Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:21, 4 December 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2013 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Formula One Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from 2013 Formula One World Championship appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 November 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that veteran NASCAR promoter Humpy Wheeler is an advisor to the Grand Prix of America, a Formula One race to be run in New Jersey (planned track layout pictured) starting in 2013? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2011/November.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2013 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Ma Qinghua

Please do not list Ma Qinghua as a driver for HRT. Although a source is supplied, we cannot actually verify it for the time being. The only English-language source I can find on this is Joe Saward's blog (which I personally feel fails WP:RELIABLE after his attacks on Vijay Mallya in the past), and even that only refers to "reports in China". We need an English translation to be sure, or if there is an established editor out there who is fluent in Mandarin and can confirm that the source is reliable. Given the time differences, I can understand why this might not have appeared on the likes of Autosport just yet. There is no need to rush to add Ma to the article, and if you have any concerns, you can rest assured that he will be added in the moment a reliable source is found.

As per convetion established by consensus, any reference to Ma joining HRT should contain quotes from Ma himself or someone who a member of the team and who is named (ie Luis Perez-Sala). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Entry Fees

I noticed a small problem with the cost of entry, 1pt is quoted as being worth USD$5,000 or EUR€3,895 which 1/100 of the basic entry fee. The problem occurs when USD$6,000 is quoted as being less the USD$5,000 at EUR€3,674. I would change it but I'm not sure which exchange rate is right or if it you would want to update it using figures from today.Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The FIA work in euros not dollars, so the exchange rates should of been calculated the other way round, likely to be the reason whoever added that in made a mistake. Going into that much detail is probably unnecessary anyway. QueenCake (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The source supplied makes it pretty clear that from 2012, the entry fee will be paid in dollars, not Euros. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

HRT in 2013

Should HRT be in the 2013 entry list? I thought they where leaving. Daniels Renault Sport 11:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As ever, speculation has no place here. If/when they actually say they are withdrawing HRT will be removed from the list. QueenCake (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there's any chance of the team leaving F1 altogether. It's for sale, but I'm sure it won't disappear. If and when it's sold, we can change the team name accordingly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Then again... haha.. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Daniels, you've been editing long enough to know that content cannot be added or removed without a valid source to support it. If HRT were leaving and had confirmed it, then it would have been reported by now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Prisoner, wrong once again!! You've been editing long enough to know that comments like that are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages (WP:NPA); "Comment on content, not on the contributor." 124.217.238.234 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a discussion of content to me, specifically removing content. There is no personal attack made here, just a stating of the obvious. The5₉ (Talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the IP identifies himself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Television Coverage

The existing piece states, mistakenly, that the 2013 season will be covered by Fox. In fact, Speed is part of Fox Sports. The 2013 season will be the first of a four year deal with NBC Sports Group. Proposed rewrite below.

For the first time in seventeen years, Speed Channel will not be covering any of the Formula One races. Instead, NBC Sports Group will be the sole provider of television coverage of F1 in the US.--Nickknyc (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, we don't cover changes in broadcasters. They don't affect the season as a whole. We did mention the switch from the BBC to Sky in the 2012 season page, but only because that represented a significant change in the broadcasting structure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers and the team and driver table

Please do not add numbers to the team and driver table, or rearrange the entries to reflect the final championship standings of 2012. As per a long-standing consensus established at the Formula 1 WikiProject, the team and driver table should remain in alphabetical order (first by constructor name, then by driver name for each constructor) until the FIA publishes an entry list or 2013, which will assign numbers to cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi PM, as a point of reference, and to reduce the likelihood of duplicated discussion, can you substantiate your claim with a link to the precise discussion which resulted in that consensus please. Eff Won (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The FIA issues F1 race numbers Eff Won, not the editors of Misplaced Pages. So have they done it yet? --Falcadore (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Falcadore, but that wasn't what I was asking about. Can you throw any light on the whereabouts of the consensus to which PM was referring? Eff Won (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is here. Does that assist? --Falcadore (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I wanted - thank you. Wow! PM's comments are rather illuminating. Eff Won (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you not question every time someone claims there is a past consensus? We're not simply making things up. Unless there are references for the numbers, it is original research because the basis is pure assumption, even if it is an educated assumption. If you have no references for the numbers, they aren't posted. Simple as that. The5₉ (Talk) 08:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi The359, if a consensus is cited, then a link should be provided so that interested parties can examine the context of it and the judge strength of it. I'm not particularly interested in the numbers for the 2013 season, but I would be very interested in reading the "long-standing consensus" which mandates that "the team and driver table should remain in alphabetical order (first by constructor name, then by driver name for each constructor) until the FIA publishes an entry list or 2013". Eff Won (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If the consensus can be explained in two sentences and there is no one objecting, then no, there is no need to find the specifics of the previous debate, nor is there any particular reason to "judge the strength of it", which really seems to be another way of calling into question the original consensus like I mentioned before. If you're so interested in reading it, you find it. The5₉ (Talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And if the numbers aren't posted, how can you rearrange the table in any way? Yes, the alternative is based on championship standings, but how can you prove that all 12 teams will continue to exist as they currently are three months from now when the 2013 season begins? What if, for example, Force India is sold on 1 February 2013, missing the date for entries to be received and therefore relegating the team to the number 24 and 25 (which is precisely what happened to Brawn GP in 2009)?

