Jump to content

Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Moving from points to prose?

@Prisonermonkeys: has stated that "We are moving away from dot points and towards prose", was this discussed for a consensus and I missed it? To me, points are a far better way of presenting the information as you can easily pick out the facts without the need to read a large piece of text.

Basically from this:


To this:


References

  1. ^ a b Benson, Andrew (5 December 2016). "French Grand Prix returns for 2018 after 10-year absence". BBC Sport. Retrieved 5 December 2016.
  2. ^ a b c d "FIA announces World Motor Sport Council decisions". Federation Internationale de l'Automobile. 19 June 2017. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017.
  3. ^ a b Takle, Abhishek (2 August 2016). "German GP future remains uncertain". Reuters. Retrieved 7 January 2017.
  4. ^ "2017 race to be Malaysia's F1 farewell". formula1.com. Retrieved 2 June 2017.
  5. ^ a b Cooper, Adam (29 September 2017). "2018 Formula 1 calendar revised as Chinese and Bahrain GPs swap". Autosport.com. Motorsport Network. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
  6. ^ "2017 race to be Malaysia's F1 farewell". formula1.com. Retrieved 2 June 2017.

Thoughts? MetalDylan (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

My first thought is that you are presenting a false dichotomy. My second thought is, per MOS:LISTBULLET, "do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs." My third thought is that simply inserting paragraph breaks in the second example above would resolve this issue simply. Pyrope 13:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I VERY strongly agree with @MetalDylan: Lists and tables are far easier to quickly parse than paragraphs of prose. The MOS is only a guideline, and clearly states that it "should be treated with common sense." Common sense should dictate that lists are* easier to read. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This sort of change was actually first requested during the GA review of the 2015 article. The article did gain the GA status because of that change among other things. It was later promoted to a Featured Article with the prose format. The 2016 article uses the same format and is currently undergoing a GA review. No objections have been made about the format so far. So if we want to improve that quality of this article, this is the way to go. I agree with MetalDylan that one solitary long block of text is impractical. But I think this can be simply resolved by spitting it into multiple paragraphs and by adding some section-titles in such parts as the changes section.Tvx1 20:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I would avoid section titles. The content of that section is quite brief to begin with, so all we're going to wind up with is a series of one-sentence sub-sections. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
My bad, the section titles proposal was meant to be for the rule changes section. Sorry for not making that clear.Tvx1 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't particularly care what other articles did or what earned GA or FA status. We should strive for constant improvement, and that means not doing the same thing over and over again just because that's what we're told is "correct." It should be common sense to understand a list is more easily readable that prose. Now, if it's a very long list, then obviously shorter paragraphs is better. Regardless, I do not agree with turning everything into prose just because someone said we should. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Dot points are largely unencyclopaedic. Sometime their use is justified, such as here where the dot points are integrated into the body of the prose to define the individual technical changes. But an over-reliance on dot points tends to turn the article into a glorified list. Especially since we contextualise things—we don't just say that McLaren switched from Honda to Renault; we detail the circumstances behind the switch and show that it is part of a larger deal that affects several teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Who decided that bullet points are "ununencyclopaedic?" I've seen them in real, actual encyclopedias. This is the crux of my problem with where all these discussions go: you blindly copy and paste poorly-devised Wikipedia guidelines because you are unable to explain why you think your way is inherently better. The Manual of Style is not binding. I want to have an actual, human discussion about the best way to format this article. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
"I've seen them in real, actual encyclopedias."
Have you seen entire articles that are made up of dot points?
"you blindly copy and paste poorly-devised Wikipedia guidelines"
I'm not blindly copying and pasting Wikipedia guidelines. I'm following the basic rules of structured writing and using a format that is appropriate to audience, purpose and context.
Once we know who Massa's replacement is, I'm planning to convert the "driver changes" over to dot point. Likewise the "team changes" once we know for sure what Force India is doing about their name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you meant you intend convert it to prose. ;-) Tvx1 15:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

FIA entry list?

I'm sorry but the constructor names feel like they are changing every year now, First Toro Rosso was "STR" then just "Toro Rosso" now its "Scuderia Toro Rosso" how even reliable are the entry lists? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's very reliable. It's put together by the FIA, the ultimate authority on the subject. If you find that inconvenient, tough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Speedy Question Mark: how reliable is the official FIA entry list? I don't think you can get more reliable. The fact is that the name has been changing the last few years according to the actual entry lists. If we start getting into the territory where we deviate from the official list then it's going to open up a world of trouble. Keep it simple; list gets released, copy list exactly. everyone knows where they stand then. MetalDylan (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I currently can't read the list, but is Red Bull Toro Rosso actually the team name or a mistake? QueenCake (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

QueenCake The team is listed as "Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda" on the FIA entry list. And "Scuderia Toro Rosso" as chassis name. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Huh, interesting. Not a mistake on our part then. Thanks for that. QueenCake (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It just seems a little drawn out to have the full name in the constructors box considering we've had just "Toro Rosso" for a while now, plus the FIA entry list has always had typos (like RBR and STR for example). Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it's what the source says. We cannot change it to something else because it's inconvenient or we think we know better. The entry list is compiled based on the paperwork submitted to the FIA by the teams. "Scuderia Toro Rosso" isn't a constructor name assigned by the FIA—it's what the team has told the FIA is their name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. And since they have a new PU supplier for 2018, they had to file the paperwork for a new constructor name and probably decided to re-add Scuderia while they were at it.Tvx1 01:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
My understanding wass that the FIA insists on the inclusion of "Scuderia" for the same reason that Red Bull goes by "Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer" rather than just "Red Bull-Tag Heuer" - the latter gives the potential impression that Red Bull is a sponsor, not a constructor. That could obviously be wrong, though, considering they had previously dropped "Scuderia." Wicka wicka (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"Triple header"

The effect of the three consecutive races remains to be seen. We cannot position it as being significant if that significance is questionable.

