Talk:2010 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

South African Grand Prix

I'm a keen follower of the sport, but nowhere have I read that South Africa is even being considered for a Grand Prix. Sure, Hermann Tilke had plans for a circuit to potentially be built in South Africa, but that was years ago. There's been no speculation as to the return of the South African race; the only confirmed new circuits in the near future are Abu Dhabi, Singapore, Valencia, South Korea and a return to Suzuka. If nobody can provide a reference to the return of te South African race, I'll delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.201.242 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

British Grand Prix

I'm sorry I don't have the source for this, but a while ago I saw an article that said that Silverstone was in the process of improving their pit facilities. I'll try to find the link, but anyone else is free to correct me or find the article themselves. --Rubiksphere (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen one on the ITV-F1 website, but Ecclestone has said that Silverstone will not be in the calendar in 2010, as quoted in the ref on the article. we shall leave it like that until we have more info. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

French GP

Who moved the French GP to unconfirmed, as the reference clearly says it has a contract! I shall move it back. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian Grand Prix

Yes, I know very well that this is the translation, however:

1. No translations are provided for the other unconfirmed GP's (like Mexican and Pacific);
2. There is no American Grand Prize, so why would you think they wouldn't call it Гран-При России?
3. For the love of God, this is an unconfirmed race, the matter of its inculding in Formula One calendar ever is already pure speculation, how can you say that this will be the name of the race?

--SpeedKing (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So as you can't say it will be Russian Grand Prix. If you are worry about what version is going to be used - translated or transliterated - ok, let's use what chairman said - Гран При России [1] Elk Salmon (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is called Russian Grand Prix so I think it would be appropriate to use this name before anyone confirms anything. BTW, some people don't have Cyrillic script installed so the name should be transliterated anyway. --SpeedKing (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the unconfirmed possible new races shouldn't be called (insert country adjective) Grand Prix because no Grand Prixes have ever been held in Russia for example. The track article Moscow Raceway should cover projects it's holding. --Pudeo⺮ 12:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Un-needed columns in the Races table

I don't see the point of all the columns that currently say "TBA" in them. Yes, they will be needed when the calendar is released, but that is 10 months away. There is no point having columns that are empty. Cadan ap Tomos 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rule changes

Annoyingedit (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)theres loads no one has picked up on it

Well, would you like to put them in? Of, if you prefer not to, you can provide some references here and I'm sure me or another editor will pick up on it. Oh, and for the reference, the four tildes (~~~~) go after your comment, not before: Like this. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the cost cap rule should also be put here. For reference see here --Akshaysarode21 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Prospective new entrants

Please somebody correct the table! I don't know how to do it! Fsarmony (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the layout, but the table seems rather redundant at the moment, maybe hide it until there is more information available to add to it? Schumi555 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the table layout. It makes it Easyer to see the teams that are going to enter --Wrcf1 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. People can easily handle two paragraphs of text. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The layout now is good.--Wrcf1 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is by definition a collection of people who don't even know whether they're going to enter or not. It doesn't need any kind of table or layout other than a couple of paragraphs with references. If and when any of these teams enters the championship, they can be added to the table. The others will be forgotten faster than anyone will believe. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Drivers and Teams removal??

I am thinking that this section should be removed. For 2010, there are as of now no confirmed teams. Becuase of the suggested two-tier voluntary budget cap of £40m, everyone but Williams, Brawn and Force India is to pull out according to Renault boss Flavio Briatore.

I suggest a complete removal of the Drivers and Teams schedule for the time being. It should not be re-posted until FIA confirms which teams are to line up for 2010 --Chrill (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that as long as it's clear that this list is provisional, it serves a purpose, i.e. to demonstrate which drivers have contracts and which do not. There may not be, technically, any confirmed teams, but some teams do have confirmed drivers. We can't take anything Flav says as gospel, there could be any number of reasons why he would say something like that. I'd be willing to bet a fair sum that we have more than 3 teams in F1 next season. Let's wait until others have their say before removing it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The table and for that matter your post is based of assumption that eventually everything will work out eventually. And it might. But that's not what should be included in the article. What should be included are hardcore facts based on definitive resources. Unfortunately, I've seen a tendency in F1 season articles (particularly before the season's beginning) being treated more as fansites and gossip magazines than encyclopedia. Same thing happened with 2009 season article a few months back which contained and entire section based on rumours. ^LeaveSleaves 19:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're advocating here, but I did suggest that it's made clear that this is a provisional list. If we are removing anything that may not work out eventually, then the whole article has to go, because if Flav's declaration of impending doom comes to pass, there will be no 2010 season. We can comfortably sort the wheat from the chaff without resorting to removing big chunks. The drivers currently in the table are no less confirmed than next year's races, for example - are we to remove the British GP because it might not happen? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Claiming provisional/speculated would mean that addition of abundance of news stories circulating is acceptable as long as we provide disclaimers, similar to what happened at 2009 season article (see here). The team and race tables are all based on speculation and assumption that trends in 2009 will continue in 2010. And yes I accept that in all possibility this would be the case. But what is presented in article at present is nothing but a synthesis of existing information. ^LeaveSleaves 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that anything has been synthesised here. The race organisers and the few drivers currently in the table have contracts. These are sourced and are as strong an indication as we're ever going to get that the races will take place and the drivers will drive. Otherwise, this article will never exist. Why should an already confirmed driver be any more confirmed in 3 months, 6 months, whenever? Rumours and speculation are not to be added to the article, but that should not be at the expense of referenced, confirmed information. If the team table was based on speculation and assumption, why are nearly all the gaps empty? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is based on information available for 2009 season. Yes this is modified with the help of latest information available about these constructors, but isn't that done somewhat synthetically? Piecing together information so as to form picture of the future. Well, I guess this is acceptable for an article about a future event. But when the section is titled so definitely as "Drivers and teams" for the season, I feel there should be information just as definitive sources confirming participation of these teams in 2010 event. And if there is agreement that rumours and speculations should not be added, then why is the second section entitled "Speculated 2010 Calendar"? Why is their inclusion of unannounced GPs or GPs whose are contracts are over in 2009? ^LeaveSleaves 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the info you say comes from the 2009 season is the list of teams - admittedly none of these teams are actually confirmed for 2010, but unless another form of displaying the driver information is devised, I don't see what else can be done. For instance, Massa and Raikkonen have contracts for 2010 to drive for Ferrari. This is information that needs to be in this article. I don't really see what has been synthesised. As regards the calendar, the title needs to be changed to something else, perhaps "List of confirmed races for 2010". I suppose the speculation refers to the order of races rather than the doubt that any of those races will take place, since they are confirmed for 2010. The unconfirmed and "possible" races need to be taken out of the table and either discarded altogether or discussed in a paragraph with careful referencing. This is an article that I've had rather little to do with, so maybe we can edit out the problematic stuff and display the confirmed facts in a way that suits everyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I too usually stay away from future articles, especially since they are sauntered by gossip and rumour lovers. I don't see why driver contracts are necessary to be mentioned in the article. Those are more relevant at driver and team articles. Anyways, if there is a general understanding that such information needs to be mentioned, it can be done in the form of prose. There is no denying how fickle these contracts can be. Recall Alonso's departure from McLaren. And there's no denying the benefits of prose format to present the information. ^LeaveSleaves 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If contracted/confirmed drivers aren't important enough to put in the article, then I don't see what can go in the article. When there is a list of teams, people will want to see who's driving for who, if they don't already, and most people will want a table. I can't see people accepting the driver list in prose format. In that table will be contracted drivers, so I don't really see the difference between having them there now and having them there later. Certainly I'm for unconfirmed stuff to be in prose form, and properly referenced. By the way, where is everyone else? I thought the WPF1 regulars might have had their say by now. I'll flag it up at the project page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title to include "Speculated" --Chrill (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of rubbing this in, but this is what happens when you let speculations thrive. ^LeaveSleaves 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember it well, and we should be able to devise a format for this article that will discourage it from happening again, but I do think we should still be showing the confirmed info that we have. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what is on at the moment I'm writing is good. (Shall we have potential or Unconfirmed teams on there as well o is it just too early.) Chubbennaitor 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think we should stick to facts we can back up and not crystal ball, normally I am fine with the tables, barring the en of the world you would expect this. I'd suggest we comment out the current table and simply have a table listing the drivers with contracts for next year if that is the information we are worried about losing. Once the mess passes, either by the teams leaving or being thrown whatever bone they want from Mosley, we can easily remove the brackets that comment out the chart. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This has just gone backwards since we started discussing it. Why is there now a table for teams who are thinking about entering? We deleted a similar thing ages ago. Also where is the text that explained the potential new teams? It was fully referenced... Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, I was just going to revert it but someone beat me to it ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

