Talk:2009 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Drivers Table

Is it about time we added a drivers table to this article. Looking back at the 2008 article, a table was added in October/November 2006. This would be a similar time to add the table to the 2009 article. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's too early to add a drivers table to this article (just as I think Oct/Nov 2006 was too early to add the 2008 drivers table). So much can change between now and 2009 - consider that 6 months ago we "knew" that Alonso would be driving for McLaren in 2008... I'd recommend waiting until about halfway through the 2008 season before adding the 2009 drivers table. Or at the very least until the 2008 season has actually started. DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am Chubb3 and I want to know why I am being blamed for the drivers table. I personally don't think it should because it all is copied from the 2008 Formula One season with just the drivers and cars taken out. Chubb3 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming you. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I understand what it was now.Chubbennaitor (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too early to add the drivers numbers for 2009, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.16.140 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, as none are decided yet. MTC (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

argentine grand prix

since when was there an announcement on even the possibility of argentine grand prix in 2009? - oahiyeel ^talk 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that David Coulthard mentioned that he wanted one soon in his Autobiography.Chubbennaitor (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Races

I don't think that there will be 20 grands prix in 2009 seeing as Bernie Ecclestone said 19 was enough. If people have references but I would like to know what other people think about keeping the table for improvement or deletion. Chubbennaitor (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be 20. There is a new Grand Prix and Bernie hasn't announced he's dropping any. The schedule is only speculation now so lets leave it as it is until the announcement is made later this year - Linczone^Talk/Watch 10:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

United States GP

The United States GP should stay as it is a speculated schedule. San Marino GP is also included. ----SpeedKing (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Toro Rosso

Surly Toro Rosso shouldnt be on in the table they should be TBA becuase they are up for sale and becuase of the new customer car rules.MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Prodrive

Has Prodrive actually signed on to compete next year. From what ive heard they are thinking of competing next year but its a rumour. Unless someone can give me a reference then ill remove it.Pattav2 (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian GP

Can I remove the Russian GP from the list. It looks highly unlikely right now.MRHMI (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Highly unlikely based on what? The359 (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we've heard nothing of it for ages andas yet no track is in existance.92.1.228.222 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The one plan was for a street circuit, so there would be "no track in existance yet". The rumor is only a year old, I see no reason to assume it's dead. The359 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick Heidfeld

Someone has added Heidfeld to the driver talbe without a ref. I know he is contracted, but can someone find one? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone added http://formula1sport.net/formula-1/heidfeld-signs-new-bmw-contract-report/ as a reference lately, I did an undo as it was denied a few days later: http://formula1sport.net/formula-1/still-no-new-contract-heidfeld-insists/Konkursor (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

American Honda

What on earth is this new "American Honda" team? It sounds like complete rubbish! Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a sourced rumor that there is discussion among Honda of America motorsports officials about building a team in the United States, but it is only that, rumor. It is however a sourced rumor. The359 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Some uncited drivers

Has anyone got a cite for Sebastien Bourdais or Bruno Senna at Toro Rosso next season? I think its purely speculation. I also cannot find anything on the Red Bull website about Vettel moving next season - although probable, its not confirmed. Remove them? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi im Mdlerd i dont think you or anyone should remove Sebastian Vettel name from the red bull drivers slot, its more than probable that he will be at red bull next year but cant we add drivers without references on a separate table or column called rumored drivers.Cristian horner said red bull will officialy confirm there 2009 drivers later on this summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdlerd (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works. "More than probable" doesn't cut it. Until there's an announcement that he is contracted to drive in 2009, he should not be on the chart. The359 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that all rumoured driver changes will be reverted unless they are accompanied by a decent source. This isn't going to be a repository for every half-baked F1 rumour from now until next season. Also, what's the sense in putting driver change rumours for 2010 on here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fernando Alonso isn't confirmed for renault - Ive removed this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.157.124 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regulations' change reference

Reference 22 gives a 404 error. Can anyone add a new reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.221.77 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fernando Alonso

Surely if Alonso has an option to leave Renault at the end of this season, then he is not a confirmed driver for next year? Sure, he has a contract, but he does have an option to leave. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Every driver has "options" to get out of contracts, they can even buy their way out of them. However, we're not here to list "options", we're here to list what can be referenced as having a 2009 contract. The359 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

GPMA, FOM MoU's et cetera

Since there is virtually any controversy going from -08 to -09 about which teams will be participating etc., should the GPMA and FOM MoU business really have such a dominant position in the article. These issues were resolved for the 2008 season, weren't they? I know that they still form the "legal" basis for which teams are participating in 2009, but since everything points to things relating to who the entrants are is proceeding without trouble from 2008, it does not seem to warrant being such a large part of the introduction, as well as being an extra section just below. Thoughts?/Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Merged the FOM and GPMA lists into one list Shellene (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada

The Montreal press is saying that there's a contract for the GP until 2011, and that Bernie Eccelstone unilaterally decided to drop the race, despite the fact that it's financially healthy going by the 2008 standard ($20million fee), instead of his new standard ($50million fee). And that there's huff from the car makers because he dropped the largest car market (North America), so selling cars based on F1 will be financially suspect (ie. F1 is not viable because it does not have market presence in the largest car market in the world). 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the WikiProject Canada and WikiProject Montreal templates from this thread because this specific has nothing to do with either of them specifically. What Formula One season doesn't receive lots of press for a variety of things?

As for this paragraph, I'm not certain what you're posting it here for. If there is some response from Canadian media, you're welcome to add it to the article if it is cited. The359 (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that WPCANADA, WPMONTREAL, WPFRANCE and whatever Abu Dhabi's WP is should be added, because these are the ones that changed this season. The paragraph explains the reasoning behind the WP tags. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Driver order

Please keep the driver order the same as it was for the 2008 until the official numbers are announced. Also, if anyone is unsure, championship position has nothing to do with a team's internal driver order (so Raikkonen will likely be #1 driver at Ferrari regardless of the fact that Massa finished ahead of him). Eightball (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about likelihood of retention of numbers. As long they are not announced, we don't know what they are. And the status quo isn't in respect with last year numbers, but the way the drivers were added to the table. Last year's numbering is no valid reason for changing driver order right now. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 04:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"championship position has nothing to do with a team's internal driver order". AFAIK, this is true for all teams except the team with the winning driver. Assuming the champion drives in the subsequent season, he always drives car 1. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to order the drivers in a completely arbitrary manner when we know how they were ordered throughout the 2008 season. It may not be exactly correct but it is as close as we can make it. I don't see why you would willingly make it wrong. Eightball (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My objection is against any made-up driver order until actual order is officially announced. That's why I insisted on letting the names remain in the order they were added so as to avoid any bias or OR. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research and it's not bias. It's just how it currently is. Eightball (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There currently is no driver order so it can't be right or wrong, which makes switching them around a total waste of time. How they are currently displayed is irrelevant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it can't be technically right, but we can at least keep them in the 2008 order. To do otherwise just doesn't make sense. And no, it's not irrelevant, because not everyone reads the article as "all of this information to subject to change." So we have an obligation to at least make it as correct as possible. Eightball (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But it is not correct. You are just hypothesizing, whether logically or not, that 2009 driver order will follow 2008 order. And I don't see the reason for this insistence, except that you find it sensible. This isn't about sensibility but factuality. As for those who ignore the "future" note, we can't worry about them if they are bad readers. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 05:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "correct as possible". Either it's correct or it's not. We don't know what is correct because no-one does - it hasn't been determined yet. Thus, what we put is irrelevant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a hypothesis, it's common sense. If I were to tell you that the leaves on a tree were going to be green in spring because they were green last year, it's not a hypothesis, it's just correct. But whatever, I'll let you fools correct your own mistakes when the time comes. Eightball (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can't substantiate your claims with sources, it is as good as hypothesizing. And common sense, in encyclopedic scenario, is to provide correct information that can be verified. And because this is far too difficult for you to grasp is no reason to call others fool. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, try and remain civil if you can. Everyone else can. Don't pretend you can guess who is going to be #1 driver at Honda / Toro Rosso / Force India etc, because you can't, and nor can anyone else. There's no sense in having a stab at it, because it's clearly WP:OR. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IT IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. IT IS BASED ON FACT FROM THE 2008 SEASON. Are you really that ignorant to what I am saying? The driver order should be based on the order from 2008. It is the status quo. You are changing the status quo based on nothing. You are making the article less accurate and refusing the acknowledge the fact that using 2008 data is better than using the order the driver was added to the article. How is that encyclopedic at all? You know, I had entirely planned on just ignoring your article, but the fact that you people continue to willfully ignore logic has motivated me to make the correct edits in spite of your failures to do so. You're probably going to revert it, and I don't care. As an editor it is my job to make the article the best I can, and I'm going to do that. Please feel free to continue to make it worse. Eightball (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem unable to accept that people just disagree with you. Saying that that makes them stupid is pretty objectionable. It's an article about the 2009 season, and the 2008 season article has no bearing on this article at all. The status quo, as you put it, will not continue into next year, and making it as similar to last year as possible is an exercise in pointlessness. If you can't see how it works, then that's really okay, but don't treat other editors like idiots simply because they don't share your opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 article is relevant because it is unlikely driver order will change. It is thus obviously the best option to simply use the driver order from 2008 until newer information is available. This is how an encyclopedia works. If data is not available for the current year, past data is used. You don't just randomly throw things in a table and say that's the best you can do. This is a simple concept. If I didn't explain myself well enough before, sorry. But if you still don't understand, I don't know what to say. Eightball (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think driver numbers within a team can change, then maybe you haven't been taking notice in the past. It does happen, and it is far from unlikely. Do you always go around telling people how you think an encyclopedia works, or was that just an incredibly patronising moment on your part? No-one was throwing things randomly in a table. There are NO NUMBERS for the 2009 season. Nobody, even you I'm afraid to say, knows what the driver order will be, and using last year's is just a guess. You don't use past data, because there is no data to approximate to. Until there are numbers, this is a non-issue. The correct order is NO order because there is no order established. It is incorrect to suggest anything else. At the risk of sounding as patronising as you, THAT is how an encyclopedia works. You'll note I didn't revert you, because reverting is as pointless as changing it in the first place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Force India has a Ferrari contract

