Talk:2011 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sponsorship changes

Is this actually important to each F1 season? I think not. Obviously, there are significant deals like the Lotus/Renault one which can be detailed in the teams changes section, but otherwise I do not feel they are important, and I'm sure there will be others who agree. If we ruled that testing was not significant within a season, then why are sponsorship changes, which are listed alongside team, driver and rule changes, as if to say sponsorship changes have equal importance to these other changes. - mspete93 13:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, especially when we have "Team X added tiny logo of Company Y on engine cover for one race", this just isn't significant for the season as a whole. Most of the sponsor deals can be easily covered on team pages. I was going to bring this up myself, but I haven't been around for a while. QueenCake (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

An aspect of WP:RECENTISM. Unless it is a major sponsorship deal it is not notable. Delete. --Falcadore (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at what is there at the moment, I think it's notable enough. Sauber ran without sponsorship in 2010, so any sponsors they secure in 2011 - like Telmex - are notable. Likewise, Williams are losing three or four major sponsors and are getting a new one for 2011 in the shape of PDVSA. The way I see it, there should be one bullet point for each team with the one major sponsor change listed there, assuming there is a sponsor change in the first place. It's when we start making lists of every sponsor to join the team that it becomes a problem. And with regards to "Team X added tiny logo of Company Y on engine cover for one race", I agree that should be avoided, unless it's something like Brawn GP and the way they ran regional sponsors for one race only. And even then, a line like "The team introduced a program or rotating sponsors throughout the season, signing major local brands - including Canon, Mapfre and Qtel - for one-race deals" would be all that is needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Telmex and PDVSA deals are important because they influenced the driver lineup - thus can be included in the driver changes section if necessary. Otherwise, sponsorship changes might be important to the teams, in which cae they can be included on the team page. They are (generally speaking) not important to the season, except in the scenarios we have already discussed. The Formula One season pages should, as far as I see it, be about what happens on the track, with the necessary background information into teams, drivers or significant events added. The gaining of a sponsor, unless it influences one of those previous factors, is not important background information to the season, even if it is to the team. - mspete93 15:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If it influences driver make-up, would the driver changes section be better? --Falcadore (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

...as I said. ;) - mspete93 23:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I took the initiative and deleted the section, and I'll probably look into the previous season's pages over the next few days. Feel free to revert me, but I believe the only really significant story (the Lotus-Renault mess) is ultimately already covered. QueenCake (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Force India Drivers

Ok, ESPNF1 news has stated that Paul Di Rista and Adrian Sutil have Force India's two seats, with Nico Hulkenburg as third driver. This is all according to Blick. Is Blick a reliable enough source to include? A copy of this news item can be found here. --Brody59 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Without a quote from Force India or any of the involved drivers, I don't think the reputation of the source matters. Not good enough IMO. --Falcadore (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The article title has a question mark, that is a big give away it's speculation. Generally, if a source is quoting another news source instead of the team, it's not reliable. QueenCake (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is covering itself and not portraying it as fact. This driver line-up is potentially mental enough to wait for team confirmation - Hulkenberg on the bench with a rookie as #2 seems odd to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

When you put it like that it sounds daft but its perfectly possible, thanks to loyalty and promises. Anyway, no, a Swiss newspaper is not reliable enough I'm afraid. - mspete93 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We'll know soon enough - it seems Force India will annouce their line-up in the next day or two, accordin to these reports. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I personally get a bit confused when it comes to reliability! --Brody59 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on reliability of the source. The content should trump source reputation. The most important thing is a direct link to the team, and a quote from drivers and/or team management is best. --Falcadore (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a good explanation for the delay in announcement Link. MonkeyMumford (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Of more interest to me (and assuming this report is true) is how we're going to handle the issue of Hulkenberg. It was touched on briefly above, but risks being overlooked with the weight of discussion. When Fisichella left Ferrari at the end of 2009 to become their test driver, we put him down as having exited Formula 1. We did this for two reasons: firstly, he was no longer driving full-time. The accepted definition of "entering" the sport seemed to be occupying a race seat. The second reason was because we didn't want to put him under the "changed teams" subheading, because that would open up a can of worms whereby every driver who entered a testing role would be edited into the "driver changes" subsection, and a lot of them - ie Jan Charouz - weren't really notable.

So, if this report from Blick is true, then I propose we do a repeat of Fisichella and move him to "Exited Formula One" because he will not be driving full-time in 2011, and make a note that he will be doing Friday practice runs. ALternatively, we could scrap the subheadings and bullet points altogether and revive the system used on the 2005 page and express every driver in terms of their 2010 drive, 2011 drive and 2011 role. For example:

Driver	2010 Series	2010 Team	2011 Series	2011 Team	Team Position
Jenson Button	Formula One	McLaren	Formula One	McLaren	Full-time driver
Paul di Resta	Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters	HWA Team	Formula One	Force India	Full-time driver
Nico Hulkenberg	Formula One	Williams	Formula One	Force India	Test and reserve driver
Lucas di Grassi	Formula One	Virgin	(wherever di Grassi goes)	{whatever team he joins)	(whatever role he fills)

I know tables aren't exactly popular after we cut a whole lot out of the 2010 page, but neither are lists. The table is a simple visual expression of driver changes that I think might be very effective. It tell you who they are, where they started and where they have gone. It may also express team changes. In fact, we could possibly adapt it for the 2010 page, which had an even sillier silly season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue can be solved very quickly and easily if we just remove the subheadings Entered Formula One and Exitted Formula One and treat all driver changes under one heading. It is unneccessary level of regimentation whose shortcomings are exposed by cases like this. Is it really neccessary to split entries and exits in such a fashion? Surely the more logical way to do it to achieve a more readable end result is to group entries and exits together where they tell a combined story. eg: Pastor Maldonado joined Williams causing Hulkenburg to be pushed aside into a strange testing tpe of role - reference 1, reference 2.

Surely clarity of story is more important than regimented subheadings?

And surely the writers here are not so incompetant that tables become preferable to sentences. If you (and I am not saying you specifically Prisonermonkeys) really feel the need to express everything with tables perhaps you need to become a better writer first.

Just on the point of relevancy, if a driver leaves Formula One entirely for another series, then the destination series is not really that relevant to this article, and can be adequately portrayed on the driver's personal article. --Falcadore (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying tales are preferrable to sentences. I'm just looking at the arrangement and I'm seeing tables used on some pages and I'm seeing lists on others. I know that neither of them are particularly popular, and there has been a policy of list-minimisation of late, but the driver changes section is not something that can easily be put into prose because it will tend to run together. "Pastor Maldonado joined Williams, which sent Nico Hulkenberg looking for another drive. He found one at Force India, taking the testing and reserve role when the team promoted Paul di Resta to a race seat, replacing Vitantonio Liuzzi. Liuzzi then moved to Hispania Racing, who, having already signed Christian Klien for the season, let Burno Senna out of his contract" does not read very well. So I'm just wondering: if it comes down to it and we have to make a choice between lists and tables, what is better? Right now I'm still going with lists, because putting the drivers into a table would mean we'd need a second table for mid-season changes:

Team	Original driver	Last race	Replacement driver	First race
Force India	Paul di Resta	Korean Grand Prix	Karun Chandhok	Indian Grand Prix
Force India	Karun Chandhok	Indian Grand Prix	Paul di Resta	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Of course, we could splice it into the bottom of the drive changes table, as is the case on the 2012 season page with the way races have been divided into contracted and non-contracted, but it just seems like a lot of work. The point is that maybe a visual medium might be better for keeping track of everything to cut down on lists. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to squeeze everything into one sentence.

Pastor Maldonado joined Williams, which sent Nico Hulkenberg looking for another drive. He found one at Force India, taking the testing and reserve role.

Force India team promoted Paul di Resta to a race seat, replacing Vitantonio Liuzzi. Liuzzi then moved to Hispania Racing.

Hispania Racing signed Christian Klien for the season to join Liuzzi, thereby sacking Bruno Senna.

That doesn't read too bad. Generally speaking, any sentence that can be split into smaller sentences should be. --Falcadore (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially arranging it in list form, but in such a way that it examines the cause and effect of each driver move, rather than putting them alphabeitcally by driver name. I think alphabetical is the right way to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC) (Oops, forgot to sign)

In light of recent edits with regard to Nico Hulkenberg (by User:Colinmotox11 yes?), I ask, isn't examining cuase and effect actually a very good thing, and would provide easier explanation of the Hulkenberg situation and prevent this sort of editting? If we remove the Enterring/Exitting nomenclature it allows for better and more accurate storytelling. --Falcadore (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Williams

Is it worth mentioning that this will be the first time that Williams haven't had a German driving for them in a season since the 1996 season, due to the departure of Nico Hulkenberg? MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable enough to be mentionned. At least not on a season page. Maimai009 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't overly important, however certainly an interseting piece of trivia which could be given passing note somewhere. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What I find even more interesting is the way it's the first time they've started a season without a Eiropean driver since 1982. But again, it's fun trivia more than anything notable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Virgin and Hispania launches