USF1

Some of this discussion has been copied from a discussion between Bretonbanquet and myself. Spute (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A DIRECT QUOTE FROM KEN ANDERSON: [2] "It's Team USF1" Does that qualify now? Stop changing the article. Eightball (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another! [3] Eightball (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The official team name, as reflected in the entry, and in every source since they put in their entry, is Team USF1. Stop changing it, you are wrong, period. This isn't a discussion that needs to happen. Eightball (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the man himself flat out saying what the team name is: [4] Eightball (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eightball. There is no logical reason for using a name we doubt is correct when the most recent sources say it's Team USF1. Spute (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you propose to explain away the (very good) sources that say that bernie Ecclestone owns the F1 name? I would also suggest leaving the edit as it was originally while this is discussed, i.e. when I put the "new entries" section there, not how it was after your shaky edits. If you keep changing it to your idea, it looks like an edit war. "And again" is not an adequate edit summary, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add thgat Ken Anderson doesn't get to decide what the team is called if the FIA or Ecclestone doesn't like it. Therefore, Anderson saying "It's called this" before he has any kind of confirmation is meaningless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The team name would be Team US F1 if it gets into F1, see this. Spute (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As it says in the link you posted - they can't use it until they're in. In which case, neither can we. You've just undone your own argument. We'll leave it as USGPE with an explanatory note until the entry list is confirmed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sort of see your point there. But why should wikipedia call it USGPE? There's no reason any more. Ken Anderson's comments are the most recent source, so we have to go with that, surely? Spute (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What reason would you possibly give for calling it USGPE? Bearing in mind we have to take info from sources, and not our own intrepretation or beliefs.Spute (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to stick with what's current and legal. If it's not allowed to be called USF1 until the entry is accepted, then we can't call it that either. Crystal-balling, they call it, plus there might be legal ramifications. When the name is confirmed, we can change the article title. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Shall we continue this over at the talk page, and copy and paste this discussion?Spute (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason for calling it USGPE is that the team's website is under that name. Presumably they'll change it if and when their entry is accepted, but we shouldn't move the article or use the USF1 name until then. If Bernie has a legal problem with the term "USF1" before the team is confirmed as an F1 team, then we have to go with that, regardless of how likely the change is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken and Peter made it very very clear: the team was never called USGPE. It was never going to BE called USGPE. USGPE was simply an alternate WEBSITE ADDRESS (NOT team name) used until they put in their entry. The team cannot simply be called "USF1," as Bernie has requested that the word "team" be used in conjunction with "F1." This is why they are called "Team USF1." Simply put, you are ill informed and verifiably WRONG. STOP CHANGING THE ARTICLE. Eightball (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of having extended discussions with editors who simply refuse to do adequate research and, when they finally do discover the truth, still refuse to admit they were wrong. Eightball (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way: Bernie doesn't own the term "F1." His trademark applications have been consistently denied. Teams just respect his wishes because he basically controls the sport. Eightball (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I haven't changed the article since we started discussing this - don't try and tell other editors what they can and can't do. Typing it in capital letters doesn't scare anyone, so just try and calm down and discuss it rationally. Plus, ranting that other editors are ill-informed and incompetent is just inflammatory and unhelpful, and I suggest you stop doing it immediately. Regardless of what you think, I am verifiably correct as per the Anderson interview that Spute posted. They cannot call the team "Team US F1" until they are accepted as an F1 team. Hence, it isn't called Team US F1 until they are an F1 team. I am assuming you understand that. Furthermore, if they are not yet permitted to call the team US F1, then neither are we, regardless of what it will be called if and when they are accepted. That is insurmountable. I'll refrain from following your example and spewing out that you're wrong in an irritating fashion, but try and explain here whether you understand the facts as I have laid them out. Lastly, I'd like to see verifiable sources that say Bernie doesn't own the term "F1". In any case, the above criteria for waiting till stand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You still don't understand: the team is not called USGPE. It was never going to be called USGPE. That acronym is simply an alternate URL. They've made this very very clear. What more is there to say? Besides, they've said "it's Team USF1." Not "it will be Team USF1." Get it right. Eightball (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Trademark article: [5] I await with bated breath to see how you manage to ignore more facts. Eightball (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand better than you do, apparently. I know full well USGPE was only a domain name. I've read at least as much as you've read. The point is in what Anderson says here in the Q&A that Spute posted: "The thing is, we are not approved to use the term ‘F1' until we are in, so it is almost a catch 22 situation. We can talk about it, but we can't use it until we are in – so we just took it off the website and had another domain registered – USGPE." Is that clear enough? Use of the USF1 name is "not approved" until they are in. As we stand, they are not in. They are not guaranteed to be in, so the team may never be approved to use that name. That other article you posted is about use of the F1 name in other areas - it has nothing to do with USF1. I was actually part of the argument for using the 'F1' term on Wikipedia for use in non-FIA-approved races for F1 cars, so I'm well aware of what that decision means and I suspect I knew about that decision before you did. With regard to teams wishing to enter the FIA F1 World Championship, the term is not approved for use in team names until entries are accepted, as Anderson has very clearly explained. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So you would rather use a team name that is DEFINITELY not their actual team name? You are actually arguing FOR the addition of inaccurate material into Wikipedia? Eightball (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite - I am arguing that we should use what is appropriate at the time. Until the entry is accepted, I am suggesting that we list the team as USGPE with the fully explanatory note that they will change the name to USF1 when they are permitted to do so. You are advocating that we use a name which Anderson himself has stated that he is not yet allowed to use. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