Although it's common knowledge that Force India will soon announce a Mercedes customer deal, they currently have a Ferrari contract. Shouldn't that be in the Teams and drivers table? Lustigson (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because it is disputed. Alonso had a contract with Renault for 3 years, starting in 2008, but that doesn't mean that he was going to stay there. He also had a 3-year deal with McLaren, but he obviously didn't keep that... Cadan ap Tomos 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Chubbennaitor 15:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Force India starting numbers

I reckon Force India's starting numbers should be the other way around. Adrian Sutil's had number 20 this season, too, with Giancarlo Fisichella number 21. Better still: leave starting numbers off the table until the FIA issue an entry list. Lustigson (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels that numbers should not be assigned unless they are officially announced? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you LeaveSleaves. Yosef1987 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I'd also support removing the test driver numbers for now, too. DH85868993 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's just leave driver order and numbers till the official announcement. Driver numbers get switched around every year by various teams so there's no guessing. I'm for removing test driver numbers too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above - there is currently no reliable source for race numbers so we should leave them out. Trying to apply the 'system' ourselves almost certainly contravenes WP:OR. AlexJ (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. 4u1e (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, agree. Apterygial (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Magny-Cours still in the calender!!!

Official F1 Calender!!! Yosef1987 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the bottom bullet point. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently FIA is not yet officially informed, [1]. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's gone now. Chubbennaitor 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Teams/Drivers table

Is the tyre column a leftover from 2005 and before? With Bridgestone the single supplier, it strikes me as being largely pointess to have a seperate "B" for every team. Maybe a note elsewhere in the article stating they are the sole supplier would suffice? Scrxisi (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Chubbennaitor 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the reasoning behind the consensus to leave the column in was that in 5/10/20 years time, we may again have multiple suppliers in F1. Sure now we remember now that Bridgestone are the exclusive supplier, but in 10 years time? Leaving the column in provides an 'at a glance look' at the situation which will be useful in years to come. It takes up barely any room, so the advantages of having it outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion (and the opinion of the majority last time we discussed it). AlexJ (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Toro Rosso sale

Looks like that Toro Rosso is now been put up for sale. So they shouldn't be confirmed as a team. --Numyht (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the news from March 2008 or has there been a new development? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any news of this on BBC, ITV and F1.com websites, only that Toro Rosso are evaluating Bourdais, Buemi and Sato in a test [2]. Schumi555 (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where I saw it. --Numyht (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the team is being put up for sale though? Schumi555 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not selling any more. In fact now completely bought by Red Bull [3]. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(Early) Winter testing

"Red Bull and Toro Rosso were the only teams using their 2008 cars, whilst the other teams tested their 2009 interim cars." - Where did that come from? They tested slicks and reduced downforce - which is, for example, exactly what Renault did. So it's either they and Renault tested a '08 car with slicks and '09-downforce simulations, or nobody did, because a 2008 car with slicks and Monza-esque aero settings isn't exactly a 2008 car. Honda, however, used a completely regular RA08 (2008 chassis) with regular aero and grooved tyres to evaluate Senna and di Grassi on top of using an interim car with the front wing.MetzMaboo (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. What's written is right. Red Bull and Toro Rosso used their 2008 cars with a low downforce and slicks like they did mid-season. Honda did both and used the two GP2 drivers in the interim car as well. Renault, on Wednesday, used an interim car also. Yes you're right but RB and TR were the only ones not to use the '09 interim car. Chubbennaitor 15:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking through the pictures of said test (Barcelona Wednesday), and the car looks just like it did in the days before. Furthermore, the comments by the Renault team for that day seem to indicate working on an R28 chassis - no mention of interim features: [4] MetzMaboo (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ITV-F1 stated it. I've lost the article now. Chubbennaitor 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

MetzMaboo, you're right on this one. Renault, Red Bull and Toro Rosso all used 2008 cars, with 2009-levels of downforce. McLaren also used one regular MP4-23 on Monday and Tuesday, while Ferrari's cars on Monday were also regular F2008 chassis, without any 2009 aero bits. Same goes for Force India. The only teams to use 2009 aero pieces were Williams, BMW and Honda (Honda just testing a new front wing). I'd be careful about citing ITV as a source, since they regularly get things wrong. (Let's hope the BBC can do better...) Manipe (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

While Honda, BMW and Williams were the only one to run actual '09 bits and McLaren their KERS, Ferrari ran some "special" bits (the only way to describe that horrible hump, eh?) with ballast and stripped rear bodywork, naming the car the "F2008K" - shouldn't that also count as an interim-car? MetzMaboo (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Renault R29 Unveiling

Alonso recently mentioned the date - the 20th January - in here. Edit into the article, or wait for something more official? MetzMaboo (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait for official. Chubbennaitor 17:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Honda out

Yes, I know Honda are out of F1 next season. But it is at this stage a little premature to be simply removing their info from the page. As I have said in my edit summaries, if the team is bought out then the majority of the info there is still relevant. Could we please wait, everyone, until we get an official confirmation one way or another how this is going to go before we continue arbitrarily removing information from the page? Apterygial 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Much the same situation as Jaguar Racing at the end of 2004 - I don't think many people would have predicted that Red Bull would buy the team then.... Hopefully something similar will happen here, although in the current economic climate it's hard to see it happening. 4u1e (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, Button was under contract for 2009: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/12/8757.html section 7, leaving us with just one Brit should a buyer not be found which'll be a bit sad db1987db (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with keeping entire information on Honda at the moment. Instead, we should only add more information related with the ongoing development about the team. Departure of promoter does not indicate removal of team. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I won't be making a hasty edit, I believe that as Wikipedia is a statement of verifiable fact rather than speculation/hope/probables/maybes, the page should be very much in the tone of "Honda will not be on the grid unless they find a buyer" rather than "Honda will be present unless a buyer is not found". I think it'd be totally appropriate to rrmove them from car launch/entry lists and the like, with footnotes explaning the situation, as that accurately reflects the situation as it is right now, and how it will be unless something changes. But I guess, this can be argued either way. Scrxisi (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep it on there until definite close down. Chubbennaitor 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

chinese and german grand prix to be removed and 2 more teams out

looks like a bad season for f1 http://tsn.ca/auto_racing/story/?id=258042&lid=headline&lpos=topStory_auto_racing http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/f1diary.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.103.11 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite the headline here, a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing has officially been announced and no such information should be added to the article until is is officially announced. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

China's supposedly saved, German GP only a scare. Only Honda officially currently gone, so far. Chubbennaitor 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix flag

Can we try and work towards some kind of clear consensus on the appropriate flag for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix? I'm aware that this has been discussed before here, but I'm not entirely sure that discussion reached a clear consensus. I'm in favour of the Abu Dhabi flag (as the European Grand Prix has the EU flag, not the Spanish one), but I want to see if we can get a consensus instead of moving backwards and forwards between the Abu Dhabi flag and the UAE one. Apterygial 10:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Although this situation is different to the EUGP one (the EU is supernational, whereas Abu Dhabi is subnational), I am in full agreement with using instead of . This argument is also different to using instead of for the British Grand Prix, because it is called the British Grand Prix. Cadan ap Tomos 12:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I never understood the importance of adding flags to race name. They really serve no additional purpose in terms of information. Anyways, back to the issue at hand, I'd say we stick to Abu Dhabi flag. Mostly because there is possibility of a Dubai Grand Prix. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hugely passionate about it, but I'd like to stick with something, rather than switching between the two. Apterygial 23:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using the Abu Dhabi flag, for the reasons expressed by LeaveSleaves. But I'm also not hugely passionate about it, like Apterygial. DH85868993 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest leave it alone. There will be a flag in the F1 official website, see which flag FiA used. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with using Abu Dhabi's flag instead of UAE's for the reasons that LeaveSleaves expressed.Fsarmony (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Force India 2009 drivers

An IP changed Sutil and Fisichella to 'TBA' today for the Force India drivers, maybe this is where he or she was coming from [5]?