Also, this article uses British English. The term "Triple Header" is an American neologism and far too colloquial for an envyclopaedia article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to use a different, more elegant, phrasing than triple-header. I think there is also significance in the it is the first occurrence of this happening in the sport. If it were to happen again then it's inclusion would be unnecessary but I see it as being significant as it will surely have an impact on drivers and teams alike as they have to work continuously for an unprecedented length of time. MetalDylan (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
"I see it as being significant as it will surely have an impact on drivers and teams alike as they have to work continuously for an unprecedented length of time."
Given that it hasn't happened yet, I think it's premature to suggest that it will have such an impact. Especially since it's Austria, France and Britain, which are all geographically close together. It's not like they're doing Australia, Abu Dhabi and Mexico in three weeks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The geography has little to do with it, its the fact they are so close together in time that makes it noteworthy. It is an interesting fact about the season calendar and the first time it is happening in the history of formula 1. Why, may I ask, are you so opposed to including it? It is significant in that it hasn't happened before, why does it need more than that? MetalDylan (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Because I think you're over-emphasising it. It's a little quirk of the schedule, but by drawing attention to it, you're highlighting it as having some kind of significance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
In your opinion. What makes your opinion more right than mine? MetalDylan (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The three consecutive races haven't happen yet and so we have no idea how (or even if) it will affect the teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
And that is precisely what makes it notable. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's notable because we don't know how notable it will be? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's notable because it's new. It's objectively notable information, I don't have the faintest clue how you could disagree with this. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Objectively, yes—but contextually, no. By putting it in the "calendar changes" section, the inference is that it will affect the championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the inference is actually that it is a new calendar change, a section that does not reference any change nor impact on the championship. MetalDylan (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
It's literally a calendar change, PM, what is your problem? At this point you are just arguing for the sake of argument. Sorry that you were wrong, but the fact that you can't accept it and move on is deeply concerning.
So many people who edit this page (or try to, at least) have huge problems with you and your behavior. This is a great example of why that is. Maybe take some time off from editing, my man. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
"So many people who edit this page (or try to, at least) have huge problems with you and your behavior."
No, just you. And I'm not the one who demanded people give him an explanation, then ignored it and declared the discussion closed. So I think we can safely close this discussion and ignore your continued spamming. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is there always so much aggression and sarcasm against each other? Is it really that hard to collaborate?Tvx1 20:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out that he has a double standard. On the one hand, he demands that people provide arguments or else he will "close" a discussion, but then proceeds to ignore those arguments and characterise the people making them as spamming. Then, quite separately, he accuses people of having "huge problems" of the behaviour of other editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I have never, in my entire time editing any motorsport article, ever seen Prisonermonkeys collaborate or even attempt to collaborate. I have never seen him take input from other editors and use it to inform or evolve his stance. He always picks one side and sticks to it unfailingly. Feel free to prove me wrong, I would gladly apologize.
Regarding the issue you reference above - I am not ignoring your arguments. You simply are not making any relevant points. You demand a change to the article, and when asked why, you make statements that are utterly irrelevant to your proposed change. That's what you're doing here, and that's what you're doing in the tire column argument. Frankly, I have had enough of this from you. It has to stop. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Since Wicka wicka seems to think a consensus has been reached, I'll point out that they're wrong. Currently there are 3 people involved only, and 2/1 on that is not a consensus. Also, why the hell does a "triple header" matter? "Triple header" is also an unencyclopedic term, and the fact that races are being scheduled back-to-back-to-back doesn't matter. All I've ever seen from Wicka wicka is them wanting to push and force their opinion without collaboration. If you readd this, I will report you for edit warring. Try being respectful and thinking before you speak. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
My edit did not include the phrase "triple header." Please apologize for lying or I will open a discussion with the admins. Joseph, you are the only one edit warring. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Over the last 24 hours, I've seen Joseph2302 and Prisonermonkeys repeatedly remove the content, while you repeatedly reinstate it. So there are three people edit-warring here. All of you should stop take taking things so personal and start focussing on have a respectful and collaborative discussion and on working towards a solution.Tvx1 20:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? I removed content from the page on the 12th and again on the 19th as I thought the issue had been resolved and haven't touched it since. I don't really see how that is edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It was the some content you removed on both occasions and there was a revert on the 18th as well.Tvx1 20:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Tvx1 — that revert on the 18th was completely unrelated. It removed a line about the date for Williams' driver announcement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)stop Wicka wicka, you are the one edit warring "the most", currently being at WP:3RR and at four reverts on this subject in the last 36 hours. All of you step back, have a nice cup of tea, and remember that the world will not end if the article remains at the wrong version for a day or three. Otherwise things like page locking and blocks will happen. I don't want to have to do that, and you don't want it to happen to you, so try not to make like Schumacher ramming Damon Hill off the road, alright? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your help and your input, but if you want to fix these problems long-term, you really need to be speaking with Prisonermonkeys. That he has stayed on the right side of the law doesn't change the fact that he is responsible for literally all of this churn. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Can we go back to talking about this? There's not a consensus, and it's be nice to focus on that. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
You know what would've been fantastic? If you had come here first and reopened the discussion, rather than reverting my change and accusing me of edit warring, without ever once expressing your stance. That would've been a nice way to approach this discussion.
Yes. I would gladly like to actually discuss this. Why don't you think it's notable that three consecutive races are happening for the first time? Keep in mind that my edit did not include the phrase "triple header." Wicka wicka (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is three races in a row notable? It's mentioned in Sky Sports & Autosport sources, but there's no evidence that having three races in a row will have longstanding longevity. In 5 years time, I highly doubt anyone would care that these races were back-to-back. Inclusion and exclusion of races is a notable change, moving races earlier/later in the season is questionably notable (I'd say no, but consensus seems to say yes to having it), but this seems trivial to me. A few sources have mentioned it, but there's been no great coverage about it i.e. no teams have even said anything about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
"Why is three races in a row notable? It's mentioned in Sky Sports & Autosport sources, but there's no evidence that having three races in a row will have longstanding longevity. In 5 years time, I highly doubt anyone would care that these races were back-to-back."
I still think this point is ridiculous. F1 has been around for 60+ years as an organized championship, and never before in that time have three races occurred on consecutive weekends. What ISN'T notable about this? And it's not just mentioned in the Sky Sports and Autosport articles - it's the headline. In an article about the F1 schedule release, it is what they felt was most notable, most worth pointing out. That obviously counts for something.
"i.e. no teams have even said anything about it."
All that said...this is a fair point. The teams are the first to complain when the season gets longer, someone threatens their summer break, etc. The fact that they haven't said anything probably means it's not as big of a deal as it's being made out to be. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Things are not notable simply because they happened. There must be a point where we draw the line somewhere. For example, a new, returning or departing race automatically merits inclusion because it fundamentally changes the calendar. A race changing its place on the calendar is less notable, although context plays a role here; for example, if it is being moved to accomodate another race (eg Azerbaijan being moved to open up a spot for France), then it is probably more notable than if it was just swapping places with another racd (eg China and Bahrain). And then there are the things that amount to trivia—such as a race being held at the earliest point in the year that the race has been held in its history—that are not notable enough for inclusion. The question then is where this incidence of three consecutive races falls on this scale and I don't think that it being a first automatically qualifies it as being notable enough for inclusion. Now, if it happened and the teams went to the FIA and said "let's never do that again", then I would say that it's notable enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have spent the past few hours searching far and wide for more on this subject, and I have come up with nothing. All of the publications I have seen attribute its notability to this being the first time it has happened. There has been no specific criticism of the schedule or any discussion of the implications. Therefore I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion based on the current coverage. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, in addition to Bushranger's good points, I'd like to remind people they should wait a resonable amount of time for replies. I'm particularly thinking of this comment at ANI At the time I made the edit, two agreed, one disagreed, and he had stopped replying. It felt over.. If I'm looking at the edit history correctly, the change in question was made here [1]. The state of the talk page would have been this [2]. There was a reply from someone who appeared to disagree with the specific edit about 7 hours before the change.