USGPE is not appropriate because it was never the team name and it was never going to be the team name. You understand this and yet still want to put it on the article. And guess what: I've shown you Anderson's quote eight times. "It's Team USF1." IT IS. NOT WILL BE. And assume good faith goes flying out the window... Eightball (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand the quote from Anderson that I posted? They're not allowed to use that name yet. Do you understand that my suggestion involves explaining the whole situation? The article US Grand Prix Engineering was not started by me, I did not start to call it that. We have to refer to it as something while the US F1 name is not approved. Like Anderson and Windsor, we use USGPE as a temporary measure until the US F1 name is approved. Wikipedia is just reflecting the limbo the team name is in. It's really not that complicated. You will continue to assume good faith on my part or we can take this elsewhere if you like. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Baby, stay cool! My take on it, is that if Autosport [6] and the BBC [7] refer to it as Team USGP in recent articles, I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't follow these reliable sources. On the legal issue, IANAL but if Haymarket & the Beeb are willing to use the name then I'm sure there's no issue with it. AlexJ (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to there, but whatever we end up with, there will be an explanation of the situation in the article, i.e. the name is not approved until the entry is accepted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm done here. The team is called Team USF1, period. We do not have to wait for their entry to be approved before we address them by their actual name. USGPE is not the name. Putting that in the article is simply lying. I will revert any edit you make to that extent. AlexJ, thanks for brightening my day. Eightball (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So why are you happy with the team article having its current name? Make up your mind. Just because AlexJ agrees with you, it doesn't make either of you right. It must be a slightly more taxing concept than I thought. Name... not... approved...yet... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a general comment aimed at all parties as things were starting to get quite heated. Can I make a suggestion, that both of you guys take 24 hours out from editing the article and this discussion, in order to leave others to voice their opinions and hopefully we can get a community consensus. I think both of you have made your views clear, so how about we leave others to take in your arguments and decide what's best. A day of having 'the wrong name' won't hurt. AlexJ (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I haven't edited the article since this discussion started, nor accused anyone of lying or being incompetent, nor threatened in a juvenile fashion to revert allcomers who disagree with me. Let's not confuse me with someone who has not only lost his cool, but quite clearly didn't have much in the first place. I'll continue to leave the article alone, and no doubt Eightball will do the same, since I have allowed his factually inadequate version to stand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear cut to me...The team cannot be called 'Team US F1' until they are confirmed as a constructor for 2010, which has not yet happened. Therefore there must be another name to refer to the team, which the team themselves use, along with us, the BBC, Autosport etc which is USGPE. Therefore until the team is confirmed for 2010, USGPE is the name to use. Schumi555 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My own personal preference is to leave things as they are and wait until an official announcement. I am loathe to suggest moving articles now if, and I emphasis if, that USF1 do not get their wish and they have to change the name again, it would not be the first time and almost certainly will not be the last once commercial arrangement begin to take shape, and much as I want to see a 24 hour moratorium on the issue, going on past actions, Eightball's my way or highway approach suggests that a 24 hour wait will change little and is equally unlikely to accept a consensus if it is not their consensus. Could be the best solution is to place an temporary anti-vandal lock on the article for 24 or 48 hours - which would not be a terrible thing either as the sheer number of tiny edits that appear and get reverted daily on this article over all manner of trivial points (eg the pro-Canadian GP agenda) could do with a break for a few days. --Falcadore (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess if you still don't think we can use USF1 as a name, even though it's the team's only real name, we could refer to them as Orange Pants Enterprises. Because that's exactly as accurate as USGPE. Eightball (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if every single respectable news source calls them Team USF1, why can't we? There's no excuse. Eightball (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting this in all caps and bold so maybe, MAYBE you people will read it: USGPE IS NOT THE TEAM NAME. IT NEVER WAS THE TEAM NAME. IT WAS NEVER GOING TO BE THE TEAM NAME. TO USE IT IN THIS ARTICLE WOULD ONLY SERVE TO KNOWINGLY DISSEMINATE INCORRECT INFORMATION. Eightball (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted a sensible compromise. I was actually in the middle of this last night, but then we had a power cut, hence my disappearance from the conversation. Spute (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Eightball, do you really think that everyone here is so stupid that they don't understand your over-simplistic argument? Writing it in bold capitals and ranting just makes you look difficult. If you don't understand the other side of the argument, and you clearly don't, it might be better to leave the matter to those who understand both sides. I think Spute's compromise is fine - maybe we can link to Anderson's explanation of the team name limbo while his team waits for the FIA's decision. It might be worth pointing out that the use of the US F1 team name is not FIA-approved for use until the entry is accepted. To remind anyone who's not yet aware, if the team's entry is not accepted, the "team" will not ever have been called "Team US F1" legitimately as per the FIA, no matter what Anderson or Eightball would like to have called it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that by bolding and caps it gives your point more validity? I think we understood your position pretty clearly, now calm down. --Falcadore (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Eightball, I do basically agree with you, but ranting and bolding isn't helping your case, please try to stay calm. The thing is, the article mentions several proposed teams, under their proposed team names. If these others (e.g. Campos Meta 1, Prodrive F1, Litespeed GP) can be named by their proposed team names (often without such reliable sources) then why not Team USF1. In fact these are all at least partly hypothetical teams, and will remain so until the accepted entry list is confirmed by the FIA. For now, we do need some sort of name for each entrant, so we should go with the best one we have in each case, in my opinion. Actually, as far as this article is concerned, there's a bigger job trimming out speculation and random rumours with unreliable sources.Spute (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The deal with the other team names would apply the same as for USF1. I suspect Campos Meta 1 would become Campos Meta F1 on acceptance, and I think the Prodrive team is just called "Prodrive" for now, until acceptance, when it would become Prodrive F1. Litespeed GP doesn't use the "F1" term so doesn't apply. It's the just the "F1" part that the FIA don't approve for teams that aren't actually F1 entrants. Otherwise all kinds of racing teams would be using "F1" in their names. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't quite my point, Bretonbanquet. Litespeed GP doesn't really exist, until (if) it's accepted into Formula One. It's a hypothetical "team", with a name which has been proposed. So even by calling it Litespeed GP, we are calling it by a name it would only have if it's accepted. This seems a fair thing to do, we need to call it something. I feel this discussion is somewhat bogged down by the controversy of using the term "F1". Spute (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed people are getting a bit carried away with other articles, e.g,Prodrive F1. Spute (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Litespeed GP does exist whether it's accepted into F1 or not. It exists as a division of the F3 team organisation, even though it's not a racing team in itself yet. True, it doesn't exist as a Formula One team, but the FIA don't have an issue with the name they're using because it doesn't have "F1" in it. "GP" isn't a protected term like "F1" is. Like any other organisation, company or part thereof, Litespeed GP can call itself what it likes, apart from using the "F1" term in its name if it wants to participate in FIA-approved motorsport. That's the only sticking point. Team USF1 does exist, but just as a group of people with a plan and not yet as a Formula One team, and it is not allowed to call itself a Formula One team (i.e. have "F1" in its name) until it is confirmed by the FIA as a Formula One team.

Lola Cars exists as a company - it races, it sells cars etc etc, but it doesn't exist as a Formula One team unless it's accepted by the FIA. After that, it can call itself Lola F1 or whatever. Conversely, I can start a company called "Joe Bloggs F1" and no-one will care unless I try to go motor racing with that name, in which case the FIA will throw me out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the Prodrive article is way too long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, although I'd still debate it. Maybe it's easiest if we agree to disagree, keep the compromise which mentions both names for this team, and concentrate on other things until the FIA confirm the entry list?Spute (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough as far as the FIA is concerned, but you're right - the compromise is fine by me as it is, and in any case on June 12 it'll all be confirmed one way or the other. The failed entries will just be footnotes and we can deal with them as such, while the accepted teams will become clearly defined with full articles of their own. They can be added to the table with the others too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MYF1DREAM

The entity MYF1DREAM, which is projected to be funded and owned by many individual fans, has also lodged an entry for the 2010 season, according to its website. [8] This news hasn't been reported by anyone else that I know of, however.--Midgrid(talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First party sources aren't usually good, so I'd wait for something else to mention it. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That has about as much chance of acceptance into F1 as me turning up with a Ford Cortina. In any case, it needs wider mention to be worthy of inclusion in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cortina's aren't eligible? But we've got this Simon Cowell reality talent idol competition where if you can beat the Stig over a lap in a Cortina you get an F1 drive, and you get the shot against the Stig after a 17 week elimination show with cook-offs and singing assessment and boldest typeface font competitions ... --Falcadore (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do I sign? Lol and I'll give Ricardo Rosset a call, he'll be up for that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Brabham

