WikiProject Formula One	(Rated B-Class, High-importance)	Formula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles
Formula One portal v • d • e This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula One  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Flickr images

[1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[[2]] 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 [3] 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 [4]. 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)

[edit] 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: [5] 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: [6] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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	Hamilton, LewisLewis Hamilton	McLaren-Mercedes	18	5	10	7	1	98
2	Massa, FelipeFelipe Massa	Ferrari	18	6	10	6	3	97
3	Räikkönen, KimiKimi Räikkönen	Ferrari	18	2	9	2	10	75
4	Kubica, RobertRobert Kubica	BMW Sauber	18	1	7	1	0	75
5	Alonso, FernandoFernando Alonso	Renault	18	2	3	0	0	61
6	Heidfeld, NickNick Heidfeld	BMW Sauber	18	0	4	0	2	60
7	Kovalainen, HeikkiHeikki Kovalainen	McLaren-Mercedes	18	1	3	1	2	53
8	Vettel, SebastianSebastian Vettel	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	18	1	1	1	0	35
9	Trulli, JarnoJarno Trulli	Toyota	18	0	1	0	0	31
10	Glock, TimoTimo Glock	Toyota	18	0	1	0	0	25
11	Webber, MarkMark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	18	0	0	0	0	21
12	Piquet Jr., NelsonNelson Piquet Jr.	Renault	18	0	1	0	0	19
13	Rosberg, NicoNico Rosberg	Williams-Toyota	18	0	2	0	0	17
14	Barrichello, RubensRubens Barrichello	Honda	18	0	1	0	0	11
15	Nakajima, KazukiKazuki Nakajima	Williams-Toyota	18	0	0	0	0	9
16	Coulthard, DavidDavid Coulthard	Red Bull-Renault	18	0	1	0	0	8
17	Bourdais, SébastienSébastien Bourdais	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	4
18	Button, JensonJenson Button	Honda	18	0	0	0	0	3
19	Fisichella, GiancarloGiancarlo Fisichella	Force India-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	0
20	Sutil, AdrianAdrian Sutil	Force India-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	0
21	Sato, TakumaTakuma Sato	Super Aguri-Honda	4	0	0	0	0	0
22	Davidson, AnthonyAnthony 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	Hamilton, LewisLewis Hamilton	McLaren-Mercedes	18	5	10	7	1	98
2	Massa, FelipeFelipe Massa	Ferrari	18	6	10	6	3	97
3	Räikkönen, KimiKimi Räikkönen	Ferrari	18	2	9	2	10	75
4	Kubica, RobertRobert Kubica	BMW Sauber	18	1	7	1	0	75
5	Alonso, FernandoFernando Alonso	Renault	18	2	3	0	0	61
6	Heidfeld, NickNick Heidfeld	BMW Sauber	18	0	4	0	2	60
7	Kovalainen, HeikkiHeikki Kovalainen	McLaren-Mercedes	18	1	3	1	2	53
8	Vettel, SebastianSebastian Vettel	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	18	1	1	1	0	35
9	Trulli, JarnoJarno Trulli	Toyota	18	0	1	0	0	31
10	Glock, TimoTimo Glock	Toyota	18	0	1	0	0	25
11	Webber, MarkMark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	18	0	0	0	0	21
12	Piquet Jr., NelsonNelson Piquet Jr.	Renault	18	0	1	0	0	19
13	Rosberg, NicoNico Rosberg	Williams-Toyota	18	0	2	0	0	17
14	Barrichello, RubensRubens Barrichello	Honda	18	0	1	0	0	11
15	Nakajima, KazukiKazuki Nakajima	Williams-Toyota	18	0	0	0	0	9
16	Coulthard, DavidDavid Coulthard	Red Bull-Renault	18	0	1	0	0	8
17	Bourdais, SébastienSébastien Bourdais	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	4
18	Button, JensonJenson Button	Honda	18	0	0	0	0	3
19	Fisichella, GiancarloGiancarlo Fisichella	Force India-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	0
20	Sutil, AdrianAdrian Sutil	Force India-Ferrari	18	0	0	0	0	0
21	Sato, TakumaTakuma Sato	Super Aguri-Honda	4	0	0	0	0	0
22	Davidson, AnthonyAnthony 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 Hamilton, LewisLewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 18 10 7 1 5 98 2 Massa, FelipeFelipe Massa Ferrari 18 10 6 3 6 97 3 Räikkönen, KimiKimi Räikkönen Ferrari 18 9 2 10 2 75 4 Kubica, RobertRobert Kubica BMW Sauber 18 7 1 0 1 75 5 Alonso, FernandoFernando Alonso Renault 18 3 0 0 2 61 6 Heidfeld, NickNick Heidfeld BMW Sauber 18 4 0 2 0 60 7 Kovalainen, HeikkiHeikki Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes 18 3 1 2 1 53 8 Vettel, SebastianSebastian Vettel Toro Rosso-Ferrari 18 1 1 0 1 35 9 Trulli, JarnoJarno Trulli Toyota 18 1 0 0 0 31 10 Glock, TimoTimo Glock Toyota 18 1 0 0 0 25 11 Webber, MarkMark Webber Red Bull-Renault 18 0 0 0 0 21 12 Piquet Jr., NelsonNelson Piquet Jr. Renault 18 1 0 0 0 19 13 Rosberg, NicoNico Rosberg Williams-Toyota 18 2 0 0 0 17 14 Barrichello, RubensRubens Barrichello Honda 18 1 0 0 0 11 15 Nakajima, KazukiKazuki Nakajima Williams-Toyota 18 0 0 0 0 9 16 Coulthard, DavidDavid Coulthard Red Bull-Renault 18 1 0 0 0 8 17 Bourdais, SébastienSébastien Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari 18 0 0 0 0 4 18 Button, JensonJenson Button Honda 18 0 0 0 0 3 19 Fisichella, GiancarloGiancarlo Fisichella Force India-Ferrari 18 0 0 0 0 0 20 Sutil, AdrianAdrian Sutil Force India-Ferrari 18 0 0 0 0 0 21 Sato, TakumaTakuma Sato Super Aguri-Honda 4 0 0 0 0 0 22 Davidson, AnthonyAnthony 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. Chubb</fYup,ont>ennaitor 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 ^[1]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)