It's nearly always completely unresonable to claim someone stopped replying or the discussion was over in such a case, even more so at a time like this so close to Christmas when a lot of people are busy. Even if someone was editing or discussing elsewhere, people are not required to reply to all discussions instantly. Since this article is fairly non urgent (realisticly this far out from the season start, most people aren't thinking of Formula 1 and however you feel about the change it's difficult to claim it's uber important), it's probably not unresonable to give a week for replies unless there's a very good reason to think no more replies are forthcoming.

I'd also note that while discussion is good, after quite a few replies editors tend to either start just repeat themselves, or get into offtopic issues like personal disagreements with each other. If you haven't managed to to achieve consensus in that time, it may be time so consider some form of WP:Dispute resolution. If nothing new that is useful to resolving the dispute is being said, there's little point engaging in a lengthy back and forth. Although it is incumbent on both sides to start the dispute resolution process, meaning neither side should be waiting for the other to do so.

So if it's clear that someone still disagrees, it's often not resonable to demand a reply or you'll take that silence as consensus.

And I'd note as others have said, 2 editors agreeing with something and one editor disagreeing is often not consensus. Also even if you resonably feel there is consensus, if there were only 2 of you involved and you make the change and someone reverts you, it's often not resonable to revert because you had consensus. Even if you inference was resonable at the time, the revert suggests consensus doesn't exist. (In other words, even if you aren't faulted for making the change, you likely will be faulted if you edit war to keep the change.) Since there is already discussion on the talk page, it is of course incumbent on the reverter to also join the discussion at some stage.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I do have concerns about people deliberately drawing out discussions to force a NOCONSENSUS and get their way be default. It has happened before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Tyre column irrelevant

I am sure this has been brought up before but there isn't really a need for the tyres column in the contracted teams and drivers table as there is only one supplier so surely this would be better said in the text rather than an entire repetitive column. It seems the only reason we still use it because that is what used to be done when there were more than manufacturer. MetalDylan (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's done for consistency with prior seasons. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
that's my point, it's now irrelevant and just because something's has been done before doesn't mean it should just continue to do so when it is no longer relevant. MetalDylan (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's relevant to comparisons with prior seasons. It's not intuitive to remove it and force the reader to look in a different place for that information. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Tables are supposed to be a visual representation of pre-existing prose-based content. We should not be stubbornly sticking to an out-dated method seeing as how the sport hasn't used multiple tyre suppliers for nearly a decade. Other, similar articles use prose without a problem; case in point, 2018 FIA Formula 2 Championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree entirely @Prisonermonkeys:, unless someone can provide reason to *keep* table as is other than because it's what has always been done then I think we should implement the change. MetalDylan (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I already explained my reasoning: it is unintuitive to the reader for the table to design to randomly change for reasons they may not be aware of. We should be doing what's best for the readers, and removing the tire column is not best for the readers. If you have any real reasoning behind why you insist on removing it, I'd love to hear it, otherwise this discussion is over. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@MetalDylan: YOU DID NOT ACHIEVE CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THE TIRE COLUMN. I have reverted your incorrect change, and I will go straight to the admins if you do it again. You have not given one single justifiable reason to remove it. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, lay off the caps lock, let's try and be civil.
"You have not given one single justifiable reason to remove it."
Apart from what I already stated in that it is a column of repeated data that adds nothing to the table that cannot be given in prose.
"it is unintuitive to the reader for the table to design to randomly change for reasons they may not be aware of"
Why is everyone so afraid of change?? You shouldn't be so quick to assume the reader is a complete idiot and wouldn't read prose leading a table, and when the one in a million idiot questions it it would be all to easy to point to said prose. Your argument for cross-season comparison is flawed when the tyre manufacturer hasn't changed in a decade. MetalDylan (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I see no problem with this column. Yes, it's a bit repetitive, but I simply cannot see how it creates any problem to the table. It's a very easy and intuitive way of conveying this information to our readers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We don't have to reinvent that table every year. The F2 example is a very poor one since that championship is only in its second season and hasn't used such a column right from the start. Lastly, give people some respect by giving them time to weigh in here instead of enforcing your preferred action not even 24 hours after you initiated this discussion. You cannot reasonably expect a considerable number of people to have logged on and visited this talk page within the space of just 24 hours.Tvx1 15:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, just another point, unless you know to hover over or click on the yellow P icon it doesn't actually inform the reader that they represent Pirelli tires... just a thought. MetalDylan (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you genuinely believe that there is a reader out there who doesn't know how to click a mouse or tap their screen?? This is absolutely ridiculous. We're not on simple Wikipedia here.Tvx1 15:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I never said the reader wouldn't know *how* to click, I'm just simply saying