Do we have a reliable source of Brabham appliance? I haven't found anyone in English or Portuguese. Fsarmony (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Breakaway series

I think we should WAIT until we know more about the FOTA series. They have used the threat of going their own way before and nothing has ever come of it. This might be a last-ditch effort to get the FIA to fold. We should make mention of the schism in the article, but until such time as we know that it is going to happen for sure, I think the table should stay as is.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I've at least added the three breakaway teams who still have unconditional entries (whether they like it or not) to F1 in 2010. The other five have excluded themselves as it stands, so at least we're up to date. If an entry list comes out tomorrow with their names on it, then we'll put them back. If not, then they're out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that, for now, the Drivers Chart might be more useful if it were simplified until we get a more concrete viewing of the 2010 season or seasons. All the blank spaces and TBAs don't help people understand what teams stand where. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that the drivers chart has to go. Use <!-> if you like but 2010 is now entirely speculation and we can't even be sure that driver contracts are valid in the event of a rebel series. --Falcadore (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to semi-protect 2010 and 2009 F1 pages and perhaps the main F1 page too for the next day or so until speculation starts to settle or every half believed rumour in the news will get tacked on. Maybe longer. --Falcadore (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that to a large degree, we're screwed, because there isn't anyone on the planet who really knows what's going on, so there is no clear and concise way we can display the facts. There are no sources we can cite or quotes we can use that are going to clear this mess up, at least not until tomorrow. I'd agree with semi-protection or else we're going to see a rotation of everyone's half-baked ideas of what's happening. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. When no one knows what's going on there is nothing to cite, all we can present are rumours. Would support semi-protection. Apterygial 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be sooner that we think. Practice for the British GP starts in about four hours or so, ten o'clock local time. The paddock is going to be abuzz with talk about what has happened, so we'll elarn more then. The only reason why I said we should wait is because I've been following this episode from start and something simply does not add up: FOTA did a huge backflip overnight. They sent Mosley a letter saying they were willing to talk about a few things and make some concessions. Mosley replied and said yes, they could talk, and was willing to forgo a few of his own demands, including some of the more controversial like the Appendix 5 in the regulations, as well as confirming that the two-tier system was out. Then FOTA met at Enstone to discuss and everything changed. Something happened in those few hours, and I don't think we should make too many changes until we know what: either something was not reported - unlikely, given the coverage - or FOTA are risking everything with their threats. This isn't the first time] the teams have annouced they were going rogue and both sides of the conflict seem to genuinely want all the teams to remain for 2010. The inconsistencies in what we know should be grounds enough for semi-protection. Just until we have a clearer picture. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protection does not work that way; see Wikipedia:Protection policy. Until there is significant disruption on the page, it won't be protected. ^LeaveSleaves 05:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I just realised that. If we want page protection we have to wait for vandalism to break out to prove the need. Apterygial 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the teams have decided to breakaway has been reported by a very reliable source (BBC). Therefore there is no reason why it shouldn't be in the article (OK, I added it without having seen this page first). By all means wait before starting an article on the breakaway series but there's no reason why it shouldn't be in this article. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I supposethat either way - a split or no split - the secion on the budget cap will ultimately be edited down. The only reason I've been ading bits and pieces is to keep people up to date with the events, if not the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Right at the moment there is not a breakaway series, there is just a will that there should be one and a will that existing competitors not continue the 2009 status quo. When a breakaway series announces venues, organisation, official staff etc, then a new article can be started. I want someone to give me a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean we can start an article called Falcadore's Ferrari. --Falcadore (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Falcadore's Ferrari - I sense a FA in there somewhere ;) But yes, this is absolutely not something that requires its own article, not until there is concrete evidence that it's halfway likely. I'm not sure it's likely at all anyway. For now the best / only place for facts about the potential breakaway is at this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Silverstone/Donington 2010

Add anything enlightening about the location of the British grand prix here: 2010 British Grand Prix Francium12 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely its way too early to be starting articles on next years races especially as there may not be a series as we know it now. These are not to be articles on speculations remember, just the hard facts. I'd seriously consider raising an AFD deleting request on this article as it stands. --Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree that article is too early. If you wish to add current development on next year's venue, you can do so in British Grand Prix. And instead of AfD, we can redirect it to this page. In any case, only one article currently links to it. ^LeaveSleaves 03:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, better solution. Done --Falcadore (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Having some dramas with an unregisterred edittor who seems to believe an entirely speculative stub is acceptable. Suggestions? --Falcadore (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated table

Normally I'd update the table, but I'm no good at the coding. I had a go at it, but the less aid about the end result, the better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

rumoured section

The rumoured section should not be included as it is all speculation and rumour and unreliably confimred and should not be included as the information is un-encylopedic and some of the sources are unreliable such as blogs. Until inormation is confirmed and reliably sourced the inromation must be reomved as it does not belong in this encyclopedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That was hard to work through! This article is currently about a future event. Things are liable to change before the event happens. The information appears to be reliably sourced (BBC, Autosport for example. The section will go eventually - see 2009 Formula One Season but it should be kept for now. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Future event articles inevitably contain a certain amount of rumoured information. None of it is wild speculation and it is adequately sourced. I don't understand why you see it as unencyclopedic. Perhaps you could elaborate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Often in F1 things can be very close to happening and yet take months to finalise and confirm. They are not wild rumours, just developments that are yet to be officially confirmed and thus cannot be put into the 'confirmed changes' section. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, even very well founded rumours sometimes do not come to fruition: Prodrive F1, the Centreline Downwash Wing, and Valentino Rossi driving for Ferrari all looked like very good bets at one point or another but never actually happened. Just a thought... ;-) 4u1e (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Half a mo, the eight... seven FOTA teams have been added back in. Thought we'd decided not to add them until there was a Conccorde agreement? --Falcadore (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I did it. They have a note to say that they are possibly not officially there yet but if there are driver signings going on I felt we needed to show which drivers are under contract for next year and which one's aren't. mspete93 [talk] 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the BMW announcement today proves that it was, and still is speculation. I'm going to remove, pending an announcement that these teams are confirmed to be in 2010, which as I understand it, they have not. As many notes as the day is long can't alter that they are not confirmed. Those unconfirmed GPs in the calendar need to go to.