[edit] Ugh, Brawn numbers

Nothing is remotely official at this point, but there is an article here about how the FIA has given Brawn GP the last garage on pitlane. This is because they have chosen to view Brawn as an entirely new entry, rather than a continuation of Honda. This may or may not actually effect the numbers, but as the last line in the article says, it is possible that Brawn will be given numbers 20 and 21 instead of 18 and 19. We should NOT change the numbers now because it is purely speculation, but I guess just watch out for any sort of official clarification. Eightball (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No other media has reported it at the moment. They have viewed them as a new entry but have done some good things for Brawn. Chubbennaitor 08:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact of MAKING them use the final pit slot AND changing the pay out for them & Force India, i.e. reversing their status, does indicate that it is possible, nay likely, that the numbers may change to reflect their status as a "new" entry. Until we see something, probably at the first race itself, you can't deny this is possible.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It does look quite possible, but it seems like the FIA aren't particularly bothered about confirming anyone's numbers till the season starts. Looks like another case of waiting till next weekend. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though the Official site hasn't changed them round yet[7]. Chubbennaitor 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, the site still shows images of drivers from last year wearing Honda gear... --Amedeo Felix (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because they haven't taken new photos have they. The photos don't turn up until Australia, just like the helmets. Chubbennaitor 08:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you own shares in f1.com or something? I'm complaining that they are poor at updating. Haven't taken photos? I think there are plenty of photos they could use, but they can't be bothered to update their site properly. I think they could do better. Anyhow, we shall know all this soon enough... --Amedeo Felix (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you but I was forced into agreeing they were correct. They take the wall photos at Australia. Chubbennaitor 12:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

FIA publish updated entry list. D.M.N. (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More numbers

One thing I don't see on the FIA entry list is a section for test drivers with test driver numbers. What is our source for test driver numbers? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is directed at me. I used last seasons numbers and used McLaren as a start. I used elsewhere as refs. Chubbennaitor 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not directed at you specifically, but I saw you added Wurz's number and I wondered what the source was. I'm not saying "Take that off" by any means. Test driver numbers only came in with the special Friday practice session testing in 2003. Now that doesn't happen any more, I'm wondering if test drivers actually still have numbers or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen any test drivers with numbers, nor any source to that effect. Would suggest removal unless a source can be found to back up these numbers. Readro (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen test drivers with numbers, but it's very inconsistent. I think some teams put them on their test cars just because they've done it for the past few years, but it's not remotely official. Plus there is no more testing until the end of the season, so there is no reason to have test numbers anyway. Eightball (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that this article doesn't show test driver numbers now, but the individual team articles still do. We should either have them across the range of relevant articles, if a source can be found, or remove them everywhere. And Eightball is right, we're not actually going to see the test drivers again until the end of the season anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If the numbers aren't official and aren't used during a Grand Prix weekend then I don't see the justification for them. Readro (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. No significance of the numbers whatsoever from the point of view of races or the overall season. ^LeaveSleaves 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Although not all teams use them (most test drivers run un-numbered cars), I have seen pictures of a Red Bull in testing last year (and I think recently too) with the number 35 on it. I'll have a look to see if I can find a picture. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree; I was only adding them because Mclaren's article had them. Chubbennaitor 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact is there is no 3rd driver in Friday practice as was in recent past, and it was for this that these 3rd drivers needed to be assigned numbers. I doubt many teams would bother numbering their 3rd drivers now. Also if these 3rd drivers took up sub duties they would use the number of the driver being subbed for.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Results Table

I believe tat it's time to put the results table up. Chubbennaitor 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We can once the Australian race has happened. D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed this week. Chubbennaitor 08:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we don't require two color code table besides Drivers and Constructors' table. Akshaysarode21 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll see why they're there. Chubbennaitor 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, but to me those tables aren't looking good. --Akshaysarode21 (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The table under Statistics heading haven't been changed, as per trulli stripped from 3rd place. --Akshaysarode21 (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are McLaren listed as having two less starts after their disqualification from Melbourne. They still started the race and Hamilton and Kovalainen are still listed as having the full quota of starts in the drivers' table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.250.94 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The FIA did exclude them from the race though, so some championship tables didn't even have McLaren listed in the CHampionship because they didn't even have zero points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.70.69 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

They were not listed in some championship classifications because at that time they were not classified, not having completed a race. It wasn't because of the disqualification. Plus, Kovalainen wasn't disqualified anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Kovalainen himself wasn't disqualified, but the #2 McLaren was excluded from the constructors title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.70.69 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Changing numbers again

This is just getting annoying: [8] Eightball (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's official though. Chubbennaitor 08:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Maybe that's already been discussed somewhere else, anyway: the European GP is... well, European, so shouldn't we use the European flag instead of the Spanish one? Same for Abu Dhabi, why don't we use the Abu Dhabi flag, since it's not the UAE GP? Asendoh (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this at WT:F1. Chubbennaitor 16:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the FIA (http://fialive.fiacommunications.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/abudhabi/Pages/Circuit.aspx) uses the flag of Abu Dhabi, I don't really find any good reason to why it should not be used here aswell. I'll change it. --Professor Processor (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing it back - there is an extensive discussion on this at WT:F1 as Chubb has pointed out. Please join in, and a consesnsus will be established eventually. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Who put the state/canton/city flags aside the drivers? It makes no sense at all! Barrichello is not representing São Paulo state, but his country, Brazil, as well as the other drivers! And the flags are already displayed in the Teams and drivers section! -- Fsarmony (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Diffusers