Shouldn't we keep it at Fisi and Sutil until anything else is announced? Currently, they're signed and announced, but things may change - but so far they haven't.. MetzMaboo (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They have contracts. Until there is a concrete source that Fisichella and / or Sutil have had their contracts annulled in some way, they stay in the table. Replacing either with de la Rosa would be madness anyway, the guy will be 38 next year. Look for signs of di Resta or Paffett joining Force India, but I still think it's doubtful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with keeping it as it is at present, the only sources that list drivers for 2009 say Fisi and Sutil, no one else. Schumi555 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This might put an end to speculations. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they're announced

Rumours

Do we seriously need every tiny bit of news regarding F1 to be entered in the article? This is a clear violation of WP:NOT. In fact, I'd prefer if we removed the entire section. Apart from being tidbits of news, this section also borders on WP:CRYSTAL, listing events and news bits that have no clear indication of taking place. This is not some gossip column or forum. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely, we should only have facts on the page, not things that may happen. Schumi555 (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well... there are things that have been put on the coverage, which everyone knows about, that isn't put in articles. Do we want to be a robot or something which can think. We are meant to have everything there is to know about in F1. Gossip? If things are said to happen then where's the gossip here. If there is something blatantly wrong then it should be removed but do we have to remove everything that we have a little bit of doubt over. If we say this s not definite in the writing then there's no problem. Chubbennaitor 16:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are forgetting the fact that this is an encyclopedia and not some F1 information site. The section title itself implicates the information to be a gossip. For those interested in such information, they can search the web or news sites. Consider the Honda sale in present situation. There is plenty of talk as to who'd buy it. Does that mean we put in every bit of such rumour into the article? No. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia or of any encyclopedia for that matter. What should be added are concrete facts that are well resourced and well supported. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I think it's important to write about the rumours, since a good part of them become reality and they're all based in news caught on primary sources. For instance, Prodrive's owner David Richard is in the Middle East talking to his partners about buying Honda. I think people seek this kind of information when they come here. Fsarmony (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated in my previous comment, this is not a site for those interested in F1 gossip and news, but an encyclopedia. Addition of speculation and new that might possibly become truth is in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#NEWS. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It still bothers me that you can't put together a logical argument as to why we shouldn't have a rumors section without mindlessly quoting wikipolicy. It's been really convenient to have all the news and rumors in one article, and frankly it annoys me that you want to take it away not because it detracts from the article, but just because you want to adhere exactly to policy. If you want to come back here and explain why you think the rumors section should cease to exist WITHOUT using any words that start with WP, please feel free to do so. Until then, I'm putting it back. Also, try not to make major changes to the article without obtaining consensus. It's just unprofessional. Eightball (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The policies that LeaveSleaves is quoting exist so that editors don't have to explain everything every time. An encyclopedia exists not to hold every single piece of information but to hold every piece of verifiable, relevant and notable information. I am not going to revert your information, but I would like to point out your ironic inconsistency when it comes to editing: "try not to make major changes to the article without obtaining consensus." My watchlist shows you added 4,875 bytes of information, and I fail to see on this talk page one snippet of consensus that indicates that edit was viable. Apterygial 05:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It pains me to see that you continue to flout Wikipedia policies for some inner personal logic as you did in the discussion regarding the car numbers. When in Rome, behave like Romans. When you are contributing to Wikipedia, you are supposed to follow the policies and guidelines and not follow your personal convenience or logic. And before calling me unprofessional, please note that I chose to raise the issue on the talk page before removing the information, even though it was directly against multiple Wikipedia policies and totally against the spirit of an encyclopedia. If you were so in favor of keeping the section, why didn't you choose to participate in the discussion earlier and provide reasoning for keeping the information instead of counterattacking its removal? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 05:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia - giving information on many subjects, or on aspects on one subject. Rumours are information. May not be exactly. Rumours, if listed as rumours are plain for the eye to see as not something to be taken as definite. That way we're safe from the people who say we're unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbennaitor (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 December 2008

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Rumours are information. May not be exactly. Rumours, if listed as rumours are plain for the eye to see as not something to be taken as definite. That way we're wrong if we include it in the article. Apterygial 11:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Then, we're a robot writing for robots. Our readers don't just want the past but the possible future as nothing in the future is definite. 2009 teams are on there as a type of information that isn't as backed up as a rumour, as Honda have proved. On that basis, any future happenings should be destroyed. If you're using 'indiscriminate' then we check the rumour carefully before deletion. The drivers for Toro Rosso are not decided but still have facts and quotes as backing. The teams looking into buying Honda have the same reason. Things like 'Ferrari will buy McLaren' in an article but without quotes from them are a 'dud' rumour but the ones used are a 'live' rumour. Chubbennaitor 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your very words "possible future" is not what Wikipedia is for. Readers interested in such rumours can search the multitude of information elsewhere on the internet. This is not one-stop article on latest news regarding upcoming season, but documentation of facts that are notable and would definitely bear historical importance while looking back at it. And please note that even well sourced and quoted information can also be indiscriminate, if does not prove any significant bearing on the article. The very word rumour implicates the information as something that is merely passed on among people and something that isn't completely founded. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I simply reverted the article back to it's normal state. Don't even try to equate that with you removing a large swath of information after failing to receive consensus on the matter. "When in Rome, behave like Romans;" no, I'm not going to blindly follow the herd when it only serves to make the article worse. Anyone can see that a rule which makes an article worse should be ignored, this is not a complex idea. Eightball (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Does your statement I'm not going to blindly follow the herd include ignoring Wikipedia policies? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Policies should help make articles better, not worse. If a policy falls into the latter category, that is, lays down guidelines that actively make an article less useful, then absolutely I will be ignoring it. And if you are here to write good articles (not just to quote policies and piss off people who are actually trying to add information), then I suggest you do the same. Eightball (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again I implore you, how is the information proving so eternally beneficial to the article? How is removing the information challenging the article from improving? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The rumors section did not spontaneously appear. It was added there by someone who thought it was useful, and left there because most others thought it was useful as well. It exists because it adds information to the article, information that people like to read - regardless of the fact that it's not set in stone. It's clearly labeled as rumors, so it's not misinforming anyone. In other words, it doesn't detract from the article. The absolute ONLY reason to remove it is because of arbitrary policies that some people try to enforce without regard to the overall quality of the page. I know you contribute information to this and other F1 articles, and I thank you for that, but do you have any idea how many times I've seen random editors come out of no where and ruin articles they have never contributed anything to just because of WP:YOUCANTDOTHAT? It's ridiculous. I've never once seen Wikipolicy help anything, it's only been used (in my experience) to remove information from an article for the sole reason that said policy disallows it. Have I made it clear how absurd that line of thinking is? Eightball (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The policies written are not arbitrary but well evaluated and debated. It is seen as a consensus among the larger community and serves as guidelines for editors while creating content that can be seen as responsible encyclopedia. And I too have seen editor's incorrectly applying these policies, I'm sorry to see that your experience consists of only bad instances. But let me ask you this: do you feel the policies I stated do not apply here? I don't know how the section started and festered, but just because nobody opposed earlier is no reason to keep it. And sure readers like to know latest F1 news or rumours, but this is not the place for it. There are dozens of resources out there which cater to such needs. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated this: if the policies apply in this situation, then you should be able to support your decision without quoting the policies. If you read the rumors section and thought that maybe some of the rumors listed were ridiculous or highly unlikely, then you should have come to the talk page and brought up those concerns. At that point we could decide to remove either a few outlandish rumors or the entire rumors section if we thought it was pointless. I think this latter option would be a poor decision because many of the rumors make important contributions to the article, such as the situation with Toro Rosso's driver search. This is a complex scenario that is rarely understood unless you have been following F1 for the last season. As such it is important information and should be retained. But your problem was not with the content of the rumors section, it was simply that you thought the section violated certain policies that I find to be absurd. And even if you don't share my sentiments on those policies, and I assume you do not, you still have to understand that we should be judging articles by their actual content (Bourdais vs. Sato vs. Buemi) and not an abstract representation of what the content is ("rumors"). I doubt you noticed, but when I reinserted the rumors section I actually removed one rumor (something about Bourdais possibly going to a hypothetical Peugeot F1 team) because I felt it was far too unlikely to be seriously presented. If you feel this is the case, maybe we should weed out some outdated or outlandish rumors. But don't just go around removing entire sections out of hand. You accomplish nothing by doing this. Eightball (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He is right on the policies. They are very useful but the rumours section is not misinforming the eye with the word rumour. I joined up to make this place better and fill it with information I want here. The future is something I wanted in articles. Where would we put the drivers situation. That is information that isn't confirmed. As I've said before, the whole of future events shouldn't exist as they have not got certainty inn every way; like Honda. Who cares where other things are stated. We don't need to exist because everything we do is written elsewhere. We are one of the most common websites come to as Jimmy Wales has said. People come to us before other sites, so we need to have extra information. Chubbennaitor 20:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my reasons for removal of that section and I cannot emphasize it anymore. If people choose to give their personal choices and judgments priority over following guidelines and policies, I see no point in continuing this discussion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 06:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