Sometimes, you just have to wait. Wikipedia is not a news site. --Falcadore (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I accept defeat on this one. mspete93 [talk] 12:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But we need to be consistent. All other unconfirmed things now need to go. mspete93 [talk] 12:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Falcadore (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule Changes

It says under confirmed rule changes: "FOTA has agreed to scrap KERS for 2010 due to poor uptake and pressure from FIA to cut costs.[96]"

FOTA cannot decide the rules for the 2010 season, especially seeing how they're currently not even officially in it. Should this be removed, or put under "Rumoured rule changes"? --Chrill (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

KERS is allowed in the 2010 regulations, but FOTA have unilaterally decided to not use it next year. Perhaps it should read something like "KERS will be allowed for 2010, but FOTA have decided not to use the device"? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, KERS is a demand for 2010 as far as I know. FOTA just won't use it. We'll see how that goes when it comes to negotiating the new set of rules.. For the time being, it should not be present at all, I'd say --Chrill (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Article split

I think this article should be split for two reasons. Firstly, the ongoing dispute over the regulations has formed a major part of the article. But the time the 2010 season comes around, it is likely a lot of that sub-section will be edited down as it si simply too alrge at the moment. It is a complex issue, and possibly the most serious episode in the sport's history; a lot of the detail to understand what happened will be lost. The second reason is that the last time the sport faced a crisis like this - the 1982 FISA-FOCA war - the event was serious enough to warrant its own page. Likewise, the 2010 dispute involved a breakaway series, and the stillborn GPMA has its own page. I think it is important to preserve a record of this event given the magnitude of its effects, but I feel that in the future, the 2010 page will not be the place for it. Hence, I have suggested it be split in two, with a more thorough explanation included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The 2010 season article will not be the place for it, mainly because it didn't actually happen in 2010. Why not be bold and create the article yourself. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

... I don't actually know how to. I'll write it up because I've been following this thing since day one, square one, but I'm still yet to earn my stripes on the editing front ...Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry! I've not been here long but I'm sure that if you create the artice (maybe at FOTA-FIA Row or any other name you can think of) then I and other people will help you to get the article up to standard. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'll have a go at it. I can write the thing, but the sources are going to take forever, because I thikn it's important to cover even some of the pre-history of this - like the FISA-FOCA war - given that Bernie & Max were instrumental in both that dispute and this one, albeit in opposing roles this time ...Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, page has been created - FIA-FOTA Dispute (I didn't want to call it a 'war' so as to avoid confusion with FISA-FOCA page) - but still needs sources, and little bits of coding here and there that I don't know how to do. Still, it's a start.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

force india engine supply

i was under the impression that they had a 5 year deal with mercedes, so surely for 2010 they should be listed with mercedes engines - Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.18 (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just fix that. It's an error from when the fota teams withdrew and someone made an assumption that they would need a new supplier. Thanks for flagging that up. mspete93 [talk] 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done mspete93 [talk] 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Drivers/Teams/Grands Prix

Is there any genuine reason why we can't include a 'rumoured' section on this page (and others)? It is very useful and interesting for people visiting the page and will not get confusing because by the very nature of its heading it will be "rumour". Out of date rumours can be removed when they become fact or obsolete but I think are valuable for such an important page as this even if they are only temporary inclusions. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is my opinion, and only my opinion: I agree that it can be useful, but there is a reason that the trusted reliable sources (autosport,BBC etc.) do not mention rumours and that is that they are exactly that-rumours. I do however have a compramise that I feel would be better than nothing at all or a rumoured section, and that is a 'Driver News' section. It could include things like the autosport.com piece that says that Nico Rosberg is considering his options for 2010. This is suitable because it came from Rosberg himself. That would sort of work as a rumoured section. mspete93 [talk] 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I think it's important that people can see what's happening or might happen: it does no harm. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:CRYSTAL and re-ask the question. And remember, that Wikipedia is not a news site. --Falcadore (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rumours and speculation may be fun to read sometimes, but they're just that: rumors and speculation, and they're subject to change very quickly. After all, Nelson Piquet Jnr claims on his Twitter account that his father is going to purchase the remains of BMW-Sauber, rename it Supernova-Piquet Sports and run his son in a race seat in 2010. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What I suggested was not rumour or speculation. Say that hypothetically Manor boss John Booth tells autosport.com that he is in discussion with Paul di Resta and Anthony Davidson about driving in 2010. Could we not report that as: 'Manor Grand Prix boss John Booth has told Autosport that he is in discussions with Paul di Resta and Anthony Davidson about driving for his team in 2010.' I HAVE MADE THIS UP BY THE WAY. It does not suggest that they are signed so surely it is not WP:CRYSTAL. It is just useful, factual, well-sourced information about next year's line-up, which comes directly from the party concerned (Manor) itself. At the moment there are not really any such stories but I'm sure that when we get closer to 2010 there will be. mspete93 [talk] 11:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like that as its still speculation, its just speculation from an official source. My personal preference is to wait for the team to say, 'this is definately our driver, we've signed him up'. But that is MHO. Wikipedia is not a magazine nor should it pretend to be. The job of an encyclopedia is to record what is. Not what might be.

That having been said, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation have announced a date, March 25-28 (here) and while the FIA have yet to announce their calendar, the first race of the year has to gedt ticket sales going before everyone else so it is normal for them to announce ahead of the calendar but it is subject to FIA confirmation.

Is that reportable for the page? --Falcadore (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether we want just the one date on there. People will probably start adding other dates. Then again the Australian Grand Prix organisers announcing a date would be the same as a team announcing a driver really. Are the tickets on sale yet? mspete93 [talk] 22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually now I've read the website, due to the asterisk note I would say that we keep it off until the FIA confirm. mspete93 [talk] 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

European GP

This comes up a lot but just to clarify do we use the European flag or the flag of the country in which it is being held? For the 2009 Formula One season the Spanish flag is used but this year and on other F1 pages such as for List of Formula One Grands Prix the European flag is used. The same thing also applies in the case of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, Mediterranean Grand Prix and Pacific Grand Prix. Consistency is the most important thing. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is for the flag of the host country to be used. Anywhere where it's not used is due either to no-one getting around to changing it or someone else coming on and reverting a change, usually with the Euro flag. Med / Pacific GPs use the host country flag because there is no other flag to use. Abu Dhabi GP uses UAE flag. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No that is not the consensus the hastily made consensus you are talking of has been discredited and the whole policy of using the flag of the country of the host rather than referring to the name of the GP has been branded in previous discussions and by disinterested users as "misleading" and "confusing". Do not state a consensus that only furthers your POV. If you believe that the consensus truly is what you are claiming start a fresh discussion as the dust has now settled on the previous discussion and a real new discussion can occur.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is total rubbish. Discredited? By whom? "Disinterested users"? Where are they? Why should anyone care what they say if they aren't even interested themselves? Fire away with a new discussion if you want one, and you are the only person that does, believe me. Please start it in the correct place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh joy, here we go again. mspete93 [talk] 10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a dangerously explosive can of worms lets not re-open this without safety goggles, thick safety gloves, long tongs and preferably blast barriers. Better still lets not open this at all.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well which is it, don't discuss it or discuss it again because enough time has passed so you can disagree with the consensus some more? The only can of worms being opened is by you ranting over Bretonbanquet informing Mr X of the WP:F1 consensus on the subject. And yes, it's a consensus.

The flag should be Spanish. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The flag should not be Spanish as that flag is already used for the Spanish Grand Prix. If you believe that there is a consensus by all means open the can of worms again but on your head be the consequences. I advise that we live in this weird status quo that has developed where nobody touches the flags in the European GP articles or in references to it on other articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately it doesn't really matter beyond a personal preference does it? mspete93 [talk]

That is the ultimate way of looking at it and logic and reasoning are thrown out of the window every time this is discussed as too many users are inflexible and unwilling to either entertain another POV let alone be willing to compromise.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely bonkers. WHY do we have to have this discussion once a month? For Christ's sake. On my head be the consequences? What is that supposed to mean? Is that some kind of threat? Elaborate. You suggest we leave things as they are? With no policy at all? Most people agreed to use the flag of the host nation. Stop changing the articles. It might be time to take this to an admin, which will be a very short affair. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest leaving things as they are or else the endless circle of things that happen every time this is discussed will just occur again. Lets not have the discussion and leave the issue well alone. --Lucy-marie (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out the "most people" did not agree. There were at least three differing arguments being put forwards one to have the flag for the name of the race, another to have the flag of the host and another to remove the flags altogether. When this was brought to the admin noticeboard comments from disinterested parties stated that it was "madness" and "misleading" to proceed with the flags of the host nation idea. It was also pointed out that the articles were changed to reflect the host nation idea while discussions were still ongoing regarding the issue. There was no consensus reached on any of the arguments. The only thing that was agreed was to abolish the use of the flag of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community for the Pacific Grand Prix. I was not a lone voice opposing the "misleading" option that was implemented before the discussions had concluded.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember a discussion on the admin board - please post a link. I would point out that you were heavily involved in changing the flags while the discussion was ongoing. To suggest that we carry on in some kind of limbo, with no policy whatsoever is ludicrous. As far as I can see, we have a cycle of discussion, which always goes the same way, then it all dies down, then you bring it up again, like you did here. The issue cannot be left alone, that is not an option. If the flag of the Pacific Community was agreed to be unsuitable, then it directly follows that, for the same reason, the flag of the EU is similarly unsuitable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

