has it precisely. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service or fan wiki. We record things that have happened; past tense. Lotus has been sold, Manor have requested a change in their constructor name. Even the Autosport source quotes Szafnauer as stating there was nothing to announce at the time, and there has been nothing else since. This is press speculation and isn't suitable for inclusion here. Pyrope 23:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I understand, thanks. LumaParty (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015

under technical regulations "cars will be required to be designed with a seperate wastegate pipe for exhaust gasses to pas through" change "gasses" to "gases" just a grammatical thing. Ajmett1 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Renault - end of the saga?

Is this enough for us to edit? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No. We need a FIA statement that a name change has been applied for and subsequently has been accepted. Remember that the this same car manufacturer once bought the Benetton team completely and kept it as Benetton for a full two season. Tvx1 18:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thought so as well, so I did not make the change. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
And somehow, we managed to miss that the FIA published a provisional entry list nearly a month ago. Tvx1 01:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
That list has Lotus using Mercedes engines. That should be reflected here until aforementioned finalization is announced. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 19:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

European Grand Prix vs Baku Grand Prix

It is my understanding that the race will be called the "European Grand Prix". The New York times conducted an interview [1] with the race promoter Arif Rahimov in which he is directly asked the question "Why call it the European Grand Prix and not the Azerbaijan Grand Prix?" At no point in his answer did he make any reference to it being called the "Baku Grand Prix." JohnMcButts (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That is also my understanding, and it was widely reported at the time of the announcement that it would be the Grand Prix of Europe. There has been no announcement since about a name change, but based on one ticketing website reference, it has been changed to Baku Grand Prix. I think the overwhelming number of sources don't support this change. Mattlore (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I drew the same conclusion, but when I changed it my edit was quickly reverted. I've been digging around since then, and I've found a compelling source (James Allen) stating on the 28th of November this year: "It will be billed as the Grand Prix of Europe, underlining Azerbaijan’s desire to associate itself with Europe with which it has trading links especially via its oil pipeline." I would argue this is enough to change it to Grand Prix of Europe. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not "one" ticketing website. It's the official ticketing site. And it's advertising the tickets for the "2016 Formula 1 Baku Grand Prix". What more of a statement do you want? I don't see a conclusive alternative from the sources you have presented. "European Grand Prix" is uses just as frequently in them as "Grand Prix of Europe". And don't forget, when it was officially announced it was labeled "Baku European Grand Prix". With all those contradictory sources out there, I think the only viable alternative to what we currently have would be TBC. By the way, blogs aren't compelling sources. Tvx1 21:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The "official" ticketing site is a primary source, whereas the reporting by a long time and respected F1 journalist is a secondary source. WP:PSTS puts great stock in secondary sources over primary sources, so I think it is clear "Grand Prix of Europe" is the most appropriate title until and unless compelling secondary sources state otherwise. As for it being a blog, bear in mind James Allen is the F1 correspondent for the BBC and the Financial Times, as well as "the official interviewer for the FIA F1 press conferences and the FOM post qualifying and post race TV interviews." Other sources include:
-- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
On closer inspection:
Tvx1 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the reliable sources that we have seem to make it clear that it is called the European Grand Prix or the Grand Prix of Europe, but definitely not the Baku Grand Prix. The Grand Prix of Europe seems to be most likely, with it colloquially being called the European Grand Prix due to the previously use of that name. Mattlore (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it might be the inverse actually (Offical title being European GP, but called GP of Europe). That being said, they both seem to be used interchangeably in the F1 media. While I would favor using European Grand Prix, I would not be opposed to either Grand Prix of Europe or using 'TBA' until we get a clearer answer. The Grand Prix is still six months out, so there isn't exactly a rush. JohnMcButts (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The European Grand Prix and the Grand Prix of Europe is quite literally the same thing. Same words, different order. You'll probably want European Grand Prix for consistency with all the other races though. QueenCake (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
We now have cast-iron secondary sources on this, Wikipedia's "gold standard" for sourcing, so I have made the necessary cited changes per this clear consensus. I would note many of the other races are "Grand Prix of ..." too, but have not been listed as such yet. We aren't looking for consistency, but accuracy per sourcing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't why you have the impression that primary sources are forbidden, but it's wrong. All the policy says is to take care in using them, in that we don't give our own interpretation of them. If we want interpretations we have to use secondary sources. But we weren't providing interpretations here. We were presenting the exact contents of the primary source. The policy doesn't have a problem with that. Secondly I don't see a consensus for the particular wording of "Grand Prix of Europe" yet. I see a considerable number of users providing different opinions on using "Grand Prix of Europe", "European Grand Prix" or even "TBA". Lastly, none of the other races are actually "Grand Prix of ..." at all. Tvx1 15:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a clear consensus here. First of all, you are the only editor who insists on "Baku Grand Prix" and your continued reversions to that effect are disruptive and smack of ownership. Secondly, the preponderance of secondary reliable sources unequivocally state the name as "Grand Prix of Europe", with "European Grand Prix" being used only in shorthand because that is obviously its historical name. "Known as..." and "billed as..." make this quite clear in the sources I provided above. Thirdly, WP:PSTS couldn't be more clear in the preference of secondary reliable sources over primary reliable sources. At no time did I ever state primary sources are "forbidden". Finally, the following also use the "Grand Prix of..." construction:
  • Grand Prix of Spain
  • Grand Prix of Monaco
  • Grand Prix of Austria
  • Grand Prix of Italy
  • Grand Prix of Mexico
  • Grand Prix of Brazil
-- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
No there is no clear consensus here. The only consensus here is not to use "Baku Grand Prix". There is no clear consensus as to what we have to replace it with. Some of the people that have contributed to this discussion have said "European Grand Prix" others have even said "TBA". Personally, i'd prefer to have it as TBA in view of the many contradicting sources. As said by someone else, there's no rush to put something there. But in case, please stop trying to force your preferred version on the article and leave it alone like it was until we have settled for a way to go and comment on the content, not the contributors. Lastly, have you got any source that proofs the wordings for that list of races present being used in English. I cannot remember that I have ever seen them being referred to like that in the English language media. Tvx1 19:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Scjessey for doing the edits, now that we have established it is not called the Baku Grand Prix. Tvx1, happy to discuss on here which wording should be preferred, but until there is a consensus it would not be helpful to have an edit war on the page. I think it is clear enough that we don't need to use TBA in this case, after all they have made the announcement about the grand prix earlier this year. Mattlore (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You plead no to have and edit war, but then you make another revert yourself straight away. That's not very constructive. Would it have really killed you to leave it alone until this discussion had concluded. Tvx1 20:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You are the "outlier" here, Tvx1. Would it have killed you to leave it alone? This is a battle you don't need to fight. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's try to stay on topic and not get into another dragged out argument.