I've added the Virgin and Hispania launches to the table. I'm bringing it up here, because it is a little bit of an assumption, and I want to discuss my rationale behind them. The article I referenced says that the cars will be launched at the Jerez test. Not before, but at. Now, I know the test itself goes for three days, but you cannot just show up on the second or third day of the test and be allowed to run. If you intend to take part in the tests, you have to be there on the first day. Even if the first day is just given over to the car launch - you must be present on every day of the test, or else you cannot take part. So I think that's enough to keep the dates in place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed where such a rule exists, that you have to be present on all days of a test? The³5₉ (Talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The speculation is that HRT could use its 2010 car in 2011. Why on earth would they re-launch their 2010 car? Having now read the article you referenced, I see no mention of HRT anyway, so where'd you get that one from? - mspete93 22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Crap, I misread the article. I've removed Hispaia. But I've kept Virgin in - because I do know that you cannot show up at a test and do one or two days. If you want to take part, you have to be present for all three. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I find this questionable, I've never heard of any such requirement. This is bordering on synthesis of material to assume a date, even if it makes sense to you. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

First time I've heard of that rule - I've regularly seen teams leave a test early or arrive a day or two after it has started. Smaller teams can often only afford to do one day out of three or four. Any confirmation of this rule anywhere? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Likewise I have never heard of such a rule. There is nothing stated under Section 22 (Track and wind tunnel testing) of the 2011 Sporting Regulations implying that you have to be present on all days of a test. Schumi555 14:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Toro Rosso drivers

Although the references given do confirm Buemi and Alguersuari at Toro Rosso, they are outdated references. They were released on July 15th, and in the time since then, the FIA has published an entry list that does not include either driver on it. As this entry list comes from the sport's governing body and is therefore as official and accurate as can be, any edits to the table that include Buemi and Alguersuari will be reverted unless the reference given was published after the FIA entry list was released. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that there is a note added at the bottom of the drivers list to say that although they are not on the FIA entry list the team have officially confirmed them to be driving with a team statement - http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=395906&FS=F1 - i have suggested this on my own chat page and other users are happy with it so I think it would be ok if i went ahead and added this note. Thoughts?? Colinmotox11 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's not necessary. I don't understand your rush to have them added, because every reference you add is superseded by the FIA entry list. As far as the FIA is concerned, Toro Rosso have no drivers as yet. You added that note yesterday, and it was quickly removed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Buemi and Alguersuari now appear in the "Teams & Drivers" section on formula1.com. Despite the fact that there isn't any announcement yet, what retain us to add them to the grid now ? Maimai009 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say put them in.--Brody59 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.153.162.155, 26 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Giancarlo Fisichella has signed to Hispania Racing fir the 2011 season at www.hispania.sa

109.153.162.155 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC) - The site doesn't exist and it's a fairly "out there" rumour at best. Duds 2k (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As above--that site doesn't work; I looked on their official site, and there's no mention of Giancarlo, nor on the news. Unless/until there is a reliable source, the info cannot be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

HRT & Force India Launches

Do we really know the actual dates of the HRT and Force India launches, as Autosport (see bottom left corner) and the official F1 website doesn't seem to. If the dates we have are going of the teams saying "we will have the car ready for the ..... test", and not a proper date, shouldn't we remove them?--Brody59 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that both linked articles contain a date, it seems to be properly sourced to me. Are you challenging those sources as unreliable? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Are launches of sufficient notability for inclusion in the first place? In the context of the season as a whole, are car launches actually important? --Falcadore (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I am challenging the reliability of the sources as two of the most reliable sources don't agree with them. I think they are worth including in its current state.--Brody59 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am challenging the reliability of the sources. They give a generalization of when they will release their cars, which isn't exact dates, as I said above. I will be removing these dates.--Brody59 (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Marussia Virgin: Russian team?

User:Cybervoron has edited articles with the idea that the Virgin team intend to race under the Russian flag, eg here. I would ask whether the sources this editor quotes in Russian (Cyrillic, even) are valid if the majority of editors here cannot verify them? Is it not reasonable for most of us to say, well, how do we know the source says that? Britmax (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To change the country requires a reliable source still based in Britian and run from Britian and predomianantly owned by the British. The russian company are meerly a sponsor.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The source also needs to be accesable to people who do not speak russian (i assume thats the language) to ensure its verifiable util then it is not a verifiable source.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here, are we supposed to take language courses? A source in the language not that of the Wikipedia we are working in could as far as the majority of us are concerned say anything. How does that work? Britmax (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is completely false. There is no requirement for the source to be in English, nor is there even a requirement for everyone else to be able to "verify it". Wikipedia even allows dead links to remain as reliable sources. Assuming that the source added, by an established editor by the way, is somehow false or incorrect, is an assumption of bad faith. The source was legitimate as is, a rough translation by Google confirmed as much and took me 30 seconds.

As for requiring the source to be based in Britain or owned by something British, that's utter and complete nonsense. Please don't make rules up. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The359 is right - sources can be in any language, even though I personally think a source which nobody can read is about as good as no source at all. However, it's now there in English, and it does say that the licence change isn't confirmed yet, so why is it added as fact to several articles? This kind of premature editing is plain amateurish and undesirable. None of the regular reliable sources are carrying any licence change story, and the flags should be reverted until an official announcement is made. Obviously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the source needed based in Britian. I was simply stating the team would still be based in Britian etc. Also while the source may be reliable it also neds to be verifiable. I was unable to verify what the source said as it was in a language i have no knowledge of. The sources need to be in a language verifable to all users of the English wikiepdia and that is English or for all I know it could say absolutley anything and nothing of what it is being claimed to say, if this was the Russian Wikipedia then I would expect all sources to be in Russian, so they can be verified by the russian users of that Wikipeida.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because you personally cannot verify it does not mean it is unverifiable. As stated, a 30 second Google translation verified it. And again, Wikipedia allows for the use of books and subscription-only sites and even links to websites that no longer exist to be used or remain as reliable sources. There is absolutely no requirement that every user must be able to verify the source.

There is absolutely no requirement that everyone has to be able to read it, nor is there a requirement for it to be in English. Again, please do not propagate guidelines that simply do not exist. There is no English-only requirement at all. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It has to be said, this is not the first time that you have done something like this, Lucy-Marie. I know you have your own personal standards of what is considered a relaible source or an acceptable edit, but we still play by Wikiepdia's rules here. Not yours. You cannot simply revert edits because you feel they do not meet your exacting standards. The source on the Russian licence came from an established media outlet and satisfied all of the criteria for a reference on Wikipedia. That's good enough for it to be included. If you're concerned about the meaning behind it being lost in translation, I know enough Russian to say that the general meaning is the same in the Russian text as it is in English (though I don't know quite a few words).

Also, racing licences are issued by the national sporting federation of the issuing country. A team can apply to any country it sees fit. I could run under a racing licence from Angola or Uruguay if I wanted to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To assert that all references in English Wikipedia must be in English so the general reader can understand it is purely fallacious. Where is the guideline/policy supporting this? And if it is the case, why do citation templates, e.g. {{Cite web}} have lang= (language) parameters?? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Because she's in the habit of treating these pages as her property. She has a history of reverting edits because she disagrees with the content of them. I remember she once removed the USGP in Austin from the 2012 page because she did not think it was likely that the race would go ahead, despite multiple sources quoting all relevant parties directly. I seem to recall er using the USF1 fiasco as proof it would not happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-season testing

I have seen it discussed further up this page, but any reason why the testing schedule isn't included in the article? If it's displayed the same way as the Car Release Schedule, then the balance should be fine (if you get what I mean?) Any ideas? Ciao db1987db (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it's winter testing. It ultimately doesn't mean anything. At most, we'll include a sentence stating who was the fastest overall after the four tests as we did in 2010, but it's simply not notable enough for a detailed analysis. The only reason we mentioned the Abu Dhabi tests at the end of last year was because it was the first time the Pirelli tyres were used, making them somewhat more notable than usual.

Also, the over-use of tables is a controversial issue. It's better to use prose than tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie doke, that's made it clearer for me. Cheers. db1987db (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ricciardo on Friday Practice

Nico Hulkenburg has a note on his driver's changes section saying he will drive the new Force India car at every friday practice this year, but Daniel Ricciardo doesn't (although he has the same arrangement with Toro Rosso). Where would be the best place to put a note on him?--Brody59 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ricciardo has not entered the sport. When we were writing up the 2010 page and all the driver moves that took place, we wanted to keep it simple. So we decided that in order to be in Formula One, a driver had to race. Otherwise, we would have had to have listed all of the driver moves into testing and reserve positions, when really all the reserve drivers do is drive in straight lines. Would someone like Jan Charouz joining Renault really be as notable as a driver like Hulkenberg entering the sport full-time? Of course not. Likewise, it was decided that any driver who moved to a testing and reserve role - most notably Giancarlo Fisichella - and away from racing full-time would be considered to have left the sport. Ricciardo hasn't entered the sport full-time, so there's no really anywhere to include him (although I did have a footnote on the driver table explaining that he would take part in all Friday morning practice sessions, but it was removed as it was not considered notable enough). Ricciardo might have the same arrangement as Hulkenberg, but I don't think it's notable enough. The only time I could feasibly make a case for inclusing it is if he gets a mid-season drive; then we can include a line like "Ricciardo previously served as Toro Rosso's testing and reserve driver, taking part in all Friday morning practice sessions in a similar arrangement to Nico Hulkenberg". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Or more simply, Hulkenberg is a Formula One driver and Ricciardo isn't. --Falcadore (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I thought I should at least show how I arrived at the conclusion and how it's consistent with previous season pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the note should be put back, just to keep the page consistent. I understand what you're saying about him not entering F1, but I think if he has the same deal as Hulkenburg, then it should be noted somewhere.--Brody59 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But he's not in Formula One. Including the note does not make the page consistent. It makes it inconsistent with the way we categorise drivers. If we include a note on Ricciardo, then we need to include notes on every testing and reserve driver to join a team - even if they do not race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It is actually consistent. Special conditions or not Ricciardo is not going to start any races. Until he gets a race seat Ricciardo does not deserve a mention. --Falcadore (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Should Daniel Ricciardo have a blue practice only sign in the first series of races in the standings chart now that he appears on it? MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because it was never intended that he would actually start. --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Kubica's accident