dont remove the race stats

its 2009 and it is acceptable to have race stats.according to some users we should have race stats on the first f1 race but imo it will be unaesthetic for it to be not included now.

Punctuation costs you nothing. Apterygial 11:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of adding it now. We're not meant to be aesthetic. The359 (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate to bang on about it, but does anyone else see the irony here? ;) Apterygial 11:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Chubbennaitor 12:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Results and Standings section

Do we really need this section to be added already? Schumi555 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter whether it's there or not? Chubbennaitor 12:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The section is pointless, premature and nothing but a blank table with a set of redlinks that serves no purpose and provides zero information to the reader. ^LeaveSleaves 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, at least wait until one race has been completed for the 2009 season. Schumi555 (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I'd propose we stop following the method used in previous seasons. Don't add the full-fledged table right from the start. Add rows as the season progresses along. In any case the calendar is present earlier in the article which informs the reader of the upcoming race. And Grand Prix results table should contain just that: Results. ^LeaveSleaves 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I would agree with that, it would look a lot tidier for one. Like you say before, the empty rows after the start of the season are pointless because they give no information whatsoever. Schumi555 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, why don't we add this rule to the WikiProject Formula One? Fsarmony (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is a good support for this proposal on this page, then we can consider proposing it further under WP:F1. ^LeaveSleaves 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The calender should be put on a week before the season but I agree a wasted argument over something that can or can't be there. Chubbennaitor 18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree it's completely pointless to have the table there before a single race, but I kind of like having every row there before all the races have been completed. It's convenient to be able to glance at it (especially near the end of the season) and be like, "OK there are four races left." Eightball (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Eightball. Makes sense. I know last season I was looking at it and thinking "3 races left, in Japan, China and Brazil. Ferrari should be strong in Brazil, so LH has to do something in China or Japan..." (yes, I do think like that). Apterygial 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Not keen on the row-by-row idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's move on from the row-by-row suggestion then. What do you all think about the addition of table now, more than 3 month prior to the first race, wherein it adds no significant input to the article. I feel that we should atleast <!-- hide it -->. ^LeaveSleaves 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Have it there but hidden. With about 50 hidden disclaimers urging editors not to display it until the end of March. Apterygial 04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh there is absolutely no reason for it to be there now. Go ahead and hide it. Eightball (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hidden. I suggest we restore it on 28th March, the day first pole will be decided. ^LeaveSleaves 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Schumi555 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a week before so we know which races there are and when and where the first race is. Chubbennaitor 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a table right above you know. In fact this table is far more detailed for what you are looking for. ^LeaveSleaves 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact it's too soon to display a results and standings table, for we don't even know who the drivers will be. Fsarmony (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not looking for it now. But a week of what the first race will be and the rest after, in that layout s needed the week before. Chubbennaitor 16:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think now might be the right time to display the results and standings. Only two weeks for the first race and the tests are almost over. Fsarmony (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Chubbennaitor 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Engine supplyier for Honda

Please remove Ferrari from the engine supply table. Nothing has been confirmed so far. Fsarmony (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Now Mercedes says they might supply Honda... Fsarmony (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Car numbers

I read in globoesporte.com.br today that FIA has defined the car numbering, but I couldn't find it anywhere else. If any of you do, please update the drivers' table. Fsarmony (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be correct, from record.pt:

• 1, Lewis Hamilton (McLaren)
• 2, Heikki Kovalainen (McLaren)
• 3, Kimi Raikkonen (Ferrari)
• 4, Felipe Massa (Ferrari)
• 5, Robert Kubica (BMW)
• 6, Nick Heidfeld (BMW)
• 7, Fernando Alonso (Renault)
• 8, Nelsinho Piquet (Renault)
• 9, Jarno Trulli (Toyota)
• 10, Timo Glock (Toyota)
• 11, Sébastien Buemi (Toro Rosso)
• 12, a confirmar (Toro Rosso)
• 14, Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull)
• 15, Mark Webber (Red Bull)
• 16, Nico Rosberg (Williams)
• 17, Kazuki Nakajima (Williams)
• 18, Giancarlo Fisichella (Force India)
• 19, Adrian Sutil (Force India)

Fsarmony (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The FIA give each team two numbers, and it's up to the teams who gets which number. It hasn't been announced yet, and the above list is just a guess. It's probably going to be close to that, but not necessarily exactly that. If someone buys the Honda team and it's not classed as a new team, their cars will be #18 and #19, not Force India's. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been released today with the list as above except for switching Webber and Vettel, Sutil and Fisichella and inserting Honda (ex-Honda) at #18 and #19. So close, but no cigar ;) I think Buemi could still end up being #12, depending on who his team-mate might be. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I reduced the numbers announcement to a single ref. In any case, this is just a novelty at the moment and I guess after a few weeks we can remove that too. Possibly after Honda's future is clear. ^LeaveSleaves 17:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Massa tested with #3, so we don't know yet if the numbers will be like this. But, so far, it's official. (http://globoesporte.globo.com/Esportes/Noticias/Formula_1/0,,MUL952358-15011,00.html)

Should we add in the test driver numbers now? They're pretty much just consistent on WCC placing. Eightball (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do test drivers still have numbers? Any sources? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a source confirming such numbering. I've removed the numbering. ^LeaveSleaves 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I asked two days ago and no one said anything. Eightball (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FIA have released the list. Massa's number is 3. Chubbennaitor 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Raikkonen is number 3. Read the list. Readro (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll have to wait until the beginning of the season. So far, it's FIA's list that's official. Fsarmony (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then we put down what the FIA have written. Chubbennaitor 16:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It may not fully confirm the numbers, but the Williams FW31 unveiled today carried the number 38 for their test driver. The359 (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

At the very least it confirms Williams' test number and the fact that test numbers still exist (I don't understand why people were doubting that anyway). Eightball (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

People were doubting it because there is no Friday testing at races any more. There's no need for numbers at regular midweek or pre-season tests. There were no numbers for test drivers before Friday testing started in 2003. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say pretty much the same thing: How significant are these numbers now? If they are, they'd definitely have some mention from the FIA. ^LeaveSleaves 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Test numbers