that it doesn't explicitly say who the tyre manufacturer is. MetalDylan (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@MetalDylan does have a point. To the casual reader, it's not even clear that "P" is a link that can be followed, much less what it stands for. The same can be said for any tyre icon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I understand that the column is redundant in this year's article (and others in the past), to me, consistency between all articles of the same type (in this case articles about the FIA World Championship) is very important. And since the tyre column is necessary info in the vast majority of these cases, it should be retained here as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems the majority of people who have responded support the removal of the column from this article and all previous eligible articles, at what point should this be implemented or discussed further? MetalDylan (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I strikes me that most of the folks who have said they oppose the remove of this column have given detailed reasons why, while those who support removing it just say "it's irrelevant," even though that point has been countered numerous times. I'd like to hear why you think these articles will be better without the tire column.
And let me respond to some of your earlier points:
"Firstly, lay off the caps lock, let's try and be civil."
Being civil would've been waiting for consensus before forcing your change.
"Apart from what I already stated in that it is a column of repeated data that adds nothing to the table that cannot be given in prose."
This isn't a reason for changing anything. You need to tell me why removing the column improves the page. Why would we make a change that doesn't actually improve the page?
"Why is everyone so afraid of change?? You shouldn't be so quick to assume the reader is a complete idiot and wouldn't read prose leading a table, and when the one in a million idiot questions it it would be all to easy to point to said prose."
Why are you so insistent on changing things for no reason? Again: give me ONE reason why your proposed change makes the article better, more informative, easier to read, etc.
"Your argument for cross-season comparison is flawed when the tyre manufacturer hasn't changed in a decade."
Ah yes, I forgot, F1 has only existed for 10 years. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be doing things in this article simply because we did them in others. Nobody is calling for the deletion of the tyre column in all articles—just in the articles where there is a single tyre supplier. That's what the intended purpose of the tyre column was in the first place: to distinguish between which teams were using which tyres. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think one can reasonably claim a clear consensus with a ratio of 3-5. Even more so because Wikipedia discussions consider the arguments, no the numbers.Tvx1 21:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support removing the tyre column from the article (and from articles for all years for which one tyre brand was mandated) as I cannot see the value of a redundant column for something which is the same for each row. The fact that in years gone by the cars could have had different tyres was certainly a good reason for having a tyre column for those articles, but that is not a good reason, in my opinion, to have a redundant column in the table in this article where the tyres are all the same. I believe that the integrity of an individual article takes precedence over consistency for no good reason other than for the sake of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It is insulting and shameful to suggest that anyone wants consistency "for no good reason other than for the sake of it." Consistency is, on its face, something to strive for. Our articles are better, more helpful, and easier to read when their formatting and structure is consistent. It is not a random, meaningless goal.
As Tvx1 said, we do not consider numbers, we consider arguments. I have yet to see one argument explaining why this article is better without the tire column. Therefore, we cannot remove it. We should consider this matter closed unless you have something new to say. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm sorry you took umbrage from my remark, but although consistency within an article is to be encouraged, consistency across articles does not trump article integrity - see Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent.
Secondly, I never said or implied we should consider numbers and not arguments, so I'm not sure why it's in your reply to me. But as you raised it, I think policy-based arguments are are what we need to see, and I haven't seen any here yet that support redundant columns in tables. Without that, I think we should probably remove it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
That's the whole point. Removing this column does not change the article's integrity in away.Tvx1 22:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
If F1 had just been invented and Pirelli tyres were mandated and this was the first ever season article we would not put that column in it. So why put it in - it adds nothing of value? This article without ten rows of pointless repetition would be better than it is with the pointless repetition, so the removal of the column will improve the article. There is no compelling reason to keep 10x the same data, so it is logical to ditch it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
"I think policy-based arguments are are what we need to see, and I haven't seen any here yet that support redundant columns in tables"
Please tell me this is a joke, it is the most absurd sentence I've ever read in my entire time on Wikipedia. TELL ME WHY THE ARTICLE IS BETTER WITHOUT THE COLUMN, OR THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. I'm not going to repeat myself. You people have brought absolutely nothing to the table, and now you are just wasting our time. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Wicka wicka, no, it's not a joke, I'm absolutely serious. I think that as it is redundant and unnecessary the article would be better without it. You may prefer to see stuff repeated for no good reason, but when I first saw saw this useless column I just thought it was a mistake.
The point of this discussion is to try to reach a consensus, and if we can't we may need outside help. The policy tells us: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." - hence my mention of policy-based arguments. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
"TELL ME WHY THE ARTICLE IS BETTER WITHOUT THE COLUMN, OR THIS MATTER IS CLOSED."