I've just removed a section from the article stating that "Bruno Senna maybe indeed called up to the team [Renault] as Robert Kubica was injured in a rally accident in Italy in early Feburary 2011". This is speculative - Kubica's condition is currently unknown, with various reports claiming that he has a fractured arm through to a broken arm and leg. Until such time as a) Kubica's condition is known and b) Renault have officially made comment on what will happen, all mention of the accident would best be avoided in the article. Depending on his injuries, there is a chance he could start the season. Or he could be on the sidelines for six months. We just don't know. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just given out on Sky News that it could be a year before he regains full use of his right hand. Surgeon said in a statement that he could have lost it as a result of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the current way that the article stands is perfect - he's still officially the driver but it's right to have a note below the driver table pointing out that there's a chance he won't be able to make the start of the season.109.155.109.253 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The accident definately deserves to be mentioned, but he should not (yet) be pulled from the drivers list. Even if he makes the start of the seasonthis will certainly have a huge impact on his pre-season preparation, at the very least of similar impact to Mark Webber's injuries of 2009. This is yet another example of the failings of the "Entered Formula One" and "Exitted Formula One" of the driver changes section because it does not (yet) fall into one of the regimented headings. Remove those headings and let the story dictate the content. --Falcadore (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, for now, Kubica is still the official driver. Somewhat related, I don't know if any of the news outlets have picked up on it yet, but for those watching F1 for a bit longer, there is similarities to Alessandro Nannini's F1-career-ending accident in 1990. Incidently, he was driving for Benetton Formula then, which is now Renault F1. Calistemon (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this sounds possibly pedantic, but can we change the key for Kubica in drivers table (RE his injury) to something else other than a cross? If you get what I'm thinking? db1987db (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that too - I'll change it to something else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Stated on Sky News that Kubica is out for at least 2 months. Therefore he will miss the start of the season. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the icon marking Kubica again. I only used the cross in the first place because I modelled it on the Williams entry for the car release schedule. The asterisk was simply too small, so I replaced it with the mark we used to use for KERS cars in 2009.

Also, I think what we have on Kubica in that footnote is enough for now. Until such time as Renault officially pass comment on what they will do, there is no need to add anything more to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Eric Boullier stated that Kubica will be replaced by either Senna, Liuzzi or Heidfeld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. We don't need to mention every article that is related to Kubica, because Wikipedia is not a news site. I don't really care if Eric Boullier was trying to get Alonso to drive the car; it doesn't improve the article. When Kubica is replaced, the table will be updated and the footnote will be moved to the driver headings subsection. The point of the footnote right now is that it mentions that Kubica is injured and that his injuries are extensive enough that he may be forced out for some time. It is not there to update readers on who might replace him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Dubfire if you want to make news related edits, you should do so at Wikinews. --Falcadore (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the edit notice to specifically state that no replacement driver for Kubica should be added unless the team names a replacement. Hopefully this will cut down on the addition of speculation. Suggest use of warnings (uw-unsourced / error / nor) may be appropriate for persistent (i.e. more than once) editors. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore, I didn't want to add any speculation to the page, I only mentioned the possible replacements here, in the discussion. This is what this page is for, I think. By the way, Boullier screwed with us, cos today he said that a lot of other people can be Kubica's replacement, even Raikkonen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That has no bearing on the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Driver headings

I have removed the restrictive headings that Falcadore refers to - it seemed a number of elements did not fall into any of the "entered/exited" sections, and there did not seem to be any solid explanation for their presence. It is also patently untrue to say that a driver leaving a race seat to take up a test seat has "left F1". He still works in F1 for an F1 team, driving F1 cars. Ross Brawn doesn't have a race seat - is he not in F1? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is it "patently untrue"? He's not driving anymore. He just sits on the sidelines in case he's needed. It's like a reserve quarterback sitting on the sidelines without taking to the field. Sure, he's technically in the game, but he doesn't actually play. And what the hell does Ross Brawn have to do with it? Those subheadings refer specifically to driver changes, and Ross Brawn is not a driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So a driver who doesn't drive on a Sunday is not in F1? Says who? I doubt you'd find a source for that. I'm not being awkward but it is very misleading to say that, for example, Hulkenberg has left F1 when he pops up every Friday in an F1 car. What does Ross Brawn have to do with it? He's not a driver, but he's still in F1. Hulkenberg is not a race driver, but he's still in F1. He sure as hell isn't anywhere else. Why should a driver be treated any different from any other team employee? This previous arrangement of drivers "exiting F1" when they become test drivers is arbitrary, with no basis in fact. Two drivers who have exited F1, Heidfeld and Liuzzi, were nowhere to be seen in the "exiting F1" section - the whole piece was jacked up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But those subheadings specifically referred to driver changes. Not team personnel changes. Of course Ross Brawn is still in F1, but since he is not and never was a driver, I'm having a hard time seeing what the hell he has to do with this. If there was a section for team personnel changes, maybe I could understand your logic. But we're talking about the driver changes subsection, so using Ross Brawn as an example of how that section should be set out makes no sense. And since it seems to be the key to your entire argument, I'm having a hard time accepting the changes you're arguing for. It's like taking a soccer team and using the team coach as an example of how player changes should be outlined in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite see why it's so hard to understand. People who work for F1 teams are "in F1", regardless of what role they play. They are employed by F1 teams to work in F1. This goes for race drivers, test drivers, team bosses, wheelmen, PR people, everyone. You seem to be arguing that test drivers are somehow outside F1 - why on earth would anyone say that Hulkenberg has left F1 when he's right there driving a Force India, albeit not on Sundays? F1 is not just Sunday afternoons, it is an entire business, and you're either in it or outside it. It's like saying that a football coach doesn't work in football. I know you're discussing the race drivers only, and this section is concerned with race drivers, but it's just garbage to say that test drivers aren't F1 drivers. Why is it such an issue to say that Hulkenberg and Senna have left F1 when it's very easy indeed (and more accurate) to say that they've just taken on test driver roles?Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit most of it is born out of the 2010 page. The sheer weight of driver changes meant that we had to draw a line somewhere, and we wanted to avoid a situation where people like Andy Soucek joining a team as a team as a test and reserve driver was given the same weight as someone like Hulkenberg joining a team as a racing driver. Soucek simply wasn't notable enough to warrant an entry, and the number of moves like that would have needlessly padded out the article. That's why I suggested listing all driver moves in table format a while ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Having just looked at the 2010 article, I see how it happened. That needs to be addressed really. I'm not keen on more tables as it doesn't allow reasons for the changes to be made clear, but maybe a team-by-team format would be acceptable to all, simply addressing the drivers in and drivers out. The teams that don't change any drivers can be ignored, and we could have simple text along the lines of:

Williams: Hulkenberg leaves to join Force India as a test driver, despite offers from Virgin and HRT. He was replaced by GP2 champion Maldonado after his young driver tests.

Sauber: GP2 runner-up Perez replaces stand-in Heidfeld.

Force India: 2010 tester Di Resta replaces Liuzzi who switches to (wherever).

Hispania: Senna leaves to join Lotus as a tester, Karthikeyan returns after a 6 year absence...

Virgin: 2010 tester D'Ambrosio replaces di Grassi who switches to (wherever).

With all the full names, proper sentences, appropriate wikilinks and references, I just think it would be easily readable and take up less space. There's no real need to blow it up into a long section, especially since these articles are so long anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the format we have now works just fine. It might be in bullet points, but each bullet point is in prose. It lists the driver, details the move into the team, and includes sigificant information about them (ie Hulkenberg getting a Friday test role, di Resta being the reigning DTM champion, d'Ambrosio having been Virgin's test driver in 2010, etc.). This is having less and less to do with Kubica by the minute. I'm going to make it its own subsection. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the splitting of this talk section. If you're happy with the driver changes section as it is now, then it works for me. I was just suggesting another way. Basically I just didn't like it the way it was. The section in the 2010 article (and prior) can be adjusted in the same way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the 2010 page needs changing. There were simply so many driver changes that subsections are necessary to make sense of it all. If there are any mid-season changes - like Kubica being able to come back after a few races - than I think we could use a subsection here, too. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there could be a separate discussion on that another time if people think a change there should be made. I agree on a subsection for mid-season driver changes, they need to be separate from close-season changes. Senna (or whoever drives for Renault) will need to be put into the main driver changes section when that is announced, and if Kubica comes back after a few races then that can go into the mid-season changes subsection, along with any others. There are almost always one or two at least. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If the section was written chronologically (I can't see how alphabetically is the only 'proper' method) then the mid-season changes will make perfect sense as they will take place further down. I've maintained all along, and PM you did partly-agree to this in previous talk discussion, that the regimentation got in the way of natural story telling.

