This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Falcadore (talk | contribs) at 05:41, 27 November 2012 (→Numbers and the team and driver table: found the location of the consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:41, 27 November 2012 by Falcadore (talk | contribs) (→Numbers and the team and driver table: found the location of the consensus)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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 | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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:
|  |
| 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. |
|
| 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
| Support | DH85868993, Bretonbanquet, Prisonermonkeys, Bosleytree |
| Oppose |
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)