Firstly, you are not an authority. You have no power to declare a discussion closed, least of all on some arbitrary grounds such as "nobody can give me an answer that satisfies me".

Secondly, the table is a representation of the competitors. It was never intended to replace prose, but to complement it. Here, the column exists where there is no prose to explain it, which goes against the purpose of the table.

Thirdly, as has been explained already, the purpose of the column was to distinguish betwee the teams using different tyres when there were multiple suppliers. As there is now a single supplier, this purpose no longer exists to be fulfilled. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Fourthly, the table does not even clearly indicate to the user what tyres the teams are even using (as discussed above).
Also, I think you should have a quiet re-read of WP:Civility, especially the line:
"They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."
MetalDylan (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding civility - you only get what you give. If you continue to be dismissive and disrespectful you will continue to experience the same in kind. As I have continually pointed out, you have made no attempt to explain why your proposed change improves the article. The fact that you continue to raise this argument, despite having no reason to do so, is incredibly disrespectful. You are not creating a pleasant editing environment. You are not being polite. You are trying to bully other editors into accepting what you want. You are trying to wear everyone down with your constant arguments until we give up opposing you. I won't let you do this.
I will ask you one last time: explain why this page is better without the tire column, or this matter can be considered closed. I am not suggesting I am an authority, I am simply describing a matter of fact. If you don't want to actually discuss this change, why continue writing so many words? Wicka wicka (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You're joking right? There are numerous reasons that have been listed, as a reminder:
1. The table is a representation of the competitors. It was never intended to replace prose, but to complement it. Here, the column exists where there is no prose to explain it, which goes against the purpose of the table.
2. The purpose of the column was to distinguish between the teams using different tires when there were multiple suppliers. As there is now a single supplier, this purpose no longer exists to be fulfilled.
3. There is little clarity about who the tyre manufacturer is due to the only representation being the logo link.
You have only given a counter argument of continuity to seasons over 10 years ago where there have already been multiple changes across table format and content.
"You are trying to wear everyone down with your constant arguments"
I raised the issue in a civil manner on the talk page (not just making the edit first as some people do), yes admittedly I made the change a bit prematurely, to which your reaction was waaaaay over the top. Subsequently I have allowed a very reasonable amount of time to pass with other editors throwing their hat in the ring. I have only added to this topic to add a reasonable point about the "P" icon and then to gauge people's view on how the discussion was going.
"If you continue to be dismissive and disrespectful"
How in the hell I have been that???? The fact remains you don't have anymore say to make this case closed than I do to say it is still ongoing. Quit trying to bully people into saying this discussion is finished when there is clearly more to be said on the matter and other opinions to be heard. MetalDylan (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing you listed above suggests why the page would be better without the tire column. Do you not understand what I'm asking for? Wicka wicka (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
In your opinion, this whole debate it a matter of opinions. It is my view that the prescence of the tire column is uncessary and a source of possible confusion about what the logo represents without context. You have not given one reason to KEEP the column other than for continuity from over a decade ago. Why are you so fundamentally attached to keeping it? Give me a reason why the page would be better with it! MetalDylan (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself. It's a very easy and intuitive way of conveying this information to our readers. You don't know what the symbol means? Then put your bloody mouse or finger on it and you'll find out. The column header already tells the reader it deals with the types.Tvx1 19:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how nothing new has been brought to the table in days, I think we can safely close this discussion and ignore the continued spamming by MetalDylan and Prisonermonkeys. Thanks for everyone's input, glad we decided to keep the tire column. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Seeing as how nothing new has been brought to the table in days, I think we can safely close this discussion and ignore the continued spamming"
You do not get to demand that other editors make their arguments, then ignore them and declare a conversation closed. That's not constructive editing.
"You don't know what the symbol means? Then put your bloody mouse or finger on it and you'll find out."
There is nothing to indicate that it is a link in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Wicka wicka:, do not WP:BLUDGEON other editors with comments like this. As you say, yourself, you are not an authority or an admin, therefore you do not have the right to say, IN CAPS, "tell me why or this dicussion is closed". In addition, your contention that asking for a policy-based argument "is a joke...the most absurd sentence I've ever read in my entire time on Wikipedia." is very concerning with regards to how it indicates you regard Wikipedia policies and how consensus works. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
In addition to Bushranger's good comments, I would suggest you get some uninvolved to close the discussion if it's clear you're not all going to agree on the correct closure. I see it was already advertised at WP:F1, if you feel you need more feedback to reach consensus maybe consider turning it into a properly tagged and advertised RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
So that there can be no confusion, here are the arguments (again) that Wicka wicka wanted:
  1. The table is a representation of the competitors. It was never intended to replace prose, but to complement it. Here, the column exists where there is no prose to explain it, which goes against the purpose of the table.
  2. The purpose of the column was to distinguish between the teams using different tires when there were multiple suppliers. As there is now a single supplier, this purpose no longer exists to be fulfilled.
  3. There is little clarity about who the tyre manufacturer is due to the only representation being the logo link.
Perhaps a more productive discussion is in order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
All three of your points are addressed by adding a line of prose stating something like "Pirelli is the tire supplier for all teams," not by removing the tire column. The fact that you are so focused on removing the tire column is why this has pointlessly dragged on for so long. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
"All three of your points are addressed by adding a line of prose stating something like "Pirelli is the tire supplier for all teams," not by removing the tire column."
And that line of prose would make the column irrelevant.
"The fact that you are so focused on removing the tire column is why this has pointlessly dragged on for so long."
Opinion is pretty evenly-split between removing it and keeping it. I'd hardly call the discussion as having "pointlessly dragged on". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
"And that line of prose would make the column irrelevant."
I knew you were going to say this, and I'm glad you did, because it exposes you as a hypocrite who is only continuing this argument because you insist upon getting your way. Remember when you said this?
"The table is a representation of the competitors. It was never intended to replace prose, but to complement it. Here, the column exists where there is no prose to explain it, which goes against the purpose of the table."
So the column can't exist without prose to explain it, right? But by explaining the column, you supposedly make the column irrelevant. See how you're contradicting yourself? It's because you're wrong, and you know you're wrong, you just aren't capable of admitting it yet.
"Opinion is pretty evenly-split between removing it and keeping it. I'd hardly call the discussion as having "pointlessly dragged on"."
As has been explained before, the supposed "50-50" split is irrelevant. What matters are the arguments being made, and as I have explained again and again, you have given no actual reason to remove the column, nor has anyone else. You have claimed it is redundant, which is a perfectly valid opinion if that's what you believe, but that opinion alone doesn't mean that removing it would improve the page. You need to tell us why removing the column improves the page, and the fact that you can't is why I say this discussion is pointless. I gave you what I think is a pretty ideal compromise given your complaints: keep the column, but explain it in prose. The fact that you brushed this aside is quite telling.
And finally: the fact that a piece of information is included in prose does not mean it should be purged from a table. Tables are summaries of information that are easy to quickly parse and understand; blocks of text are not, and that is the entire reason structures such as tables exist. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
"So the column can't exist without prose to explain it, right? But by explaining the column, you supposedly make the column irrelevant."

This isn't the "gotcha!" moment that you were obviously hoping for. Explaining the single tyre supplier in prose is best for the article. The tyre column does not add anything more to the article. It is the one part of the table that is a) independent of everything else and b) is not unique to the teams.

"you have given no actual reason to remove the column, nor has anyone else"

I have given three, all of which have been reiterated by others. You have either ignored them or claimed that they don't matter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

One tire column does not a table make. If you read what you wrote you would realize that you contradicted yourself:
You have made the mistake of confusing a table and a column as being the same thing, which they are not. And after saying you would address your tone on WP:ANI you seem to continue with your WP:BLUDGEON attitude — "It's because you're wrong, and you know you're wrong, you just aren't capable of admitting it yet." — this is also now verging on WP:PA. MetalDylan (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually 1 column does make difference on some devices. On my mobile in desktop wiki, the table only just fits on the screen, and when we add free practice drivers, then it won't without scrolling. So removing a column would help this. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree entirely Joseph, the table can get quite big when there are multiple FP drivers or line-up change, as seen in 2017. Which is part of the reason why I raised this issue in the off-season so as to not conflict with when the season progresses. We should be doing more to improve the sleekness of articles which I think includes removing unnecessary column that just add to the amount of information provided in a relatively small table. MetalDylan (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"The tyre column does not add anything more to the article."

Yes, it does, as I explained numerous times, including the very comment you just replied to: "Tables are summaries of information that are easy to quickly parse and understand; blocks of text are not, and that is the entire reason structures such as tables exist." You come to this page and glance at the table and you instantly are able to ascertain that every team is using Pirelli tires. This is by far the most efficient way we have of expressing that information to the reader.

"this is also now verging on WP:PA"