I really don't see why people need an alphabetical list of the changes, it's is not so difficult or long to read that readers can't allow their eyes to wander further down the page to find what they are looking for. I don't believe readers to be so short of patience not to read on further. --Falcadore (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The headings should be put back in order to be consistent with seasons past. It looks too bulky and cluttered without them! --Brody59 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Or it should be deleted from seasons past. We never used to have them, should never have been started. --Falcadore (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, they were necessary to establish a baseline given the number of driver moves in 2010, so as to prevent people from adding driver moves (like Soucek to Virgin, Charouz to Renault) that were not notable enough to be included. We had big problems with everyone adding drivers in based on the faintest of rumours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It amazes me that some people don't mind if information is misleading or wrong, as long as it's not bulky or cluttered. I'd like an explanation of how it's now "cluttered" anyway. Consistency with other articles is not a reason to keep to a bad system. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mispelling

...all circuits wil have special...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.89.202 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Schumi555 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Car release schedule

As of now no one has started a proper discussion about it so here I go. I don't think that a car release schedule is notable enough to be included in a season page. Here are my reasons:

• Firstly, when and where a new car has been shown for the first time has no impact on the season itself. By the way, these presentations are mainly set up for the media, hence not related to the sport.
• Secondly, I just can't believe that there is no mention of the testing schedule while there is a car release schedule. The notability of a testing schedule has already been discussed and that's not the point here. But I think testing is far more important than car releases. Testing is highly important for car developpement and has a significant impact on season developpement (at least at the beginning). I can understand that testing schedule should not been included, but in that case car release schedule should not either.
• Finally, informations in the Car release schedule table are also available in the car pages separately which in my opinion is the only place where they belong.

Thank you to give your opinion. Maimai009 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, delete. Trivia compared to the topic. --Falcadore (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Car release schedules are only relevant to the individual articles on the cars themselves. They have no bearing on the season itself, and should be removed from the already lengthy season articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully agreed with all your points. I'd also like to add it has only been in the last couple of seasons and the major rule changes that every team has launched a new car, these tables would have no relevance on many past articles. Also, a car launch is generally just to show of the new livery and any major changes, all cars launch with old spec wings and, as we've seen, fake parts. It;s not needed here. QueenCake (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I completely disagree with this decision. How many things have been removed from F1 articles recently? Stats, testing details, car releases all gone - and for what reason? It is my best understanding that Wikipedia articles are supposed to give comprehensive coverage of a particular subject matter - not much of that going on here when so many of the most reported events such as testing and car launches have been removed from the page. There is nowhere else people can go to get such a formulated, easy-to-process summary of motorsport seasons, so we are letting down our responsibility to present all available information to those who want it and to cover everything, because it is ultimately not up to a few individuals to decide what material is "important enough" because such opinions vary from person to person and not including stuff makes no sense, especially when there is such a large proportion of time taken by other websites (such as F1 Official and Autosport) who blatantly consider it relevant enough. Judging that those publications consider it relevant enough, how then can you justify removing it here because it is "not relevant"? You can be no more or less right than them or people such as me who are adamant that all facts should be included as a matter of principle. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to give comprehensive coverage. We are to give a balanced summary of the season, and these events are, in the long run of the season, minor. It has never been our responsibility to provide every trivial piece of information to the masses, not even remotely.

Would you go back to, for example, the 1986 Formula One season, and consider the schedule for when teams launched their cars to be a major event on the season as a whole? You must not confuse recentism with important. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I do feel that people lose sight of the fuller picture when facts and information are cherry-picked to go on an article. Readers who are unfamiliar with F1 may not even realise that official car releases and test events go on. For a lot of people, Wikipedia is their first port-of-call for information like this and so it is misleading to only give facts on certain portions of the F1 season, rather than presenting the full picture. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is my best understanding that Wikipedia articles are supposed to give comprehensive coverage of a particular subject matter - really? This is your belief? OK, let us have a look at one of you favourite subjects, Superleague Formula. Have a look at 2010 Superleague Formula season. Nice lead. Comprehensive coverage of driver changes and mid-season changea all very neatly bullet-pointed. Detailed coverage of calendar. Big comprehensive points table. But what about the most important aspect of a motor racing season, description of the how the season occurred - absolutely ZERO coverage. Nothing. Nothing at all. When you say fuller picture it does open you up to ridicule, because you yourself have consistently shown you do not actually believe in a fuller picture.

You claim to want comprehensive coverage when you are very very seriously deficient in your definition of what comprehensive actually is. This hole in your editting abilities blinds you and your opinions and it effects how others treat your opinions when you offer it. If you improve your own editting abilities, it improves your standing amongst your fellow edittors.

You could treat what I've said as an insult, as something to be ignored because of your continuing distaste of my opinions, or an opinion to be refuted, or replied with your own character assessment of me and call me destructive again, or you could take it onboard and try to improve. It's up to you. --Falcadore (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly do those unfamiliar with F1 need to know that there are launch parties? We are not an F1 Encyclopedia, we are not here to provide the complete picture of all available facts. We are here to provide a balancwd picture of the important information for common readers. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We do present the whole picture of a season here. The question is how much detail is suitable for Wikipedia. Car launches are trivial (do we also want dates of driver announcements, engine deals?) and there is basic information about testing (or will be once someone writes it for this page) so readers will know about the official tests. Remember that previous articles in the days of free testing, the more recent complete ones anyway, do not give any information on private tests, so the editors were cherry-picking information to begin with. Out of interest, what more would you even write for testing, times, no. of laps? We all know they are meaningless, so it will even be somewhat misleading to include that level of detail. As for Stats tables you mentioned above, they were simply a duplication of existing information. QueenCake (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain

'The Bahrain GP protest is really no different than the "North Korea might invade" note used on the 2010 calendar. It's a bit of crystal balling, even if sourced as something that could occur.'

By that logic, the footnote about Shanghai and New Delhi being subject to circuit homologation is also crystal balling. They might not be approved. They might get homologated. But it's relevant. In retrospect, the note about North Korea invading the South was not needed - but there was a time there where war was a very serious matter, something that could have easily come about. Given that there is a precedent for revolution with both the Tunisian and Egyptian governments falling to the protests, there is cause to include the footnote. If Bernie Ecclestone says he's worried about it, then I think it's worth including since he's Bernie Ecclestone and the man with the best position to pass judgement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

News reporting belongs in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tracks needing to pass homologation is a fact that currently exists. Possible protests that may lead to possible cancelation of an event is not in the slightest bit similar. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Circuit homologation is directly related to Formula One and the Grand Prix. Anti-govermemt protests are not. Besides, nobody has said that the Bahrain Grand Prix 'is subject to the protests', like Shanghai is subject to the homologation. - mspete93 07:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is not about homologation, but about Bernie Ecclestone. If he says he's concerned about it, then it's certainly worth paying more attention to than someone else since he's Bernie Ecclestone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

These are not "possible" protests, they are very real protests with people being killed. I'd happily bet a lot of money on Bahrain being cancelled while India's homologation passes as little more than a formality. It's not wild speculation but Bernie himself saying there's a threat. Even if the race goes ahead, the fact that it was threated IS part of the history of this F1 season. --Opk (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel you misunderstand Wikipedia's role. An encyclopedia records what is. Speculation over whether a future event maybe be cancelled is news. Wikinews exists specifically for this kind of writing. Do you understand the difference? --Falcadore (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The race is looking more and more unlikely to occure so maybe some sort of indication in the schedule that the event is still in doubt (a grey background or similar). Mclaren2008 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're speculating. If you want to speculate with soft news, place it at Wikinews. The function of an encyclopedia is to document what IS, not to make predictions of any kind. --Falcadore (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that there is a threat to the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix. This weekend's GP2 Asia Series race has been cancelled. Ecclestone has expressed doubts that the race will go ahead. Mention of that fact in the artice would not go amiss. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"The world may end tomorrow and there may be no 2011 season" is also a fact. It's also still speculation. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The world can't end tomorrow, Wikipedia isn't finished yet! Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who made the threat? There is uncertainty. And uncertainty goes towards the very nature of speculation. And besides, it's already mentioned in the most appropriate place - 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The race is all but cancelled now: http://en.espnf1.com/bahrain/motorsport/story/41407.html and it may be moved to November 6 (unconfirmed) so a warning not to edit the calendar should be put in until everything is 100% sure.Mclaren2008 (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I started that rumour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kubica in driver chart

Now that Heidfeld has been named as Kubica's replacement, do we remove Kubica from the driver chart or leave him on? He did technically have a contract but obviously he will not be participating in the season. This will likely be something that non-established editors will attempt to change, so some consensus may be necessary. I personally think Kubica should not be listed as he will not be participating. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Kubica won't start the season so he shouldn't really be in the table. I suggest having Heidfeld there with a short note to say that he replaced Kubica before the season started. If Kubica joins in later on, then we can add him then. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

After much wrangling with the table, I've managed to remove Kubica from it and keep the table intact. I don't think a note like the footnote we had is necessary - I've made mention of Kubica's accident and Heidfeld replacing him in the driver changes subsection. If the situation should change and Kubica returns to racing this year, we can just treat him like any other mid-season replacement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that Heidfeld has been confirmed at Renault, we don't need that extra warning Mjroots added a few weeks ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but I've reworded it to cover the test sessions issue. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

At the end of the intro paragraph, it says: 'Sebastian Vettel will be the defending Driver's Champion. Isn't: 'Sebastian Vettel is the defending Driver's Champion.' more appropriate? Because he is the champion, not will be! Any ideas? db1987db (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Vettel surely is the champion but the season has not started yet, hence the use of future tense. Maimai009 17:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Infiniti engines