Without numbers, the table cannot be rearranged. This is an issue that shouldn't need a consensus, because simple common sense should apply. However, I made this discussion as a reference for reverting changes to the page from IP addresses and/or new users who are unfamiliar with the editing process. And given your history, showing you a previous discussion in which a consensus was achieved will do no good, because you will find a way to try and undermine it. Even when the consensus is for the betterment of the page. So, if you are looking to change the way the table is constructed, then please, make your argument; but until such time as you do, you should consider my comments and those of Falcadore and The359 to be a preliminary consensus in favour of keeping the table un-numbered and in alphabetical order. If you are looking to change the way the table is constructed, then please, answer me this: what on earth are you doing questioning it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree; keep it as it is until it's official. (BTW - I do believe it also happened to Sauber in 2009/2010 season change). Sas1998 (Talk) 17:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it happened to Sauber as well (though as I remember, USF1, Campos, Manor and Sauber were all accepted to the grid together and all given their choice of numbers from those that were vailable). I was only using Brawn as an example because it was the first example that came to mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

PM, I had no intention of modifying the table, but I am very interested in locating and understanding WP:F1 consensuses. It was you who claimed there was a "long-standing consensus" which mandates that "the team and driver table should remain in alphabetical order (first by constructor name, then by driver name for each constructor) until the FIA publishes an entry list or 2013". Presumably you weren't just bluffing - so where exactly is it? Eff Won (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Even mentioning the fact that one could be bluffing makes your entire argument bullshit. WP:AGF. Calling into question whether or not someone is making shit up is uncalled for, and you're already on thin ice. The5₉ (Talk) 19:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. Assuming someone is not bluffing is to assume good faith. Bad faith might lead to an assumption that they were bluffing. Are you assuming good faith in this discussion? Eff Won (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Bringing up bluffing at all is a sign of bad faith, period. If you assume someone is not bluffing, there is no need to mention it in the first place. The5₉ (Talk) 18:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't put my hands on it exactly, but it was formed in late 2008 or late 2009. I remember it well because The359 convinced me to change my mind on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall specifics but I remember the debate centered on teams deciding who their #1 driver was, and people arbitrarily deciding that one driver should get the lower number instead of the other driver. There have however been instances of teams not giving their top driver the first number, as in the case of Honda, when Button allowed Barrichello to have the number 11 as it was good luck to him or something, while Button took 12. Then, even though Honda had been given 18 and 19 for their finishing position in 2009, Brawn took the numbers 22 and 23 after buying out the team. So simply put, Vettel has #1, everything else is crystal balling. And we're not going to put a column just to add Vettel as 1 because that will just invite stupidity. The5₉ (Talk) 21:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, the major point you talked me around on was updating the team and driver table to reflect WCC positions from race to race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than debating the existence of the consensus, why don't we spend the time establishing/confirming the consensus, for future reference. DH85868993 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: The "Teams and Drivers" tables of future F1 season articles should remain in alphabetical order on constructor name, with no "car number" column, until the official provisional entry list is published by the FIA.

I don't see anyone objecting to it at the moment, so it seems fairly clear that a consensus exists. Again. The5₉ (Talk) 23:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Why the fuck we still have to explain everything we do to Eff Won or face endless timewasting, I have no idea. This, like all the other occasions, is a total non-starter. I care little for where the old consensus is or was – this discussion constitutes a consensus already because, yet again, Eff Won is alone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the alternative is chaos when Eff Won denies that there is any such consensus and starts reverting all edits until such time as we can prove that a previous consensus exists. Which we won't be able to, because Eff Won will deny that whatever evidence we provide is a consensus because it was obtained fraudulently or some such. I'm keep to avoid that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I object to being required to AGF concerning an editor who spends their time doing nothing of the sort, challenging several editors to produce a consensus which is self-evident. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just think: every time we AGF and he doesn't, it's another nail in his coffin. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Rest assured, I am assuming good faith; but are you? Eff Won (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Challenging whether or not a consensus exists does not fit the definition of "assuming good faith" on any level. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