THe Pacfic Community does not have a flag the Secretariat does and the flag did not come into existence until after the only runnings of the Pacific Grand Prix the European Flag was in existence before the European Grand Prix title was used exclusively for European Grand Prix races. Also 18 out of 27 European union member countries have pledged allegiance to the European Union flag as a representative flag for the whole continent of Europe. I would also like to point out that I did not initiate this discussion. The discussions being undertaken are not a clear cut either use the Europe fal or the host Flag there is also a third suggestions for discussion,; the complete removal of the use of flags entirely. The third option appeared to have generated a lot of discussion implying that there is no consensus on how to proceed with this issue and there appears that there never will be.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument against those points that you have just raised has been aired several times by several different editors. While the European Union flag does represent the continent of Europe for two-thirds of the EU members, it does not for the other third, and I have yet to see any coherent argument as to why it should represent the European Grand Prix, with which the EU as a political, non-sporting organisation, has no connection whatsoever. This discussion was initiated by you as a response to my reply to Officially Mr X. As I have said before, I am happy to see either the host flag used, or the host flag used in conjunction with the circuit as opposed to the race, or the removal of flags altogether. Not quite the inflexibility you accuse some of displaying, is it? To conclude that "there never will be a consensus" is a cop-out, one which will result in chaos, with everyone applying their "personal preference". If this is to continue to be a bone of contention for you, and I can't quite understand why, given your minimal input to motorsport articles in general, then further discussion is clearly necessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And where's the link to this admin board discussion? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Teams'/constructors' order on the entry list

The 3 new teams on the 2010 entry list, I believe, are in the wrong order. When the FIA published its first 2010 list, it showed:

• Ferrari
• Toro Rosso
• Red Bull
• Williams
• Force India
• Campos
• Manor
• US F1
• and then the other 5 teams

So, shouldn't the list on this page have the 3 new teams in this order, even though Team US F1 was announced way before the other 2 entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.220.75 (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The teams are included in the table based on the numbers they will be assigned. It's anyone's guess as to who will be designated the numbers 22 through to 27 right now, and the FIA only included the new teams alphabetically. So it's fine for now.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the numbering for the three new teams will probably be done by lottery or something before the start of the season, so no need to worry about it till then really. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Going to be interresting to see who gets 22 and 23. For the second year running, the driver carrying the number 22 has been pretty dominant. Less so in the case of Hamilton, but you see what I mean. But I digress; I have no real point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Glock

This article says that Toyota have an option on Timo Glock for 2010. Presumably then he isn't under contract yet with them for next year and he should be removed from the table. - mspete93 [talk] 11:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact this article confirms that. I'm removing him. - mspete93 [talk] 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-Direct??

Why does the 2010 British Grand Prix redirect to the 2010 Formula One season??? --Troggy3112 ^(talk) 22:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it is far far to early to create an article for the 2010 British Grand Prix. When we get closer to the event, like actually in 2010, would be a good time to think about creating the article. --Falcadore (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sauber

I am not convinced that Sauber should be included in the "Teams and Drivers" table – although they have been granted a "14th" place on the grid, it is only if another team pulls out, at the moment. If it changes, fine, but I don't think they're one of the teams in that table at the moment. Maybe we should put the note currently attached to the team at the bottom of the table somewhere? Darth Newdar ^talk 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I took Sauber off the list because as things stand, they don't have an entry. If that changes, then they can go on the list. The note explains everything for now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction, but I wanted it confirmed by another user, so thanks. Darth Newdar ^talk 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Campos/Manor again

We have some arguement amongst various sources once again.

• Autosport article taken from FIA press release has "Campos Grand Prix" and "Manor F1 Team".
• FIA press release of 2010 teams says "Campos Grand Prix" and "Manor Grand Prix"
• FIA press release of new teams says "Campos Meta" and "Manor F1 Team".

All are from the exact same day. There are no times listed so simply assuming one's correct because it's higher on the press release page is not proof enough. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Right now it looks impossible to call, thanks to the conflicting reports. There'll be a new list out shortly, I guess. We can take the names from there. "Campos Meta" seems unlikely to me as a team name, since it doesn't really mean anything - it doesn't even clarify that it's a racing team. If it's not "Campos Grand Prix", it'll surely be something like "Campos Meta F1 Team". Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Meta is one of their partners. Sorry I wasn't here to correct the article when you messed with it the first time but it's been like this for weeks/months/whenever that was posted, with source. Eightball (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been Campos Grand Prix for several weeks now. Status quo at the moment is for Campos Grand Prix, not that status quo has anything to do with what is correct here. The article has not been messed with, it has been sourced with material from Autosport and the FIA.

You've yet to prove to anyone that you are correct however, as evidenced by the conflicting sources from the FIA. We're well aware that Meta is a partner, but they are listed by the FIA as among the owning company, not necessarily part of the team name. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You could try reading the source that I cited, that'd be fun. Eightball (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Bretonbanquet: Vodafone McLaren Mercedes. Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro. AT&T Williams. Eightball (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this is PPS: YOU changed the named to Campos Grand Prix ten days ago. Sorry I'm not always here to correct your errors. It was Campos Meta before that. Eightball (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You posted one source, we've posted two. Your attitude that your source is somehow better than the others is not helpful. And this attitude that you will continue to revert simply because you believe you are right will not be tolerated in the slightest.

Yes, I reverted another editor ten days ago who changed it once again to Campos Meta, even though multiple sources said he was wrong. This still does nothing to say which is correct now though. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have multiple sources saying I'm wrong. You have one source that was written prior to mine (though on the same day), and another "source" from a third-party publication that combines material from both sources and is objectively incorrect (unless, by some miracle of copy-paste, they've gotten it right). Eightball (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All of which is an assumption. There's no time listed on the FIA reports, there's no indication that Autosport has modified the press release, especially when it says right at the start that it is from a press release from the FIA. All three sources are on equal ground. F1.com even has copies of both FIA press releases so it also conflicts itself regarding the team names. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is an indication that Autosport modified the press release...because it's not the same as the FIA's press release. Or perhaps the FIA modified theirs after the Autosport article was printed. Regardless, the Autosport article is incorrect. Eightball (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Because you say so? Try again. This seems to be the crux of your attitude and is not helping this discussion. You can't just decide on a whim which sources are edited or which sources are correct. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not "because I say so," because the original FIA source clearly takes precedent over a third party publication. And jesus, YOU are the person that decided 10 days ago that one source arbitrarily mattered more than another and changed the way the article had been for over a month. QUIT TRYING TO TAKE FAKE MORAL HIGH GROUND. Eightball (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The FIA uses both names, so it clearly cannot be viewed as taking precedent over another reliable source which claims it is quoting said precedent source. I decided based on the first source I found, simply because I did not believe there would be disagreement among sources, although obviously I was wrong. It was not at all a case of which mattered more. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, if everyone reeled in their tempers and say, waited for a day. Or two. The situation may clarify itself. In th emean time is there a pressing need to assert one of each other? Is it really so important that waiting cannot be tolerated? --Falcadore (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no temper, I just don't understand the apparent "I'm right because I say I'm right" attitude. There is no pressing concern other than Sept. 18th, because I do not want to see the edit war start right up again without some consensus. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting because again, you are the person that changed the article without consensus because you preferred once source over another. Eightball (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The article said "Campos Meta" but linked to "Campos Grand Prix". An editor changed the links because he renamed the Campos Grand Prix article. I went and found a source to settle what appeared to still be a conflicting name since we had the 2010 F1 season saying Campos Meta but our separate article saying Campos Grand Prix. There was no source attached to the name at the time, I added one, so drop the "preference" bullshit. I found the first reliable source I could find. Looking at the last discussion regarding Campos, there appears to be no consensus at all, the debate simply tapered off after you changed the article with your "I'm right because I say I'm right" attitude. The added warning is no different than multiple other warnings on the 2010 page about subjects that are altered a lot by anonymous editors.