The last paragraph of the section entitled 'Pre Season Testing' relates to the diffuser debate. Should this be separated from the section? Also, it is factually incorrect in a number of ways (for just one example, not all teams placed a protest, as the article states). I will try to edit it over the weekend if I can find suitable sources, but if you can find them before me, please edit it! Oli.meggitt (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be seperated somehow, as it isn't really part of pre-season testing. Perhaps looking at how the 2007 article dealt with Spygate might give you an answer. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brawn GP drivers

I'm just wondering if Cdhaptomos's edit was needed to be undone? They are an official new team so Button and Barrichello technically have changed team or does this not count? Chubbennaitor 07:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't just assume that everyone knows Brawn started where Honda left off. The changes should be emphasized - after all, they did technically change team. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The article provides necessary information about Honda's departure. And talking about technicality, technically the team's the same, only the owners have changed. ^LeaveSleaves 16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Jensen Button is even on the same contract he had at Honda, simply modified for a pay cut. Barrichello though I believe is on a new contract. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But the FIA has the deamed the team new, that's all I'm pointing out. Chubbennaitor 19:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Red Bull nationality

Should be British? When Vettel won, they played the British anthem? Alex Holowczak (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per MOS:FLAG the flags have to show the sporting nationality chandler ··· 09:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Bull Racing specifically changed their license from British to Austrian a few seasons ago. I would not be so quick to change. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, they just played the British anthem for the winning constructor. If they were racing under an Austrian licence, they would have played the Austrian anthem. Alex Holowczak (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They wouldn't play the British Anthem if they didn't consider them a UK team, per mos:flag we have to go with sporting nationality, which FIA has shown as UK. chandler ··· 09:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG is useless if we go by references, and there are references which back Red Bull as Austrian. The FIA has incorrectly displayed the flags of drivers before, should we change that as well? I suggest calming down and not being so quick to make sweeping changes to this, and other F1 articles based on an anthem. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with The359. Hold down the editing until this can be sorted out. ^LeaveSleaves 09:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

References cant always override that, just from a football perspective (even though we're talking about players not teams), there are many who can be referenced as being "xians" because they were born in "x", but they're competition for "y" and therefore their sporting nationality is "yian", see for example Giuseppe Rossi who holds dual nationality (but competes for Italy and will always have a Italian flag). chandler ··· 09:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's like the racing driver Andreas Zuber who was born in Austria but drives under UAE license.Officially Mr X (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

These two examples are able to be referenced by reliable resources. Not based on a national anthem. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese authorities may well have played the wrong anthem - it would hardly be the first time this kind of thing has happened. Let's wait and see a while. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I seem to remember the Japanese anthem being played erroneously once (for a Nannini win?) so it wouldn't be the first time. Readro (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to "wait and see", then surely there should be a British flag there while we're waiting. The FIA and the team have given a message to the watching millions that the team is British. Can you suggest a source that should override the podium ceremony as a source? Have you seen anyone suggest that the anthem was a mistake?81.155.190.147 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(Er...if you read the rest of this week-old thread, you'll see that, yes, several sources are given that confirm not only that Red Bull is officially Austrian, but also why this is so and a story explicitly discussing the incorrect use of flags. 4u1e (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Please see Talk:Red_Bull_Racing#Austrian_Nationality. This discussion is perhaps more appropriate at that location. --Pudeo' 10:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reference to PROVE that they ever registered as Austrian? Should it not be the case that a team get its nationality, so to speak, from its home base unless solid proof may be provided to the contrary?--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Pudeo has pointed out a reference to Red Bull Racing's website which specifies that their nationality is Austrian.

Team nationalities are not determined by their base location. Renault is based in Britain, they're French. Force India is based in Britain, they're Indian. BMW Sauber is based in Switzerland, they're German. Toyota is based in Germany, they're Japanese. Etc, etc... ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. I said they SHOULD BE UNLESS they are clearly stated to be otherwise. Jordan, Honda and Renault have been clearly stated thus, Red Bull never has. Also there is a clear rule of thumb here that states a web site by the subject at hand is NOT a good reference point alone. We MUST have neutral reference, e.g. the FIA or a news site.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If Red Bull says they are Austrian, then they are Austrian. Really no big issue here, though the anthem raises interesting questions, none of which need to be resolved immediately. Apterygial 10:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

David Coulthard says he's Scottish, but the Union Flag used to fly behind him on the podium, and the British national anthem was played for him when he won, even though he would have rather seen the Scottish flag (Saltire?) and hear the Scottish national anthem. Do we want to use the official nationality of the drivers and teams or should we grant them the nationality they'd rather drive under?81.155.190.147 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should be assumed until there is a reference for a team's nationality, regardless of their base location. A team's nationality should not be the same as their base location simply because there has yet to be any referencing to say otherwise, or any referencing to say anything! So your point is the obvious, quite frankly. Red Bull has however specifically stated their nationality, Pudeo even linked to their website where they list "Nationality: Austrian". And yes, primary sources are not the best, but they are not forbidden, and I highly doubt you're going to find any reliable secondary or tertiary references which list them as British, besides some music played on a podium. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A primary source perfectly acceptable in this situation. We are talking about the team's nationality here. Why wouldn't you take the team's word on that? ^LeaveSleaves 10:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in this page ( http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/ica/2009/Pages/ica_140409.aspx ) Red Bull Racing is registered in the FIA F1 championship via the austrian federation. So, no doubt Red Bull Racing is officialy an austrian team.Woodcote (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to get the anthem mixed up as they're austrian but based in the UK. They have an austrian license so they are duly austrian. Chubbennaitor 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You or someone else got a decent English reference to that affect???--Amedeo Félix (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like media have started noticing this too [9]. Also notice how both drivers here mention Austria. ^LeaveSleaves 18:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How was it dealt with last year when a Toro Rosso won the Italian GP and the Italian anthem was played? It was only six months ago. Did we decide not to care so much because of the wave of nostalgia for the decendents of Minardi? And was Minardi ever actually recognised by Wikipedia as being Australian? I don't know, I am just asking seeing how there is quite obviously precedent. Are there those who still think of Red Bull as being Scottish? --Falcadore (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Toro Rosso is Italian though, based in Italy and running under an Italian license. Minardi was never Australian. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Minardi / Toro Rosso has always been Italian. My bet is that we'll have to wait till Red Bull win again, and see what anthem they play on the podium. If it's Austrian, we'll know today was a mistake. If it's British, we'll know that's the correct anthem / correct "nationality". I don't see a resolution to this appearing any time soon otherwise, and the argument could go on indefinitely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As observed by several others, neither location nor ownership is relevant. Each team (competitor) has to register via one of the national sporting bodies and takes the nationality of that body. (see para 113 of the International Sporting Regulations). Certainly at the time of the protest against the double decker diffusers Red Bull was registered with the Austrian sporting body (see ref listed above by Woodcote) and are therefore Austrian. The situation seems crystal clear to me. (By the way, as far as I know neither Minardi, or oddly Brabham, ever registered as an Australian team.) 4u1e (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This should clear it all up:

Sebastian Vettel had taken a brilliant victory for the team, and straight after the German national anthem they had expected the Austrian anthem to be played – as RBR operates under an Austrian racing licence in deference to the energy drinks company.

Instead, it was 'God Save the Queen' (and no, not the Sex Pistols' version) that rang out over Shanghai.

Dietrich Mateschitz couldn't believe it, watching the race at home in Salzburg.

"I was surprised and I wondered why they played the British anthem," he said. "It was a mistake. This should not happen again. But we will give the FIA some more opportunities to get it right in the future!"

D.M.N. (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For me the most important story is the one below it. ;) Apterygial 11:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flagging of the GPs and teams

I do not understand why do we flag GPs by location (not by official name) and teams by official registration (not by location). I think if we flag GPs by location, we should flag teams also by location (so, it should be Red Bull Racing). And if we use official registration country (i.e. Austria for RBR) we should use EUR and ABU for GPs.

In results table flags are headers of columns, and they should be different. If we use Spanish flag for both Valencia and Barcelona GPs (GPs have different names to avoid confusing), people who will read article may confused ESP and EUR GPs (although, EUR and ESP begin with letter E; it's other reason for confusing).

If we see interwikis, other Wikipedias use EU flag for European GP (and some wikis used Abu Dhabi flag for Abu Dhabi GP), so why en-wiki should use ESP flag?--Anatoliy (Talk) 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Which flag for the Pacific Grand Prix? There doesn't seem to be any more to be said on the matter. Apterygial 12:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the result of discussion there. And that discussion was about Pacific GP.--Anatoliy (Talk) 12:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They start talking about the European GP quite early, despite the title. What I do understand through all the murk is that they eventually decided that the European GP and Pacific GPs should have the host country flag. Apterygial 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The European Union is not a nation, and it is not representative of all of Europe, and in particular one country that has hosted the European Grand Prix, is not a member nation. The European Union does not participate in any sporting competitions. It is limited to economic and political entity. While it might be considered close, aprroximate is not good enough. You may as well use NATO's flag. It is not appropriate for this usage. --Falcadore (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The flag is also the flag of the Council of Europe, so I think it is appropriate for representing the whole continent. 84.155.77.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

Europe as a whole competes in the Ryder Cup. The EU Flag is used there, and it would seem to be suitable here.81.155.190.147 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's clearly an entirely different situation, as Europe is not a competing entity in F1. It's just a convenient way of allowing one country to have two races, and we use the godforsaken flag system here to represent the host country, not necessarily the entity that the race is named after. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

They are two completely different things so duly are dealt with differently (not on purpose though). Chubbennaitor 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Falcadore's right, and Chubb's right too - the issue of flags for races is entirely different to the flags used for teams. Renault is based in England but no-one's saying we should use the British flag for them. Likewise Toyota being based in Germany. The flag used is the one pertaining to the race licence the team has. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Takuma Sato's "Retirement"

In the list of driver changes, Takuma Sato is listed as moving from Super Aguri to retirement. To me, retirement means a voluntary act by the person. In the off-season, Sato was in the running for one of the STR seats but missed out. Since then, I have not heard any statements from Sato that he would no longer like to drive in F1. All in all, I think retirement is the wrong word to use for Sato's current situation. I think something like "not under contract" would be more appropriate. Any thoughts? Rascalb (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Super Aguri and all its personnel were 'retired' early in the season. Any such mention belongs in the 2008 article as far as I'm concerned, and only personnel who made it to the end of 2008 should be mentioned in such transition lists. --Falcadore (talk)

I changed the word "retirement" to "without drive". I think it's better in that situation. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

According to rumours, if Bourdais doesn't pick up, Sato will replace him at Monaco. I don't think anything should be mentioned about his "retirement" in this article; more that SA folded last year in last year's article. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 09:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

rumours is the key word i anything you just said. Chubbennaitor 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifying Results

do we need this table??--Wrcf1 10:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've discussed it before and it's been disallowed. I've removed it on this basis. Chubbennaitor 11:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article Rating

The article was rated as a Start Class. I changed it to B as I think it meets the criteria. Comments are welcome :) Rafael 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea we could do that. Chubbennaitor 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The only ratings that have a formal process are GA and FA. Some projects have a formal process for other grades, especially A, but we've never really put one in place. There are guidelines for what standard is required though - see the links in the WP:F1 banner at the top of the page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Driver Standings

Why does someone keep placing Massa ahead of Kimi when Kimi got his points before Massa AND he has more finishes??--Amedeo Félix (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because first earned points and number of finishes are not the tie breakers? The next best finish is the determining factor, which Massa wins by having finished 9th to Raikkonen's 10th. See for example Formula1.com. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The precise rules can be found at article 7 of the sporting regulations (found at FIA.com). –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Torro Rosso Test/Reserve Driver

Who was the TR test driver before Hartley? It's got a note against his Red Bull section saying he only got his superlicence before Spain and that it was just DC until then but there's nothing for TR. Twsf (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Table obsession

An evolving discussion taking place here has brought to a head an important issue here.

Where is a season overview?

The most important part of any encyclopaedic article is being ignored because we the editors are obsessing over the minutiae statistics and creating a near unreadable piece of machine code. The average reader coming here to find out about Formula 1 in 2009 is going to leave more confused that informed.

In a somewhat radical approach, I would like to propose that all editing of tables and statistic based information be banned until a season overview is written. Furthermore a complete season article should be as close as is feasible to 40k in length, in line with Wikipedia guidelines over article splitting. Right now it’s what 80k? 100k? And tells us virtually nothing about the most importing part of the season itself, the racing!

What we are producing is frankly terrible and unreadable. --Falcadore (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I share essentially the same feelings, although I would note that it's much easier to write tables than it is to create concise, compelling prose that summarises the season to date, which may explain why it happens. 4u1e (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

?! I understand where you're coming from and I also believe we need to right more but we have the right amount of tables. the tables are the second most essential thing because what's the point in having finishing positions if you can't display them. We have the right amount of tables. We just need something entitled season review. Chubbennaitor 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've very obviously stated that you do NOT know where we are coming from. Looking at the 2009 article, table by table:

Car launches? Very minor detail. Gone.

Teams and drivers? Sure.

2008 race schedule? Sure.

Broadcasting changes? Extroadinarily minor. Gone.

Results and Standings - Grands Prix? Nope, this is a duplicate of information presented in the previous and following tables - definately should go.

Drivers? Of course.

Constructors? Yes

Statistics? Well, again duplication and its cluttering the main piece - that could easily go into a supplementary article. Very badly needs a de-clutter.

Constructors Stats? As above

As it stands the article is presntly more than double the size Wikipedia recommends for splitting. And does anyone think it is going to get smaller? Needs pruning. Now I have begun a first test for a split with the aim of increasing readability. I have not added the prose neccessary or done all the tidying as its a first pass test. More details at the detailed source of dicussion at the 2008 page which is here. --Falcadore (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Turkish Grand Prix

This article needs vastly improving and I don't have time in the foreseeable future so I brought it here. Chubbennaitor 15:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bourdais

Likely to get the elbow today. Can we please keep this off the article until such time that an official announcement is made. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement

I've added an edit note to the article <!--DO NOT ADD A NAME UNLESS OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED BY TORO ROSSO-->. I can't make it any clearer than that. No name should be added unless and until there is an official announcement by the team. Any further additions of a name without such an announcement will be considered vandalism. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Piquet, Jr.

Not sure if F1SA is considered a reliable source but this article states that Piquet will indeed be replaced by Romain Grosjean for Valencia and beyond. Is it okay to add it to the table or are we going to wait? Officially Mr X (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Have Renault announced it? --Falcadore (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heikki Kovalainen is racing for McLaren NOT Pedro de la Rosa (vandalism)

Hey guys there is probably some vandalism in the table at the bottom saying Pedro de la Rosa is the second driver for McLaren after Lewis Hamilton, the reference to this when hovered over has been changed to say 'Pedro de la Rosa to take over from Kovalainen after Valencia' yet the reference is actually linked to an autosport article saying that Kovalainen will race for McLaren in 2009. This is obvious vandalism however I have no idea how to get up the perosn that did it, so can someone please look through the history and do the necessary actions please?

Thanks

I've changed it back to Heikki Kovalainen and the hovering over the reference text (though it should be noted the vandal didn't change the flag of Finland when changing the name to Pedro.. thanks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.19.180 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: it was under the 'Drivers' table, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.19.180 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] European GP

Shouldn't the entries for Renault and their drivers stay blank until the race has been run, per WP:CRYSTAL? Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The drivers should remain blank certainly because there's nothing to stop them racing for another team (Ferrari will have a seat going free). The team is officially excluded so I don't see a problem there. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Certainly the drivers, yes. If the drivers don't take part, their entries will be blank anyway. The team is suspended (not excluded) but there might be an appeal. Thing is, if it's left blank, people will come and add whatever they think the right term is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's easily sorted with an edit note. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I might be starting a completely new discussion here but do we need a new code for 'suspended' rather than 'excluded'? Doesn't excluded mean they were removed from the race after the event? MotorsportPete93 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You've read my mind. I think we do need a separate code for "suspended" or "banned" or whatever, to differentiate those from exclusions. A driver is excluded if he's thrown out between first practice and the race, usually for weight issues, or on-track misdemeanours like barging etc. If he's thrown out during or after the race, he's DSQ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How's "SUS"? MotorsportPete93 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're making a habit of reading my mind! If no-one objects, we should add it to the driver legend / key. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just S.FiRe (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"SUS" is more self-explanatory, IMO. It's not too long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How did you edit the table key box because i can not see how u do it.FiRe (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol! SUS! Sorry, the problem with SUS is that it's a bit sus. Sus, is colloquiolly short for suspicious, and usually refers to suspicious behavior, often sexually suspicious behavior. Not the best choice. SSN is a military term for a nuclear submarine. How about SPN? --Falcadore (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection I have to ask, do you really need to add a line to the legend, for such an incredibly rare event as a suspension? Has a team been suspended from a race in recent times? In any times? I don't think the legend needs to be expanded for one-off explanations. DNS or DNA with a asterisk and a note at the end is most appropriate. We shouldn't have to load up the table with every eventuality. Do we need to add BNT somewhere for an instance when because of Bernie Ecclestone's bent toe nail at the next time Flavio Briartore buckets him in the press and Renulat gets black flagged because of it? --Falcadore (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you if a suspension was a one-off, but there was BAR in 2005, Irvine and Schumacher in '94, just off the top of my head. I did removed "cancelled event" from the legend because it has never happened. But suspensions do occur from time to time. Personally, to make the legend smaller I'd remove non-results-based trivia like "injured". Also I'd say "SPN" is too much like "spin" or something. "SUS" looks fine to me, I mean, "EX" generally means "ex-girlfriend" or something, but we still use it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering events like these are a generally rare occurrence, couldn't the blank keys be replaced with something like DNP - Did Not Participate, to stop cluttering the table? 90.220.2.149 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we have precedent. Do what we did before. Look up 2005 and copy what we did then. In 2005 it was fine to use something other than SUS. We're unneccessarily creating new jargon when we don't have to. What do other sources use? I bet it isn't SUS. We don't have to cover every evetuality. --Falcadore (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