Does anyone know the engine designation for Red Bull's rebadged engines? I can't imagine they would be known as the "Infiniti RS27" engine, since the "RS" stands for "Renault Sport". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Has it been formally announced? The first time it was added to the page it was added without a reference. --Falcadore (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got a reference from the Beeb. It doesn't directly quote anybody, but nor is it written in the vein of "a source within the team said". Andrew Benson is retty good like that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

TBA will be fine until we know for sure. - mspete93 09:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Or just leave it without a designation, rather. - mspete93 09:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If the Beeb haven't quoted anyone, is it really a source? --Falcadore (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had to temporarily remove your addtions Prisonermonkeys about Infiniti because of question marks over the BBC story. Editor Andrew Benson has said on Twitter that some of the things in his story are incorrect. Journalists have today been briefed about the announcement but cannot write anything until midnight. I have read suggestions that it may simply be a sponsorship agreement, rather than engine badging. Either way, we can wait for the announcement. - mspete93 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the way the BBC article was written, I thought it was the annoucement. Anyway, I've added a section to the team changes sub-heading detailing the relationship between Red Bull and Infiniti, largely for the purposes of clarification. Red Bull will run with prominent Infiniti branding, but the engine will still be known as a Renault. It's clearly a major thing for the team because it's an entirely new technical partnership, and the section I added is written to clarify exactly where they stand in relation to one another. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain GP, postponement or cancellation

It's just a matter of words, but while we all know Bernie is still trying to put Bahrain somewhere in the calendar, it's uncertain that it will actually happen. For that reason I reverted the IP address that changed cancellation to postponement, but apparently Britmax doesn't agree with me. Maybe the Grand Prix will eventually take place, maybe it won't, we don't know and admit it will happen is a bit speculative. In my opinion, we should maintain the situation as it is now, i.e. that the Bahrain Grand Prix has been cancelled. What do you think ? Maimai009 12:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that there will, according to Autosport, be an announcement before the season starts as to whether there will be a Bahrain GP this year. Until that announcement, for me it's only postponed. Then we will know whether the race is on (in which case it stays a postponement) or not (in which case it was initially postponed, and then cancelled). Britmax (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally think it still be postponed in December. Wikipedia is not a collection of personal opinions however. --Falcadore (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on this article posted on the F1 site, I would say that it is indeed considered postponed for the time being until such a decision is made on May 1. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 16:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a section from the article saying that a final decision was due on May 1 because it was already covered further down the page. The way I see it, the prose preceding the calendar is for general changes, like when the calendar is revised. The section underneath is for changes specific to each race, which is where the comment on the May verdict should have been (and indeed, already was). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Testing Paragraph

Shouldn't there now be a small paragraph on pre-season testing, now that it's all finished? --Brody59 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And say what? Prisonermonkeys (talk)

There already is one, and it summarises all the important stuff adequately. --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Malaysian Grand Prix

Should the 2011 Malaysian Grand Prix change to "2011 Malaysia Grand Prix" in terms of official title? --Aleenf1 04:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There is discussion about the proposed move here. Schumi555 11:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia Grand Prix grid change

Should the circuit changes include the fact that the Malaysia Grand Prix has changed pole position from the left to the right hand side of the circuit and why they have done so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sas1998 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In short, no. Far too minor a detail. - mspete93 13:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Team Bases?

Well De Facto has added to the Entrants table a column detailing each teams base and country, which to me seems to be a sudden addition without any discussion on it's necessity. I think this information is superfluous for this article, as it has no bearing upon the season, and can be easily discovered from each teams respective article. Thoughts on this? QueenCake (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not much to discuss really, the bases of the teams have no bearing on the championship season, therefore they are irrelevant to this article. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This sort of data has been deleted from season articles before. Stats creep in one of it's more useless forms. Delete and do not return. --Falcadore (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I added it because I thought it contributed an interesting bit of extra general knowledge about the teams. One could also argue that it adds more about the background, heritage and culture of the team than the origin of the current team owners. -- de Facto (talk). 06:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If people want to know the history, background, culture, or general bits of knowledge about the teams, they can find them: on the team articles. 2001 Formula One season is about the 2011 championship, not the background, heritage, or culture of each and every team. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

General knowledge about the teams belongs in the articles about the teams, not in season review articles. If we allowed this kind of statistics creep, why not add the last time the team won a race, first race the team competed in, the first driver, postal address, glove size of the drivers, star sign of the team principal, corporate colours of the teams major sponsor, nationality of minor sponsors, nearest airport to the main base, proximity to that airport of active Icelandic volcanoes, spelling variations in Cyrillic, Arabic, Latin and ancient Sumerian languages, you could go on and on and on adding trivial rubbish in the name of general knowledge.

Concise is the best approach. Only include that which is specifically important to the topic. Other general information can be easily placed in other articles at no harm to the readability of the subject. --Falcadore (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Up to a point. That argument could also be used to remove the country flags from the other columns in that table and certainly to remove the "Chassis" and "Engine" columns and the redundant "Tyre" column. -- de Facto (talk). 07:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The chassis and engines the teams use in the 2011 season is relevant to the 2011 season. The tyre manufacturer is included because, in past years, multiple manufacturers have provided tyres, therefore a team's tyre choice is relevant to their performance in that season. Where a team is based has absolutely no bearing on the team's performance over the season.

The nationality of the teams goes hand in hand with the name of the teams itself. The teams represent countries, therefore they have flags. They don't represent team bases. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How far should we take that approach? Should we leave just the first column in the table (minus the flags) and leave the reader to find out all the rest, which should be there in each of the specific team articles? -- de Facto (talk). 07:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you want the rules of Formula One explained in this article as well, or do you expect people to go to other articles covering that topic? The base location of every current (and most former) Formula One teams is included in their relevant articles, if people want such information, they have more than enough means to easily find it. It is not this article's job to provide every possible thing someone might want to search for, this article is to cover the 2011 championship. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How far should we take that approach? How far? What was in the articles two days ago was perfectly adequate. No additional data in these tables is recquired. No additional information will increase understanding of the progression of the 2011 season. It is of paramount importance when editting that you stick to the topic and do not stray on divergent subject that may blow out articles, decreasing readability. It is also important to remember that Wikipedia is not a motorsport specific encyclopedia, it is a general purpose encyclopedia. The target audience of how to write articles is people with little or no understanding of the subject. If you weigh the topic down with excessive detail the target audience will find the articles intimidating and hard to fathom. --Falcadore (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If the table is only to contain data specifically relevant to the relative performances of the teams this season, then perhaps a "KERS" column should be added and the flags and the "Tyre" column removed. -- de Facto (talk). 09:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Or add a column for DRS. For footrests. For camera position. KERS is an individual specification item belonging to the car thus it is information that would go into the article about the car, for example Red Bull RB7. You have already been provided an explanation for tyres and flags. --Falcadore (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

KERS affects overall performance, is optional and is topical. The Pirelli tyres are mandated for all cars this season. What would be of more interest, on a team-by-team basis, - that they do indeed comply with the rule that the tyre supplier be Pirelli or whether they are using a KERS system? -- de Facto (talk). 11:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also a feature of the car. It would be like providing the dimensions of the front wing, or the angle the DRS flap depresses (also topical I'm sure you will admit). They also affect the performance of the car, but we don't detail those either.

As other edittors have already told you, twice now, the reason for the tyre column is not related. --Falcadore (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

KERS is a feature as is the choice of engine - we mention the engine choice, why not whether KERS is used? I believe all current cars have front wings and a DRS, so mentioning them would not be that worthwhile.

And yes, I've been "told" the reason for retaining the "Tyre" column. However, that they were once optional and may again be at some time in the future, isn't a very compelling justification in my view. -- de Facto (talk). 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

KERS is a feature of the car. The engine is not. Internal self-developed part of the car vs externally supplied component. A single item of technology as transitional as so many other, vs the component so important, it is 50% of the terminolgy for deciding the team's championship. No comparison at all. --Falcadore (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the usage of KERS can vary from race to race for every team. Their engines, chassis, and tyres will not. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully with The359 and Falcadore, who have covered the relevant arguments very well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What does the "Tyre" column add?