None of this has any bearing on the problem now of three conflicting but reliable sources. Going back to what the article said 11 days ago is not a reasonable resolution to a dispute, nor is accusing me of somehow "messing" with your edits. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My original edit had nothing to do with me being right. I found a newer source and updated the article as such. That is how this works. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE. Eightball (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And then you had other sources pointed out to you, something which no one bothered to do with my edit ten days ago. Yet you've continued to revert the article to your source and ignore the other two based not on whether or not they are "newer" but because you believed it was correct. Your edit summaries clearly show this. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done. Consensus will not be reached unless you back down. That's it. Eightball (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean consensus will not be reached unless we agree with you? You do realise the inherent ridiculousness of such a statement? --Falcadore (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Back down from what, exactly? Pointing out that there are conflicting reliable sources and we need to reach consensus? I'm hardly alone in feeling that this is something which needs to be done. If you want me to magically pretend that there are no conflicting sources, then I'm sorry no, that will not be happening. Discussion regarding multiple sources for the new Lotus F1 team was able to be hammered out fairly quickly, I see no reason why this subject matter cannot. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A new suggestion. Both team will have a F1 themed name at some future point yes? However, both team presently exist racing in lower or ladder categories yes? So, I'm going to take a deep breath here, I am going to suggest naming the articles according to the current names of the teams concerned. Then, once the Formula One season begins, or at another date in between now and then the team can be moved to its new name. I say this because all the other Formula One teams that have pasts in other formulae do not have separate articles for their history prior to Formula One, so why are we beginining this behavior now? I propose a merger of Manor Grand Prix into Manor Motorsport, until such time as Formula 1 actually becomes an operational racing team, at which point the article can be renamed. --Falcadore (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible, although I think these modern teams are a bit different from when older teams would simply move up a category. The ownership entities have become completely different, so it's no longer an existing team moving up a category but rather an existing team owner being involved in the creation of a new team. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as different as you might think. Williams Touring Car Engineering was essentially a completely different business. The difference between Brabham's F2 and F1 teams were, I think, different along the same lines with the F1 cars being run out of the separate entity Motor Racing Developments. The Stewart Formula 3000 team was I think a completely different entity to the Stewart Grand Prix team, nesseccitated by the involvement of Ford with SGP. That having been said though there are separate articles for Haas Lola and the Haas Indycar team so it could go either way I suppose. Certainly a merger is worth the debate I feel. --Falcadore (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While that seems possible, I'm not sure it solves our problem with what names to list on this article. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Pages/wmsc_240609.aspx This article is dated 24th June, 12 days later than any of the above sources in dispute. Would it help to settle this dispute, until a time when something newer is released? - oahiyeel ^talk 08:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks just like what we needed. I'll wait and see Eightball's opinion before I request that the page protection be removed so we can update the team names. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We can leave them as they are for now. Don't forget to take into consideration that Manor could become Virgin or some other name, and so the names are not final yet. Meta in Campos seems to be more than just a sponsor if you look at their website. It appears to be more of a collaboration between Campos Racing and Meta Image. For now though we can wait until another list is published, which could come soon depending on the Renault situation. - mspete93 [talk] 15:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact we should go with, for the entry list on this page, the names as given in the most recent list - Campos Meta Team and Manor Grand Prix. The Campos article name should remain as Campos Grand Prix until we know for sure whether Meta are just another sponsor like Vodafone, Marlboro or Panasonic, or whether there is more to it than that. - mspete93 [talk] 15:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a newer source so it's quite obviously right. Go ahead with Campos Meta Team and Manor Grand Prix. Also, while we're on the subject, rumors are starting to spill out about Manor being renamed Virgin F1. So be on the lookout for eager beavers jumping the gun on that one. Eightball (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rumour mill addition

With the season getting to a close, is it A) Sensible or B) Practical to add a small Rumours section until all 26/28 grid seats are filled?

No. Confirmation or not at all. If we start a rumoured section, there is NO way it will stay small. --Falcadore (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I second that emotion. Wikipedia deals in fact, not speculation, and rumours go against that. Now that the Renault hearing is over, I expect we'll get some movement on the driver market anyway. Alonso has been cleared of wrong-doing and Renault have not been banned, so not he's free to show his hand. And once he does that, there will be a trickle-down effect. Over the coming weeks, we'll start getting more and more information, meaning that a rumours section would quickly be deleted. But like Falcadore said, it will ust grow ot of control. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Talking of Alonso, currently unreferenced in the table. Is there a ref for him being at Renault next year or should he be removed? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I found a deleted ref for Alonso having a contract with Renault until the end of 2010 and reinstated it. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Then there is WP:CBALL to consider. --Falcadore (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean with Alonso? - mspete93 [talk] 20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean with ANY rumour. --Falcadore (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I thought you might be talking about Alonso on the driver table being with Renault even though he hasn't really been confirmed, even though he is contracted (the two appear to be different). I thought you were going to say something silly like we shouldn't add drivers to the table until they race at the first race of 2010. - mspete93 [talk] 15:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thirding the "rumors section will spiral out of control" idea. There are at least a couple rumors that actually have decent sources backing them and thus would be worthy of inclusion on the page, but not at the cost of six paragraphs of "will Kimi Raikkonen go to WRC?" Eightball (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Belgian GP doubt

Various sources have Spa as having a suspension imposed upon them and that the race is under threat. Can this be included at the bottom of the provisional schedule? db1987db (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you give us one of these sources? - mspete93 [talk] 16:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've seen the story now, and the circuit is open for now so I don't think it needs a mention. - mspete93 [talk] 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Luca Badoer

Is Luca Badoer no longer going to be a testdriver for 2010 for Ferrari? This article only lists Fisichella. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, he hasn't been confirmed yet. My understanding is that he will be, that he is keen to do it, but until Ferrari confirm him he won't be added to the article. Apterygial 06:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Qadbak Investments Ltd is a British Virgin Islands company

Please note that Qadbak Investments Ltd is definitively NOT a Swiss company as stated her by mistake. Qadbak Investments Ltd has been officially confirmed by British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission to be a British Virgin Islands registered company. Swiss newspaper Sonntags Zeitung published on 27th September 2009 a copy of an extract of the company register of British Virgin Islands and an enclosed statement made by British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission, Registry of Corporate Affairs, confirming that "Qadbak Investments Ltd." is a British Virgin Islands registered company incorporated on 10th of June 2008 with company number 1486102. (Here a shorted online-version of Sonntags Zeitungs' article [9]. The complete article including copy of extract of British Virgin Islands company register and statement made by British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission is printed on page 57 of Sonntags Zeitungs' print-version)