They were either left blank, or people randomly put "EX" in there, which is incorrect. No-one likes creating extra stuff less than I do, but I think it's necessary. As I say, to remove another code, let's get rid of the stupid "Inj". Other sources, I suspect, just don't have entries for these races. "DNP", by the way, we already use for "Did not practice". Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Definately agree there, let's do that then. --Falcadore (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry *blush* Do what? Get rid of the "Inj"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that. If the driver is injured at a meeting, like Massa at Hungary, it's covered by DNS. If he misses races because he's injured, then he, or she, was not even in the entry list and should be left blank. The text accompanying the tables can describe the reasons for being missing. --Falcadore (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And you know, suspension is covered by the above as well. If you are suspended at the meeting, it's DNS, if you are suspended prior to the meeting then you are not in the entry and should be left blank. The reasoning is exactly the same. --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I basically agree with you. Any driver who's not on the entry list for whatever reason should have a blank space. But I'm just hacked off with people adding the wrong code for these things, and they're still doing it at the moment. When Massa, Alonso, Piquet etc miss the next race, people will still be adding all kinds of incorrect stuff. I thought a "suspended" code would do away with the problem for Renault, but I'd be happy to get rid of it if "Inj" went as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Renault will be appealing the suspension. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Going off the point a bit but like with Jaime Alguersuari in the Drivers table he has emtry boxes should will put something in them like (NIR) not in race or something what do you think.FiRe (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Got to say definitely not. All across the driver articles, drivers who weren't involved have blank boxes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with 'sus', 'inj' or 'ex'. If people can't guess what they are then that is why we have a key. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But we have DNS. To have these others is statistical duplication. If we have Inj then we shouldn't have DNS. But really we shouldn't have inj at all. If you did not make the start because you're injured, that's what we have DNS for. If you didn't even show up because you've been forced to spectate and recuperate then you weren't even in the race to begin with so the space is blank. --Falcadore (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Piquet and Alonso were both marked as Disqualified for the European Grand Prix. I've made their boxes empty for now. Perhaps a note should be added there, the same way it is added under the Renault F1 team itself? (do not edit, Renault are appealing the verdict) or similar?--Chrill (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that was a good idea. We're going to get a lot of incorrect codes added in the next few days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If they have been disqualified then it doesn't matter that Renault has appealed. Right now, they are disqualified. If the appeal is upheld then they get their DNF's or 15ths back (what a reward!). Anything else is anticipating the news and that is not what Wikipedia is. -Falcadore (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether they're suspended or not, the boxes stay blank, if we're not going to have a code for suspensions. They are not being disqualified at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the results keys at the WikiProject Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Results legends / keys. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Drivers table

Are we agreed that no driver should appear on the table until he has actually competed in at least one race? Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Schumacher have been added to the template at the bottom. Should it be standardised to be the same as the drivers table? - oahiyeel ^talk 09:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What template? Answer is no, Schumacher has to pass a fitness test before he can race. We should be reporting what has happened, not speculating on what might happen in a few weeks time, per WP:CRYSTAL. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that he won't pass his fitness test, after Ferrari confirmed the deal, is WP:CRYSTAL surely? mspete93 [talk] 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, saying he will race when he hasn't yet really is WP:CRYSTAL. Plenty of things could still stop this from happening, although in practice I think it is an event that is "notable and almost certain to take place" and so can be included. 4u1e (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This template: Template:Formula One teams - oahiyeel ^talk 17:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When a driver is announced before the season starts we put them in the template so why not now. mspete93 [talk] 11:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Primarily because it might change again. Something less likely to happen before the season. At least I chose to believe that. --Falcadore (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Enough of 'Wikipedia policy', as someone who might just want to use Wikipedia for reference I would want as much information as possible and you 'established Wikipedia elite editors' holding back imformation until "after a Grand Prix" or whatever really is no use at all, I would want to know now. If you have cited news you should add it to the page and ignore irrelevant reasons not to: lengthy discusion about everything really can't be necessary. If something added to a page really is grosely wrong then remove it but don't keep treating Wikipedia like your own personal project. Rumours are very useful and interesting and nobody would get confused because by the very nature of it's heading it would be "rumour" but still relevant to include. There is nothing wrong with rumour as long as it is not presented as fact. Wikipedia should be to pool in information and not just tell you what any other site says. So to this point, it doesn't really matter if we add Schumacher now or later but since we have the news now we should add it now - I don't think a Wikipedia visitor would be in any way offended. If you're worried about the event not happening then perhaps we should remove the article for 2010 or even 2009#August because perhaps the world will end before then. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you've responded to me, I'll respond back. None of us are paid by Wikipedia, or even commissioned. All work done on these pages are essentially personal projects. The vast majority of contributors are not paid to do so, it is as such, the work of fandom (in some instances very good fandom), no matter what its aspirations, anyone who believes that Wikipedia is not, is really deluding themselves.

Secondly, I'm not an elite anything. My opinions and edits have exactly the same power, or less, as the next guy. My only real recourse, even with the policies and guidelines available to say or ask you not to. If you want Schumacher to be in the drivers table, fine, you want. He hasn't race yet, so while it may seem like a technicality, it is a real one.