For several years now the teams have had no choice over tyre provider, so the column, with, inevitably, the same data in each row, is surely superfluous. Is there a valid reason for keeping it there? -- de Facto (talk). 09:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You have already been provided an answer to this question. Why ask the question twice? --Falcadore (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The information is there to tell readers who the supplier was for this season. Taken alone this season could just have "Pirelli" in a footnote but then readers looking for this information in the same column it occupies for other seasons will find direct comparisons harder. In the future there could again be multiple suppliers. From a practical editing point of view the tyre column would keep re-appearing anyway, in my experience. Britmax (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Britmax, tyre provider information has a direct bearing on the season, and differs from other seasons. In terms of the chronology of the season articles, it makes no sense to have some seasons with a tyre column and some without. This table has been a set format for some time, and it works. No additions or removals are necessary or desirable, as far as I can see. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The calendars

OK, I see the Bahrain GP is causing a few problems re the calendar. I note in the side panel that there is a facility to indicate a cancelled race. Therefore I wish to put forward a suggestion for consideration -

• That the Bahrain GP be reinstated at its originally intended position as race 1 of 20, and that it be annotated as cancelled throughout. This to appear in both drivers' and constructors' tables. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would we put it there when it's currently scheduled for October? Nothing has been cancelled yet. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bernie said it's kaput; I'm pretty sure his word is law in this case, since FOTA agrees. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bernie says its kaput because the FIA and FOTA are having a disagreement. There's nothing saying he's actually cancelled the event. FOTA says a lot of things, that doesn't mean they'll actually happen. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The situation is fully explained at the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix article. FIAs !vote was in breach of Rule 66 of the Sporting Code, which requires unanimous agreement of all teams to any changes in the sporting calendar once a championship has commenced. The original cancellation of the GP was force majeure and the championship had not started, thus no agreement from the teams was needed. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not going to start interpreting rules here. We have a calendar, we'll keep that calendar until it changes. Keep in mind formula1.com also still lists the Bahrain Grand Prix for October 30. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But we're not interpreting rules. We are reporting what reliable sources (BBC Sport is a reliable source, isnt it?) say are interpretations of the rules. There is a difference. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what some media may say, (and I don't believe they have it right) the most reliable source of all is the calender the FIA publish, which currently states the Bahrain Grand Prix will be on 30 October. We keep it in until it is officially changed otherwise. QueenCake (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this now as well; the situation is too fluid to pick any source other than the most authoritative, which is formula1.com. And all news sources are reporting is that Bernie has said, while the FIA and FOM have not themselves said it. Bernie may be FOM, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't wait for an official release from FOM on the matter. It could turn out that the race may 'officially' go on, but that FOTA will boycott, etc. As I said, the situation is too fluid to try to piece together a story, just go with the official calendar (which, I believe, is the source for the schedule anyway) --Golbez (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

FIA are now awaiting a formal response from Ecclestone. This is the letter from FOTA to the FIA, and this is FIA's reply to FOTA. Once Ecclestone formally cancels the Bahrain GP, can my suggestion be implemented? Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime everyone and their IP will edit the various relevant articles back and forth ad-neaseum. The article will need at least semi-protection if any of this discussion is to have any relevancy to what actually appears on the web. --Falcadore (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I have just reveted edits by an IP for removing the Bahrain GP from the calendar when the FIA have not removed it from theirs yet --MSalmon (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It will all be over soon - Bernie has said it's impossible, FOTA have said they don't want to race there, and now Bahrain have abandoned their plans to rejoin the calendar. All we need is the FIA to confirm it's off, and this little episode is all over. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The F1 website has now the updated calendar so it can all be changed now I assume --MSalmon (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a lot of the detail out, largely because I felt it simply repeated itself and slightly contradicted itself. I figure simple is better here; the detail can come on the race page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bahrain GP needs to be removed from the Constructors Standings list (remove this comment when done) --MSalmon (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Bahrain GP needs to be the first race on the Constructors' and Drivers' lists, and marked as Cancelled. The way the tables are set up allows for cancelled races to be shown. Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Those white 'C's are rather ugly. The tablifosi have place three separate calendars table in the F1 articles, how much repitition do we need before we say we don't have to put it in the results matrix as well? --Falcadore (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, the complete omission of the Bahrain GP from the tables implies that it was never even scheduled. Whereas the inclusion and annotation as a cancelled race gives the true picture - the race was going to be the first of the season, but it was cancelled. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not asking to have it removed from the other two calendar tables, just saying it's not neccessary for the results matrix. By way of comparison can you imagine how ugly the 1955 results matrix would look if we included all the Grand Prix that were cancelled after the Le Mans disaster? --Falcadore (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Somehow we'd manage. Maybe it should include them. --Golbez (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The 2011 GP2 Asia page shows the Bahrain races as cancelled. Granted, they were not the first rounds of the original season. But I'm fairly certain the argument that "we can't include Bahrain in the tables because it would look ugly" is not a valid argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, the "Race cancelled" field is meant to be used when an event is halted on the actual race weekend, i.e, should they have gone to Bahrain and violence flared up, the race would be cancelled but as the event had actually started, it would need to be noted. When the Grand Prix is taken off the calendar months before it's scheduled date, there is no need to add the C to the results matrix. Besides, would we add it for both Bahrain dates? That would look plain daft, but both dates could be considered "Cancelled", they have both been removed from the calender. QueenCake (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason to list this race in the results tables as it's cancellation is months in advance. This is not the same as the GP2 Asia race in 2008 that was cancelled in Bahrain because the circuit flooded before Race 2. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

21 February - 13 March is not months, it's less than three weeks. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Since everyone has misinterpreted what I've said for a variety of different reasons, and highlighted minor/subsidiary portions of my objection, I'll re-state as clearly as I can using only the primary justification.

No one had anything at the circuit. It was well in advance. C is for a cancelled race as part of a started weekend, not a race put on hold or rescheduled. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it really neccessary to fill up the results matrix (and only the results matrix) table with cancelled 'C's when we have two whole other calendar tables which can more than adequately portray the place in the calendar Bahrain Grand Prix once held? --Falcadore (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not have "C" in the results table. First of all, there was no result for the Bahrain race because it didn't happen, so it has no place in a results table. The "C" is the same for all drivers and constructors, so its presence is not achieving anything whatsoever in terms of the table's function as a results provider.

Second, it's hideous and third, the information is well-detailed elsewhere. The idea that it implies that the Bahrain GP was never planned is quashed by the fact that it's in a zillion other tables, where it ought to be. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Points table

Something's been bothering me about the season articles for a while now, and I've finally figured out what the problem is - we have the table showing the points allocations set as a subsection to a table that does not actually contain any points information, the pole/winner/fastest lap/constuctor table. Is there something we can do to fix this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Falcadore (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Winning constructor

Under the Results and standings section, under Grands Prix, the winning constructor should be the constructor that recives the most points in a weekend, not just the constructor of the winning car. This seems more logical to me as the winning constructor of a series is not the same as the winning driver of a series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.220.71.22 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The FIA does not agree with you. The winning constructor is a specific award at each Grand Prix which is why a representative of the winning constructor's team stands on the podium with the top three drivers. While it used to be the case that a team finishing second and third could win the the constructor's trophy at a Grand Prix it is well over a decade since the rules for winning constructor was changed to be the race winning constructor regardless of other race positions. So what you are suggesting is fundamentally wrong, and technically original research. --Falcadore (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Winning constructor" means the car which won the race. Hence why it sounds exactly like "Winning driver". The³5₉ (Talk) 03:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure the rule was changed the same year they increased the point for winning a race from nine points to ten, which was the same number of points as second and third put together. Since it at that point became fait acompli, they hard-wired it into the rules. Just as well, as under the new point a team finishing third and fourth can score more points than a win and a DNF. --Falcadore (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pre-season section

I think the pre-season section should include information about Kubica's accident. It was much more important than the fact that Ricciardo was the fastest guy during the young driver tests. Those tests are quire irrelevant to the F1 season, yet one can read more about them than about the proper tests with 2011 cars. I know that there's some information in the "Driver changes" section, but still pre-season section is missing this. 217.153.90.242 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's in the driver changes section, it doesn't need to be in the pre-season. It's much more relevant to the driver cahnges because the accident directly affected the driver line-up of Renault. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Valencia records

I've deleted the records set in Valencia from the report subsection. I believe they are better-suited to the individual race report pages. To include all the detail creates the risk of returning to the bad old days when the supposedly-brief report was longer than the rest of the article. The important stuff - like the fact that a record was set - should remain, but the specifics should be kept for the race page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 F1 report

(Discussion moved here from User talk:DeFacto) -- de Facto (talk). 06:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have changed some of your [ User:DeFacto ] edits to the report sub-section of the 2011 Formula One season page. You kept moving mentions of the OTBD dispute to the end of the paragraph about the British Grand Prix. However, it has been an established practice for some time to record events chronologically. For this reason, mentions of the OTBD dispute should come at the start of the report because they happened before the race - it's for consistency with the rest of the article. Similarly, the dispute received considerable amounts of media attention on the Friday and Saturday. To move it to the end of the paragraph negates the importance of it, as if you are saying "Oh, yeah, and while all that was going on, this happened too". And if you paid attention to the media coverage of the weekend, the OTBD dispute was given a lot of coverage - and most of it before any detail about the actual on-track action, so using words like "overshadowed" to describe it are appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not just the position, but the weight given to it too, that I disagree with. It may have been big news on Friday and Saturday, but was barely mentioned in the mainstream media after that. To assert that it "overshadowed" the GP, I think, is at best an exaggeration. That is a personal opinion, and as such needs attribution and an RS to support it. Putting it first, and in those terms, does, I believe, give it undue weight. -- de Facto (talk). 06:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's only first in the section about the British grand Prix. If it was first in the entire report I'd agree with the assertion of undue weight, but that far down within the report write up is not a cause for concern I believe. --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides, it's been an established practice for some time now that we recount events in a chronological order. Friday and Saturday come before the race; therefore, events on Friday and Saturday that impacted upon the entire weekend should be recounted first. After all, we're not just talking about the races here - we're talking about entire Grand Prix weekends. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it is between you two, but please settle this on the talk page before continuing to edit war or throw citation templates around. This is childish. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I don't even understand what his issue is. Like I said, it's been a long-established precedent that we recount major events of a race weekend in chronological order. The OTBD dispute was a major event at the British Grand Prix that influenced events on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Therefore, it should come first in the paragraph about the race; moving it to become the final sentence negates its importance. And if you look at the sheer weight of media attention given to the issue - particularly in comparison to everything else that was covered - words like "overshadowed" are fairly reasonable, given that the issue dominated the entire weekend. So I don't understand what de Facto's problem is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That it overshadowed the weekend is a subjective opinion, and as such needs attribution (i.e. whose opinion it is) and some reliable sources to support it. If we can establish a) whose opinion it is and b) that it is a neutral point-of-view, then we can decide whether it is appropriate to open the paragraph with it. -- de Facto (talk). 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again: if it was first paragraph of the report you would have a case. Several paragraphs into the story is well, incredible minor hair-splitting stuff really. --Falcadore (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely we can say it was important without using the word "overshadowed"? Bit of a woolly term anyway, what? Britmax (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care anymore. I'm happy with any solution you can find, provided that a) it does not negate the importance or the impact of the OTBD ban (which means it should not be moved to the back of the paragraph), and b) is consistent with the rest of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Team listed along with Driver's standings