In Switzerland a lot of questions arised when BMW made its first statement in which it called Qadbak a "Swiss fundation" as no such fundation or company exists in Switzerland and no such fundation or company is registered in Swiss commercial registers. For the commercial registers in Switzerland provided by Federal Office of Justice see www.zefix.ch. As Qadbak Investments Ltd is not registered in Switzerland it can't be by law a "Swiss company", so please stop reverting official facts confirmed by the commercial registers in Switzerland provided by Federal Office of Justice and British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission. According British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission published in Sonntags Zeitung last Sunday Qadbak Investments Ltd is a British Virgin Islands company, incorporated on 10th of June 2008 with company number 1486102. Is that so hard to understand? --84.226.54.236 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your very source (Sonnstag Zeitung) says that BMW has continuined to refer to the company as Swiss. Even the title of your source mentions the "Swiss Sauber investors". Not being registered in Switzerland does not change the fact that they seem to involve Swiss investors. Claiming that Qadbak is Swiss on Wikipedia is by no means attempting to claim that it is legally a Swiss company.

At best the entire nationality can be removed as there is no clear cut answer and it serves no useful purpose in the article. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd venture to suggest that it's not that important to this article. This outfit doesn't even have a grid slot yet. If they get the OK, it'll all become clearer then. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If the team makes it onto the 2010 grid, I'm pretty sure that it will be listed as a Swiss team. From the limited informtion available, it seems Qadbak is simply bankrolling the operation and Peter Sauber will be running the show, possibly under his own name and with the help of one Lionel Fischer, a Swiss-born representative of Qadbak (of all the informtion available, Fischer is ony mentioned twice - once that he is involved, secondly that Sauber doesn't know him - so there's very little to go on). It doesn't matter where the money is coming from if the team is based in and run by the Swiss. After all, Brawn was built on top of Honda, but they're not listed as being Japanese. And McLaren is the Mercedes works team, but they still comete for Britain. If team becomes known as Qadbak, then it will be listed as British Virgin Islands; if it's known as Sauber, I think it should be Swiss. At worst, it will be both. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the team will be competing for BVI even if they do compete under the Qadbak name. Surely, the F1 team will be a subsidiary of the main Qadbak company, registered wherever it might be suitable. Nobody is calling Notts County F.C. anything but an English football club, and likewise e.g Man Utd is an English, American owned, club. Also, the place of registration of the company that runs an F1 team does not determine its nationality, nor its name. It is up to the team, e.g. like how Williams Grand Prix Engineering Ltd uses the name WilliamsF1. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Football teams are sort of a terrible analogy but I agree that the team will probably still be called Sauber. Remember, BMW only owned 80% of the team, the rest was still held by Peter Sauber. As far as I can tell Qadbak only bought BMW's stake. Eightball (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, part of me still wants them to race under the name "QADBAK Sinister Foreign Investment Group" and then insist the "sinister" means "left-handed". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What name? They don't exist yet! This discussion is very premature. --Falcadore (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Qadbak does not exist at all, except as a faked p.o.-Box company on British Virgin Islands... According to Swiss media reports Oswald Grübel, CEO of UBS and board member of BMW-Sauber, confirmed that no board meeting concerning the definitive sale of BMW-Sauber has taken place and that BMW-Sauber has not been sold yet. According latest news even the so-called "investors" behind Qadbak do not exist. 2 of them died decades ago... another one resulted to be an ex primeminister of Pakistan who has never heard of such a company. According The Guardian Qadbak is part of tangled web of confused companies. The same Russell King run a Jersey-regsitered company called Belgravia a few years ago with which he faild to buy Newcastle United and the Jordan Formula 1 team. So it would be a suprise if in some days BMW will deny it's sale to Qadbak, a British Virgin Islands p.o.-box company. Have also a look at last sundays article in Swiss SonntagsZeitung. --84.226.225.15 (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediterranean Grand Prix

Article said: The Grand Prix which would be held at Silverstone will be named as "European Grand Prix" and the Valencia Grand Prix will be renamed as "Mediterranean Grand Prix". The cited article says absolutely nothing about the naming of GPs, so I removed this as pure speculation. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sponsorship changes

Since ING have already left RenaultF1, is that not then a 2009 sponsorship change rather than 2010? --Falcadore (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Information on the 2010 Drivers,Teams and Other Parts needs bettering

I strongly recommend that you look at the Spanish F1 2010 page,as they have drivers,teams and other information use full to better this page (the English version),where we still haven't got half the drivers confirmed,we are missing a possible entrant from the teams list and other things like team engines,chassis names,etc... .So i say to fix these problems and to better the page,we need to take a look at the Spanish F1 2010 page and do as it does so that every time i look at this page or the other i don't see any differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.227.143.69 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Many of the drivers in the Spanish page are not confirmed by the teams. Therefore, our page is much better because it is more factual. Wikipedia is often criticised for its factual inaccuracies. That is why drivers must be officially confirmed to get into our table. Same with engine suppliers. - mspete93 [talk] 17:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish page is a basket case. It's just full of stuff that isn't true. Paffett, Hulkenberg, Sutil, Liuzzi, Buemi and Alguersuari are not confirmed by any reliable sources, let alone the teams. Lopez and Guerrieri? The ref says Lopez is "one of the candidates" at USF1. How is that confirmation? Guerrieri is also just one of many possibles, and certainly one of the least experienced. Sauber-Qadbak doesn't even have a place on the grid yet, and quite probably won't get one. The "unconfirmed drivers" list is pure speculation, a lot of it is not even sourced. It also says Williams "will use" Renault engines next year. Unsourced. Raikkonen to Red Bull? Does he know? Some of that stuff is pure rubbish, and suggests that no-one moderates what goes on that page at all.

The majority of the stuff on the Spanish page fails Wikipedia guidelines in a big way, and makes the English page far, far superior. I suggest the Spanish editors take a long look at the guidelines, then copy the English page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought in my head - I just couldn't be bothered to write it out. - mspete93 [talk] 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on that page could only be called wishful thinking. Just lies. --Falcadore (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at all the other foreign language versions of this page, they all follow the same lines as the English one, with just a couple of dodgy driver "confirmations" here and there. It seems to be only the Spanish page that's gone completely haywire. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the Spanish page we're talking about. I have nothing against Spain, but they are notorious for whlly unreliable newspaper reporting. Does it strike you as coincidence that they've got the same sort of thing going with the Wikipedia page?Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/Pages/season_guide1.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Pages/wmsc_210909a.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091105020600/http://www.williamsf1.com/news/view/1182 to http://www.williamsf1.com/news/view/1182
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itv-f1.com:80/news_article.aspx?id=45995
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/Pages/season_guide1.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=45995
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214204808/http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Pages/wmsc_111209.aspx to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Pages/wmsc_111209.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626103652/http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_230610.aspx to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_230610.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0%2C18954%2C3213_5961019%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/Pages/season_guide1.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5mql20zSt?url=http://www.manipef1.com/news/2007/index.php?id=1940 to http://www.manipef1.com/news/2007/index.php?id=1940
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130182059/http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/opinion/385984/exclusive-stefan-grand-prix-owner-speaks-out-on-f1-selection-row.html to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/opinion/385984/exclusive-stefan-grand-prix-owner-speaks-out-on-f1-selection-row.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704212720/http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=43211 to http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=43211

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)