The Williams launch showed their test car to be carrying the number 38, which is consistent with previous seasons in terms of test driver numbers (first team has 31, second as 32, and so on). Is this enough to add the test numbers into the table? Eightball (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless the FIA have confirmed numbers for test cars then it is original research, which is not allowed. Readro (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be original research to add them without an FIA source, but it's also original research to assume they won't have test driver numbers when they've had them for the last six years and at least one car has already been revealed with a test number on it. The only difference is that the former keeps information out of the article. Eightball (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not adding unsourced information to the article is not original research. ^LeaveSleaves 22:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You could easily add Williams' test number in, and use the photograph of their car as the source. Eightball (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I was commenting on your statement it's also original research to assume they won't have test driver numbers when they've had them for the last six years. ^LeaveSleaves 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Notably leaving out my statement that "at least one car has already been revealed with a test number on it." In my eyes you are intentionally ignoring that source, and that qualifies it as original research. Eightball (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just wait for official notification? If there is none, then it may well be that Williams' numbering is unofficial. There is precedent for unofficial numbering on cars during testing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at FIA press releases from past years, and there is never an official list of test numbers. I would imagine that the numbering is derived from other sources, such as team websites and pictures of test cars. Also, how can you suggest that Williams' numbering is unofficial - even though it matches numbering schemes from previous seasons - based on absolutely no facts whatsoever and tell me that is not original research? Eightball (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't include a statement just because there is no evidence to the contrary. Information should be included only if there are sources for it. Original research is including a statement without a source. Omitting a statement that has no sources is good practice because it ensures that the accuracy of the article is not compromised. Readro (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He is omitting a statement (Williams' test number) based on his assumption that Williams, for reasons unknown, would decide to use unofficial numbering that perfectly matches standard test numbering for the last few years. This is ignoring a perfectly valid source for no apparent reason. It is unjustifiable. You people don't want to add information to this article and I have no idea why. Are you just too lazy to edit the wikitable? Because I'll do it for you if you want, it's not a problem. Eightball (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's a list of test numbers - the teams didn't just randomly pluck them out of thin air. Car numbers are assigned by the FIA, no question, but the FIA site does not have ALL the press releases. We can't include a piece of information just because there isn't anything to say it's not true. How on earth can omitting something be original research? Williams' numbering could easily be unofficial - teams aren't infallible, maybe they are just assuming that their test car will be #38, in the same way that you are. If they had notification of what number to use, then no doubt it would be online somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be. Cars have worn all kinds of numbers in testing over the years, and often wear no number at all. What if we find a picture of a Williams with no number? By your token, that's proof that the test cars have no numbers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Etiquettes of Editing

If you edit the points table for a racer, do it completely. Don't do it for one racer, and leave it like that. Update stats for all racers at one shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bourdais confirmation

As of now, there is no official announcement made of Bourdais' confirmation. There are multiple rumors that he would be confirmed for this season, but no definite news. ^LeaveSleaves 01:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Eightball (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked the source you provided and I understand why you believe he is signed on as a driver. But there is no confirmation anywhere about his signing and a possible reason he is on the official site is because of last season and not the upcoming one. ^LeaveSleaves 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's my bet too - taking him off their website would make it look like they've dumped him, when they hadn't decided. So they left him on - he's been there all last year. That said, Autosport are saying STR are close to confirming him. It won't be long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought you people might want to read this. ^LeaveSleaves 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a shoe-in. You've got to feel for him though, imagine if Vettel wasn't there and Sato was in the STR. They'd be no question of his abilities, everyone would be talking about the car. Anyway, we'll still wait for official confirmation. Apterygial 13:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Honda

Is there a deadline by which time Honda have to be entered as a team or excluded from the competition? Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the FIA, but everyone still has high hopes, including Max Mosely. Chubbennaitor 08:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Honda has a 2009 entry, so they have no deadline from the FIA. The only "deadline" would be the Australian Grand Prix. Honda will have to either withdraw their entry or have two cars on the grid in Australia, or face fines. Therefore it is in Honda's hands to decide when to submit their withdrawl, if it becomes necessary. The359 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia, but I thought you guys might be interested: it takes a team about six weeks to modify a chassis to support a new engines (in Honda's case, likely Mercedes). Unless this process has already begun in secret (which there are rumors of), Honda has slightly under a week to find a buyer (or at least an engine supplier) before it starts to become physically impossible to be prepared by Melbourne. As I was typing this I realized there is a tiny chance they could simply use last year's Honda engine for the first race or two, if needed, but I don't think this is at all plausible, plus there isn't a precedent for a team switching engines midseason. Eightball (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Up into the 1990s several teams have changed engines mid-season. Usually going from another engine to a Cosworth or vice versa. The359 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's good news for Honda I guess, but so is this: there is a rumor that Bruno Senna's Brazilian sponsors have injected the team with ~$30 million, which is apparently enough to fund them for the first four races. So at the very least they should be able to get on the grid (with Mercedes engines, apparently). Of course this is all completely unsubstantiated, but again I thought you guys would like to know. Eightball (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this meet WP:RS? Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

With the link, the real concern isn't RS but how definite the news is. If you search the recent news surrounding the team, there's a lot of talk about these Brazilian investors. But if you peruse these reports, most (if not all) are speculation. Quite frankly the only news that would be definite has to involve a formal statement from the team. ^LeaveSleaves 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to WP:RS, that website most certainly isn't reliable, but The Guardian would be. However, both are quite obviously conjecture, and as such should go no further than the Rumors section. But given the number of places I've seen this story reported, I would be surprised if it came true. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. Eightball (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We might get another controversy on our hands Bernie is looking for ways to help Honda. McLaren are also keen to see Honda on the grid in australia and Brazil. ITV. Chubbennaitor 09:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC Radio 2 news bulletin has just said that Richard Branson is considering buying the team and that there is only about a week left for the issue to be decided one way or the other. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We know. Virgin want to buy the team but Branson wants a change in F1. Chubbennaitor 14:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(od)Looks like Honda might be racing after all! Not sure whether this is RS enough but included for info. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They've apparently booked a test at Silverstone next week. Chubbennaitor 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The BBC (now that is a RS) say that the deal is nearly done, and that the team hope to be testing at Barcelona. Drivers will be Button and either Barichello or Senna. When it is confirmed, it can be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, can everyone please hold off on honda-related edits until something is actually confirmed!!! Even the BBC report is still naming indirect unnamed sources, and there's still so many conflicting reports it's not worth cluttering the article with conflicting (and likely unreliable) information. graham228221 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, can people (naming no names) stop putting portuguese language sites as references? nothing against non-english speakers, but this is the english-language site and there's no way that most people could verify what is said on those sites. I just don't think these can be counted as reliable sources. graham228221 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Honda have given go ahead for management by-out. Chubbennaitor 16:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Page tidy

I'm currently working on tidying up this page, there's been so many rumours and interest in the start of this season and i really think that too much has been added to this page, which isn't necessary.

If anyone has any thoughts please let me know.

graham228221 (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'm leaving the testing section well-alone until the start of the season. graham228221 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Double done. I've rewritten the introduction, taking out the statements that teams had signed up through agreements memorandums of understanding and other agreements with FOM, as this appears to have simply been copied over from the 2008 season page and just altered a bit. The agreements signed at the 2006 spanish grand prix were for the 2007 and 2008 seasons only, and were made in response to threats from the teams of forming a breakaway league (which haven't reemerged before this season so no agreements are necessary, and nothing regarding this has been mentioned in the press). Also the basic math didn't really add up =S

I've also added a short summary of added/dropped GPs and the new rules, as the new regs are already the biggest talking point of the season so far. graham228221 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Flickr images

[6] Here is one pcture that we are able to use on the 2009 cars. I'm wondering if we should use this? I've also found a Renault model with a white background aswell. Chubbennaitor 16:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few CC licensed images used on Wikipedia, as far as I know all we have to do is credit the author on the image page. Go ahead and add it if you want to. Eightball (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No it was just because of the type of image and it's background. It's already been sorted on the WikiProject talk page. Chubbennaitor 08:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

USF1

OK. I've seen IP's adding USF1 here. I'm pretty sure that they're putting in their position(dead brain) for 2010. Just cleaning this p and reassuring everyone. Chubbennaitor 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Honda

Lot's of rumors coming out about Honda now, be on the lookout for over-eager editors making changes before they are remotely official (e.g. changing the team name to Brackley F1). Eightball (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Still editors are adding drivers Button/Barrichello. It is still not officially confirmed that Honda will be racing yet. It is also not know which driver will be in which car if they do actually compete. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits are coming from unregistered users, who probably saw the rumors on Autosport or F1-Live and thought it was set in stone. The latest rumor is that they are going to make announcement tomorrow; hopefully they do, because then the list can be more or less final. Eightball (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New points scoring system?