The driver's standing table more or less summarizes the F1 results for a normal user. Though it is else where mentioned separately, if we add a column with constructor/team to this table, it should serve the readers well. Atif.hussain (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Senna Driving for Renault

I've tried adding Bruno Senna to the drivers table but I don't know how to and I don't want to ruin the table. Can someone Put him on. Here a reference for verification Bruno Senna With Renault (BBC) --Brainybrains 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll need to wait for LRGP to confirm it first. I'm sure it will be the case, but Eddie Jordan rumours aren't enough to go on at the moment. JonChapple^Talk 10:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK good to know. I just didn't want to ruin the table.--Brainybrains 10:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainybrainiac (talk • contribs)

We normally wait until he actually competes before putting a driver in the table. Even if he is confirmed anything could stop him from competing and being classified in the drivers championship. QueenCake (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain he means the drivers and teams table at the top of the article, not the drivers championship points table. The³5₉ (Talk) 13:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ban on movable or moving aerodynamic devices.

Is the DRS the first time an adjustable aerodynamic device that can be moved by the driver, instead of just the pit crew, has been specifically allowed (let alone been specifically put into the rulebook) in F1?

Remember the Brabham BT46B and the Chaparral 2J? They had large "cooling fans" which sucked air from under the cars, making them stick to the track like super glue. The FIA and SCCA quickly banned such "suckers", calling them movable aerodynamic devices. The Brabham entered and won one race before being banned, the Chaparral competed one season but wasn't too successful due to mechanical issues with its complex fan system.

Would be nice if these outfits would embrace such advances (like turbines in Indy Car) instead of kowtowing to the hissy fits by the guys who didn't think of them first. We'd have a Turbine Indy Car series if not for the luddites. Bizzybody (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything specific to the 2011 Formula One season to ask? Wikipedia talk pages are not open discussion forums. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What is your intent for the modification of the 2011 Formula One season article? A comparison of DRS to the original Formula One wings of the late 60s which were also driver movable devices? Comparisons to Indycars are not particularly relevant nor are your observations with regards to turbines.

If you would like to explain what your aims are for wikipedia, perhaps we might be able to help. If it is your aim to complain about organisations not connected to wikipedia, or debate the merits of open wheel motor racing, perhaps we may be able to direct you to a suitable internet forum or usenet group? --Falcadore (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of links to season's GPs

Copied here from User talk:DeFacto because I think discussion here is more appropriate:

I've un-reverted your edits to the 2011 season page. Link to season races do not need to be included in the calendar table - the appear elsewhere on the page, most notably in the season report and in the results and standings tables. Compare that to all the other season pages, which do not link to race reports in the calendar table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

-- de Facto (talk). 07:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The table in the calendar section now has identical wlinks in two adjacent columns. Don't you think that it makes more sense that the text in the column giving the name of this season's GP wlinks to the article for this year's GP and the text in the column for the generic GP of that country wlinks to the generic GP for that country? -- de Facto (talk). 08:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree linking to the individual races in the 'Race Title' column and general GP pages in the following 'Grand Prix' column is more useful than linking to the general GP pages in both columns. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've un-reverted Prisonermonkeys's un-reversion. Having exactly the same wlinks in each column doesn't make sense. It is logical to link this season's race title to this season's race article. -- de Facto (talk). 21:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved here from User talk:DeFacto because I think discussion here is more appropriate:

You should actually wait until you have a consensus before you go making changes. Simply raising the issue on the article talk page doesn't mean you go ahead and make those changes while the issue is still being discussed. Like I said, there are already links to those articles in four separate locations on the season page (and on every season page). Adding them to the calendar table does absolutely nothing but needlessly pad the article out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

-- de Facto (talk). 06:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I was putting it back to the pre-change condition to await any consensus as to whether the long-standing wlinks should be taken out, or not. Why should we accept your change before consensus? -- de Facto (talk). 06:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the page I reverted to was the original state of the page, the way it has been all year. Your change it the proposed change, rather than the original page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For a couple of months, or so (probably since the time that the 'race titles' had the sponsor wlinks removed) it has been the way I reverted it to (see this version from 1 September). Before then, the generic GP (e.g. 'Australian GP') was wlinked, along with the sponsor, in the Race Title column and the specific GP (e.g. 2011 Australian GP') was wlinked in the Grand Prix column (see this version from 1 August). As far as I can see, the current state ('your' apparent preferred version), with the generic GP wlinked identically in both columns, has never been the "original state". The only difference between the version that you reverted from ('my' version) and the previous (more than 2 months ago) "original state" is that the wlinks are in opposite columns. Please check it out and you'll realise your mistake. -- de Facto (talk). 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained to you several times, the current state of the article is not my preferred version simply because I am the one that has made those edits. The current state of the article is identical to the original format of the article, and identical to all of the season articles (none of which link to results pages in the calendar table). What you are proposing is a major change, not just to this article, but to all season pages. You can't just make such major changes and expect that everyone will accept them. You need consensus before you make changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys. you are wrong; no matter how many times you "explain" it. Of the ones I've looked at, none of the others have the same wlink (to the generic GP only) in both columns - they all have one wlinking to the specific GP and one to the generic one. Check out 2010 Formula One season, 2009 Formula One season, 2008 Formula One season for examples. This article was the same too (until your very recent undiscussed change), albeit with those wlinks in the opposite columns since the names were cleaned of the sponsor wlinks. As I said above, please check it out and you'll realise your mistake. Or don't you do mistakes? -- de Facto (talk). 06:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How am I supposed to be able to accept your argument when you can't even show me consistent examples? Some calendars have links to race reports in one column, and other pages have those links set in the second column. There is no consistency between pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That was my argument! Your argument was for consistency with historic articles, not mine ("identical to all of the season articles (none of which link to results pages in the calendar table)"). I have shown that you were mistaken. You now appear to be conceding that there is no consistency amongst historic articles. Where does that leave your stance? Why not add value to the table for the reader? -- de Facto (talk). 06:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My stance is that I don't see the value in putting links to race pages in the calendar when they already appear in four other locations on the page. You claimed that there is a precedent based on previous season pages - but I cannot see the supposed value of this when the previous season pages are inconsistent; some of them have the links in one column, some have the links in the other column, and some of them have no links in any columns. It's a little difficult to be persuaded when your argument is based on inconsistent examples. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You cited precedents in other articles to support your version, I showed there was no such precedent - indeed the recent articles follow my preferred format. You have failed to persuade us, so let's add value to the article by restoring the links. What's the use of the current identical links? -- de Facto (talk). 19:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that two adjacent columns should not link to the same location. Possibly a better solution is to entirely de-link the first column and instead only link the sponsor, bearing in mind what the manual of style says about adjacent word wikilinking, or an even better solution in my opinion would be to delete the second column entirely. It is enitrely superflous, a piped wikilink from the first coulmn to the generic race link (not year specific) should not be a problem. The entire point of piped wikilinks is that when different words meaning the same thing will still lead to the same destination. This works just as well for [East Romgarian Grand Prix|ER Post Grosser Prix von East Romgaria] and it does for [Bongolian Grand Prix|Bill's Horse Shoes Outer Northern Bongolian Grand Prix]. --Falcadore (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think linking to race reports in the calendar table is an exercise in the pointless. There are already links to those pages in the three separate results tables (Grands Prix, Driver standings ans Constructor standings), as well as in the season report, and some in the driver and team changes (depending on when those changes were introduced; ie Pedro de la Rosa replacing Sergio Perez in Canada). Adding linnks to race reports in the season calendar adds nothing to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If remove the redundant Unknownian GP column it's fixed. Then there isn't the issue of having two columns linked to one item. --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I can support that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I support removal entirely of the redundant second column, but keep the links to the specific GPs in the first. -- de Facto (talk). 06:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? They're not necessary - they already appear in four other places in the article, and removing the column whilst keeping the race report pages in removes any link to the event overview (ie Australian GP rather than 2011 Australian GP) pages. And how is it "clear" that the page is better with links to individual race reports in the calendar table? I haven't seen anyone but you say that. It's a completely unnecessary change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The calendar seems to me to be the natural place to look for the links to specific GPs. It is the first table in the article that contains these links - and they are neatly presented in chronological order. Why not? -- de Facto (talk). 06:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Because, as has been explained to you several times, they already appear elsewhere, and in more-appropriate positions, like the results table. The calendar table contains no results. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why make this article less usable and completely different to all the other season articles (which, in case you haven't checked yet also have both wlinks in the calendar table)? Your logic would also lead to the removal of all the other duplicated wlinks - such as those to the drivers and teams/constructors/engine suppliers that appear in several of the tables. -- de Facto (talk). 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because in the past ten seasons, I can see these links in the calendar tables on maybe half the season overview pages. And in the past twenty seasons, I can see them happening even less so - and pages as recently as the 2008 season page do not have this "key feature". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You would concede then that not "all of the season articles" have the same wlink in 2 adjacent columns (which you claimed above). I concede that some of the earlier ones do, including 2008 and 2007. Did you check the history of this article? The question is: if we actually have 2 wlinks, do we point them to identical articles or would it be better to point them (as it has been for a while in this article - and it appears, began to be about the time of the first race of the season) to different articles. -- de Facto (talk). 12:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did check the history of this article - and before you came along and started editing links to race reports into the calendar, it remained mostly un-touched. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you had checked it thoroughly, you should have noticed that the links to race reports existed long before I "came along". Take a look at this version from 22 May - just before my first ever edit of the article - they were there for all the GPs that had already taken place (so actually had race reports). What I did do in that table was de-fragment the race title, removing wlinks to sponsors from them, and then swopped the links to race reports from the "Grand Prix" column to the "Race Title" column, and the links to the GP the other way (in this edit on 27 August). Do you now accept that you were mistaken in your assessment? -- de Facto (talk). 06:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

