Talk:2009 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Ugh, Brawn numbers
Nothing is remotely official at this point, but there is an article here about how the FIA has given Brawn GP the last garage on pitlane. This is because they have chosen to view Brawn as an entirely new entry, rather than a continuation of Honda. This may or may not actually effect the numbers, but as the last line in the article says, it is possible that Brawn will be given numbers 20 and 21 instead of 18 and 19. We should NOT change the numbers now because it is purely speculation, but I guess just watch out for any sort of official clarification. Eightball (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No other media has reported it at the moment. They have viewed them as a new entry but have done some good things for Brawn. Chubb  enna  itor  08:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact of MAKING them use the final pit slot AND changing the pay out for them & Force India, i.e. reversing their status, does indicate that it is possible, nay likely, that the numbers may change to reflect their status as a "new" entry. Until we see something, probably at the first race itself, you can't deny this is possible.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It does look quite possible, but it seems like the FIA aren't particularly bothered about confirming anyone's numbers till the season starts. Looks like another case of waiting till next weekend. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though the Official site hasn't changed them round yet. Chubb  enna  itor  16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, the site still shows images of drivers from last year wearing Honda gear... --Amedeo Felix (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because they haven't taken new photos have they. The photos don't turn up until Australia, just like the helmets. Chubb  enna  itor  08:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you own shares in f1.com or something? I'm complaining that they are poor at updating.  Haven't taken photos?  I think there are plenty of photos they could use, but they can't be bothered to update their site properly.  I think they could do better.  Anyhow, we shall know all this soon enough... --Amedeo Felix (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you but I was forced into agreeing they were correct. They take the wall photos at Australia. Chubb  enna  itor  12:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

FIA publish updated entry list. D.M.N. (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More numbers
One thing I don't see on the FIA entry list is a section for test drivers with test driver numbers. What is our source for test driver numbers? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is directed at me. I used last seasons numbers and used McLaren as a start. I used elsewhere as refs. Chubb  enna  itor  21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not directed at you specifically, but I saw you added Wurz's number and I wondered what the source was. I'm not saying "Take that off" by any means. Test driver numbers only came in with the special Friday practice session testing in 2003. Now that doesn't happen any more, I'm wondering if test drivers actually still have numbers or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not seen any test drivers with numbers, nor any source to that effect. Would suggest removal unless a source can be found to back up these numbers. Readro (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen test drivers with numbers, but it's very inconsistent. I think some teams put them on their test cars just because they've done it for the past few years, but it's not remotely official. Plus there is no more testing until the end of the season, so there is no reason to have test numbers anyway. Eightball (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that this article doesn't show test driver numbers now, but the individual team articles still do. We should either have them across the range of relevant articles, if a source can be found, or remove them everywhere. And Eightball is right, we're not actually going to see the test drivers again until the end of the season anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the numbers aren't official and aren't used during a Grand Prix weekend then I don't see the justification for them. Readro (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. No significance of the numbers whatsoever from the point of view of races or the overall season. Leave  Sleaves  03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although not all teams use them (most test drivers run un-numbered cars), I have seen pictures of a Red Bull in testing last year (and I think recently too) with the number 35 on it. I'll have a look to see if I can find a picture. Cdhaptomos   talk – contribs  17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree; I was only adding them because Mclaren's article had them. Chubb  enna  itor  17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact is there is no 3rd driver in Friday practice as was in recent past, and it was for this that these 3rd drivers needed to be assigned numbers. I doubt many teams would bother numbering their 3rd drivers now. Also if these 3rd drivers took up sub duties they would use the number of the driver being subbed for.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Results Table
I believe tat it's time to put the results table up. Chubb enna  itor  20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can once the Australian race has happened. D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd agreed this week. Chubb  enna  itor  08:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we don't require two color code table besides Drivers and Constructors' table. Akshaysarode21 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll see why they're there. Chubb  enna  itor  20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, but to me those tables aren't looking good. --Akshaysarode21 (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The table under Statistics heading haven't been changed, as per trulli stripped from 3rd place. --Akshaysarode21 (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are McLaren listed as having two less starts after their disqualification from Melbourne. They still started the race and Hamilton and Kovalainen are still listed as having the full quota of starts in the drivers' table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.250.94 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The FIA did exclude them from the race though, so some championship tables didn't even have McLaren listed in the CHampionship because they didn't even have zero points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.70.69 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They were not listed in some championship classifications because at that time they were not classified, not having completed a race. It wasn't because of the disqualification. Plus, Kovalainen wasn't disqualified anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kovalainen himself wasn't disqualified, but the #2 McLaren was excluded from the constructors title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.70.69 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing numbers again
This is just getting annoying: Eightball (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now it's official though. Chubb  enna  itor  08:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Flags
Maybe that's already been discussed somewhere else, anyway: the European GP is... well, European, so shouldn't we use the European flag instead of the Spanish one? Same for Abu Dhabi, why don't we use the Abu Dhabi flag, since it's not the UAE GP? Asendoh (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this at WT:F1. Chubb  enna  itor  16:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the FIA (http://fialive.fiacommunications.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/abudhabi/Pages/Circuit.aspx) uses the flag of Abu Dhabi, I don't really find any good reason to why it should not be used here aswell. I'll change it. --Professor Processor (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm changing it back - there is an extensive discussion on this at WT:F1 as Chubb has pointed out. Please join in, and a consesnsus will be established eventually. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Who put the state/canton/city flags aside the drivers? It makes no sense at all! Barrichello is not representing São Paulo state, but his country, Brazil, as well as the other drivers! And the flags are already displayed in the Teams and drivers section! -- Fsarmony (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffusers
The last paragraph of the section entitled 'Pre Season Testing' relates to the diffuser debate. Should this be separated from the section? Also, it is factually incorrect in a number of ways (for just one example, not all teams placed a protest, as the article states). I will try to edit it over the weekend if I can find suitable sources, but if you can find them before me, please edit it! Oli.meggitt (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should be seperated somehow, as it isn't really part of pre-season testing. Perhaps looking at how the article dealt with Spygate might give you an answer.  Cdhaptomos   talk – contribs  13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Brawn GP drivers
I'm just wondering if Cdhaptomos's edit was needed to be undone? They are an official new team so Button and Barrichello technically have changed team or does this not count? Chubb enna  itor  07:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we shouldn't just assume that everyone knows Brawn started where Honda left off. The changes should be emphasized - after all, they did technically change team. Cdhaptomos   talk – contribs  16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article provides necessary information about Honda's departure. And talking about technicality, technically the team's the same, only the owners have changed. Leave  Sleaves  16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, Jensen Button is even on the same contract he had at Honda, simply modified for a pay cut. Barrichello though I believe is on a new contract.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But the FIA has the deamed the team new, that's all I'm pointing out. Chubb  enna  itor  19:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Bull nationality
Should be British? When Vettel won, they played the British anthem? Alex Holowczak (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, per MOS:FLAG the flags have to show the sporting nationality chandler ··· 09:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Red Bull Racing specifically changed their license from British to Austrian a few seasons ago. I would not be so quick to change.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 09:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they just played the British anthem for the winning constructor. If they were racing under an Austrian licence, they would have played the Austrian anthem. Alex Holowczak (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't play the British Anthem if they didn't consider them a UK team, per mos:flag we have to go with sporting nationality, which FIA has shown as UK. chandler ··· 09:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MOS:FLAG is useless if we go by references, and there are references which back Red Bull as Austrian. The FIA has incorrectly displayed the flags of drivers before, should we change that as well?  I suggest calming down and not being so quick to make sweeping changes to this, and other F1 articles based on an anthem.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with The359. Hold down the editing until this can be sorted out. Leave  Sleaves  09:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * References cant always override that, just from a football perspective (even though we're talking about players not teams), there are many who can be referenced as being "xians" because they were born in "x", but they're competition for "y" and therefore their sporting nationality is "yian", see for example Giuseppe Rossi who holds dual nationality (but competes for Italy and will always have a Italian flag). chandler ··· 09:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like the racing driver Andreas Zuber who was born in Austria but drives under UAE license.Officially Mr X (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These two examples are able to be referenced by reliable resources. Not based on a national anthem.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 09:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Chinese authorities may well have played the wrong anthem - it would hardly be the first time this kind of thing has happened. Let's wait and see a while. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I seem to remember the Japanese anthem being played erroneously once (for a Nannini win?) so it wouldn't be the first time. Readro (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to "wait and see", then surely there should be a British flag there while we're waiting. The FIA and the team have given a message to the watching millions that the team is British. Can you suggest a source that should override the podium ceremony as a source? Have you seen anyone suggest that the anthem was a mistake?81.155.190.147 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Er...if you read the rest of this week-old thread, you'll see that, yes, several sources are given that confirm not only that Red Bull is officially Austrian, but also why this is so and a story explicitly discussing the incorrect use of flags. 4u1e (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Please see Talk:Red_Bull_Racing. This discussion is perhaps more appropriate at that location. --Pudeo' 10:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there a reference to PROVE that they ever registered as Austrian?  Should it not be the case that a team get its nationality, so to speak, from its home base unless solid proof may be provided to the contrary?--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Pudeo has pointed out a reference to Red Bull Racing's website which specifies that their nationality is Austrian.


 * Team nationalities are not determined by their base location. Renault is based in Britain, they're French.  Force India is based in Britain, they're Indian.  BMW Sauber is based in Switzerland, they're German.  Toyota is based in Germany, they're Japanese.  Etc, etc...  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I wrote. I said they SHOULD BE UNLESS they are clearly stated to be otherwise.  Jordan, Honda and Renault have been clearly stated thus, Red Bull never has.  Also there is a clear rule of thumb here that states a web site by the subject at hand is NOT a good reference point alone.  We MUST have neutral reference, e.g. the FIA or a news site.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If Red Bull says they are Austrian, then they are Austrian. Really no big issue here, though the anthem raises interesting questions, none of which need to be resolved immediately. Aptery  gial  10:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * David Coulthard says he's Scottish, but the Union Flag used to fly behind him on the podium, and the British national anthem was played for him when he won, even though he would have rather seen the Scottish flag (Saltire?) and hear the Scottish national anthem. Do we want to use the official nationality of the drivers and teams or should we grant them the nationality they'd rather drive under?81.155.190.147 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be assumed until there is a reference for a team's nationality, regardless of their base location. A team's nationality should not be the same as their base location simply because there has yet to be any referencing to say otherwise, or any referencing to say anything!  So your point is the obvious, quite frankly.  Red Bull has however specifically stated their nationality, Pudeo even linked to their website where they list "Nationality: Austrian".  And yes, primary sources are not the best, but they are not forbidden, and I highly doubt you're going to find any reliable secondary or tertiary references which list them as British, besides some music played on a podium.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 10:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A primary source perfectly acceptable in this situation. We are talking about the team's nationality here. Why wouldn't you take the team's word on that? Leave  Sleaves  10:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see in this page ( http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/ica/2009/Pages/ica_140409.aspx ) Red Bull Racing is registered in the FIA F1 championship via the austrian federation. So, no doubt Red Bull Racing is officialy an austrian team.Woodcote (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's easy to get the anthem mixed up as they're austrian but based in the UK. They have an austrian license so they are duly austrian. Chubb  enna  itor  18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You or someone else got a decent English reference to that affect???--Amedeo Félix (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like media have started noticing this too . Also notice how both drivers here mention Austria. Leave  Sleaves  18:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How was it dealt with last year when a Toro Rosso won the Italian GP and the Italian anthem was played? It was only six months ago. Did we decide not to care so much because of the wave of nostalgia for the decendents of Minardi? And was Minardi ever actually recognised by Wikipedia as being Australian? I don't know, I am just asking seeing how there is quite obviously precedent. Are there those who still think of Red Bull as being Scottish? --Falcadore (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Toro Rosso is Italian though, based in Italy and running under an Italian license. Minardi was never Australian.   IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Minardi / Toro Rosso has always been Italian. My bet is that we'll have to wait till Red Bull win again, and see what anthem they play on the podium. If it's Austrian, we'll know today was a mistake. If it's British, we'll know that's the correct anthem / correct "nationality". I don't see a resolution to this appearing any time soon otherwise, and the argument could go on indefinitely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As observed by several others, neither location nor ownership is relevant. Each team (competitor) has to register via one of the national sporting bodies and takes the nationality of that body. (see para 113 of the International Sporting Regulations). Certainly at the time of the protest against the double decker diffusers Red Bull was registered with the Austrian sporting body (see ref listed above by Woodcote) and are therefore Austrian. The situation seems crystal clear to me. (By the way, as far as I know neither Minardi, or oddly Brabham, ever registered as an Australian team.) 4u1e (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This should clear it all up:

"Sebastian Vettel had taken a brilliant victory for the team, and straight after the German national anthem they had expected the Austrian anthem to be played – as RBR operates under an Austrian racing licence in deference to the energy drinks company.

Instead, it was 'God Save the Queen' (and no, not the Sex Pistols' version) that rang out over Shanghai.

Dietrich Mateschitz couldn't believe it, watching the race at home in Salzburg.

"I was surprised and I wondered why they played the British anthem," he said. "It was a mistake. This should not happen again. But we will give the FIA some more opportunities to get it right in the future!""

D.M.N. (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For me the most important story is the one below it. ;) Aptery  gial  11:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Flagging of the GPs and teams
I do not understand why do we flag GPs by location (not by official name) and teams by official registration (not by location). I think if we flag GPs by location, we should flag teams also by location (so, it should be 🇬🇧 Red Bull Racing). And if we use official registration country (i.e. Austria for RBR) we should use EUR and  ABU for GPs.

In results table flags are headers of columns, and they should be different. If we use Spanish flag for both Valencia and Barcelona GPs (GPs have different names to avoid confusing), people who will read article may confused ESP and EUR GPs (although, EUR and ESP begin with letter E; it's other reason for confusing).

If we see interwikis, other Wikipedias use EU flag for European GP (and some wikis used Abu Dhabi flag for Abu Dhabi GP), so why en-wiki should use ESP flag?-- Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One There doesn't seem to be any more to be said on the matter. Aptery  gial  12:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the result of discussion there. And that discussion was about Pacific GP.-- Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 12:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They start talking about the European GP quite early, despite the title. What I do understand through all the murk is that they eventually decided that the European GP and Pacific GPs should have the host country flag. Aptery  gial  12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The European Union is not a nation, and it is not representative of all of Europe, and in particular one country that has hosted the European Grand Prix, is not a member nation. The European Union does not participate in any sporting competitions. It is limited to economic and political entity. While it might be considered close, aprroximate is not good enough. You may as well use NATO's flag. It is not appropriate for this usage. --Falcadore (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The flag is also the flag of the Council of Europe, so I think it is appropriate for representing the whole continent. 84.155.77.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Europe as a whole competes in the Ryder Cup. The EU Flag is used there, and it would seem to be suitable here.81.155.190.147 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's clearly an entirely different situation, as Europe is not a competing entity in F1. It's just a convenient way of allowing one country to have two races, and we use the godforsaken flag system here to represent the host country, not necessarily the entity that the race is named after. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They are two completely different things so duly are dealt with differently (not on purpose though). Chubb  enna  itor  15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Falcadore's right, and Chubb's right too - the issue of flags for races is entirely different to the flags used for teams. Renault is based in England but no-one's saying we should use the British flag for them. Likewise Toyota being based in Germany. The flag used is the one pertaining to the race licence the team has. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Takuma Sato's "Retirement"
In the list of driver changes, Takuma Sato is listed as moving from Super Aguri to retirement. To me, retirement means a voluntary act by the person. In the off-season, Sato was in the running for one of the STR seats but missed out. Since then, I have not heard any statements from Sato that he would no longer like to drive in F1. All in all, I think retirement is the wrong word to use for Sato's current situation. I think something like "not under contract" would be more appropriate. Any thoughts? Rascalb (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Super Aguri and all its personnel were 'retired' early in the season. Any such mention belongs in the 2008 article as far as I'm concerned, and only personnel who made it to the end of 2008 should be mentioned in such transition lists. --Falcadore (talk)
 * I changed the word "retirement" to "without drive". I think it's better in that situation. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * According to rumours, if Bourdais doesn't pick up, Sato will replace him at Monaco. I don't think anything should be mentioned about his "retirement" in this article; more that SA folded last year in last year's article. Cdhaptomos   talk – contribs  09:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * rumours is the key word i anything you just said. Chubb  enna  itor  16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Qualifying Results
do we need this table??--Wrcf1 10:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've discussed it before and it's been disallowed. I've removed it on this basis. Chubb  enna  itor  11:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Rating
The article was rated as a Start Class. I changed it to B as I think it meets the criteria. Comments are welcome :)  Ra f ael  22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had no idea we could do that. Chubb  enna  itor  17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only ratings that have a formal process are GA and FA. Some projects have a formal process for other grades, especially A, but we've never really put one in place. There are guidelines for what standard is required though - see the links in the WP:F1 banner at the top of the page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Driver Standings
Why does someone keep placing Massa ahead of Kimi when Kimi got his points before Massa AND he has more finishes??--Amedeo Félix (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because first earned points and number of finishes are not the tie breakers? The next best finish is the determining factor, which Massa wins by having finished 9th to Raikkonen's 10th.  See for example Formula1.com.   IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 09:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The precise rules can be found at article 7 of the sporting regulations (found at FIA.com). –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Torro Rosso Test/Reserve Driver
Who was the TR test driver before Hartley? It's got a note against his Red Bull section saying he only got his superlicence before Spain and that it was just DC until then but there's nothing for TR. Twsf (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Table obsession
An evolving discussion taking place here has brought to a head an important issue here.

Where is a season overview?

The most important part of any encyclopaedic article is being ignored because we the editors are obsessing over the minutiae statistics and creating a near unreadable piece of machine code. The average reader coming here to find out about Formula 1 in 2009 is going to leave more confused that informed.

In a somewhat radical approach, I would like to propose that all editing of tables and statistic based information be banned until a season overview is written. Furthermore a complete season article should be as close as is feasible to 40k in length, in line with Wikipedia guidelines over article splitting. Right now it’s what 80k? 100k? And tells us virtually nothing about the most importing part of the season itself, the racing!

What we are producing is frankly terrible and unreadable. --Falcadore (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I share essentially the same feelings, although I would note that it's much easier to write tables than it is to create concise, compelling prose that summarises the season to date, which may explain why it happens. 4u1e (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ?! I understand where you're coming from and I also believe we need to right more but we have the right amount of tables. the tables are the second most essential thing because what's the point in having finishing positions if you can't display them. We have the right amount of tables. We just need something entitled season review. Chubb  enna  itor  20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've very obviously stated that you do NOT know where we are coming from. Looking at the 2009 article, table by table:
 * Car launches? Very minor detail. Gone.
 * Teams and drivers? Sure.
 * 2008 race schedule? Sure.
 * Broadcasting changes? Extroadinarily minor. Gone.
 * Results and Standings - Grands Prix? Nope, this is a duplicate of information presented in the previous and following tables - definately should go.
 * Drivers? Of course.
 * Constructors? Yes
 * Statistics? Well, again duplication and its cluttering the main piece - that could easily go into a supplementary article. Very badly needs a de-clutter.
 * Constructors Stats? As above
 * As it stands the article is presntly more than double the size Wikipedia recommends for splitting. And does anyone think it is going to get smaller? Needs pruning. Now I have begun a first test for a split with the aim of increasing readability. I have not added the prose neccessary or done all the tidying as its a first pass test. More details at the detailed source of dicussion at the 2008 page which is here. --Falcadore (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 Turkish Grand Prix
This article needs vastly improving and I don't have time in the foreseeable future so I brought it here. Chubb enna  itor  15:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bourdais
Likely to get the elbow today. Can we please keep this off the article until such time that an official announcement is made. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Replacement
I've added an edit note to the article. I can't make it any clearer than that. No name should be added unless and until there is an official announcement by the team. Any further additions of a name without such an announcement will be considered vandalism. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Piquet, Jr.
Not sure if F1SA is considered a reliable source but this article states that Piquet will indeed be replaced by Romain Grosjean for Valencia and beyond. Is it okay to add it to the table or are we going to wait? Officially Mr X (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have Renault announced it? --Falcadore (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Heikki Kovalainen is racing for McLaren NOT Pedro de la Rosa (vandalism)
Hey guys there is probably some vandalism in the table at the bottom saying Pedro de la Rosa is the second driver for McLaren after Lewis Hamilton, the reference to this when hovered over has been changed to say 'Pedro de la Rosa to take over from Kovalainen after Valencia' yet the reference is actually linked to an autosport article saying that Kovalainen will race for McLaren in 2009. This is obvious vandalism however I have no idea how to get up the perosn that did it, so can someone please look through the history and do the necessary actions please?

Thanks

I've changed it back to Heikki Kovalainen and the hovering over the reference text (though it should be noted the vandal didn't change the flag of Finland when changing the name to Pedro.. thanks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.19.180 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: it was under the 'Drivers' table, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.19.180 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

European GP
Shouldn't the entries for Renault and their drivers stay blank until the race has been run, per WP:CRYSTAL? Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The drivers should remain blank certainly because there's nothing to stop them racing for another team (Ferrari will have a seat going free). The team is officially excluded so I don't see a problem there. MotorsportPete93   (talk)  17:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Certainly the drivers, yes. If the drivers don't take part, their entries will be blank anyway. The team is suspended (not excluded) but there might be an appeal. Thing is, if it's left blank, people will come and add whatever they think the right term is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's easily sorted with an edit note. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I might be starting a completely new discussion here but do we need a new code for 'suspended' rather than 'excluded'? Doesn't excluded mean they were removed from the race after the event? MotorsportPete93   (talk)  18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've read my mind. I think we do need a separate code for "suspended" or "banned" or whatever, to differentiate those from exclusions. A driver is excluded if he's thrown out between first practice and the race, usually for weight issues, or on-track misdemeanours like barging etc. If he's thrown out during or after the race, he's DSQ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How's "SUS"? MotorsportPete93   (talk)  18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making a habit of reading my mind! If no-one objects, we should add it to the driver legend / key. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just S.FiRe (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "SUS" is more self-explanatory, IMO. It's not too long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you edit the table key box because i can not see how u do it.FiRe (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! SUS! Sorry, the problem with SUS is that it's a bit sus. Sus, is colloquiolly short for suspicious, and usually refers to suspicious behavior, often sexually suspicious behavior. Not the best choice. SSN is a military term for a nuclear submarine. How about SPN? --Falcadore (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection I have to ask, do you really need to add a line to the legend, for such an incredibly rare event as a suspension? Has a team been suspended from a race in recent times? In any times? I don't think the legend needs to be expanded for one-off explanations. DNS or DNA with a asterisk and a note at the end is most appropriate. We shouldn't have to load up the table with every eventuality. Do we need to add BNT somewhere for an instance when because of Bernie Ecclestone's bent toe nail at the next time Flavio Briartore buckets him in the press and Renulat gets black flagged because of it? --Falcadore (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if a suspension was a one-off, but there was BAR in 2005, Irvine and Schumacher in '94, just off the top of my head. I did removed "cancelled event" from the legend because it has never happened. But suspensions do occur from time to time. Personally, to make the legend smaller I'd remove non-results-based trivia like "injured". Also I'd say "SPN" is too much like "spin" or something. "SUS" looks fine to me, I mean, "EX" generally means "ex-girlfriend" or something, but we still use it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering events like these are a generally rare occurrence, couldn't the blank keys be replaced with something like DNP - Did Not Participate, to stop cluttering the table? 90.220.2.149 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we have precedent. Do what we did before. Look up 2005 and copy what we did then. In 2005 it was fine to use something other than SUS. We're unneccessarily creating new jargon when we don't have to. What do other sources use? I bet it isn't SUS. We don't have to cover every evetuality. --Falcadore (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

They were either left blank, or people randomly put "EX" in there, which is incorrect. No-one likes creating extra stuff less than I do, but I think it's necessary. As I say, to remove another code, let's get rid of the stupid "Inj". Other sources, I suspect, just don't have entries for these races. "DNP", by the way, we already use for "Did not practice". Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Definately agree there, let's do that then. --Falcadore (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry *blush* Do what? Get rid of the "Inj"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that. If the driver is injured at a meeting, like Massa at Hungary, it's covered by DNS. If he misses races because he's injured, then he, or she, was not even in the entry list and should be left blank. The text accompanying the tables can describe the reasons for being missing. --Falcadore (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And you know, suspension is covered by the above as well. If you are suspended at the meeting, it's DNS, if you are suspended prior to the meeting then you are not in the entry and should be left blank. The reasoning is exactly the same. --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I basically agree with you. Any driver who's not on the entry list for whatever reason should have a blank space. But I'm just hacked off with people adding the wrong code for these things, and they're still doing it at the moment. When Massa, Alonso, Piquet etc miss the next race, people will still be adding all kinds of incorrect stuff. I thought a "suspended" code would do away with the problem for Renault, but I'd be happy to get rid of it if "Inj" went as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Renault will be appealing the suspension. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Going off the point a bit but like with Jaime Alguersuari in the Drivers table he has emtry boxes should will put something in them like (NIR) not in race or something what do you think.FiRe (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got to say definitely not. All across the driver articles, drivers who weren't involved have blank boxes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with 'sus', 'inj' or 'ex'. If people can't guess what they are then that is why we have a key. MotorsportPete93   (talk)  11:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But we have DNS. To have these others is statistical duplication. If we have Inj then we shouldn't have DNS. But really we shouldn't have inj at all. If you did not make the start because you're injured, that's what we have DNS for. If you didn't even show up because you've been forced to spectate and recuperate then you weren't even in the race to begin with so the space is blank. --Falcadore (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Piquet and Alonso were both marked as Disqualified for the European Grand Prix. I've made their boxes empty for now. Perhaps a note should be added there, the same way it is added under the Renault F1 team itself? (do not edit, Renault are appealing the verdict) or similar?--Chrill (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that was a good idea. We're going to get a lot of incorrect codes added in the next few days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If they have been disqualified then it doesn't matter that Renault has appealed. Right now, they are disqualified. If the appeal is upheld then they get their DNF's or 15ths back (what a reward!). Anything else is anticipating the news and that is not what Wikipedia is. -Falcadore (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether they're suspended or not, the boxes stay blank, if we're not going to have a code for suspensions. They are not being disqualified at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the results keys at the WikiProject Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Drivers table
Are we agreed that no driver should appear on the table until he has actually competed in at least one race? Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Schumacher have been added to the template at the bottom. Should it be standardised to be the same as the drivers table? &#032;- oahiyeel talk 09:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What template? Answer is no, Schumacher has to pass a fitness test before he can race. We should be reporting what has happened, not speculating on what might happen in a few weeks time, per WP:CRYSTAL. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that he won't pass his fitness test, after Ferrari confirmed the deal, is WP:CRYSTAL surely? mspete93   [talk]  15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, saying he will race when he hasn't yet really is WP:CRYSTAL. Plenty of things could still stop this from happening, although in practice I think it is an event that is "notable and almost certain to take place" and so can be included. 4u1e (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This template: Template:Formula One teams &#032;- oahiyeel talk 17:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When a driver is announced before the season starts we put them in the template so why not now. mspete93  [talk]  11:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Primarily because it might change again. Something less likely to happen before the season. At least I chose to believe that. --Falcadore (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough of 'Wikipedia policy', as someone who might just want to use Wikipedia for reference I would want as much information as possible and you 'established Wikipedia elite editors' holding back imformation until "after a Grand Prix" or whatever really is no use at all, I would want to know now. If you have cited news you should add it to the page and ignore irrelevant reasons not to: lengthy discusion about everything really can't be necessary. If something added to a page really is grosely wrong then remove it but don't keep treating Wikipedia like your own personal project. Rumours are very useful and interesting and nobody would get confused because by the very nature of it's heading it would be "rumour" but still relevant to include. There is nothing wrong with rumour as long as it is not presented as fact. Wikipedia should be to pool in information and not just tell you what any other site says. So to this point, it doesn't really matter if we add Schumacher now or later but since we have the news now we should add it now - I don't think a Wikipedia visitor would be in any way offended. If you're worried about the event not happening then perhaps we should remove the article for 2010 or even 2009 because perhaps the world will end before then. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you've responded to me, I'll respond back. None of us are paid by Wikipedia, or even commissioned. All work done on these pages are essentially personal projects. The vast majority of contributors are not paid to do so, it is as such, the work of fandom (in some instances very good fandom), no matter what its aspirations, anyone who believes that Wikipedia is not, is really deluding themselves.
 * Secondly, I'm not an elite anything. My opinions and edits have exactly the same power, or less, as the next guy. My only real recourse, even with the policies and guidelines available to say or ask you not to. If you want Schumacher to be in the drivers table, fine, you want. He hasn't race yet, so while it may seem like a technicality, it is a real one.
 * You don't like something I've written, or un-written, revert me. It's not a threat, it's a right built into the coding that runs this website. --Falcadore (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I find myself somewhere between you two with this one. I believe that there are two types of unconfirmed news here. One is the type that Officially Mr X was adding to the 2009 and 2010 pages with rumours that have not even been mentioned by a respected Formula One source (Yes, I know I always use it as an example - autosport.com). The other type is the Schumacher story-which I do feel is worthy of inclusion on here. For now, he will be in Valencia, that is the common knowledge. If something changes between today and Valencia then we can easily change it. That's my opinion. mspete93   [talk]  14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting in the context of the discussion above that Schumacher will not now be racing. I'm in no way suggesting that this particular story shouldn't have been mentioned, just noting that even the most apparently certain things can end up not happening. 4u1e (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully believe we were right to mention it and that we should always continue to do so, although where there are conditions attached (i.e. fitness test), we should mention these as well. mspete93   [talk]  10:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Belief is irrelevant compared to the fact that ultimate the information became incorrect. There are hundreds of websites which cover rumours. This is not one of those. --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't make myself clear there. I didn't say we should be putting rumours in. This was not a rumour. The information was not incorrect. He had been announced by Ferrari as a driver. Thus we were right to have him in the table. If we ever get a similar situation, we should do the same. mspete93   [talk]  11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he didn't race did he? Congratulations on completing the due diligence, it's still wrong. Accuracy is the only measure. We can say, yeah but Ferrari said so, yeah but Schuamcher said so, yeah but, yeah but, but this but that...
 * It's still wrong. Get it right first time, or don't write it up at all. Sometimes we have to wait for the information to mature. We are not a news site, we do not have to have an answer out there.
 * I know it hurts, I know you want to but the information in there which is almost correct, but sometimes you just have to wait, and in this instance, wait until the next race. --Falcadore (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm never going to agree with you on this one I'm afraid. mspete93   [talk]  12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops - sorry for starting the debate off again. 4u1e (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We know you did it on purpose ;) haha Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the teams and drivers table not the standings btw - mspete93   [talk]  11:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

schumacher picture
Do you agree that in an event schumacher races we should have his pic in the main article section.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No? We have several ex-F1 champions driving this season and they don't have any pictures.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he's just another driver as far as we should be concerned. His results can dictate whether or not we start thinking about putting his picture up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

dont add the rounds section table
It is making it more complicated.i removed it.If you really want to know the rounds then check the drivers table —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion ongoing here - I'll revert you and you can contribute to the discussion. Personally I'm not bothered about it either way, but we'll change it depending on consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Winning constructor European GP
Why does it say Brawn, when Brawn got 12 to McLaren's 13 points. Unless by saying Brawn, one means, that since Rubens won, Brawn won. I, however, believe, that does not make much sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.221.37 (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Winning constructor refers to the constructor that gained 10 points from having one of their drivers finish in first position. It refers to the race win by one of their entrants and not overall points tally from the race. -- Iscariot (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how it works. - mspete93   [talk]  15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Fisirarri
Fisichella is going to Ferrari for the rest of the season. I know the table only includes up to the current round, but this article - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78298 - makes it pretty clear than Giancarlo will be seeing out the season. Should this be added to the table, or just left as it is for now and updated as needed? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally dont like the collumn but it should be updated after each rd as you never know he might have an accident like Massa and be put out for the season. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my thing was that the column was only put in because a repalcement was needed for Massa. Now that Ferrar have a driver confirmed to race until the end of the season and since none of the other drivers will be moving - unless there's exceptional circumstances - the column could probably be completed and updated as needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuel-adjusted qualifying times
Does anyone else think it would be interesting to have a table somewhere showing the fuel-adjusted qualifying times of the top 10 qualifiers (seeing as the bottom 10 only ever qualify on low fuel)? Obviously it wouldn't be anything offical but would give readers some idea of who the real star of qualfying was... SirJibby (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where would these "fuel-adjusted qualifying times" come from? Would you calculate them yourself? If so, that would be original research (and hence not permissible). DH85868993 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he means the recalculated grids (used by the BBC) which factor in the effect of fuel weight on a driver's laptime to work out which order they would start in if all had done the same lap on mimimal fuel. Could be a nice addition.--MartinUK (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to question the relelvance. It's an interpretated statistic based on predictions, a fair amount of crystall balling there, even if the BBC have done it rather than a wikipedia edittor, essentially, it's still a guess. --Falcadore (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)