BB, AGF is a civility thing, intended to make collaboration on Wikipediadia articles easier. I didn't "challenge" him, I requested a link to the consensus to help me try to understand the unusual culture and lore that has developed around the F1 articles, with the intention of becoming more familiar with it so I can better be accepted. Not much to ask really? Eff Won (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"Presumably you weren't just bluffing - so where exactly is it?" If you don't see that as a challenge then you might want to seriously consider rephrasing your posts when you get into situations like this. You still don't apparently understand what a consensus is if you still think a link was required for you to accept it. It was the clearest community consensus that Misplaced Pages can offer, yet it wasn't good enough for you – as, I think you know, the admin told you on your talk page. Take a hint and drop this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

PM, I never reverted anything here, and don't plan to as I support the stance you took - all I wanted was a link (now supplied by Falcadore above). Eff Won (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should give serious consideration to the way you present yourself. If you had no plans to edit anything and supported the stance I put forward, why did you phrase your request to see the consensus as a challenge? Even if that was not your intention, it is how you came across, and given your track record when it comes to discussing established consensus, your approach to this discussion was, at best, very poorly thought-out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

BB, all I asked for was a link to the consensus discussion that PM was using as the reason he reverted another editor. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with that. Eff Won (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He didn't cite a discussion, he cited a consensus. Consensus is not always manifest as a discussion, but you wouldn't know that because you don't understand what a consensus is. I have a problem with it because you asked several times for a link that a) was not necessary to prove PM's point, and b) you should have looked for yourself if you were so damned interested. You weren't even seeking to make a change (you say you actually supported the stance we took), yet you persisted in a quite antagonistic fashion – that is purely and simply disruptive. How you weren't reblocked is a total mystery to me, but I rest easy in the knowledge that you either have no idea what you did wrong therefore you'll do it again and get reblocked, or you... no wait, BB, "AGF". There's a little joke for you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Last Paragraph under heading of:

Driver changes

Charles Pic will move from Marussia to Caterham. Valtteri Bottas was promoted to a race drive at Williams replacing Bruno Senna, Bottas will partner 2012 Spanish Grand Prix winner Pastor Malonado who stays at the team for a third season.

Last link should go to Pastor Maldonado - below para with the small change:

Charles Pic will move from Marussia to Caterham. Valtteri Bottas was promoted to a race drive at Williams replacing Bruno Senna, Bottas will partner 2012 Spanish Grand Prix winner Pastor Maldonado who stays at the team for a third season.

CJPawley (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - thank you for pointing that out. Begoon  11:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jerome D'Ambrosio

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Has been confirmed as the 3rd driver for Lotus, according to his official website: http://www.jeromedambrosio.com/node/177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicilianjuly (talk • contribs)

 Not done: - that page seems to be from January 2012, concerning the 2012 season, where he is indeed listed. Begoon  14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

FIA entry list

On the FIA site, here, there is an entry list released on November 30, if you need it. 79.16.84.195 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems legit, but odd that there are no confirmed Sauber or Toro Roso drivers, no Pic or Glock. Personally I'd say it's no good for car numbers either since there are so many gaps in it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's that odd at all - Sauber rarely confirm driver numbers until the final entry list, which will probably come between late January and mid-February. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the drivers' names wouldn't be present. At the moment, we're selectively utilising this source as gospel for the HRT situation and the numbers, and ignoring it regarding confirmed drivers. I don't rate it as a source, and there's a precedent for error-strewn FIA entry lists. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Unassigned car numbers

Okay, maybe it's just me, but I think this looks weird. In fact, I think it looks downright inconsistent:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	9	Rosberg
				10	Hamilton
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	11/12	Gutierrez
					Hulkenberg

It just looks wrong to my eyes. Half the teams have their numbers assigned to specific drivers, half the teams do not, and there is no real explanation as to why. So I suggest we do either one of two things until such time as the full entry list - or at least enough drivers are assigned numbers that there is no longer the split between two number (as is the case with Sauber) - is released.

Number one, we have no numbers in the table, restoring the table to what it was yesterday with teams and drivers listed alphabetically:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	Hamilton
				Rosberg
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	Gutierrez
				Hulkenberg

Number two, we explain the discrepancy:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	9	Rosberg
				10	Hamilton
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	TBA	Gutierrez
					Hulkenberg

Notes:

• ^1 — With the release of the provisional entry list, Sauber, Force India, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Caterham and Marussia were all issued numbers for the season, but these numbers had not been assigned to individual cars.

The problem with the first solution is that we are knowingly holding back relevant information, and it does slightly contradict the above discussion where we decided to keep the table alphabetical - as opposed to based on 2012 WCC standings - until such time as numbers were assigned.

The problem with the second solution is that it's rather inelegant. It's more elegant than having half the teams with numbers assigned to drivers, half the team without any assigned numbers, and no explanation as to why, but it's still the lesser evil.

