Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 4

New car numbering system
The teams are currently pushing for a new system of numbering the cars, with drivers assigned a number for the duration of their careers:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111650?source=mostpopular

I was thinking about how we might show this in the table. Until now, numbers have always been assigned based on championship finishing positions, with the driver table reorganised to show the entires in numerical order. However, I don't think this would be an appropriate way forward if the number changes go ahead. Since the numbers would now be assigned to the drivers, ordering the table to reflect this would be based purely on which driver is at which team in a given year, which I think is at odds with the way the tables have been ordered for the past forty-odd seasons.

Instead, I think the best way forward would be to take a leaf from the IndyCar pages: order the teams alphabetically, and arrange the numbers within the teams sequentially. This would keep the table stable, rather than changing year in and year out for arbitrary reasons. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Assuming the change happens, I think this is the best method for ordering the table. I would suggest (and perhaps this is what you meant) that the table be ordered by the constructor name, rather than team name.  For example, this would mean it would be Red Bull, not Infiniti Red Bull racing. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Another way to do might be sort by lowest number within the team - like in V8 Supercar's example. --Falcadore (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's what Prisonermonkeys was referring to when he said "ordering the table to reflect this would be based purely on which driver is at which team in a given year...". I think ordering by Constructor name is the easiest, fairest, and most stable for changes between seasons. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is what I meant - arrange by constructor name, and then arrange by numbers within the team. Ever since permanent numbers were introduced, the system has been based on the constructors. But the new system would be based on the drivers, and there could be any number of reasons for their choosing the numbers. And as they move from team to team, the order of the table would change on a whim. But by keeping the constructors in alphabetical order, the table is stabilised and will only change with major team changes, which are far less common than driver movements. It might mean that the number 1 is buried somewhere in the middle of the table, but once again, that is something that can change from year to year, and keeping the number 1 at the top when the numbers are not being assigned sequentially is a purely cosmetic thing. Besides, it works just fine on the IndyCar season pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus
Okay, now that the number changes are coming into effect, I am going to take the above as a consensus: teams are arranged alphabetically by constructor name, and drivers are arranged numerically within their teams.

All in favour? And is anyone opposed? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, we've already had permanent numbers in Formula One before albeit based on the teams. Some research on the wikipedia articles dealing with the seasons from that era shows that the practice was to order them by number nevertheless. Maybe we should remain consistent with the already established practice? Tvx1 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, the numbers then where connected to the teams, not the drivers. So, Ferrari had for years numbers 27 and 28 (i believe), and the drivers for Ferrari did get one of these numbers, and an other number when they transfer to an other team. So, that system will not work now Perijn (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And my rationale for this is to keep the table in a stable condition. If we structure the table so that it is ordered sequentially, then the table can and will change from year to year based on driver movements - and if the driver market is particularly active, then that means the table will constantly change. Because team changes are much less common (usually only one every few years), the table will be in a much more stable state if we go alphabetically by constructor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have said that they were based on the teams rather than on the drivers in my reply. Didn't you read it? In the current system the table also changes from year to year based on driver moment. Now if we maintain the same consensus as know, listing alphabetically until the official entry list is released, the changes will not be that frequent at all. Overall, there should be some consistency over the layout of the different season pages over the decades, where possible. An alternate solution to this is to make the pages dealing with the seasons during the previous period with permanent numbers consistent with those dealing with the current period of permanent numbers. So in short, adapt them to your proposal as well. Tvx1 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Arranging them alphabetically, then numerically is a sensible solution going forward. QueenCake (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Retroactively changing all of the tables to list constructors alphabetically would be a pointless and unnecessary exercise. Even though those tables changed from year to year, those changes were dictated by a single, consistent rule. Numbers correlated with WCC finishing positions. But if we arrange the tables from 2014 numerically, they will change from year to year based on the whims of drivers who choose numbers for personal reasons. That is what I want to preserve - the stability of the table now that the numbering system has changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to suggest a possible alternative, which is to arrange the teams by championship finishing order (as we currently do) and then drivers within teams by their number. This will result in the least amount of change from previous seasons. Readers are used to coming to these pages and seeing the most successful teams at the top of the table. However, I recognize that this is Wikipedia, and simple/convenient/effective solutions are rarely agreed upon. So when this idea is inevitably shot down I would support Prisonermonkeys' suggestion. Eightball (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I like your proposition. Tvx1 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of that. It certainly seems counterproductive to list teammates at disparate points in the table, so grouping by team should continue. Once there we are just left with the question of how to order the teams - numbers, now being driver-determined, are irrelevant to the matter, so we are left pretty much with alphabetical or heirarchical (I suppose we could order by engine, but even then we'd have to decide within a single manufacturer). While alphabetical may be an equitable arrangement, by previous year's championship order makes more sense to me. It has some continuity with the previous system anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I also prefer Eightball's idea of listing by WCC order. It maintains consistency with previous articles and it brings more meaning to the table. Drivers should probably be listed by number order although the numbers are purely arbitrary. We never worried before about maintaining a consistent order of teams within the table, so I'm not entirely sure why we would do so now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it has always been consistent. The order has been applied based on the numbers, and numbers were awarded based on championship position. Even when the drivers changed their teams, numbers were still applied the same way. But now numbers are attached to the drivers, so the table could change frequently. And how do you take into account a driver changing teams mid-season? What if a driver chooses the number 2 and does ten races with one team, abd ten races with another?