It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. He plainly contradicted himself. This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is simply here to argue for the sake of arguing. I get that you effectively agree with his stance, but his behavior should not be defended.
Joseph2302 & MetalDylan - I think you make a good point regarding the width of the column. I have mocked that up here with the 2017 table. Do you think it makes a significant difference on your mobile devices? I think it's a slight improvement but nothing huge. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"You come to this page and glance at the table and you instantly are able to ascertain that every team is using Pirelli tires. This is by far the most efficient way we have of expressing that information to the reader."
What about the case of someone who knows nothing about the sport; for example, someone who has seen an ad for the local Grand Prix and is intetested to know more, so they come here looking for information? Your argument assumes that someone looking at the table already knows that the sport uses Pirelli tyres. Sure, they can always follow the link, but there is nothing to indicate that "P" is a link given that it appears so differently to nomal wikilinks such as "Pirelli". We write articles for everyone, not just the followers of the sport because then it becomes WP:FANCRUFT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we do write articles for everyone - and that includes followers of the sport, who are going to intuitively understand the meaning of the P icon, and who quite likely make up the largest portion of our readership. If you want to assist others who may not know what the icon indicates, you can also clarify in prose, as I suggested before. And yet you continue to ignore this perfectly valid compromise. With every new comment you make it more and more clear that, as always, you will accept nothing less than EXACTLY what you want. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I don’t think regocgnizability is a fair argument for removal. This issue also exists in articles discussing seasons with more than one tyre supplier. I actually think we should add a legend. I will also note that these icons aren’t static images but templates with functionality. For instance, when a blind person accesses this article using a screen reader the word “Pirelli” will be read out loud for the P symbol.Tvx1 15:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
"With every new comment you make it more and more clear that, as always, you will accept nothing less than EXACTLY what you want."
That's funny because the past few days have proven that you will not accept anything other than your preferred edits. In the future, don't try to criticise others for their actions if those same criticisms could be levelled at you tenfold. You haven't provided a single argument for why the column should be kept beyond "we've always done it that way". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Put it this way: the table really shows us two things—who is competing in the WDC and who is competing in the WCC. Everything in the table shows the combinations of engine and chassis that directly affect a team's performance. But the tyres are all the same. That don't affect performance because no-one gets any advantage from using a different tyre supplier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, tyres are vital. There's no F1 without tyres. It's basic aspect of the sport and our readers need to be told about them. And our current practice provides a very easy and intuitive way of conveying this information.Tvx1 00:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Except that, as previously pointed out, it's not clear what the "P" stands for, or that it's even a link. The best response anyone has come up with for this is that most readers follow the sport, so they already know what it means, which begs the question of why we tell some readers what they already know in such a way that it is unclear to readers who don't know. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
As I already stated, that’s not a reason for removal. The exact same issue exist in the 2005 article with M and B. It only suggests we need to add a legend. And your characterozation of the other party’s arguments isn’t even remotely accurate.Tvx1 10:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
"As I already stated, that’s not a reason for removal."
But explaining it in prose is a reason for its removal because explaining it in prose makes it redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I’m not talking explaining it in prose, I’m talking about adding a legend to the table. As I said multiple times, the issue you refer to exists on all tables regardless of the number of tyre suppliers. It’s not a reason for removal in any way.Tvx1 14:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
An explanation in prose works better than a key. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious. Do you honestly believe that “an explanation in prose” is the better solution in a case like this one?? If that option works better, than why have we never even considered using that to explain the WDC and WCC tables that way??? It is really pathetic how far you will go at times just avoid having to admit being wrong.Tvx1 02:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — Perhaps you'd care to re-read my original comment on the matter:

"Support removal — the column served a purpose when there were multiple suppliers, but the sport has used a single supplier for nearly a decade now. It'a [sic] completely redundant."

As I have said from the outset, I support the removal of the column and the introduction of prose for years in which there was only a single tyre supplier. I have never argued for its removal in years with multiple supplier; indeed, I would argue against removal for those years.

So please explain how it is unreasonable to replace the column with prose when there is only one supplier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the reason you cite for removal, the symbol not being recognizible enough, does not only apply to seasons with one tyre supplier. Using this column to convey this information is much easier and much more intuitive.Tvx1 17:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
So use a key for years with multiple suppliers and cut the column in years with a single supplier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is more than one tyre supplier it make sense to present that information in a table because it is tabular data. On the other hand, with just one tyre supplier, the information is not tabular - so the redundancy introduced by adding it to a table makes no sense - thus prose makes more sense (see WP:WHENTABLE). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don’t see how providing this information in sentence buried in the rest of the prose will make things easier for our readers. I really don’t think this column is redundant at all.Tvx1 01:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Car launches

Is it possible to add a section that shows the launch dates of the 2018 cars? I think Ferrari have announced their date. Edd of Mercia (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is the correct place to provide information with such a short-term importance. There are more than enough sites out there where you can find that information.Tvx1 15:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We never really have included launch dates before (although we seem to have this discussion about this time every year). Wikipedia is not a news source. It's an encyclopaedia and this article is about the World Championship. How does launching a car on February 22 affect the championship differently to launching on February 23? It doesn't, so including those details are unnecessary. Now, there is a case to be made for a team delaying the launch to spend more time in development; Red Bull have skipped the first test (or run with an old car) in the past, and they have admitted that it was a mistake. That is certainly a detail worthy of inclusion—because of a conscious choice made by the team, their championship was adversely affected. But that detail should not be included here—it belongs in the car's specific article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ref Names

Hey y'all, I wanted to speak quickly about the reference names that have been creeping into this article. I am sure I will raise all hell with bringing this up (even though it could be so easy). But wouldn't it be easier to use simple ref names instead of jokes? Also, there are several that are just ":[number]". That clearly violates WP:REFNAME. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm thinking of requesting temporary page protection because of persistent vandalism from some Brummie dude who is using 213.x.x.x IPs. It's not reached an unmanageable level yet, so I thought I would just get the opinion of a few of this article's regular editors first. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

My stance on this is generally, better stop it before it gets out of hand, so I'd be in favour. Also, I don't see a lot of constructive edits from IP users to this article, meaning that we would not shut many people out. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The most you can do is put in a request to WP:RFP. If the admins think that the page will benefit from protection, then they'll protect it. Most IPs—like the ones who add themselves into the driver table—learn pretty quickly and/or get bored. More serious cases of abuse get dealt with through other means. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll hold off for the moment, because it has not become a major issue yet. It bothers me a bit that we clearly have one IP-hopping individual doing all the vandalism. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If it’s just one editor, you can always ask for help at WP:AIV.Tvx1 15:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Not really, because it's an IP hopper. I'd have to get help at WP:SSI, which is a long-winded process involving diffs and so forth. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't really think it's necessary. It's not particularly disruptive and the IP hasn't been continually active. It's obviously some juvenile person who thinks it's clever to add themselves and/or their friends as drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Force India name change