It seems that our options are:

  • 1) "Baku Grand Prix" This seems to be supported by the Formula 1 ticket store [2]. Mattlore, Scjessey, and I have all expressed dissatisfaction with this option.
  • 2) "European Grand Prix" This option is supported by various sources (Formula 1 specific media, as well as more general news sites), but to me, the most convincing examples are two interviews (apparently it was a Q&A involving several journalists) with the race organizer Arif Rahimov. The first is (the one I've already posted above) from the New York Times [3]. The second, is from Motorsports.com [4] and was posted already by Scjessey where he says:
"Baku City Circuit Operations Co. [the company behind the race] was created with the sole purpose of organising and hosting the European Grand Prix,"
  • 3) "Grand Prix of Europe" As with #2, there are several sources that use this title, Formula 1 specific media, as well as more general news sites).
  • 4) "TBA"

Thoughts? And again, please stay on topic. JohnMcButts (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John for the reset. What sways me is there are a number of sources that use both in the article colloquially but then put quotes around "Grand Prix of Europe" when talking about the official name ([5][6] [7]). I think we have enough sources to either go with #2 or #3 and do not need to resort to #4 because, as QueenCake mentioned, they are substantially the same thing. Mattlore (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
If wo go with a wording, I would go with #2 because we have an interview with the race's promoter who refers to it directly as such. That aside, it's completely unnecessary to accuse me of wanting to fight a battle. There is no bad faith on my side at all. Only a lot of confusion because of the multiple names that have appeared in the sources. Tvx1 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
All of the websites I have read, ever since the title of the race was announced have referred to it as the European Grand Prix or the Baku European Grand Prix (the latter I believed to be the official title, while the race itself is referred to at the European Grand Prix, just like the Malaysia Grand Prix being referred to as the Malaysian Grand Prix). I've never seen anything calling it the Baku Grand Prix. Also, Grand Prix of Country and Country Grand Prix have almost always been used interchangeably. On Wikipedia we have always used the latter. In my mind it only makes sense to stay like that. SAS1998, talk. 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That sounds great, but what you "believe" and what you think "makes sense" is largely irrelevant. On Wikipedia, the only thing that matters is reliable sources, and in this case the preponderance of secondary reliable sources call it the "Grand Prix of Europe" - a deliberate choice on the part of the race promoter in order to associate Baku and the nation of Azerbaijan with Europe. Therefore, that is what should be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If that is indeed the case than fair enough, by saying I "believe" what I meant was that that is what I had understood to be the case from the sources I had read. However what you are saying makes a lot of sense, and I would be in favour of using Grand Prix of Europe, if that is the name being promoted. SAS1998, talk. 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Erm, no. The other participants in the discussion have provided just as much sources, including an interview with the race promotor himself, referring to it as "European Grand Prix". Tvx1 00:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, reliable sources give the "official" title of the race as the Grand Prix of Europe, whereas sources calling it the European Grand Prix do not use "billed as" or "known as" in their descriptions. Further debate about this, which is blindingly obvious, is unproductive. That such a trivial matter as this has already generated such a long thread, thanks largely to stubbornness on your part, is already beyond absurd. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to attack the contributors. I have already told you that i'm not stubborn, but confused regarding this subject. I'm still not so sure like you at all that that is the official name. An others in the discussion have also raised opinions that are different to yours. So it's not just me that is contributing to the length of this thread. By the way I'm sure that WP:COMMONNAME has an influence on this as well. I'm just not sure how. Tvx1 20:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
First, I'm not expressing an "opinion" at all. I merely present facts based on the preponderance of reliable sources. Second, I don't see how it could be at all confusing. Look at the official GP titles from the FIA for last season's calendar, for example. The "default" title is always "Grand Prix of ..." but some countries use "... Grand Prix" for the events themselves (often because of a sponsor being included in the title). WP:COMMONNAME only applies to article titles, incidentally, although that can sometimes propagate to other things. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