Given the lack of support for Prisonermonkeys's reversion of the long-standing state of the wlinks in the calendar table, what should we do now? Should we simply restore them, or should we discuss the deadlock at the F1 project discussion page, or elsewhere? If we decide to escalate it, we'll need to agree a neutrally worded summary of the problem to avoid accusations of disruptive behaviour as per WP:Canvassing. -- de Facto (talk). 16:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is nobody interested in whether we put the links back, or not? -- de Facto (talk). 19:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe your version is an improvement. In truth there is little actual difference as to whether generic of 2011 races are linked here as there is a multitude of links to both articles already. --Falcadore (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore, it isn't really "my version", I merely reverted Prisonermonkeys's undiscussed change - a change which resulted in the table having identical wlinks in two adjacent columns. Please explain the reasoning behind your apparent preference for these identical wlinks in both columns and why you think different, but relevant, links (as I reverted to) aren't an improvement. -- de Facto (talk). 08:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As Prisonmonkeys can just as equally claim its a reversion to another undiscussed change which occurred sometime since September I think applying your version and his version are justifiable identifiers. --Falcadore (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The change you mention was the removal of sponsor wlinks from the GP names and the swapping of the column wlinks with each other, not the addition of wlinks to race reports which is what Prisonmonkeys removed, and seems to be troubled by. The links to race reports were added (not by me) from March onwards. The 2010, 2009, 2006 and maybe other season articles alsol wlink to the race reports from the calendar table. Why remove those wlinks from this article? Why the relutance to give sound reasons? -- de Facto (talk). 09:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not sound? Nice of you to define for me what I am saying, and to leap to a wrong conclusion as to my motives. I stated above what my opinion was pretty clearly, perhaps you should go back and re-examine. --Falcadore (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You've lost me now. You seem to prefer Prisonermonkeys's position on the double wlinks to the same articles (but I could be wrong) - I was hoping for some sound reasoning to take the discussion forward. I've explained my preferrence for different wlinks from each column - as you have (the previous long-standing condition of this article) which is why I reverted Prisonermonkeys's apparently illogical changes. I've shown that it wasn't me who added those different wlinks, the ones to the race reports, in the first place, although Prisonermonkeys doesn't seem to accept that. I've explained the changes that I made to the table around the end of August - I defragmented the full GP names in the 'Race Title' column by removing the wlinks to the sponsors from them and I also swapped the resulant wlinks with those in the "Grad Prix" column because wlinking to the generic grand prix article from the entry in the "Grand Prix" column and to the specific race article from the entry in the "Race Title" column seemed to be the logical way to do it. Which should stand (until we get a consensus to change the table) - the duplicate wlinks, or the way I reverted it to the long-standing condition? -- de Facto (talk). 14:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well this has been because of sidetracking into issues of sponsorlinks which I did not believe to be the issue previously going by the tone of the above debate.

You have claimed the links should go to race reports, Prisonermonkey has claimed the links should go to generic race articles. Originally the debate was according to the nature of having two identical linked columns side-by-side and it appears consensus was achieved to delete one, so at that point debate shifted to what they should link to.

Both of you claim you are reverting to previous and both of you have a justification along those lines.

I stated a preference for a link to the generic GP links but have now formulated why.

The calendar table is typically one of the first created as the calendar is one of the first announcements of a new season. When they are announced there are not (or should not) be links available to the individual race articles because those articles do not exist yet. Last year a particularly zealous editor set them up early as redirects to the generic article.

So you see for many months those links would appear as redlinks and most would continue to do so well into the season. So rather than have the redlinks we link directly to the generic articles.

It is very easy to say now that the articles should link to race reports when all the race reports exist and there are just two races left to be run, but back in October of the previous year they did not and should not.

That's why I prefer Prisonmonkey's version to yours.

And please don't get hung up on issues of proprietary, it is just easier to indicate preference that way. --Falcadore (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - and with logical reasoning. However, unless we remove one of the columns, we will start the season and end the season with two columns of identical wlinks. If both columns are to stay (and I didn't see a consensus to remove one) then it would make sense to have no link from the 'Race Title' column until the race report had been created. Like we have gaps in other tables before the race has taken place. It's a good central place for wlinks to the race reports.-- de Facto (talk). 06:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Williams' Cosworth engine type CA2011 or CA2011k?

I've read on numerous occasions, as well as on the Williams FW33 page, that the Williams team employ the CA2011k type Cosworth engine, where 'k' stands for KERS. Shouldn't this be reflected in the teams & drivers list, too? Lustigson (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lotus/caterham

Firstly does this need to be mentioned at all as it has no effect on the f1 side of team lotus - it is just the owner buying another company? And secondly the part about it "fueling speculation" I dont think is suitable for wikipedia as it is more of a 'news-like' addition and even then has no proof that they will change the name?

Thoughts on this?

Colinmotox11 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it could go in the Caterham article but anything else is inference and we should await announcements. Britmax (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, isn't it alright to refer to speculation if you specifically name it as being speculation in the article and reference articles that contain said speculation? It's when you present speculation as fact that it becomes a problem. The reason why I included the line about Caterham at all is because one of the articles I linked to (I bet you didn't read it) contained a direct quote from Tony Fernandes stating that a name change is indeed a possibility at some point in the future; this is a serious change in stance from him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking personally, no. the team confirmed they had purchased Caterham Cars fuelling speculation that the team may rename themselves to reflect their ownership of the marque. - stating it like that is taking a fact with no connection to Formula One racing (Caterham do not involve themselves in F1 in anyway) and taking it to mean something that is not stated by any official source.

In short, official speculation is still speculation. If nothing ever comes of it other than being a business deal, then you and others have drawn a conclusion without confirmation. Wait until the team confirm that it means something.

Looks like something you can add to Wikinews though. --Falcadore (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You should look at this: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/Pages/season_guide1.aspx. The FIA lists Lotus as Team Caterham for the current season. - Dubfire (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Force India name change

An editor has changed the name of the Force India team to "Sahara Force India Team" on the strength of a news article announcing a business injection of equity. The article states that "this is what the team will now be called". I think that someone familiar with the recent experiences of Sauber and the two Lotus teams will agree with me that a change of name will need a little more than that to be recognised in F1 circles. Britmax (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Team names are an official thing handled by the FIA, they don't change on the constructor's whim. --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Ferrari just change their team name on a whim? The³5₉ (Talk) 20:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but they're the red car. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And HRT? The³5₉ (Talk) 20:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but ... eh, got nothing for that one. In any case, if FOM (I think, and not FIA, as I said above) accepted it then that's the name, but until such time, it's not. --Golbez (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I'd view it as similar to 2006 when Midland F1 became Spyker MF1. The constructor did not change, but Spyker bought into the existing team and renamed it. The title in the team was however viewed as a sponsorship deal for the end of 2006, until they fully became Spyker F1 in 2007. Sahara has bought into Force India and so their name at the front of the team title can be viewed as a sponsorship until they decide what to do for 2012. I doubt FOM or the FIA will have any view of it, have they really changed any graphics for HRT or Ferrari this year? The³5₉ (Talk) 20:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that changes have already been made to Force India, including the new team logo featuring the Saraha logo font, and 2012 Formula One season as well, so an eye needs to be kept on these as well. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Team names are absolutely not controlled by the FIA, only chassis (equals the Constructor column) names are, and require approval to be changed. Both names should definitely be listed, as the Ferrari and HRT names have been during this year. SchueyFan (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the official names of the teams that entered the Korean GP. That document shows: Force India F1 Team. --Gamma127 (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree - I think the team names on that document are the correct ones to be used on 2011 season. Don't think current Force India situation is that similar to HRT or Ferrari one though, those teams have two names on constructors list, Force India shouldn't - afterall, it's not as if Sahara own part of them, it's a business injection. Bigdon128 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It is now Sahara Force India: http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/188/ --83.119.125.219 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not yet in India: [1]. --Gamma127 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The FIA have now changed the name on their Standings page. http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/2011/Pages/championship-classification.aspx But I suppose we will have to wait until next weekend to see if they change it on their Classification documents. SchueyFan (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)