I would be a little careful with making such a big deal out of the news that Force India are going to change their name. The info comes from Auto motor und sport, which I wouldn't call the most reliable of sources, and sites like F1Fanatic are sceptical, while other outlets such as autosport.com are holding their hoofs and are not reporting anything at the moment... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The source from GrandPrix.com has quotes directly from the team boss at Force India stating that the name change will happen, GP.com has been very reliable with its sources for many years. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, they cite auto motor und sport. I am sure that they asked him and he said that, but the original German article is still full of ifs and whens... I am not saying this is not happening, I am saying we should be careful and maybe not choose our images in the article on these sources which are still very speculative in nature. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the images of the cars from the article because they did not show anything. They were just old Force Indias being used to show the team in light of their new identity which has not been unveiled. Furthermore, the sponsor deal with BWT is a multi-year deal, so it's unlikely that the 2018 car will look completely different to the 2017 car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, there was an old version of the article that detailed why they wanted to change the name (the Indian identity hadn't attracted any new sponsors and was a barrier to non-Indian sponsors). It seens relevant to the article, but I cannot find it anywhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the questions @Zwerg nase has raised over the source, I have removed references to the name change entirely. We can demonstrate that the constructor name is Force India based on the FIA entry list, but the best that we can take from the AMuS source is that it might be something else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And the source that was used clearly mentioned that a name change still needs to be approved, so we can't write in our voice that it will happen anyway.Tvx1 15:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought, if they change their name, doesn't that result in them forfeiting their 2017 prize money?Tvx1 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — given the secrecy shrouding the Concorde Agreement, that has never been consistently or comprehensively discussed by the sport. My understanding is that they would have to continue with the constructor name for a year to show continuity within the team, and they may change it after that. It's why Sauber were forced to compete as "BMW Sauber" in 2010, even after BMW withdrew. The system is designed to stop someone buying a team at a low price, running the bare minimum for a year and then selling after they get a cut of the prize money. But I don't know how it would work here, since there is no change in ownership. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
But how does that system prevent any such action at all? One could still by team now, keep the constructor name get a cut of the 2017 prize money and sell again at the end of the 2018 season to someone else who keeps the constructor name intact as well and gets the 2018 prize money.Tvx1 23:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1 — I really don't know. Like I said, the whole document is shrouded in secrecy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
It is my understanding that there is no issue with prize money as long as any name change is approved by the FIA and not explicitly opposed by the other teams. I heard this on a TV discussion late last year, so I cannot provide a source for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
There definitely needs to be approval by the F1 Commission. They can make exceptional rulings on short notice, yet, I don't know how short "short" can be before the start of the season. Brawn changed their name late in 2008, while BMW Sauber had not yet applied for a name change in early 2010, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose the question now becomes how we handle it if the constructor name is changed. Do we treat them as a new constructor and create a new article? Do we move Force India to a new location? Do we keep it as Force India and just address the name change as a sub-section of the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Last time the team's name was changed (from Spyker) a new article was created. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
If the team's basic details remain the same, such as the team principals and the location of their business, there's no need for a new article. Until the name has officially changed, we don't need to do anything, but once the change occurs we can just move the article to the new name and let the existing article name become a redirect. With all that said, this is really a matter for Talk:Force India, rather than here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
If the name changes will have to create a new article, we've created different articles for Virgin/Marussia/Manor for example in the past. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

But in all of those cases, the ownership changed as well as the name. When the team was Virgin, Richard Branson was funding it; when it was Marussia, Nikolai Fomenko (I think) was the one with the money; when it became MRT, it was a management buy-out. Likewise, Eddie Jordan sold to Alex Shnaider and Jordan became Midland; Shnaider sold to a Dutch consortium led by Michel Mol and the team became Spyker; Mol and the Dutch sold up to Vijay Mallya (with Mol staying on as a minority stakeholder).

The difference here is that Force India are (looking at) changing their name, but the ownership of the team is staying the same. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The managment is irrelevant it would still be classed as a new constructor and would no longer be Force India, so creating a new article would be the best way forward like we've done in the past with other new constructors. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
And Lotus Racing changed to Caterham and have separate articles, yet both were owned by Fernandez. Similarly Gennii capital owned Renault changed to Lotus and the results were listed separately. Also there was no ownership change between Marussia in 2015 and MRT in 2016.Tvx1 19:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's that straight-forward. The final entry list still gives their name as Force India, and in 2010 Sauber had to compete as BNW Sauber even though BMW was no longer associated with the team. The question that needs to be answered is whether the FIA treats the new version of Force India as a new constructor (by attributing their results to the new name). If not, I think we would have to treat the team as Force India competing under a new identity in 2018 before (I assume) adopting it as the constructor name in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
If the team changes its constructor name from Force India to something else then its no longer Force India its that simple, keeping it on the same article would be against everything we've done in the past when it comes to new constructors. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. It's going to be the same team, with the same owner, with the same engines, with the same factory, and probably with the same sponsor. This is going to be nothing more than a subtle change to get rid of "India" in the name so they have more luck getting sponsors. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Well you can say that about many teams in the past who have changed their name, the team wont be Force India so having it continue on the FI article wouldn't be the right way to go. It will be classed as a new constructor in the history books so the ownership is irrelevant. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The exact same thing applied to Lotus and Caterham. If the FIA awards the constructor’s results to a new constructor, we follow suit. That’s how we’ve always done it. At the moment though, we can only wait and see. No name change of any kind has been executed yet.Tvx1 16:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"the team wont be Force India so having it continue on the FI article wouldn't be the right way to go"

That's not our call to make. Whether or not a new article is created depends on who the FIA credit the team's results to.

"It will be classed as a new constructor in the history books so the ownership is irrelevant"

You have no way of knowing that right now, and as has been pointed out, there is a precedent here. Sauber's 2010 results were attributed to BMW Sauber even though BMW had nothing to do with the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No that's not a relevant precedent at all. The BMW case is actually an example of the exact opposite. The ownership changing, but the name staying the same. Here were talking about the ownership staying the same, but the name changing. The relevant precedents here are Benetton/Renault in 2002, Renault/Lotus in 2011, Lotus/Caterham in 2012 etcetera. But at the moment, regarding Force India all of this is hypothetical. No new name has been unveiled whatsoever at the moment. Neither has there been any publication from the FIA acknowledging that a name change has been requested, let alone approved. The answer is thus simple, we wait and see what the FIA does. If a new name is announced and they credit a new constructor, we create a new article and put the new achievements there. If a new team name is announced and but they do not credit a new constructor, we keep everything in the existing article. If no new name is announced, everything stays as is.Tvx1 21:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
And so the first GP weekend of the season started without a Force India name change.Tvx1 01:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia move