You don't like something I've written, or un-written, revert me. It's not a threat, it's a right built into the coding that runs this website. --Falcadore (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I find myself somewhere between you two with this one. I believe that there are two types of unconfirmed news here. One is the type that Officially Mr X was adding to the 2009 and 2010 pages with rumours that have not even been mentioned by a respected Formula One source (Yes, I know I always use it as an example - autosport.com). The other type is the Schumacher story-which I do feel is worthy of inclusion on here. For now, he will be in Valencia, that is the common knowledge. If something changes between today and Valencia then we can easily change it. That's my opinion. mspete93 [talk] 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting in the context of the discussion above that Schumacher will not now be racing. I'm in no way suggesting that this particular story shouldn't have been mentioned, just noting that even the most apparently certain things can end up not happening. 4u1e (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully believe we were right to mention it and that we should always continue to do so, although where there are conditions attached (i.e. fitness test), we should mention these as well. mspete93 [talk] 10:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Belief is irrelevant compared to the fact that ultimate the information became incorrect. There are hundreds of websites which cover rumours. This is not one of those. --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear there. I didn't say we should be putting rumours in. This was not a rumour. The information was not incorrect. He had been announced by Ferrari as a driver. Thus we were right to have him in the table. If we ever get a similar situation, we should do the same. mspete93 [talk] 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't race did he? Congratulations on completing the due diligence, it's still wrong. Accuracy is the only measure. We can say, yeah but Ferrari said so, yeah but Schuamcher said so, yeah but, yeah but, but this but that...

It's still wrong. Get it right first time, or don't write it up at all. Sometimes we have to wait for the information to mature. We are not a news site, we do not have to have an answer out there.

I know it hurts, I know you want to but the information in there which is almost correct, but sometimes you just have to wait, and in this instance, wait until the next race. --Falcadore (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm never going to agree with you on this one I'm afraid. mspete93 [talk] 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops - sorry for starting the debate off again. 4u1e (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We know you did it on purpose ;) haha Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the teams and drivers table not the standings btw - mspete93 [talk] 11:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] schumacher picture

Do you agree that in an event schumacher races we should have his pic in the main article section.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No? We have several ex-F1 champions driving this season and they don't have any pictures. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, he's just another driver as far as we should be concerned. His results can dictate whether or not we start thinking about putting his picture up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] dont add the rounds section table

It is making it more complicated.i removed it.If you really want to know the rounds then check the drivers table —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion ongoing here - I'll revert you and you can contribute to the discussion. Personally I'm not bothered about it either way, but we'll change it depending on consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Winning constructor European GP

Why does it say Brawn, when Brawn got 12 to McLaren's 13 points. Unless by saying Brawn, one means, that since Rubens won, Brawn won. I, however, believe, that does not make much sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.221.37 (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Winning constructor refers to the constructor that gained 10 points from having one of their drivers finish in first position. It refers to the race win by one of their entrants and not overall points tally from the race. -- Iscariot (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's how it works. - mspete93 [talk] 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fisirarri

Fisichella is going to Ferrari for the rest of the season. I know the table only includes up to the current round, but this article - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78298 - makes it pretty clear than Giancarlo will be seeing out the season. Should this be added to the table, or just left as it is for now and updated as needed? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally dont like the collumn but it should be updated after each rd as you never know he might have an accident like Massa and be put out for the season. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my thing was that the column was only put in because a repalcement was needed for Massa. Now that Ferrar have a driver confirmed to race until the end of the season and since none of the other drivers will be moving - unless there's exceptional circumstances - the column could probably be completed and updated as needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel-adjusted qualifying times

Does anyone else think it would be interesting to have a table somewhere showing the fuel-adjusted qualifying times of the top 10 qualifiers (seeing as the bottom 10 only ever qualify on low fuel)? Obviously it wouldn't be anything offical but would give readers some idea of who the real star of qualfying was... SirJibby (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Where would these "fuel-adjusted qualifying times" come from? Would you calculate them yourself? If so, that would be original research (and hence not permissible). DH85868993 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he means the recalculated grids (used by the BBC) which factor in the effect of fuel weight on a driver's laptime to work out which order they would start in if all had done the same lap on mimimal fuel. Could be a nice addition.--MartinUK (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to question the relelvance. It's an interpretated statistic based on predictions, a fair amount of crystall balling there, even if the BBC have done it rather than a wikipedia edittor, essentially, it's still a guess. --Falcadore (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Liuzzi

After a bit of reverting today, a reminder that Liuzzi is not yet classified in the WDC, as he hasn't been classified in a race yet. Yes, good old F1.com lists him as 24th as do the BBC, who copy F1.com, but none of the other usual sources do, e.g. Autosport [10], motorsport.co.uk, gp.com, even Manipe F1 [11]. Also, after the race on Sunday, the TV captions didn't list him as 24th, ans they won't prior to the Singapore race in a couple of weeks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For final proof, The FIA's F1 page does not list Liuzzi in the championship at all. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 04:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much trumps the lot. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tyres

Is there really any point in having a tyre column for years in which there is only one tyre provider? Plugwash (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Last time this issue was discussed the decision was to retain the Tyres column. DH85868993 (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Renault name

Is there a better solution for the name of the Renault team in the teams and drivers table? Having ING Renault F1 Team followed by Renault F1 Team looks pretty silly to be honest. I'm happy just to do away with the ING but I know that will cause issues seeing as they were 'ING Renault' for more than the first half of the year. - mspete93 [talk] 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the standard at the moment, see MF1/Spyker in 2006 and McLaren's sponsorship change in 2005. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added a † note to explain it as it will confuse those unaware of the change. - mspete93 [talk] 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Teams and Drivers table

The table needs a tweak. Currently it is showing Alguersuari, Coulthard and Hartley as test drivers for Red Bull and Toro Rosso! Or is this correct? Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is correct. 272812A (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timo Glock & Kamui Kobayashi

Should the replacement of Kobayashi for Glock in Practice 1 & 2 of the Japanese Grand Prix be classified under Mid-Season changes? I know that it was only temporary due to his fever, but it was a driver change, so shouldn't it be classified? 121.214.48.53 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Practice doesn't count for anything. --Falcadore (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously if he races tomorrow then yes it should be mentioned. If he doesn't then no. - mspete93 [talk] 13:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that he will? --Falcadore (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The FIA would have to change the rules to let him race. They specifically state that any driver who does not take part on Saturday is not eligible to race on Sunday. Not only that, Kobayashi has had zero dry running, and given the difficulty several of the other drivers had in adapting to running in dry conditions, he'd be a liability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The FIA has also allowed teams to let their third driver take a primary driver's place in Friday practice. It happened a few times in recent years, but this is the first time it's happened this season. It needs no mention here in the season article, it's easily covered at 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was simply saying in the small possibility that he might race having read this article. If he doesn't race, it doesn't need a mention. - mspete93 [talk] 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Toyota have withdrawn the car. Dead issue. --Falcadore (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Kobayashi be included in the Drivers table and given a 'PO' under the Japanese Grand Prix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereswollonia (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He can be shown in the drivers table once he's taken part in a race. Until then, he isn't eligible to be in that table, just like any other driver who hasn't raced. He has been edited into the table, but he's hidden for now, and will be 'unhidden' once his result in Brazil is known. Then he'll be given a position in the table accordingly. At the moment, he is not 25th, as some editors keep insisting. He has to be classified in a race before he's classified in the WDC. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can we say that Jackie Stewart is Scottish rather than English?

I know that this would really bother my Dad! Jim Clarke - clearly English. Jackie Stewart - clearly Scottish (Please also see helmet design)

Could we say that they were both British? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.133 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither raced in 2009, but all English, Scottish, Welsh, Guernsey Islanders like Andy Priaulx, are all British. --Falcadore (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Clark clearly English?! Were you thinking of Damon Hill? Falcadore is correct, although if we're referring to these guys outside of their competitive career, then I would think calling them English or Scottish as appropriate would work. 4u1e (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(i) I put British for Jackie Stewart (and Graham Hill) because that's what is stated in the article which I cited:

Button becomes the 10th Briton to claim the honour, taking over from compatriot Lewis Hamilton, who finished the race third. It is the first time in 40 years Britain has had back-to-back world champions since Graham Hill and Sir Jackie Stewart.

(ii) In the same article Jackie Stewart himself is quoted as saying:

... it's 40 years since there's been a British champion back-to-back. I was that person, I took it over from Graham Hill ...

(iii) What is the racing nationality of these drivers (Jim Clark included)? To find out, look at their racing licenses, or the little flag on the waistband of the overalls (if you don't have these, see the drivers' articles, in the infobox beneath the photo and above the "Formula One World Championship career" bar); I think that you'll find they were all registered as British.

If the article text be amended to English (for Hill) and Scottish (Stewart), the paragraph not only loses its significance but becomes incorrectly referenced and should therefore be struck out as WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Who/What is BOB?

"BOB was suspended from FOTA on the 27th May 2009" Sorry, I haven't a clue how to use wikipedia - but is this vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.186.149 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was. I have reverted it. Thanks for flagging it up. - mspete93 [talk] 20:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Season graphs

I have created two graphs which I believe could be useful to include in this article

Drivers Championship - Top Four

Constructors Championship - Top Four

I attempted to add them to the article but my contribution was undone pretty quickly so I thought I'd bring it up here to see what others think.

While technically they are redundant, I believe that the graphs present the existing information in the tables in a much better format for human viewing. They show a good summary of the seasons progression in terms of points, the relationship between different drivers/teams and how they change over the season and the graphs also reveal the 'bursts' and 'slow' patches experienced by drivers/teams which I think is interesting. --F1Graphs (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They look terrible. And the information contained is entirely duplicated by the points chart already indicated. The format they were displayed was huge. Absolutely no on inclusion. There are too many charts and tables in this article already, these just make it statitistics overload. --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but the graphs simply seem to have been chewed out by Microsoft Excel, which I don't think quite makes their licensing what you think it is. Also, the data on them appears to be quite wrong. For instance, Button should have 20 points by Round 2, when your chart seems to show 15-ish.

If people want to see when teams and drivers had bad runs, they can look at the results table. It should be pretty evident when teams and drivers have won races, and when they have failed to score points. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Scratch the error part, I forgot about the Malaysian half points. The other problems stand however. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok obviously people are getting hung up about the fact that they were generated in excel, while I personally don't think they look too bad they can easily be regenerated in MATLAB or any other graphing program on the face of the planet, the style is not that important. The licensing issue is something admittedly I didn't consider but as said before it would be trivial to regenerate. But I still maintain that they provide some useful compliment to the tables in the article (the little mistake above proves that the tables are not really adequate). Also its not entirely a duplication as the graphs shows the cumulative sum of the points something which is pretty much impossible to do in your head after say 4-5 races. Finally just to be clear on terminology currently there isn't a single chart in this article only tables of data (some people seem to be confused as to the difference) --F1Graphs (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The mistake carries no weight. I was simply going on memory, not based on the results table. The graphs are wholly redundant. If people want standings at certain points in the season, we have "Standings as of..." in each individual race article. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Regenerated: with more pleasing styling --F1Graphs (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My reservations about stats overload on this article page still stands. Widespread across motorsport season articles is that they are incredibly statistics heavy and short on actual text. Even then some text is presented in bullet point style, it's a major weakness, and these charts make that trend worse. The biggest problem though is it does not display any new data at all, it is just a re-interpretation of existing data already presented in the season results matrix, and even though only showing the top four.

It's incomplete and its duplication. From me, no in any form. I'm sorry, but it's not a worthwhile addition in my opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please check

this - I have no expertise. Josh Parris 14:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)