A meeting of FOTA on 17 March will discuss a new points scoring system for the season - details here The meeting is on 17 March, no alteration should be made to the article until it has been confirmed that the scoring system will change. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Brawn numbers

I saw a picture on F1-Live's premium gallery that shows a wall in the Brawn garage saying "Barrichello 19." Obviously we can't cite that because it's a private gallery, but he is #19 so let's try to find another source to confirm it. Eightball (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we wait until the FIA put in the numbers. If not the I don't know what to do. Chubbennaitor 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[[7]] here is photographic evidence for the numbers if we need to choose. There is also Barrichello's number. Chubbennaitor 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the team garage, clearly showing Jenson as #18, Rubens #19 [8] SchueyFan (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that it isn't written evidence. I've already shown that image Chubbennaitor 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? That's bizarre! It's there for all to see. Written, written by whom. What's a picture supposed to be worth anybody?--Amedeo Felix (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not officially been written down. They are written evidence but not confirmed evidence. Chubbennaitor 07:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't we use the picture as a reference? Does WP:RS cover the use of images? Schumi555 07:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't official though. If it was official then we could use it. Chubbennaitor 08:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The new pictures are clear enough for me, there's no mistaking which number is for who. It's the team's choice who gets assigned what number, and Brawn has clearly decided. Button is 18, Barrichello is 19. There's no requirement for it to be written. The359 (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) The FIA are the governing body for F1. Until such time as their website allocates drivers to cars 18 and 19 the table should show Button and Barrichello as "18 or 19". I agree it looks a bit ugly, but putting Button as 18 and Barichello as 19 or vice versa is WP:OR, which we don't do on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What we do do on Wikipedia is use information from reliable resources and common sense. The FIA does not have to update their information; what they say is not law on Wikipedia. When Brawn specifically lists Button as 18 and Barrichello as 19, that's a reliable source. And we have the pictures to back it up. How it is original research is beyond me. The359 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fall under WP:OR. It is written info. FIA is the law though. Nothing is official in F1 generally without their saying. Chubbennaitor 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FIA does not trump others here. This is Wikipedia. And if you knew how the numbering system works, you'd know that the FIA assigns two numbers to teams. The TEAM is then allowed to allocate those two numbers as they see fit. Brawn shows 18 for Button and 19 for Barrichello. Their decision is what matters, and we have evidence to back it. The359 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know how it works. But so far the FIa haven't awarded any numbers to any drivers or team on their site. I want these pictures to be official but currently there are no numbers for Brawn anyway. Chubbennaitor 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiggity wiggity what? The FIA assigned numbers to Honda, knowing full well the team was for sale. Brawn retains the numbers assigned to Honda. This is months ago. It's even cited on this very article. The359 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine then. It's just there isn't any official signings anywhere apart from pictures. Chubbennaitor 21:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Brawn gets to decide who gets what number, it looks fairly official to me. Official enough for a reference. The359 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely the FIA have to be told who is in the seats even if not the numbers. Chubbennaitor 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent). Found written info [9]. Chubbennaitor 16:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Link doesn't seem to work... Schumi555 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the FIA will be told. That doesn't mean they publish it immediately, or that they need to publish it for us to use it. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They'd have gotten it down by now. Chubbennaitor 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari Numbers

In all the pictures of Kimi I've seen, he's got the number '4'. Look at the Ferrari F60 page for proof. Chubbennaitor 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this page has a decent photo of it near the bottom: [10] Eightball (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, I didn't realize they had actually switched the numbers. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's strange for very odd reasons. Chubbennaitor 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me. It's not about what numbers drivers carry during testing, but about the season itself. Cars can get switched during testing and most cars don't seem to carry numbers at all - the photo isn't really proof of anything until the season starts. Until the FIA say otherwise we should stick to Raikkonen #3, Massa #4 as per their website. Note that the FIA now have Button as #18, Rubens #19. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have Bourdais as #11 and Buemi #12? Again, FIA say otherwise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

One sec. Chubbennaitor 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Here. Chubbennaitor 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, people are relying more on photographic information instead of documented information. In any case, this thing would be resolved within couple of weeks. ^LeaveSleaves 15:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They could run with #59 and #73 if they want during testing. It makes no difference. The official line is that during the season they will be running what the FIA says they will be. Readro (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Use officially announced numbers unless FIA officially changes them. ^LeaveSleaves 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think these photos are really evidence of what numbers cars will use during the season. It's an indication, but a photo is in no way saying "This is definitely Driver X's number for 2009" and we're in the business of evidence and verification, not indication. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos are evidence. I can find Buemi driving with a number 12 if you like. But Raikkonen has always been driving with 4 and Massa 3 in every single photo. That can't be an indication but evidence in it's own right. Photographic evidence and written or official information are all evidence. Chubbennaitor 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Here is Kimi driving with the #3 and Here is Massa driving with the #4. Readro (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're evidence of those drivers using those numbers in testing. Not the season. The only evidence we have of what numbers they'll use during the season is what the FIA are telling us. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They're running numbers in testing that they're not going to use in the season? Please, have some common sense. I don't know where this "FIA list trumps all" bullshit is coming from, but this is not how Wikipedia works. This is hardly even the first time that the FIA has printed a list of numbers, and then the teams reversed them as they saw fit. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The FIA list currently trumps photos because it clearly states the numbers the cars will be using. With the photos, they merely show a number on a car and then an assumption has been made that it is what they will be running during the season. To use the photos is an assumption whereas to use the FIA list is fact. The FIA list is the most factually verifiable thus it is the FIA list which trumps the photos. Readro (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling the support of official FIA list as bullshit is unfortunate. Of course arguing this point is moot since like I said above, the photos seem to be given more importance here. ^LeaveSleaves 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources. "Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Further, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."

The FIA list states two numbers assigned to the team. The teams can do with them as they please, as has happened dozens of times in the past few years. To call photographs which show a driver repeatedly in a car #4 an assumption is absurd. Claiming that teams can do whatever they want and use whatever number they want because it's testing and hence any number seen in testing shouldn't count is what's an assumption. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Readro is right. 359, you've been around long enough to know that common sense doesn't rule every time. On one hand, we have a clear and verifiable statement from the FIA regarding car numbers, and on the other we have some photos of cars in testing. While it's not a big leap to make to assume that they'll use the same numbers during the season, it IS still an assumption, and this isn't the place to make assumptions. Teams could easily switch numbers again next week with no explanation, fanfare or even a mention. Liveries change, sponsors change, and numbers can change. Some cars wore no numbers during testing - is that proof that they'll carry no numbers during the season? Of course not. If we get a decent official source that verifies actual race numbers as they were shown in testing, then we can change it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just provided two photos showing them in cars with the numbers swapped over! Teams can't do whatever they like with the numbers because the numbers are "bound" to a car and there are certain restrictions regarding what they can and can't do with driver changes for the cars. Teans can do whatever they like in testing because they aren't running in officially FIA-sanctioned sessions. I've seen photos that show Niki Lauda driving a Fittipaldi car but to state that he would be running that car during the year would be an assumption. If the FIA say that he is driving a Ferrari car then that is factually verifiable. To equate the circumstances in an unofficial private test session as being equivalent to that of an official session at a Grand Prix is original research. Readro (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, "this car has #4 on it, but it's in testing, so they might not use it!" is the equivilant of saying "They're using an F60 here, but they might start using the F61 before Melbourne!" Believing that the numbers might change is an assumption. And yes, teams could change their numbers next week, but we're not crystal balling. The numbers, as they stand now, have evidence. Unless you're telling me that the FIA is actually assigning numbers to a driver, and not a team, then the FIA's list is not concrete. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply, the verifiable facts that can be ascertained from the photos are that Kimi drove a #4 and Massa a #3 during a recent test session. If these were the facts that the photo was being used as a reference for then fair enough. However, you want to use them as a reference for these being the numbers they will use during the 2009 season, but the image does not state that. It requires an assumption to get there, thus the photo is not a valid source for the statement. Readro (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit below mentions this, but drivers can't change a car on a whim. It's not as if Kimi drivers the #3 chassis one day and Felipe hops into the next day. They are customized for each driver, and as such they drive to separate cars. What you are suggesting is that Ferrari gets done with testing and, for no apparent reason, puts a new number decal on the nose of the car. Eightball (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid you have already made an assumption based on the testing photographs that the teams have decided to change the car numbers at their will. But as shown by Mugello test photographs linked above, you simply can't take photographs as something that completely triumphs FIA's announcement. And the FIA list does initially assign numbers to drivers. They may be changed by the time of the first race, the such change needs to officially confirmed. ^LeaveSleaves 18:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it requires simple common sense, to see that a number used throughout testing and even included in signage (see: Brawn) is going to be the driver's number. Yes, it could change, but so could any number of things which we currently have on the list of drivers. Assuming it's going to change is not a common sense assumption. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Common sense would suggest that suggest that with Brawn, yes, but with Ferrari, the drivers have been seen using both numbers. Common sense would also suggest that there is an alternative possiblity - that they have two chassis, one with a #3 on and one with a #4 on, hence why they have been seen with both numbers. The photo sources don't rule out this possiblity because they don't state any fact other than that at a specific time during a specific test, the drivers were observed driving cars with specific numbers. Readro (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are going to change. I only think that any change or edit should not be based on individual common sense and should rather follow valid sourcing. Now don't read this wrong as me denying photographs as valid sources. But those photos are from testing and not from races, right? And the numbers we are discussing are in fact race numbers, right? And the race numbers as they stand have only one source at the moment, the FIA. Until 27 March, I think FIA release would be the correct thing to follow. ^LeaveSleaves 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point is that initially, the FIA had the Brawn numbers the other way round, with Barrichello as #18 and Button #19. This was recently changed on their website, suggesting that they are open to advisement from the teams as to which driver gets which number. This hasn't happened for Ferrari, and they still show Kimi as #3, Massa #4 - this indicates that there has yet been no reassessment as there was for Brawn. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW:Brawn numbers aren't in FIA and that was what told me off for not using images as references. Chubbennaitor 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean that pointless fia.com site, I mean this: [11] Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That does something similar. I can understand you but just read above. What turned me. Numbers are given to the teams and the teams award them to their drivers. Have Ferrari confirmed it?Chubbennaitor 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I barely understand what you mean. Have Ferrari confirmed what? I know teams are given numbers and the teams decide who gets which number. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The point is that there's nowhere that actually says Massa is #3 for the 2009 season - not the Ferrari website, the FIA etc etc. These testing photos are not sufficient evidence for verifying the driver numbers for the races, and the verifiable lists we DO have say Massa is #4. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't act like testing means they are in magical test cars that will get thrown away before Melbourne. It's not two interchangeable chassis, they have the driver's name printed on the side and his custom seat in the cockpit. It would defy all logic for any team to customize a chassis for a driver and then put the wrong number on it. If that's what you guys are banking on then you could just as easily say that the guy at FIA.com made a typo. Plus, if you are using F1.com as an official source for Brawn's numbers, do note that it still says Honda as the team name, and it'd be insane to argue that the team is not known as Brawn GP. Eightball (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing with chassis and body. While the chassis for each driver remains the same (with only part changes as needed), the body and its parts can be changed. So, Massa can keep driving his chassis (and thus his specific engine, gearbox etc.) and still be using different body and livery. And so they can throw away the body of the car while keeping the chassis going. In fact, in the manner of saying, you can say that Massa is using the same chassis that Schumacher used. ^LeaveSleaves 04:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Massa is driving the same chassis as Schumacher isn't even remotely accurate. The only distinction between chassis and body is the carbon fiber body panels, in which case yeah, Ferrari could swap out the numbers, but why would they? Ockham's razor: either the picture shows Raikkonen driver car #4 because Ferrari has allocated that number to him, OR because Ferrari has decided to randomly swap numbers between him and Massa. Which one of those two scenarios sounds more likely? Also, in regards to your post above, the Mugello test was basically Ferrari's launch. It's obvious that, at that time, they intended to have Raikkonen use the #3. It's also obvious now that they have changed their minds. Eightball (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer his question Leave Sleaves first before you come back. Chubbennaitor 08:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

When are people going to understand this, it's not difficult. It's not a question of what's "obvious" or common sense. It's about what's verifiable. The photos do not say "This is Raikkonen's number for 2009". The test does not bear enough relation to the season to make that assumption. Anyone who thinks what goes on in testing is proof of what is going to happen during the season is hopelessly naive, and that DOES sometimes include switching of numbers between drivers for all kinds of reasons. We need someone at Ferrari or the FIA to confirm the numbers as opposite to what they've said so far. And Chubbenaitor, LS can answer whatever he likes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not about what is obvious or using common sense. Information added to a page has to be verifiable. Readro (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer the question. That's common sense. Chubbennaitor 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about common sense, just verifiability. Occam's razor doesn't come into it - if you have to apply Occam's razor to a piece of evidence then it is not verifiable and not suitable for Wikipedia. Readro (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the official site was wrong about the numbers for Brawn. Occam's razor? Chubbennaitor 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not citing the official site - I'm citing the official entry list, which is the only verifiable source that has been presented so far. There is no other source that says "Yes, Ferrari have definitely swapped the numbers." Readro (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Backs up my sentence anyway. Chubbennaitor 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: the official site - yes, they had the Brawn numbers the wrong way round, but while people here were rucking over it, the official site swapped them over. No doubt when they get official word somehow, they update their site. When they or some other half-decent source does that for Ferrari, then Bob's your uncle. Until then, we just have a bunch of testing pics. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which question I'm supposed to answer, but I'd say this: I have the common sense to use common sense where it is appropriate. And though some people fell to understand this time and again, an encyclopedic article that requires valid verifiable facts is not the place to use it erroneously. This is no different from earlier discussion about application of common sense and quite frankly I'm tired reiterating this. As I said in my first post in this thread, let's just lay low for couple of weeks and all will be well with the universe. ^LeaveSleaves 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent)No. I found official info from Brawn GP 6 days before any official site changed. Chubbennaitor 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you were arguing about it for 4 days, so it's close. The fact is they update their site when they have a reason to do so, and they haven't done so yet for Ferrari. That's the issue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Chubbs and are trying to make the article more accurate while you guys want to sit on your hands and pretend photographs don't exist. Listen: there are times at which I am willing to stand back and realize that people have different points of view than I, or that I am taking things a little too seriously, but this isn't one of them. This is about flat out ignoring facts. You are claiming that the most sensible course of action is to assume that the FIA's numbers are right, and that Ferrari has thus decided to randomly reassign their driver numbers during testing. I'm sure when they are working to make their hundred million dollar racing car as fast as possible they have time every day to swap Massa's number decal. If you want to try to support your point of view without being foolish, that may be possible, but I think the best course of action here is just to admit you're wrong and apologize for wasting my time. Eightball (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, even if a bit harsh. Chubbennaitor 07:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about what I think. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers did swap around, but the evidence provided is only circumstantial and does not explicitly support that. If a car appeared at a pre-season test with the number 77 on, does that mean that one can infer that it will use 77 in the season, even if it is listed in the official entry list as using 16? No. Could it appear with the number 77? It's possible, but the photograph can't be used as evidence that it will. We cannot infer something in the future from a photograph. The only things that a photograph can verify are things at the time of the photograph. I know that you have good intentions in mind, but this does not mean that Wikipedia policies about the verifiability of information can be disregarded. Readro (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this discussion, and to be honest I don't feel as if I have to. It is less than 10 days before the cars roll out onto the track in Melbourne, and then we will know for sure who's got what number. I don't know if you guys are familiar with Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, but this one would appear to meet the inclusion criteria. I'm not remotely interested in joining in with it, so this will be the only message I'll post. I'm going to revert the section in the article back to how it was before this kicked off, for no other reason than the fact that no change at all is slightly better than a controversial one. Unless the FIA publish a new list, the Ferrari numbers stay the same until March 27. Got it? Good. Apterygial 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit irritated about the tone of one or two comments here. Eightball, if you don't understand how Wikipedia works, that's no-one's fault or problem but yours, and the only person wasting your time is you yourself. If you want an apology.. (for what?) then you have an extremely long wait. Apterygial, I don't think this counts as an edit war, because we were discussing it here rather than editing and reverting. Comments like "Got it? Good." do not belong here, unless someone appointed you as president of the WP while I wasn't loooking. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasting changes

I was wondering whether a table would be suitable, as there are a lot of changes. It's what happened at the 2001 Formula One season. And shall we add a qualifying results table like in 2000 Formula One season. The latter I think would be and is very interesting. Chubbennaitor 18:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A table for broadcasters might help, but I have to oppose the idea of a table for qualifying. It has no effect on the "season". If people want qualifying results, they can go to the individual race reports. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I thought it would be the other way round. Chubbennaitor 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done table. Chubbennaitor 20:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it redundant? Can't we have only the table and the references? Fsarmony (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We can. I only mentioned it because there were so many changes. Like there were driver changes in 2001. Chubbennaitor 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that even the channels that are not changing are in the table? Do we really need that? I think the table should contain only the CHANGES, that's why the session is called BROADCASTING CHANGES! Fsarmony (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because someone put some as 2008 and 2009 with no examples of them being used before but when I added the table I put down info from below and I remember all the info said 'will replace' or something along those lines. Try and find whether they were there all the time or new this year. Chubbennaitor 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Took care of it. Feel free to change. Fsarmony (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

March 27- about 15 mins into Canadian SPEED-channel coverage, c. 1:30 AM, all coverage was blacked out. There are angry people on the Speedtv.com forums showing displeasure here: http://moto-racing.speedtv.com/forums/viewthread/412953/P20/ and can be further confirmed on the www.formula1.com website. Not sure if this belongs in "Broadcasting changes", but for now, it's the most relevant section.99.225.42.150 (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Win table

