Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:20, 13 April 2014

Formula One Stub‑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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 7 June 2013, see discussion. Keep, 29 April 2013, see discussion. Speedy delete (WP:G4), 30 July 2012, see discussion. Delete, 13 November 2010, see discussion.

Contested speedy deletion

This article should not be deleted for G4 - as that is only for A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. I have restored all versions so that the version at the deletion discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Formula_One_season dated well over two years ago at 01:56, 16 November 2010 - which refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2015_Formula_One_season&oldid=396563450, and as can be seen has absolutely no relevant data for the year 2015 - the current article has 2 items that have been published about the 2015 season already, and more will surely follow.  Ronhjones  20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because deletion is already being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Formula_One_season. Dricherby (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Crystal Ball

I've deleted the sentence sugggesting Honda will power McLaren. A blog and a school website clearly not good enough. See Daily Mail which contradicts this, and mere speculation at Autosport. Warren (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Drivers and Calendar

I've put in information about confirmed drivers as well as the calendar. I think bullet points are the best for the teams and drivers section (they're is only two), with the usual for the calendar. If you think they're is a better of presenting the information, feel free to alter this. Pch172 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed your edits about the Thai Grand Prix, because the race has not been confirmed. Please put more thought into your edits - the reference you gave made it pretty clear that no contract had been signed. 149.135.146.47 (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thai GP

There does need to be something in the article that mentions the Thai GP that everyone is happy for it to go in the article Pch172 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No there does not. Didn't the Rome Grand Prix teach you anything? --Falcadore (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a brief paragraph below the calendar talking about the Thai Grand Prix. It seems appropriate to include this because Bernie Ecclestone himself has confirmed that a Thai GP has been arranged.Videomaniac29 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And I removed it, reminding again about the Rome Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is possible that the Thai GP may not occur...but I feel it is notable enough to be included in this article. A lot of planning has gone into it, and it isn't as if it is some vague fantasy idea. There is a strong chance that this will occur, so why shouldn't it be in the article in a 'proposed races' section?Videomaniac29 (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I re-iterate the example of the Rome Grand Prix. When it is formally announced as being part of a calendar by the FIA, then I reckon it's good. A lot of planning work has been done for a LOT of grands prix that have not taken place. Why is this one any different from all those others? --Falcadore (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see your point.Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Teams section under teams and driver

Is this really needed? The only team change so far is the Honda engines supplying McLaren, which is stated under team changes. Until more drivers and teams come apparent (when creation of the usual table), this should be removed. Pch172 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

2015 numbers

It is not speculation to add the driver numbers. The FIA has made it clear that numbers are assigned to drivers for the duration of their careers. If they win the title, they have the right to use #1 if they so choose, but if they do, their regular number will be put aside so that no-one else can take it. It would be speculation to claim that a certain driver will be #1, but that is not what the article is doing - it is simply listing the numbers that are assigned to the drivers, the numbers that we can prove they will use unless they become champion. And even then, they have a choice to use it. We have a source that says they will use those numbers, which trumps a set of circumstances that means one of them might not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself can you? Warnings on two pages on this subject weren't enough? --Falcadore (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We know what numbers they will have if they don't win this year, but because we don't know who will win, each row is inevitably based on the speculation that that driver will not win. Burgring (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We also do not know the permanent numbers for drivers will continue or not, not a single race has been run under this system, it is slightly premature to suggest a second season will follow. --Falcadore (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

America and Mexico

The Mexican Grand Prix and the Grand Prix of America were recently removed from this article without any explanation given for their removal. Their presence on this article is well sourced so I reinstated them and I wonder wether anything has been published recently saying that this races have in fact been cancelled. If not they should stay in the article. Tvx1 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed the source for NJ, to one that stated 2015 is the plan. The previous source (and current one for Mexico) simply states that they will "...appear on a future schedule." Is there a better source we can use for Mexico as well? JohnMcButts (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Drivers Table: Signed vs. Announced

The inherent problems associated with declaring drivers as "signed" was pretty well-demonstrated with the Great F1 Edit War of 2014. What thoughts do you all have on chant it from "signed"–a process that is typically covered in secrecy and misdirection, a normal state that is likely obvious to anyone who's followed the sport for a long period–to "announced"? That's clear-cut, avoids the unfortunate edit-warring we saw over Sirotkin, and should make it more difficult for forceful, uncompromising personalities to run roughshod over a chorus of restraint.

Reasons in favor of it would be increased clarity, decreased debating over silly issues, no need to parse cryptic answers to blind questions, and greater harmony between "Announced" and "TBA", instead of the current dissonance between "Signed" and "TBA" (when apparently an announcement wasn't necessary to call a driver "Signed" for 2014 for a very long while). It seems like it would reduce the wiggle room available for misinterpretations of the situation.

Reasons against it would be that it might put the table a little behind the curve if teams make announcements but don't update their sites immediately following their announcements (though that seems unlikely, and other solid sources would likely cover the interim). Or, a team's not wanting to officially announce until both drivers are signed could leave one driver unlisted for an unacceptably long period of time, and could start debate about whether a remaining driver is still signed (given that contract durations are often learned through press leaks and assumptions, and their conditions for renewal are generally opaque).

Or, if we can't build consensus around this change, can we at least establish a better process for validating a driver's status to race for the team? Given the lack of testing in this era of F1, signing someone to drive for the team may as well mean simulator work, or press and sponsorship duties (see Williams/Susie Wolff), etc.

It seems like we should attempt to reduce the possibly ambiguity of this table, since nobody seemed to change their minds one bit about it the last time around, but mostly reasoned by force. Reducing the possibility for vagueness, and reducing the need to rely on singular members of the highly fallible (and vague) press, seems like it's in everyone's best interest.

Thoughts? 76.90.20.73 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps only drivers who are confirmed without caveats (Sirotkin famously had one)? --Falcadore (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I like that idea. And one would hope that it would be sufficient, but the caveats (and there was more than one) were either ignored or discounted by some, unfortunately. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Forza Rossa

Once again, we find ourselves in a Sirotkin situation, where we have contradictory sources.

The first source comes from the FIA, which states that Forza Rossa is still being investigated as to their viability. This, obviously, supports removing the content.

However, the second source comes from FOM, which states that they will be accepted. And in order to compete, the team needs approval from both the FIA and FOM. The FOM source states that FOM will accept them, and that Jean Todt also approves.

So, we have two contradictory sources from two bodies with the authority to rule on it. The best way forward is to include Forza Rossa with a footnote explaining their provisional status. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. While it's just about acceptable to mention them in the text, the best way forward is not to list them in the signed teams and drivers table when it's not certain that they have in fact been accepted for 2015

I will quote the sources that are provided to substantiate their presence in the list.

That's no confirmation. That's speculation.

Again, this makes it clear that Forza Rossa hasn't received an entry for 2015 yet.

This doesn't confirm they have a 2015 entry yet either.

And from FOM:

I don't know when you are even claiming that the sources are contradicting each other when they are all telling the same story. Haas has received a 2015 entry and Forza Rossa has not received a 2015 entry yet. Therefore it is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL to include them in the list of signed teams at this moment.

• Stub-Class Formula One articles
• Low-importance Formula One articles