First, you're over interpreting that publication from the FIA. Those are not the official titles. We've been trough THAT ages ago. The FIA's everyday first language is French, not English. So there press releases are written in French first and then translated into English. Unfortunately they do that to literally, word for word sometimes. And so Grand Prix d'Australie from the original document becomes "Grand Prix of Australia" and so on. But that is literally the only document that refers to them as such. Now, Here is a real official title for you]. Second, we don't use the official, formal title in our calendars any more. We have ditched them after a long and tedious discussion. We have opted for consistency in the names rather than official accuracy. Therefore I think "European Grand Prix" is the better option. We should practice what we preach. And once again, the official promoter referred to it as such. Tvx1 01:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The consensus on a different article doesn't apply here. Names change, and in this case the promoter made a specific point of wanting the Grand Prix in Baku to be known as The Grand Prix of Europe, and this is reflected in multiple reliable sources. So if you want to establish a new consensus to override WP:RS then be my guest, but until that consensus is won it should reflect what the sources say. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure it does. The consensus was specifically aimed at all the season articles. If you'd bother to look into it a bit more, you'll notice that the official titles were removed from all the season articles as a result of that consensus. And since this is a season article as well, the consensus applies to this one as well. Tvx1 16:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Nope. That is not the way consensus works on Wikipedia. Articles are independent of one another for the most part. Sometimes a "strategy" is formed for articles that are part of a WikiProject, but in such instances the talk pages of the articles concerned are tagged with references to the discussion. Otherwise, how are new editors supposed to know about a consensus formed on some other article in the past? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
That's why we have archives. I have pointed you to the full disclosure of the discussion. Do I really have to bring in all the people that have taken part in that discussion (which I can't anyway, since one of them is blocked for the moment) in order for you to accept that consensus. The discussion finished and official titles were removed from all the season articles and it was accepted. Per this, that constitutes consensus. By the way, there is nothing about tagging in the consensus policy. Tvx1 14:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
While that was the consensus then, consensus can, and does, change. It does not draw a line in the sand that can never be changed. So while it is something to be mindful of, it does not set a "rule" and does not mean a different decision cannot be reached now. That said, for the moment, unless more definitive sources are found, I am happy with leaving it as the European GP. Mattlore (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1 - As I said before, the consensus formed on another article is meaningless. It carries no weight whatsoever. If you think the names of the all the GPs need to be standardized as "... Grand Prix", you will need to build a consensus for doing that here, on this talk page. Until (and if) that happens, the properly-sourced title of "Grand Prix of Europe" is the only appropriate way of listing the Baku race. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that we have the race promoter himself calling the race the European Grand Prix should be enough on it's own. We also have other reliable sources using that title as well. I think we should use European Grand Prix for the time being, and if, in the future, it becomes clear that the race has another title, then we can change it. JohnMcButts (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all. That same race promoter calls it the "Grand Prix of Europe", and we have multiple reliable sources saying the promoter wishes the race to be "known as" and "billed as" the "Grand Prix of Europe". We have zero reliable sources saying the race will be "known as" or "billed as" the "European Grand Prix". I'm not sure how much clearer a case for Grand Prix of Europe one could make. If a majority of editors thinks "European Grand Prix" is the way to go then I will (of course) yield to such a consensus, but this would be going against sourcing. To clear this up once and for all, I have created a section below for editors to indicate their preference and establish a proper consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
We're identifying the Grand Prix in the calendar table, not the official title of the race, as established in the discussion Tvx1 brought up. It appears this race is going to be the European Grand Prix, which can alternatively be called the Grand Prix of Europe as with all other GPs but, referring to what I said earlier, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference as it's the same thing. The race could be titled using whatever style, language, or sponsors they come up with (the Oil Money Grand Prix of not really in Europe for example) but it's still the European Grand Prix, which is what is used in common discourse. QueenCake (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
That's just an opinion. On Wikipedia, we have a worthy tradition of backing up statements with reliable sources. Please express your support/opposition below, so that we may resolve this matter without further pointless circular discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What's the opinion? That European Grand Prix and Grand Prix of Europe are interchangeable? That's simple English. A source stating either supports the use of the name European Grand Prix. If you really want a vote however I'll oblige you.QueenCake (talk)

So, where are with this? It has been silent here for a while now. Tvx1 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Although it does not seem to align with the reliable sources, I think there's a clear consensus for "European Grand Prix". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, according to the FIA it's the Grand Prix of Azerbaijan. Tvx1 21:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Naming of 2016 Grand Prix in Baku

Please indicate your support/opposition/neutrality for each proposal in the sections below:

Baku Grand Prix

European Grand Prix

Grand Prix of Europe

So should the references to the Grand Prix of America on this page be changed as well? Mattlore (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No, why should they? That is the only name that has been ever used for that race. Tvx1 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, yes, I can back up Tvx1's claims that the official name is not what was agreed. Wikipedia refers to WP:COMMONNAME, not official/full/proper name, "European GP" suffices. The Grand Prix of America's common name is "Grand Prix of America". —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME only refers to article titles, and nobody is proposing we change European Grand Prix, just how it is referred to here. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, but the result of the discussion probably would extend to the article for the 2016 race, in which situation it would apply. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. When I first added "Grand Prix of Europe" to this article, I did it as [[European Grand Prix|Grand Prix of Europe]]. We do similar things over on the NASCAR articles, where race names are constantly changing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how the way a link is piped is relevant to this discussion. Tvx1 19:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It is a direct response to the suggestion by GyaroMaguus that the naming convention decided here would automatically apply elsewhere, when that clearly isn't necessarily the case. Moreover, I have always contended that consensus is article dependent and should not automatically propagate to other articles anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It was enrolled to many season articles without further objection. That is enough proof of the pact that it has become an F1 project-wide consensus. You're literally the only one objecting to this consensus and don't really understand why. Tvx1 00:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't object to any consensus because, certainly up until this point, there hasn't been any consensus. It's only with this section that we now have what appears to be a consensus. As to why, that is blindingly obvious. As I have shown repeatedly, "Grand Prix of Europe" is fully and completely supported by reliable sources. "European Grand Prix" has some limited support in sources because it is the historically popular title used by the motor racing press, and "Baku Grand Prix" (your contribution, you may recall), has virtually no support in RS at all. Maybe you should assume good faith and stop making false accusations? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There wasn't much assuming good faith in my actions from your side to begin with. I have dropped my "Baku Grand Prix" claim a long time ago, that should have been blindingly obvious. So there is no point to keep reminding me of it. As for the limited support for "European Grand Prix", that is just your opinion. I have provided just as much sources referring to it as such as you have provided referring to it as "Grand Prix of Europe". Lastly, I haven't made any accusations. I have just stated the fact that you refuse to accept, and I still don't understand why, our established practice of preferring to use common English syntax names for the Grands Prix in our calendars. I have already provided a list of other official titles we don't use either somewhere else in this section. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, we're still going to mention the official "Grand Prix of Europe" title in our report for that race. Tvx1 08:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Whichever way you spin it, only the sources I provided used terms like "known as" and "billed as", which are very specific and consequently of greater significance than the sources you provided, so please stop falsely claiming it is my "opinion" when it is based on facts. I'm sorry you don't understand, but that is your problem not mine. That said, as I have always stated I will abide by whatever a consensus of editors decides (even if I disagree with it), because that is the way things are done on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - And yet nobody complains about the French "FIA" (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) instead of the English "International Automobile Federation". Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

New number

Palmer number 30. [8].--87.3.97.107 (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

plus Added Source looks good enough to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This should not have been added. 30 is a Lotus test and practice number. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The official F1 site lists it as his race number though. Remember that Verstappen picked a number that was previously a McLaren test and practice number, so it happened before. Tvx1 16:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lotus/Renault drivers

Renault has confirmed their drivers
The following discussion has been closed by Twirlypen. Please do not modify it.

There was a report on the Sky Sports F1 website today (perhaps other websites as well) indicating that Pastor Maldonado is set to be dropped by the team (Lotus/Renault) in favor of Kevin Magnussen. This is just a report of possible information, not a confirmation of a driver change. When Autosport posted on their website that the team's chassis had passed it's crash tests, that article also points out that details about Renault's F1 program are to be revealed at a press event in early February (I thought I saw somewhere else that it would be on 3rd Feb, but I could be wrong). I notice that in the signed teams and drivers section, someone has put Kevin Magnussen alongside Jolyon Palmer, despite the fact that, as I type this, there has been no official confirmation of Magnussen's seat at the team, thus replacing Maldonado. I know several prominent websites are reporting that it is all pretty much signed, sealed, and delivered, but let's wait until the team or drivers themselves make it official or this Renault media event next week, whichever comes first.

On that basis, I am asking that whoever has the authority to amend the article please replace Magnussen's name with Maldonado's until we have confirmation from the team itself of the change.

Also, contrary to what the chart says, Magnussen's number, should he race, would be 20. He raced with that number in 2014. The chart currently lists 22 as his number, which is actually the number of his former teammate, Jenson Button. Adamlast1 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Adamlast1

@Adamlast1: I've reverted the Magnussen addition for now. Being "set to be replaced" is not the same as officially "being replaced", so we can't add in Magnussen yet until the team itself makes an official announcement. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 18:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You are correct, btw, the Renault announcement is set for February 3rd. Eightball (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Finally we have date at which we know this saga will end. By the way, everyone has the authority to edit this articles. There are no owners around here. Tvx1 20:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tvx1:: The user who started this thread is not autoconfirmed, and the article is semi-protected, so he actually can't edit it. Eightball (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's not really a question of authority. In three days time they will be able to edit it. Tvx1 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
True, but maybe that was just his wording? Some people aren't so patient, lol. Eightball (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Could we remove Maldonado and just leave a blank? I know the F1 website says Palmer and Maldonado, but Carlos Ghosn said drivers would be announced the day they reveal the team name, sponsors, etc. We pretty much know that Maldonado has almost no chance of returning, technically speaking Renault never officially confirmed him themselves. LumaParty (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
No, he's still under contract. It's likely that Renault have an exist clause relating to his PDVSA backing, and the loss of that backing is why we're hearing these current reports, but that's speculation. Six days until we know for sure! Eightball (talk) a 23:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that makes sense. It doesn't look good for PDVSA or Maldonado. I look forward to the announcement. LumaParty (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Has Magnussen been officially confirmed then by Renault yet, or is it just outside news stories making the confirmation? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Outside new stories that don't even make confirmation, but only speculate. Tvx1 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
http://beta.autosport.com/live/commentary/id/1819181/renault-formula-1-team-launch. Magnussen has been confirmed as a driver, Ocon the reserve driver. The team name is "Renault Sport Formula 1 Team" 99.225.140.23 (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Can I be pedantic and ask why it says "Renault Sport Formula 1 Team" when the logo says "Formula 'One Team," with the number spelled out? Is that just a consistent styling choice we use? Eightball (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I had originally spelled it out fully when I updated the name, but someone later abbreviated it for unexplained reasons. They spell out everything in there own press release as well, so I will change it back. Tvx1 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Like I said, wasn't sure if there was just some policy where we always used the numeral for consistency's sake. Also, it'll be fun dealing with the stupid flagicon. Makes me wonder if there's ANYTHING in their announcement that explicitly clarified the nationality of the team. Eightball (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Final entry list

Motorsport is reporting the FIA has issued it's final entry list here if we want to consolidate some references and clean up the table. Can't find it on the FIA site though.

Please note the teams which use "Formula One", " Formula 1", and "F1", as well as a link to an English source for the FW38 chassis. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the FIA version. Tvx1 19:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That one is better, as it directly cites the FIA, contains the car numbers, and correctly refers to Red Bull's engine as Tag Heuer. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 03:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_3&oldid=1136287227"