We are keeping the points table, I'm guessing. Are we adding a win table? Chubbennaitor 16:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The points table has the wins column. I see no point in creating a separate table with only two columns in it. What we can do perhaps highlight the existing column in some way. ^LeaveSleaves 16:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We'd need an overall column. If a driver scores more points but less wins. It would mess up that able completely. Chubbennaitor 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree for a separate table. Because the second and the latter places are not decided by GP won, but only the point system. Raymond Giggs 13:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When we add the table for the amount of points we shall add it. At the Newsletter we've got the wins and points in one table and the overall. Chubbennaitor 17:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for separation. Just stick an extra column in the points table, with a note at the top saying that the champion will be the driver with most wins, and then go on to say that the rest of drivers will be classified by points. Why go to all the complexity of another table? Cs-wolves(talk) 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It gets confusing. People want to have a simple way to see the results at a glance. By doing what we've done at the newsletter, it is just a glance. Chubbennaitor 17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusing? I find that hard to believe. It's not all that difficult to count up how many 1's a driver has on the points table. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Explain what we do when the driver with more points is runner-up? Chubbennaitor 17:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Me and Cs-wolves are proposing changes in Wins column of existing table system in order to make it more visible

Proposed change 1
Pos	Driver	Constructor(s)	Starts	Wins	Podiums	Poles	F.laps	Points
1	Lewis Hamilton	McLaren-Mercedes	18	5	10	7	1	98
2	Felipe Massa	Ferrari	18	6	10	6	3	97
3	Kimi Räikkönen	Ferrari	18	2	9	2	10	75
4	Robert Kubica	BMW Sauber	18	1	7	1	0	75
5	Fernando Alonso	Renault	18	2	3	0	0	61
6	Nick Heidfeld	BMW Sauber	18	0	4	0	2	60
7	Heikki Kovalainen	McLaren-Mercedes	18	1	3	1	2	53
8	Sebastian Vettel	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	18	1	1	1	0	35
9	Jarno Trulli	Toyota	18	0	1	0	0	31
10	Timo Glock	Toyota	18	0	1	0	0	25
11	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	18	0	0	0	0	21
12	Nelson Piquet Jr.	Renault	18	0	1	0	0	19
13	Nico Rosberg	Williams-Toyota	18	0	2	0	0	17
14	Rubens Barrichello	Honda	18	0	1	0	0	11
15	Kazuki Nakajima	Williams-Toyota	18	0	0	0	0	9
16	David Coulthard	Red Bull-Renault	18	0	1	0	0	8
17	Sébastien Bourdais	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	4
18	Jenson Button	Honda	18	0	0	0	0	3
19	Giancarlo Fisichella	Force India-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	0
20	Adrian Sutil	Force India-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	0
21	Takuma Sato	Super Aguri-Honda	4	0	0	0	0	0
22	Anthony Davidson	Super Aguri-Honda	4	0	0	0	0	0

Proposed change 2

Pos Driver Constructor(s) Starts Wins Podiums Poles F.laps Points 1 Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 18 5 10 7 1 98 2 Felipe Massa Ferrari 18 6 10 6 3 97 3 Kimi Räikkönen Ferrari 18 2 9 2 10 75 4 Robert Kubica BMW Sauber 18 1 7 1 0 75 5 Fernando Alonso Renault 18 2 3 0 0 61 6 Nick Heidfeld BMW Sauber 18 0 4 0 2 60 7 Heikki Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes 18 1 3 1 2 53 8 Sebastian Vettel Toro Rosso-Ferrari 18 1 1 1 0 35 9 Jarno Trulli Toyota 18 0 1 0 0 31 10 Timo Glock Toyota 18 0 1 0 0 25 11 Mark Webber Red Bull-Renault 18 0 0 0 0 21 12 Nelson Piquet Jr. Renault 18 0 1 0 0 19 13 Nico Rosberg Williams-Toyota 18 0 2 0 0 17 14 Rubens Barrichello Honda 18 0 1 0 0 11 15 Kazuki Nakajima Williams-Toyota 18 0 0 0 0 9 16 David Coulthard Red Bull-Renault 18 0 1 0 0 8 17 Sébastien Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari 18 0 0 0 0 4 18 Jenson Button Honda 18 0 0 0 0 3 19 Giancarlo Fisichella Force India-Ferrari 18 0 0 0 0 0 20 Adrian Sutil Force India-Ferrari 18 0 0 0 0 0 21 Takuma Sato Super Aguri-Honda 4 0 0 0 0 0 22 Anthony Davidson Super Aguri-Honda 4 0 0 0 0 0

Thoughts are welcome on further improving this new format. ^LeaveSleaves 19:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, But what about the 'color table'? I vote for the first one. Could you jumble it up so it goes by wins? I'd also propose putting wins at the end. Chubbennaitor 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about just moving the Wins column to the right and place it next to the Points column, and make all the numbers bold? Then you have the 2 position-deciding numbers in similar formatting, right next to each other at the right side of the table, as below. –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change 3
Pos	Driver	Constructor(s)	Starts	Podiums	Poles	F.laps	Wins	Points
1	Lewis Hamilton	McLaren-Mercedes	18	10	7	1	5	98
2	Felipe Massa	Ferrari	18	10	6	3	6	97
3	Kimi Räikkönen	Ferrari	18	9	2	10	2	75
4	Robert Kubica	BMW Sauber	18	7	1	0	1	75
5	Fernando Alonso	Renault	18	3	0	0	2	61
6	Nick Heidfeld	BMW Sauber	18	4	0	2	0	60
7	Heikki Kovalainen	McLaren-Mercedes	18	3	1	2	1	53
8	Sebastian Vettel	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	18	1	1	0	1	35
9	Jarno Trulli	Toyota	18	1	0	0	0	31
10	Timo Glock	Toyota	18	1	0	0	0	25
11	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	18	0	0	0	0	21
12	Nelson Piquet Jr.	Renault	18	1	0	0	0	19
13	Nico Rosberg	Williams-Toyota	18	2	0	0	0	17
14	Rubens Barrichello	Honda	18	1	0	0	0	11
15	Kazuki Nakajima	Williams-Toyota	18	0	0	0	0	9
16	David Coulthard	Red Bull-Renault	18	1	0	0	0	8
17	Sébastien Bourdais	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	4
18	Jenson Button	Honda	18	0	0	0	0	3
19	Giancarlo Fisichella	Force India-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	0
20	Adrian Sutil	Force India-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	0
21	Takuma Sato	Super Aguri-Honda	4	0	0	0	0	0
22	Anthony Davidson	Super Aguri-Honda	4	0	0	0	0	0

I like "Proposed change 3". As for the "coloured" table, I'd suggest adding a Wins column, just to the left of the Points column, similar to the one in the above table (otherwise it might look confusing if the Championship leader has fewer points than the driver in second place). DH85868993 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the big border and I like the 3rd option. What are we doing for the coloured table? Chubbennaitor 21:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DH85868993 and propose the below for the “colored” table. –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pos	Driver	AUS	MAL	BHR	ESP	TUR	MON	CAN	FRA	GBR	GER	HUN	EUR	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	CHN	BRA	Wins	Points
1	Lewis Hamilton	1	5	13	3	2	1	Ret	10	1	1	5	2	3	7	3	12	1	5	5	98
2	Felipe Massa	Ret	Ret	1	2	1	3	5	1	13	3	17†	1	1	6	13	7	2	1	6	97
3	Kimi Räikkönen	8†	1	2	1	3	9	Ret	2	4	6	3	Ret	18†	9	15†	3	3	3	2	75
4	Robert Kubica	Ret	2	3	4	4	2	1	5	Ret	7	8	3	6	3	11	2	6	11	1	75
…

Wouldn't it look strange and odd if we have the above? Whole reason I proposed a new table. Chubbennaitor 07:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is overflowing with tables as it is, and agree with Fred for the column in the coloured table. Apterygial 11:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In support with Proposed Change 3 and the new format for coloured table given above. ^LeaveSleaves 12:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I decline my argument. I agree with LeaveSleaves. And keep the Constructors table as it is. I also like tables as they make it a lot easier to understand the more there are in the written info. Chubbennaitor 15:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We won't need to change the table just yet The FOTA have challenged the FIA saying they can't change the rules this close to the season without all of the teams' consent. Chubbennaitor 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deferred until 2010. Discussion mute for the time being. D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing we keep the tables like last year. Chubbennaitor 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the change is null and void. I don't think it's the end of the saga though. Readro (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

THE FIA could defer new points system HERES A LINK Wrcf1 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ITVs got it. Chubbennaitor 20:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We still need to discuss how it design as the new counting method would be used at 2010. Raymond Giggs 14:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said that it will happen then? It's postponed but it has a season to get destroyed and put in the bin. We've got the resolution above. Chubbennaitor 18:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)