Nevertheless, I don't think we can keep the half-and-half split between assigned and unassigned numbers. It's inconsistent, and at the very least, needs and explanation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just input all of the numbers to individuals even though the FIA haven't confirmed them yet. Pch172 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't do that because we don't know which driver will be assigned which number. We can't knowingly put in false information. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it saying TBA. It provides the relevant information needed, and it doesn't look as 'messy' either. Inputting all the numbers now could end up being incorrect - we need to wait until something is confirmed rather than just trying to fill the spaces now with potentially wrong information. Sas1998 (Talk) 12:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2 numbers given to each team have been confirmed by the FIA, so we can enter all of that information somewhere in the article. What we don't know officially yet, is how some of the teams are going to allocate their numbers. Eff Won (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So why not something like this:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	9	Rosberg
				10	Hamilton
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	11 & 12 TBA	Gutierrez
					Hulkenberg

Notes:

• ^1 — With the release of the provisional entry list, Sauber, Force India, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Caterham and Marussia were all issued numbers for the season, but these numbers had not been assigned to individual cars.

Rather than leaving the reader wondering why they've been missed out. Eff Won (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already an explanation given as to why some numbers have been missed out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about TBA - I think there should be two numbers in there rather than TBA, because, yes it is explained, but the numbers have still been assigned to a particular team. Sas1998 (Talk) 21:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be to combine the numbers from the first table with the note from the third table, i.e.:

Team	Constructor	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	Mercedes	P	9	Rosberg
				10	Hamilton
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	11/12	Gutierrez
					Hulkenberg

Notes:

• ^1 — With the release of the provisional entry list, Sauber, Force India, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Caterham and Marussia were all issued numbers for the season, but these numbers had not been assigned to individual cars.

That way the table contains all the information currently available, but no speculation. DH85868993 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I still think that looks like an inconsistent mess. Either all of the teams should have their numbers assigned to individual cars, or all of them should have the "X/Y" format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that just because information is available, it does not have to be in the article. Considering how little the race numbers are actually worth (except the 1 of course), listing some of them as TBA is not going to make a big difference over listing the numbers but not assigning them to particular drivers. The5₉ (Talk) 04:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Under that logic, you could also make the case for leaving the tams and drivers in alphabetical order and only adding car numbers in once every car has been assigned a number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Something that could be argued as a valid outcome, but difficult to police because everyone has the "I found information, I must add it to Misplaced Pages immediately!" syndrome. There is no real clean way to have the article with half the numbers and I have no opinion for any form as they all, quite frankly, suck. The5₉ (Talk) 07:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The regular editors are a pretty diligent bunch. I'm pretty sure we could keep on top of it. And if we get a consensus and the aforementioned syndrome proves to be a repeat problem, we can always get an RFP. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the teams and drivers have to be out of order; they just look stupid. Keep the driver list the way the FIA released it. GeoJoe1000 00:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is their "order"? Just because the FIA entry list did things in numerical order does not mean we have to do it in numerical order, especially considering the problem with some drivers not yet being assigned numbers. The5₉ (Talk) 06:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

especially considering the problem with some drivers not yet being assigned numbers

And the way the FIA entry list is missing some drivers - namely Gutierrez, Hulkenberg, Ricciardo, Vergne and Pic. I believe we've had this discussion before - possibly several times - and the general opinion is that the FIA entry list is really only good for car numbers.

The more I think on it, the more I'm in favour of listing all teams and drivers alphabetically and without numbers until such time as the inal entry list is released. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of a consensus to accept PM's change, I have restored the table to how it was immediately prior to PM's removal of numbers and order change. I have been very careful to preserve (as far as I can tell) all changes that have occurred to other parts of the article since PM's change. If there is collateral damage to changes, other than those which are the subject of this discussion, please feel free to fix those.

PM please do not edit your change into place again without a consensus here, that may be construed as edit-warring, and you may suffer sanctions for it. Eff Won (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see a point in this back and forth. In my opinion the order of the list is a very small detail as both versions contain the same information and the actual order of constructors (which defines the order of the numbers assigned to the F1 cars of the next season) is already available in the 2012 season constructors standings. Even if I personally like Eff Won's order better, I wouldn't (and didn't) change it. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I don't even know where to begin to address how incredibly obtuse and confrontational your last edit and the above comment have been, Eff Won. There is no consensus at the moment for the table in any form, so reverting just Prisonermonkey's edits is utter rubbish. His edits are no more or no less controversial than anyone else's attempts to try and fit the numbers into the table (IE not controversial at all). Prisonermonkeys didn't even change it to the version he wanted, as there are still numbers on the table!

And really? Edit warring? Quite frankly you editing reverting a specific person's edits solely to scold them is the only edit warring that has happened in the past day. Suffer sanctions? Yeah, I think I need to have a chat with your blocking admin. Your purpose here seems to be solely sticking a thorn in Prisonermonkeys' side, and everyone is completely and utterly tired of it. The5₉ (Talk) 08:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CP C'ham was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Williams 2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Start-Class Formula One articles
• Low-importance Formula One articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles