Talk:2013 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Edit request, calendar
The FIA has confirmed that the German Grand Prix has been moved to the 7th July, with another race TBA held on the 21st July. The article needs to be updated to reflect that.

Proposed table: Source --OZOO 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, although as there is only 2 days left, we could wait. Sas 1998  (Talk) 17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid we can only do half of the proposed edit. The only change we can make is to mention the German Grand Prix being brought forward. We cannot mention the "extra European round" with a blank space in the table because although the FIA and/or Bernie might want a 20th race, that does not necessarily mean that they will get a 20th race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well it's hardly likely to be further afield wedged between those two (my bet would be France). But as you say there is no proof of anything so why not just leave it TBA all round until we know more? Britmax (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Because there is no proof that it will happen in the first place. Austria, France and Turkey have all been suggested as possible venues, but there are sources out there claiming that each one is unlikely to happen for a variety of reasons.


 * Besides, tonight marks the WMSC's final meeting for the 2012 year. They'll come to a decision around the same time as the article will lose its protection. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. (Non-Admin Closure)  Vacation nine 14:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Driver changes backward emphassis
Shouldn't the driver changes section emphasise those driver joining new teams in 2013 rather than those who have left? I note the first on the list details how Michael Schumacher has left Mercedes before talking about Lewis Hamilton joining the team. As Schumacher will play little if any role in the 2013 season whereas Hamilton will no doubt be a major player, the emphasis should be on Hamilton first with Schumacher effectively a footnote? It's just placing the emphasis on the more relevant aspects of the story to this article. --Falcadore (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I note the first on the list details how Michael Schumacher has left Mercedes before talking about Lewis Hamilton joining the team. As Schumacher will play little if any role in the 2013 season whereas Hamilton will no doubt be a major player, the emphasis should be on Hamilton first with Schumacher effectively a footnote?


 * Except that Schumacher's decision to retire is the event that triggered Hamilton's move to Mercedes, which freed up a seat at McLaren for Perez, which in turn left a vacancy at Sauber for Gutierrez/Hulkenberg. The section is written the same way as the driver changes section on the 2012 page, following the path of each event that was born out of the one before. By moving Schumacher's decision to retire to a footnote, you downplay its importance - which cannot be overlooked, because references provided for the article make it quite clear that Mercedes wanted Schumacher, and it was only because he was indecisive that they started looking at Hamilton. Therefore, were it not for Schumacher's retirement, none of the rest of the driver moves could have happened.


 * And yes, my argument is the same as the one on the van Gisbergen issue - Michael Schumacher might have announced his retirement in 2012, but he completed the 2012 season. The physical effect of his decision is much more important than when that decision was made and announced, therefore it is more relevant to the 2013 season than 2012. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hamilton is part of the season, Schumacher is not. Exceedingly simple to understand where the emphassis should lie. --Falcadore (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Schumacher not being a part of the season is a change from the previous season. He completed every race in 2012. The first race after his retirement is the first race of 2013. Ergo, the physical change happened between seasons, and the effects of this are going to be felt the most in 2013. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * SO it is your belief then the Schumacher's 2012 retirement is more important to the 2013 season article than Hamilton racing with Mercedes? --Falcadore (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Writing events in a purely linear fashion is not good writing as the first event in a chain is not always the most important event. It's about prioritising. --Falcadore (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Prisonermonkeys: you said that "Schumacher's decision to retire is the event that triggered Hamilton's move to Mercedes", which is not true. First Hamilton signed to Mercedes, then Perez signed to McLaren (these were approx. at the same time), and then days later Schumacher announced his retirement. Between these times there were even speculations that MSC might join Sauber, because there were no seats left at Mercedes and he hadn't announced his retirement yet. So, if you want chronological order, then Hamilton and Perez comes before Schumacher. - Dubfire (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that's what I thought, and as Falcadore said, just because it is in that order (which it isn't anyway) doesn't mean it needs to be written in that order, if other things are more important (which in my view also, they are). Sas 1998  (Talk) 15:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Davide Rigon
I can't find the part in the reference that confirms for the 2013 season. Pch172 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? Take another look and make sure you read it properly. I've noticed that you have something of a problem with reading sources carefully - this morning, you added Tio Ellinas as Marussia's test and reserve driver, even though the reference you supplied made it clear he would only be participating in a Young Driver Test, and as per consensus that has existed for as long as the YDTs have, taking part in the Young Driver Test does not qualify a driver to be considered a team's test and reserve driver.


 * Note the final two lines of the reference given for Rigon:
 * Ferrari added that Italian GP2 Series driver Rigon, 25, "has recently extended his relationship" with the team.


 * He "will be on call for all racing and promotional activities also for the 2012 and 2013 seasons", said Ferrari.
 * Does that clear things up for you?


 * I get that you want to make the page as complete as it can possibly be. I get that you want to make it one of the best pages on Wikipedia. We all want that. But if you want to make that happen, then you need to pay much more attention to detail. Don't just read a headline and think "Hey, that's good enough!", because if you had actually read the article, you would have seen that while technically true, the headine is misleading for our purposes; the text says this:
 * Ellinas finished eighth overall in the GP3 standings and won the final race of the year at Monza. He scored more points that team-mates Dmitry Suranovich and Fabiano Machado and therefore was awarded the drive at 2013's Young Driver Test.
 * You did, after all, go digging through three months' worth of content to find that article. Would it have killed you to read it a little more closely? And if you were unsure, you could have always asked another editor. That's what user talk pages are for.


 * So please, in future, read your sources more carefully. You have already made two edits today that added ir removed content that was incorrect and unsupported by references. You have been an editor long enough to know that this is the standard that is expected. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 F1
The page 2013 F1 is still locked until Dec. 7 (even though it's Dec. 8) in regards to editing. Can someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.51.56 (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The protection template was taken off two days ago. You need to do a forced cache refresh - Ctrl + F5 - and that should fix things for you.


 * If this does work, please do not use it to add the numbers into the team and driver table. By consensus established above, we have decided that it is best to leave the numbers out of the table until they have been assigned to every car and driver, rather than half of them (which the 1 Decemeber entry list did). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:34, 9 December 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 Wikipedia. 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.  The359  ( 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.  The359  ( 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). Sas 1998  (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.  The359  ( 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.  The359  ( 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.  The359  ( 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. The359  ( 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 Wikipedia 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)

How come Bruno Senna is racing forCaterham. I think i pronounced this unlikely. I think Heikki Kovalainen should stay. This following link should prove it: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104477 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.215.145 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC) --94.6.215.145 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That made very little sense, but both Bruno and Heikki as it stands have no seats for next year. That article says that Heikki's chances are slim and he doesn't expect to be there, he hasn't signed anything. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 21:31, 10 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).

I've heard that Jake Humphrey will be leaving BBC's F1 coverage. IS this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.159.131 (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is, it has no bearing on the direction this article will take. The article details events and items that affect the season of racing, and a change in the presentation line-up of a broadcaster is nowhere near significant enough to get coverage here. You may want to ask your question on the Jake Humphrey Wikipedia page.


 * Remember, Wikipedia is not an internet forum. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, i'll prove it to you. Jake Humphrey will be leaving BBC F1 and Lee Mckenzie, Mike Pougatch and Suzi Perry are currently candidates of replacing him, but this has not yet been confirmed who will replace him. Here are the links for proof:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19635534 (Jack Humphrey's article) http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a443618/suzi-perry-lee-mckenzie-in-line-to-replace-jake-humphrey-at-bbc-f1.html (Suzi Perry and Lee Mckenzie article)

Could you put TELEVISION COVERAGE into the Wikipedia Page saying Jack Humphrey is leaving the BBC.--2.120.172.163 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. This talk page is not a forum for discussion of F1 related topics, it is a discussion for the 2013 Formula One season article.


 * One person leaving one broadcaster's television coverage is irrelevant to the season, as in the actual racing and championship. That information can go on Jake Humphrey where it is relevant.  The359  ( Talk ) 20:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Seconded. It has nothing to do with the season, and so has no place being included here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Televison Coverage part used to be on frequent wiki pages of f1 seasons. Also, i can't edit jack Humphery's page anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.192.239 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A recent consensus has decided that television coverage isn't notable enough to be covered on season pages. The only reason why we broke this rule on the 2012 season page was because the move of the major provider from free-to-air to pay television represented a major shift in the broadcast arrangement, and one that could not be overlooked. One presenter leaving the coverage team isn't important enough to be detailed here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pedro De La Rosa for 2013?
Am Thinking Pedro De La Rosa should stay in F1 following HRT's exit from F1. He is currently the last driver that ever raced in the 20th century to race in the 21st century.--90.205.159.131 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When a reliable source reports him as having signed for someone he can go in. And don't make a habit of removing comments you don't like from talk pages. Britmax (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if you own your own team you can sign him, but right now, he isn't signed, we can't change that here at Wikipedia. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We have still Jenson Button who raced in the 20th centrury in the Formula One class (2000 Formula One season). 2000 belongs to the 20th century, not the 21st (see: 20th century) Cordelia Chase (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. 2000 was the 1st year of the new millennium. Drivers such as David Coulthard, Jarno Trulli, Rubens Barrichello, Etc, have ever raced in the 20th century but they have already quit f1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.215.145 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand how this discussion fits within a talk page. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2013 Formula One season article." is written at the top. I think that Dontforgetthisone made the last relevant comment. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is relevant, this is against Pedro De La Rosa's unclear future for F1. He was suppose to be contracted for 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.215.145 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not comment on unclear issues. We wait until it IS clear before adding content. So this is still not relevant. --Falcadore (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I doubt that even de la Rosa knows what he's doing next year, let alone us. We can't add what we don't know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, i shall be looking for a link that should prove if Pedro De La Rosa is leaving or not so that this would be put on wiki. It's gonna be hard to find but we will get the answer soon--94.6.215.145 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * HRT is being liquidated, how much more proof do you need? His team ceases to exist, it is dead, gone, and shall not be returning.  Any contract he had with them is useless, and unless he signs with another team, he shant be racing a Formula One car in 2013.  The359  ( Talk ) 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We will have to what and see. It is unlikely de la rosa will race again in 2013. Am only trying to look at sites of whether pedro is currently on negotiation with another. I think this is not very likely as that is up to the teams decisions, not me. Anyways he is 41 years of age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.172.163 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We have no evidence that de la Rosa will be staying in the sport. He was contracted to drive for a team, and that team no longer exists. With the lack of any evidence connecting him to another team, we cannot include him in the article. As far as we are concerned, he has lost his seat, and until that changes, we can't say anything to the contrary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If confirmed that de la rosa has failed to secure a drive, this could mean that 2013 would be the first year of the 21st century that no drivers that ever competed in the 20th century are on the grid. This to not be confirmed on Wikipedia until all drivers have been signed for 2013 and put on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.172.163 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not have to wait for all drivers to be signed; that is not the reason that this non notable piece of trivia would once again be removed from the article. Britmax (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is it written that the 20th century is a notable subdivision of racing drivers? --Falcadore (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that is what I think. This was once mentioned on pedro's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.172.163 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it's something that should be limited to his page. It has no place being mentioned here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was correctly removed from his page anyway. It was unsourced and incorrect. As our article notes, 2000 was part of the 20th century (and 2nd millenium) according to the most common definition (as accepted by most reliable sources) therefore Jenson Button also competed in both centuries/milleniums and there's no sign of him leaving anytime soon (but things can change rapidly in F1). This has also been noted in other non reliable sources like . Our IP friend is free to use whatever definition they want for themselves, meanwhile wikipedia will stick to using definitions used by most reliable sources. In any case this piece of trivia is apparently so irrelevent that it isn't even easy to find reliable sources mentioning. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Infiniti Red Bull Racing
Red Bull Racing announces that Infiniti will be title sponsor from 2013. http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/news/12475/8280687/Luxury-car-brand-Infiniti-to-become-Red-Bull-Racing-s-title-sponsor-from-2013

Shouldn't that be in the TEAM CHANGES part.--90.214.8.164 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because the team hasn't changed. It's just a title of a sponsor.  The359  ( Talk ) 19:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't cover sponsor changes. Not unless that sponsor entirely buys would the team. If the constructor name was changing from "Red Bull" to "Infinisti", then we'd mention it, but it's not happening, so we don't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Izvestia
I've noticed that someone keeps changing the reference for Max Chilton's entry in the team and driver table. No reasons are given, but I assume that it has been changed for one of two reasons:
 * a) The original source is in Russian, and the source keeps getting changed to something in English, or
 * b) The person changing the source does not consider the source to be reliable.

I think we should address this.

First of all, just because a source is not in English, that does not mean that it fails WP:RELIABLE. Where possible, I feel that the original source should be considered, especially if a new source given is just a translation. If the new source was some kind of independent confirmation - for example, from Chilton himself in an interview given to the British media instead of from Fomenko and given to a Russian journalist - then maybe we can change it. To simply give a translted reference in the place of the original implies that the original is unreliable because it is not in English, which is patently untrue.

Secondly, the source came from Izvestia, and a quick check of the article reveals that, although it is a relatively short page, there is nothing in it that suggests it is anything but a reliable source. If there is a reason why Izvestia should not be trusted, then we need to discuss that, but if so, then the English translations of Fomenko's interview are no more reliable since they are second-hand sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that the original source is in Russian is inconvenient, but the rules allow it so it should be used. It should be changed for a decent English source (not a translation) when one becomes available. Izvestia is clearly a reliable source in itself, but what bothers me is that I don't think Fomenko (in this type of announcement) is particularly reliable. He's only the technical director, not the team principal, and he may have any number of reasons for leaking this info before a proper announcement. A Marussia team member said on Twitter that he was surprised it had been "announced", for example, so I'd place an amount of doubt on it. It may well turn out to be true but I find it a bit shaky for now. Incidentally, for me, signing Chilton as a race driver is bonkers considering the decent drivers out there with money and no seat. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This has not been confirmed by the team nor the driver, why would it be on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.216.75 (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Because Nikolai Fomenko announced it to the Russian media - and Fomenko owns Marussia. If anyone is in a position to speak with any authority, it's the team owner. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one more second-hand confirmation for Chilton's contract from BBC, which, however, also states that Marussia has not announced this, yet. I am adding the reference without deleting Izvestia's. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed that reference. Second-hand confirmation is not good enough - Eddie Jordan might have been right about Lewis Hamilton, but that doesn't mean he is suddenly a reliable source. Especially when he only refers to "his sources", whom he never names or quotes. Fomenko's position as team owner trumps Eddie's position as the man on the street, so Eddie's predictions should not are are not needed to validate Fomenko's comments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I did not remove the Russian "primary" source. May I remind you however that verifiability and not truth is supposed to be Wikipedia's main drive and personal judgements such as the one you made for the credibility of Jordan (which do not seem to be based on fact but on your own perception about his credibility) should not be a reason for removing a source. Remember that this source is not to establish the fact that Chilton signed to Marussia, but to corroborate it. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But it fails the general test that we use to assess a source's credibility: it does not name anyone in a position to comment on Marussia's driver line-up, and it does not quote them saying Chilton will drive for them. Therefore, as far as sources go, it is useless. Eddie Jordan has no connection to Marussia, and is therefore not in any position to corroborate anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been announced by the team now officially so we can just one of their sources. BosleyTree (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny edits to Max Chilton
Just a quick heads-up — in the past few hours, Max Chilton has been confirmed as a driver for Marussia F1. Accompanying this has been a series of funny edits by one user, named "AdamCrownTalent", who only registered a week ago and has mostly limited his edits to Chilton's page. I suspect this user is actually Chilton's manager or somehow connected to his management — the name is a fairly obvious give-away, while highlights of his editing history include a non-free image, deleting content en masse (some of it wasn't particularly well-written to begin with, but the user seems to have removed anything that appears to criticise Chilton's performances), and wording that makes the article read like an advertisement, such as "On 18th December 2012, at the age of 21, Chilton was announced as a race driver for Marussia f1 team in the 2013 formula 1 world championship, marking him out as a rising British talent on the circuit."

I'm not really sure what to do about this — it's clearly trying to promote Chilton — but I don't know exactly what policy it's in violation of, so I don't know how to approach an admin. This needs to be dealt with, but until some time as it is, can we just keep an eye out? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will try to keep an eye on it. Just by the description you provided it seems that notability/verifiability may be questionable; however, let's see how this evolves. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a question of notability or verifiability - it's one of advocacy and neutral point of view. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Di Resta
I know it's been done before but Di Resta has made his way back onto the table even though he hasn't officially been signed yet. I know lots of sources say he will stay but that's not the same as being signed. So i'm asking is the current source enough or does he need to be taken off again? BosleyTree (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If memory serves me correctly, Force India have a tendency to annouce both of their drivers at the same time. And, when they annouce it, it will be picked up by all of the major sources, which hasn't happened. The sources that are given aren't enough to merit di Resta's inclusion in the table. You said it yourself: sources claim he will stay, but it's not the same as being signed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Force India contracts
Can I just say that sources regarding Force India don't add up, the one we are using to say Nico Hulkenberg was on a multi-year deal but left also stated Paul would be there next year too, and we did use that, but no we can see that Paul hasn't been signed, and Nico hadn't been either, and that's by what Paul and Vijay has said. I'm just wondering should we remove this source since it doesn't add up. Shoud I re-write the section on Nico's move? Just thought I'd bring this to discussion. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The source provided has a senior team member - Bob Fernley, the deputy team principal - saying that di Resta and Hulkenberg were on multi-year deals when they signed with the team for 2012. Although Hulkenberg left for Sauber and di Resta has not yet been re-signed, there is no evidence that Fernley's comments were wrong. It is entirely plausible that both Hulkenberg and di Resta signed one-year deals with options for 2013, which would make Fernley's comments correct at the same time as explaining di Resta's absence from the driver table. Unless you can find a source from a senior team member that shows Fernley's comments were wrong (and, given Fernley's position within the team, it would need to be substantiated by someone else if not Fernley himself), we cannot disregard those comments, because the source supplied meets the agreed-upon criteria for inclusion when it comes to driver moves: namely, that a reliable source a) names and b) quotes someone who would be considered to be in a position to comment on a driver move (it was something we introduced in 2009, when a lot of people were pematurely adding Fernando Alonso to Ferrari on the basis of highly-speculative and unreliable sources).


 * So no, there is no need to re-write the section on Hulkenberg's move to Sauber. Not unless you can find something that disproves the source that is given. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed?
Today several IPs vandalized the page. I don't know if the request for semi-protecting the page is a matter of consensus in the page but anyway, I thought first asking other contributors' opinion before making a request. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This happens every now and again, and it's easy to keep on top of. It's only when IP vandalism becomes constant that semi-protection is needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference Error
Can I bring to peoples attention that this reference is wrong - - and User: Daniels Renault Sport would be correct, it labels the STR7 and the STR07, and therefore isn't the best bet, and if we do go by it, would we not be best going with STR8 anyways? This may just be the translator error too? Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We have to go by what the references says, and the reference says STR08. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that it might be a translation error? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Would this reference be considered credible enough to restore the correct name? I was the one that inserted the 0 in STR08 in line with the reference in the source, however, it seems that indeed the name of the new car is STR8. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you try reposting that? All I get is a message that reads "HTTP Status 400 - Content Server could not process the request". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a problem with this page right now -- Could you try googling "str8 site:redbull.com" (without the quotes)? The above was the only link I received a few minutes before posting it here. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That works. Britmax (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Glock
Expect a bit of activity over Glock's future and a possible replacement for him in F1 – it looks like he and Marussia are to part company. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bild is a tabloid. We don't include driver announcements made in The Daily Mail, so we shouldn't include driver annoucements made in other tabloids. I'd prefer to wait for something a little more reliable myself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They are however directly quoting him. I'm fairly certain any tabloid that put words in other people's mouth would be open to libel prosecution.  That someone like Autosport is furthering the story makes it seem more reliable than just tabloid trash.  The359  ( Talk ) 02:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are laws in Europe - I'm not sure how widespread they are, exactly - that limit the amount of money a newspaper can be forced to pay ou in the event of legal action.


 * Take, for example, the James Bond film Quantum of Solace. During shooting in Panama, there were labour union protests in nearby Colon. The tabloids, however, reported this very differrently. First, they claimed that sound equipment had been stolen from the set. Then they claimed that production paid off a group of local youths to protect their equipment. Then they reported that the thieves and the youths were actually rival gangs, and that the location was a hotly-contested neighbourhood between the two gangs. Then they reported that there was a firefight outside the building during shooting. Then they claimed that Daniel Craig was in the thick of it, using a prop gun to try and frighten the gangs away from production. None of it was true, of course, but the whole thing was very distressing for family members of the cast and crew. Normally, they could be taken to court of libel, but nobody did it because the tabloids would just draw things out to the point where the plaintiff's legal costs started to exceed the maximum amount they could receive, making the exercise one in futility.


 * That's why I don't trust tabloids when it comes to using reliable sources - even if they quote someone directly. There's far too much scope for them to play fast and loose with the truth. Even the dedicated press get it wrong sometimes: this report claims casey Stoner will move to the Dunlop V8 Series this year, but Stoner claims the reports are "premature". So I'd rather wait until Glock and/or Marussia confirm it to the mainstream Formula 1 media. I find it odd that the article was published on a Sunday, so I suspect we may find out for sure one way or the other, just to be safe. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just saw a translated version of the article from Bild. It claims that an official annoucement will be made today. I think we can wait twelve (or so) hours for the sake of a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-driver inter-team movements
The 2013 silly season is getting sillier and sillier. In addition to drivers switching between teams, we've also got key technical personnel moving about. I know these things happen all the time, but I cannot recall the last time there has been such widespread movements between teams. We've got James Key moving to Toro Rosso, Aldo Costa and Geoff Wills moving to Mercedes, Pat Symonds able to take on a formal role at Marussia, and now Motorsport-Total is reporting that Ferrari want a new team principal (and are trying to get Christian Horner, though M-T is doubtful of it) and that James Allison is looking to leave Lotus. If all of these movements happen, then we're going to see some of the most extensive changes to the technical staff in recent memory, affecting half the teams on the grid. In that case, should we cover it in the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that such movements are generally noteworthy; what I am not sure is whether they need to be covered in this article or the coverage in the corresponding Wikipedia articles (e.g., of the respective persons and teams) is adequate. The point is whether these movements are expected to affect the 2013 championship or not. Personally, I think that they will not, at least significantly. We may mention them in the course of the championship if we identify a reliable source connecting (some of) these movements to something notable in the season. (WP:CHILL) Rentzepopoulos (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you waving WP:CHILL around like that? Seriously, I ask a legitimate question, and I've made it pretty clear that this is not something that I expect us to be able to implement overnight. You have jumped to the conclusion that I'm in a big damn hurry to get it done based on ... what, exactly? You thinking the proposal may not be needed, which I have already openly addressed? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I upset you; it was unintentional. I didn't wave anything -- I just mentioned a policy that my position complies with. It has nothing to do with you. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Mercedes constructor name
There's a discussion in progress at Talk:Mercedes AMG F1 W04 regarding whether Mercedes' constructor name for 2013 is "Mercedes" or "Mercedes AMG". You are welcome to express any opinions you may have on the matter at Talk:Mercedes AMG F1 W04. DH85868993 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

TBA Race
The unknown race in Europe is still on the FIA race entry list for next year, so it should remain in the article until otherwise mentioned by the FIA Pch172 (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that it remains confirmed that it's unconfirmed? --Falcadore (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As Bernie has positively said that this year the F1 championship will have 19 races (after failing to include the Turkish GP), it is reasonable to consider that the FIA reference is simply outdated. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Pch172, this has become something of a habit with you: you're not double-checking your sources. You're not even reading the updates to the article before your edit. If you had read the article, you would have seen the additional content outlining Ecclestone's remarks regarding the 20th race. But instead, you've obviously just glanced over it, seen that something has been removed and decided to add it back in on the basis of an old source. Did it not occur to you that if that content had been removed, then it would have been removed for a reason? And that that reason would have been detailed in the article in the time since you last checked it. This isn't the first, second or even the thrid time I have had to ask you: please put more thought into what you edit before you edit it at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely this link here: http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/99241.html means the race is still on. If it was taken out because of a quote from Ecclestone...this then counter-acts that. -- Troggy3112 (Talk2Me) 07:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That reference only has Ecclestone saying the calendar will have twenty races if he can find a sutiable venue for a twentieth race. It doesn't invalidate anything that he has said before, in fact, this quote:


 * ''"If someone wants to have the 20th race, it will happen, if the track is there and okay. We can help organising. However, the teams do not seem to be in favour of this race. I doubt it will happen.""


 * Makes it pretty clear that a twentieth race is by no means guaranteed. Therefore, the best representation of the situation is this: the calendar currently has nineteen races. A twentieth race will be added back onto the calendar if it is viable, but a twentieth race is by no means a certainty. This representation is reflected in the current version of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is probably how it sould have been shown in the first instance. List the confirmed races add in additional races when confirmed, TBA races covered with a note. --Falcadore (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nicolas Prost at Lotus F1
I don't think Nicolas Prost should be listed as one of Lotus' testing and reserve drivers. Each of the three drivers contracted to the team has a different title: Judging by these, I think it is reasonable to assume that Valsecchi and d'Ambrosio will be doing the bulk of the work in the event that Raikkonen and Grosjean are unavailable. Judging by his article, most of the work Prost has done for the team is centred on straight-line aero work and demonstration events. Between this and Valsecchi and d'Ambrosio being credited as the testing and reserve drivers, I think it is reasonable to assume that Prost will be staying in the role he has previously filled, and thus does not do enough to merit inclusion in the table as a test and reserve driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Davide Valsecchi is the "Third Driver".
 * Jerome d'Ambrosio is the "Reserve Driver".
 * Nicolas Prost is the "Development Driver".
 * I'd say the standard has always been whether or not the person employed in that role was doing active testing work in an actual car. This is to differentiate from such drivers as those in the Young Driver Test, who are being themselves tested rather than doing any active development for the team.  Development Driver could mean anything, so it depends on what Prost is doing for the team.  Prost's relationship likely comes through Lotus' involvement with Rebellion Racing in the WEC, so this may only be a ceremonial title without any practical future.  The359  ( Talk ) 10:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take this further and reiterate my claim that as "test driver" is such a gray area in the sport nowadays without any strict definition, it is something that should be removed from the driver and team chart. More and more I find in past seasons this is being abused with people given honorary drives with teams test driver status on the charts, especially back into the 1980s.  Third/reserve drivers are the only things we can say with certainty anymore.  The359  ( Talk ) 11:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've suggested previously that column should be removved entirely as the Test driver role is not anymore significant to the season results than team prinicipal, chief mechanic, aerodynamicist. The drivers do the actual competing and scoring of points and finishing races, everyone else should be removed. --Falcadore (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If' we're going strictly by title then Valsecchi should be there because the title is Test/Reserve. The Test/Reserve driver driver was never intended to be an indication of drivers who are likely to step into a race seat. Basing a column on someone who "might" step into a race seat is essentially assuming. If Lotus employs Prost as a Development driver for their Formula One program I don't see how developing a Formula One car is any different from testing it. Are you suggesting the Test/Reverse column isn't for drivers who test the cars? --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning the nature of Prost's role within the team. Because from the sounds of things, he's not going to be doing any testing or filling the role of reserve driver at all. And if he isn't, then he shouldn't be in the list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Developing sounds EXACTLY like testing to me. I think you've got to prove that developing doesn't mean testing.
 * Alternatively if we can't establish that a racing driver working for the formula One team isn't testing the race car, then lets remove test/reserve/third driver completely. They don't participate in the races so why include them at all? --Falcadore (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a question that I think could be useful in this debate: Suppose that at one race Lotus wants to replace one of its two main drivers for whatever reason. The question is: Is Lotus allowed to use any driver with a super license they have in their team, or they need to have declared their reserve drivers beforehand? In the former case, then we could include in this list all drivers that are permitted to participate to a race by virtue of their super license; in the latter, then we need to find out who has been declared to FIA as a "reserve" driver and include their names only. My 2 cents. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Development" does not specify what is being developed: The car or the driver. Many teams have "Driver development" programs which sign young drivers to be backed by the team but not actively doing anything for the team.  See Lewis Hamilton's early career.  The359  ( Talk ) 11:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Prost is 31. He's not a young emerging driver. That's a moot scenario. --Falcadore (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can argue that because he's not a young driver, he's automatically developing the car. After all, he's been contesting Le Mans and the Le Mans Series with Rebellion Racing, and they've also been getting backing from Lotus Cars. It's not hard to make the case that Prost is at Lotus F1 for driver development. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a proposal: Why don't we re-name the column to something such as Other Drivers. This is a very general term, which covers everybody, but remains focused still on these drivers. I'm sure most of these "third driver" and "reserve driver" terms mean very similar things, and thus meaning it is pointless listing each of these in the title, and it would be wrong to miss any out, as they all have contracted jobs within the team (a reason also meaning why the column should stay). And to answer Rentzepopoulos' question - I believe teams can pick anybody, providing it is not a breach of contract, to fill in a seat, as we saw with De La Rosa in the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix. Sas 1998 (Talk) 21:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:The 359: "Test" also does not specifiy whether car or driver is being tested. So I don't think it can be argued that Development is sibstantially different from Test. --Falcadore (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion: Why isn't the column for drivers such as Bottas and Bianchi were last year, drivers that actually drive in the race weekend. If we do not talk about testing much in the prose, why should we have a whole column on it? Why not only include the drivers that participate in practice sessions or drivers contracted to drive in practice sessions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs) 01:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that makes a lot of sense. Perhaps from now on, the test/reserve driver column should only contain drivers who:
 * a) Participate in Friday practice sessions at any Grand Prix
 * b) Attend races as a team's designated reserve driver (as Kevin Korjus did for Lotus at Monza last year)
 * c) Take part in any pre-season testing (but they have to drive the car - simply being in the garage doesn't really count since we can't say for certain what they did)
 * For instance, looking back at the 2012 season page, I can't recall anything that Giancarlo Fisichella did for Ferrari. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is still what is considered testing. Is someone participating in the Young Driver test, who happens to drive a car with some new bits on it, a test driver or not?  Is someone who does runway runs for aero work a test driver?  I'd much rather stick to just reserve drivers and practice session drivers.  The359  ( Talk ) 06:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable enough. It means drivers like d'Ambrosio stay in the table, and drivers like Prost are removed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If its ambiguous and can't be defined it should be removed. Let's remove ALL drivers who do not race. The article is about the Formula One season and should be limited to those who actually participated. How many sports in Wikipedia highlight the efforts of athletes who did NOT participate in the season? --Falcadore (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's ambiguous at all. If the driver drives the car, or is contracted to drive the car in the event that one of the regular drivers cannot race, then that driver goes in the table. If not, they don't get included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not make it clearer by only listing drivers who attempt to qualify for a race? Consider, for a moment, Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia. What does someone, who does not know anything about motor racing, take from Formula One season articles listing test drivers and third drivers?
 * Then there is a second question: Is there another sport anywhere in Wikipedia that lists athletes who, intentionally, don't compete? I know there isn't another motorsport article.
 * And then a third question. Why is it notable to list test and reserve drivers? If anyone has an answer to that I'd love to hear it. --Falcadore (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional question - did a test or reserve driver get mentioned anywhere in 2012 season review? --Falcadore (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not being mentionined in the season review does not automatically mean that someone is not notable enough for inclusion in the table. For instance, Sergio Perez was ill in India, and Esteban Gutierrez drove in his place in FP1 - but it's not mentioned in the season review, because each individual section is written to a word limit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's worthy of mention in 2012 Indian Grand Prix but it has no impact on the season. Perez was well enough to qualify so that's as far as it went for Gutierrez. Bearing in mind that the important part of that story was the Perez was will, not that Gutierrez filled in in a practice session. Anyway, I've raised the issue at WT:F1 with the intention of deleting all test driver columns. So by all means contribute to the debate.
 * And by the way Not being mentionined in the season review does not automatically mean that someone is not notable enough for inclusion in the table. While true, it does emphasise that notability of test drivers to a Formula One seasons has NOT been established doesn't it? --Falcadore (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Monetary amounts
With reference to my change which has been twice undone so far, monetary amounts can be written either using their ISO 4217 code or their symbol, if one exists. So, it is EUR 10,000.00 or € 10,000.00 but not EUR€10,000.00. This is standard writing style, also reflected in MOS:CURRENCY. So, please do not change this back into references both to the code and the symbol. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The MOS specifies the use of both code and symbol in the first instance for articles that are not specific to one region or country. "Use the full abbreviation of a currency on its first appearance (e.g. A$52)."  Hence, EUR€.  Unless there is something specific in the MOS you wish to point out that disagrees?  The359  ( Talk ) 08:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As the example shows, it is A$52, not AUS$52. This is relevant for currency names that may be ambiguous, such as the dollar or the pound. However, there is only one Euro with symbol € and ISO-4217 code EUR. As you may see in numerous examples within Wikipedia and elsewhere, monetary amounts usually use the currency symbol ($, €, £, etc.) unless this is ambiguous where a qualifier is used (e.g., A$, US$, etc.). Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rookies image "gallery"
Now that Razia has been confirmed at Marussia, we have five rookies on the grid (and there is a chance of a sixth if Bianchi joins Force India). Until now, we've been adding their images to the team and drivers section, but with five (and possibly six) on the grid, that is going to look a little awkward.

So instead, I was hoping we could take the images of the four drivers (that we have decent photos of - there aren't any off van der Garde's face in the Wikicommons just yet) and sort of merge them all into one image with a caption explaining that they are the rookie drivers on the 2013 grid. Kind of like this, only smaller and of equal size:

There is, however, one tiny problem: I don't have the image manipulation skills to be able to do this myself; the above is the best that I can do. Is there someone here who might be able to create such an image, or code it into the article directly? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused on why we need pictures of all of the 2013 rookies? They're rookies, they come in every season, and very often they aren't back next season.  What does having photos of their faces add to the article as a whole?  Surely there are more important drivers making more important moves that would warrant mention above incoming rookies for backmarker teams.  The359  ( Talk ) 07:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather wait until we get photos of those drivers in the appropriate racing suits. Having Lewis Hamilton in Mercedes colours seems far more appripraite than having him in McLaren colours with a caption explaining his move to Mercedes. Until that time, is it really so bad that we try something a little different?


 * Also, by putting the images of all the rookies into one image and shrinking it down to an appripraite size, we free up more space that could be given over to images of drivers like Hamilton in Mercedes colours. It's the best of both worlds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But my original point is, why do we need pictures of the rookies at all? The359  ( Talk ) 08:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think rookies are notable -- especially this year's participation of the 21-year old Gutierrez; what Prisonermonkeys proposes is to bring their coverage to the correct proportion, and I could create a small image with all of them some time later today. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They are notable now, but they will likely not be notable at seasons end. What the article might look like at season's end should be born in mind when writing the article, and I feel that rookies images should not be included until the achieve something noteworthy considering the subject of the article, the 2013 Formula One season. Just participating in it, is not I would think, enough of a reason to be portrayed in an image. --Falcadore (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They are notable now, but they will likely not be notable at seasons end.


 * And the beauty of Wikipedia is that it can change over time. Once they stop being notable, they can quickly and easily be removed.


 * What the article might look like at season's end should be born in mind when writing the article


 * It is being born in mind. We can't predict the future, and we're not supposed to. So while we should consider what the final version of the article will look like, we shouldn't place so much weight on what might be notable in the future that we ignore what is notable now. These five rookie drivers are at the centre of an upheaval in the driver line-ups. We've lost Petrov, Kobayashi, Glock, Kovalainen and Senna, and at the same time we've gained Gutierrez, Bottas, Chilton, Razia and van der Garde. That in itself may not be notable the way Hamilton moving to Mercedes is notable, but that does not mean that the presence of five rookie drivers on the grid is not notable at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not asking you to assume, I am asking you not to succumb to the temptations of recentism and give undue weight to issues in the preseason which are less notble to the season as a whole. --Falcadore (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Avoiding recentism is not a wikipedia policy; avoiding crystal balling is. I think the original proposal from Prisonermonkeys was a reasonable tradeoff in the sense that yes, the introduction of five rookies in one season is notable but does not require a separate image for each of them. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The original plan was just to have pictures of Bottas and Gutierrez, since they won junior racing categories. But then Chilton joined the grid and his picture got added, followed by van der Garde (I took that one out because there are no pictures of him without his helmet) and now Razia, and it's all snowballed out of control. Having one picture showing all four rookies is the current proposal. I think it works, which is why I suggested it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. It is notable enough, and it will only improve the article. If we decide it is "not notable enough", or does not suit the style of the page, we can always get rid of it at a later date. Sas 1998  (Talk) 17:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here it is. Unless someone objects, I intend to replace the pictures of the four rookies with this picture some time after Saturday, 9 February 00:00 GMT Rentzepopoulos (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)




 * I like it. It's a little blurry, but it's exactly what I had in mind. Like I said, I'd do it myself, but I lack the ability to work with images. I would, however, change the caption slightly, from this:


 * From top-left clockwise: Esteban Gutiérrez, Valtteri Bottas, Max Chilton, and Luiz Razia. They will race for the first time in2013 Formula One season


 * To something like this:


 * Five drivers will make their Formula One debut in 2013, including (clockwise from top left): Esteban Gutiérrez (Sauber), Valtteri Bottas (Williams), Max Chilton (Marussia) and Luiz Razia (Marussia).


 * Or possibly this:


 * Five drivers will make their Formula One debut in 2013, including (clockwise from top left): Esteban Gutiérrez (Sauber), Valtteri Bottas (Williams), Max Chilton (Marussia) and Luiz Razia (Marussia). Giedo van der Garde (Caterham) is not pictured.


 * It's a shame we don't have a clear picture of van der Garde. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of references
Could I ask that we watch the number of references that get added to this, and other, Formula One articles? Although it is preferable to have too many references than not enough, what some of you may not realise is that the references and their coding really impacts the page loading times. For some of us, reading and editing Formula One pages have proven to be far more cumbersome than using pages that are bigger content wise, but contain fewer references. To give an idea of how "ref spam" has crept up on us, the 2012 season article had (before I removed a couple) about 360 individual citations - exactly the same number as the Second World War, an immensely more lengthy and complex subject.

What I suggest is that we don't add references for basic things like chassis names and try and cut down on redundant citations. I did remove today, for an example, from the calendar table the separate references for each race, as all that was needed was a link to the FIA calendar which completely supports the information in the table. If we could work like that, then hopefully these pages won't become so bloated. Thank you. QueenCake (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Testing
The article currently makes no reference to pre-season test dates. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor should it. There is not a sport in wikipedia that covers training exercises in great detail. --Falcadore (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2012_Formula_One_season. Not saying it has to be great detail, but maybe a mention of when/where they take place? I'm not advocating every single simulator run, windtunnel test of straight-line aero run be logged, but these are tests where all teams take part, and get the first running of their 2013 cars. How is that NOT notable? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with mattbuck, we should mention testing. It is notable enough as it is a part of the season. SAS 1998 ― Talk  21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned in the same way that does, in the season report section.  The dates can quite easily be noted.  It can be written "...The first test took place at the Circuito de Jerez from February 5th to February 8th..." — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 11:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The 2012 season article was an exception to the rule because Lotus F1 discovered a critical fault in the E20 chassis that at the time was considered serious enough that they may have been forced to miss the start of the season. That ultiamtely did not happen, but it was a particularly notable and significant event, and worthy of inclusion on the page.


 * The 2013 tests haven't produced anything nearly as notable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Third driver column
I'm going to restart the discussion here, because the previous one died down.

I'm actually coming around to Falcadore's way of thinking on this one, and would support the removal of te test and reserve driver column. It occurred to me that the test and reserve drivers who are notable enough to be included aren't so notable that the column can tolerate the drivers who are not notable enough to be included.

Perhaps, as an alternative, we could go back to the 2005 way of doing things, and only include drivers who take part in practice sessions at Grands Prix. That would be my preferred way of doing things, since it would be consistent with the pages on drivers who have only ever taken part in Friday practice sessions to date. But even if we just remove the column entirely, I'm okay with that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is fine by me. However, the discussion has not died, as it continues in the WikiProject F1 talk page. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the 2005 idea, however, I fear it would be too confusing with the "test drivers" column, and could make the table difficult to understand. I believe it would be best if just the Friday practise drivers were included included in the table, and no other third/test/reserve drivers. SAS 1998 ― Talk  18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the consensus that seems to form in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One is similar to the above. Additional drivers that appear during the season (in the car, on the circuit -- not theoretically!) can be tallied in the last column of the table. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then remove them! --Falcadore (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would just like to say that whoever put the current test drivers under the free practice drivers list should remember that a grand prix is yet to happen, therefore, these will be deleted. Pch172 (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Sutil
Adrian sutil isn't a test driver for Force india. He is currently pre-season testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.99.104 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * He has driven a car at a test session that has been sanctioned by the FIA. That makes him a test driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what makes that column such a pain. Sutil isn't Force India's test driver, he's a driver that has participated in a test session for Force India. Two separate though not mutually exclusive things. Not really an issue though considering the consensus is to remove most of the column. QueenCake (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bruno Senna
Senna was also sought of a drive for Caterham before Senna chose to race of WEC, which might go up on the article --86.28.99.104 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC) http://f1head.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/caterham-has-an-interest-in-bruno-senna/

Rookies gallery
I removed the picture that was created of four rookies, since Razia has now been dumped. Either a new picture is needed, now with Bianchi, or a rethink since we still do not have pictures for all the rookies. The359 ( Talk ) 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder ...
I'm just posting a message here to remind everyone that including "P" for "Pole" in results tables is not actually a result. A consensus was established last year to stop this practice, so please, if you see it, make sure you remove it - even if it is only added two laps before the end of a race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary
I don't know what is going on with the summary section, it's a terrible read, can somebody clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.253.92 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Race Results
Just a quick inquiry, but I thought that drivers that didn't complete a GP, whether they were retired or didn't start, were not classified... What I mean is that in the past years, those drivers were classified as " — ", and this year for example, Rosberg didn't finish and he is 20th... ─  F a b z z z  talk  17:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have confused race classifications with Drivers' Championship classification. --hydrox (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a waste of time talking about it here, but the official website is wrong (again). A driver can't be classified in the championship without being classified in a race. Hulkenberg didn't even start yet he's classified in the WDC? Sure. FORIX / Autosport has it right, as usual. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No I did not confuse them, if you take a look here ==> 2007 Formula One Season, Markus Winkelhock participated in one race and didn't finish, but he's not classified. So why this season is different? Either fix the 2007 season (which is just like all the other season) or adapt this season to what it was in the past on a wikipedia page. ─  F a b z z z  talk  18:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The official website and the FIA press releases are frequently lousy with errors. They also list past World Championship standings according to today's rules, or whatever rules they feel like implementing at the time. They don't even seem to read their own rulebook half the time. The problem is that it's "official", so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's reliable. Editors understandably take it as fact. The 2007 season page looks right to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No actually, Wikipedia discourages using so called primary sources such as official FIA standings published on their page. I take this to mean that we actually prefer secondary, editored sources like FORIX for use as our sources above primary sources like the FIA. Unfortunately my Autosport.com subscription has expired so I don't have access to FORIX. --hydrox (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, I'd never thought of the FIA as a primary source, but of course they are. That's the one problem with FORIX, that it's a paysite, making it difficult to use as a source, but it is (in my opinion at least) the least error-prone source out there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)