@Zwerg Nase — please explain how Russia moving to fill the vacancy left by Malaysia is somehow anything but Russia moving to fill the vacancy left by Malaysia. Because your edits imply that it was a massive coincidence that the race that lost its spot on the calendar found a replacement spot in the one vacancy that appeared in the calendar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying this is a wrong statement. I am saying though that it needs a source that says so explicitly! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The calendar provided should be adequate. The 2017 calendar could be added for comparison purposes if you're still not satisfied. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
That is still original research. The move could be for a number of other reasons. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. For instance, the move could also have been made to create some space to slot the returning French Grand Prix back in to the mix.Tvx1 22:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No, Azerbaijan was moved to accomodate France because a European date was needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
They were only able to move Azerbaijan because they had freed that April slot by moving the Russian Grand Prix to late September. So still this could all be a set of moves in order to create a suitable slot for the French Grand Prix.Tvx1 16:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Мы договорились о переносе этапа на осень с новыми акционерами и владельцами "Формулы-1", - сказал Джус. Мы долго мониторили, изучали мнения болельщиков и в таком решении идем навстречу им. Выяснилось, что бархатный сезон в Сочи удобнее, чем майские праздники." (We agreed to move the round to autumn with the new shareholders and owners of Formula one said Dzhus. We have monitored, studied fans' opinions and we decided that it will better suit them. It revealed that the Velvet season more comfortable than May holidays).Corvus tristis (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

See, that's why we should never put our own opinion in these articles.Tvx1 17:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd hardly characterise it as an opinion. Malaysia announced that they were not renewing their contract and then Russia was moved. If you look at the source Corvus tristis posted, the organisers say "we agreed". Where is the evidence that the Russians proposed the move? The source suggests Liberty proposed it, the Russians did their own feasibility study and agreed to the move. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That’s a basic example of WP:SYNTH.Tvx1 23:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Based om the evidence Corvus tristis supplied, there is nothing to invalidate the statement that Russia was moved to replace Malaysia. The evidence only states that the organisers conducted some kind of feasibility study to find out if a move was worthwhile. You cannot hold the source up as contradicting a statement when there is nothing specific in it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
There was nothing to support that stament in the first place. So yes this reliable source very much invalidates an utterly unsupported claim.Tvx1 02:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't provide anything to contradict the original statement:

"We agreed to move the round to autumn with the new shareholders and owners of Formula one said Dzhus. We have monitored, studied fans' opinions and we decided that it will better suit them. It revealed that the Velvet season more comfortable than May holidays."

Please point to where it refutes the statement that the race was moved to replace Malaysia. All it really says is that the Russians looked into a potential move and that it was in the interests of the event to do so. For all you know, Liberty wanted to move the race to replace Malaysia and asked the Russians to look into it. Based on the article, this scenario is just as likely as the Russians looking into a move and asking Liberty to make it happen, with the Malaysia vacancy being a convenient opportunity to fill. Your suggestion that the source refutes the statement is just as much a case of synthesis as it would be to suggest it supports the original claim.

So, if there is a part of the source that says the decision to move the race had nothing to do with the Malaysia vacancy, let's hear it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure TASS are terribly reliable. 2014 Russian Grand Prix uses a fairly questionable source (it's in Russian) claiming that "more than 65,000 people" were in attendance on the Sunday of the race even though the Sochi Autodrom article says that the venue has a capacity of 55,000 (though I don't know which source is being used to support that). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
They are the one of the oldest Russian news agency and they are "terribly reliable". 55,000 is a seating capacity, but not a total capacity. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Prisonermonkeys that TASS aren't that reliable. And "this was done in the interest of spectators" is vague, unencylopedic and adds no value to the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Unreliability of TASS is a totally unsupported claim. I wouldn't much rely on this, as it's just an opinion. As for the quote, you misunderstood the meaning of "we agreed", Prisonermonkeys – the original's meaning is "we agreed between ourselves [between GP organizers and F1 owners]" rather than "we [organizers] agreed to F1 owners' proposal". cherkash (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Unreliability of TASS is a totally unsupported claim."
Except for the example I gave, where they are claiming that the 2014 race was apparently attended by 10,000 more people than the venue can hold. Maybe they mean 65,000 across three days, but that's not much better given how vague it is.
"As for the quote, you misunderstood the meaning of "we agreed""
It still doesn't invalidate the original statement that the race was moved to replace Malaysia. Even if they agreed among themselves, Liberty and the FIA have control over the final calendar. They could endlessly agree amongst themselves without the race moving at all if Liberty/the FIA did not approve it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
As Corvus tristis wrote, 55,000 is a seating capacity, but not a total venue capacity. It's very simple here. Your version is not supported by any source whatsoever. So no, we cannot use it.Tvx1 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, I have doubt about the statement "The race is scheduled to be run in June, with the Azerbaijan Grand Prix brought forward to April to accommodate the change.". Russian Edition of the Autosport quotes Baku City Circuit director Arif Ragimov:

"Насколько высоки шансы, что в 2019-м гонка будет вновь передвинута на июнь? (How high are the chances that in 2019 the race will return to June?)

А.Р.: В следующем году Азербайджан отмечает столетие республики в июне, поэтому мы попросили найти нам другое время в календаре с подходящими погодными условиям, и нам пошли навстречу. Но затем мы хотим вернуть июнь – летом в Баку больше возможностей. В конце апреля может быть и замечательная погода, 20-23 градусов, так что не факт, что будет холодно, как многие думают. Но в это время года погода нестабильная." (A.R.: In the next year [2018] Azerbaijan celebrates 100th anniversary of the republic in June, so we asked about the another slot in calendar with suitable weather conditions, and our request was approved. But then [in 2019] we want to return to June - summer makes more opportunities [for spectators] in Baku. In the end of April may be great weather, 20-23 °C, so probably, will be not so cold, as many people think. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So there's a basic logical fault in the above arguments against using the newly referenced sources (TASS & Autosport): this fault having to do with e.g. Prisonermonkeys (as an example only, I'm not singling you out) claiming the current article version saying "filling the vacancy left by Malaysia" needs to be invalidated by references, whereas new evidence needs to somehow meet an unusually high standard before being included. The reality is, the current statement about the vacancy is the one without any support in reliable sources – so it doesn't need to be invalidated, it actually needs to be validated in order to stay; without references, it's pure synthesis and needs to be replaced by the statements supported by sources – as suggested above. cherkash (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"claiming the current article version saying "filling the vacancy left by Malaysia""
Except that whatever the reasons for the move, the net effect was that Russia replaced Malaysia. Nothing about the article suggests that Russia was specifically moved to replace Malaysia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Column headers on entries table don't match the columns

Hi the column headers on entries table doesn;t match the columns they're pointing to- the No. and Driver Name columns need to be moved. I tried fixing it, but couldn't get it to work. Could someone please fix this? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. They appear just fine for me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking for a source

Does anyone have a source that names all of the chassis used in 2018? I want to get rid of the in-table sources and instead use a master source the way we do for drivers and engines. I have been looking for such a source but cannot find one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I believe this article will be satisfactory. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_3&oldid=836961920"