 * What I'm trying to point out here is that the table has always been ordered with one rule applied equally to it. The change in the number system means that the application of that rule becomes more complex. And to be perfectly honest, they are numbers. They do not matter in the grand scheme of things. So we just need a simple way of ordering the table, one that does not require major reshuffled every year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So effectively we've always listed the teams in WCC position – it's just that it used to match the numbers and now it doesn't. The only difference now when a driver switches teams is that he takes his number with him. I don't see how that would make things particularly complicated. The order would also reflect their pit box positions. Something like this:

Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said that arranging the teams by WCC position would make things complicated. I said that arranging the table numerically would make things complicated because a team's position in the table would depend on which drivers (and therefore which numbers) they had. Arranging the table numerically is a bad system because the table would go through half a dozen reshuffles every year as drivers moved about. Mid-season changes could wreak havoc, as would edits based off rumours of driver moves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks ok to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting arranging the table numerically. Even if we did, how in the world would that result in the table being shuffled about multiple times per year? Nothing you're saying makes any sense. Let's just keep doing what we've been doing - arranging the table by WCC finishing order - and SLIGHTLY modify it to accompany the new numbers. BB already did it, FFS. Easy. Eightball (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. You act like their are dozens of mid-season changes every season while there have been only two in the last three two seasons. Anyways iI support the proposal of ordering by WCC finishing order as well. Bretonbanquet's visual example proves that it works just fine. Tvx1 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus about this now? Because if we do we should adapt the table to reflect this. Furthermore I've noticed there already is a Wikinote in the article that clams there is a consensus to order the teams alphabetically, which seems strange to me if I look at the above discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That note was added on the basis of the preliminary consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation
At which point are we considering numbers for each driver to be confirmed? Various drivers have 'confirmed' that they have their chosen number (e.g. Massa claiming to have 19 ) but nothing from FIA/FOM/etc. ItsAudioworm (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose we wait until the FIA release the full list. While it's true that drivers have stated their preference, it's still possible that one of the drivers who finished higher up the order will pick the same number as Massa or Bottas.JohnMcButts (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I had the same concerns and was planning to put the question myself here, but you have beaten me to it. Taking everything into account. I think would be best to wait until the official entry list is released as well. Tvx1 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was ever any doubt about confirmation. As soon as the FIA said that drivers needed to submit three numbers in case two or more drivers applied for the same number, it was obvious that we would have to wait for an entry list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why can't we use the same logic for drivers? Because it doesn't include Sirotkin? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the entry list only contains drivers the teams have submitted to the FIA. Sauber signed Hulkenberg and Gutierrez late last year for the 2013 season (and there was no debate over their inclusion in the article), but did not submit the paperwork for the provisional entry list. So even though they had signed the drivers, Hulkenberg and Gutierrez did not appear on the first entry list. They appeared on subsequent lists, but not the first one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A current list. Something's missing. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Identical to the Hulkenberg/Gutierrez example explained above. This is provisional entry list and Sauber clearly haven't submitted all the paperwork. Tvx1 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a line of discussion that is better suited to other parts of the talk page. We will never achieve a consensus if we are having the sane debate on four different fronts. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Now could we refocus THIS discussion to the numbering system. Tvx1 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to refocus this discussion to the numbering system. Why not have the numbering system be consistent with the above logic surrounding Sirotkin? Discuss it here, discuss it above; the inconsistency of it all is making the whole situation appear even more absurd than it already does, which is saying something. If a three-word response to an unquoted question is sufficient confirmation re: a complex and secretive driver contract, why isn't a driver's announcing his own number sufficient in this case? And please, don't tell me I don't understand Wikipedia, or the purpose of the table, explain the logic that justifies reaching two different conclusions off highly similar sets of premises. Thanks. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because most drivers have been announcing their number choices on Twitter, and Twitter is not a reliable source as it is self-published. WP:TWITTER makes this pretty clear. Secondly, the preference system means drivers might not get the numbers they declare on Twitter - Jules Bianchi says he wants 7, 27 or 77 as his number, but Bottas says he wants 77, Vergne has listed 27 as one of his three choices, and it has been suggested that Raikkonen wants 7. All three will get priority over Bianchi, so how could we reasonably include any of those numbers for Bianchi? We don't even know which number Bianchi's first choice.


 * If you wish to discuss Sirotkin, please do so in the Sirotkin section instead of making specious arguments in other sections that disrupt and distract from the actual issue under consideration. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Prisonermonkeys, there seems to be a misunderdstanding about the WP:TWITTER clause. I will cite the entire section:
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.
 * In essence, this means that we can use a tweet as a source for something about a driver as long as it's published by the driver him/herself and concerns an information about that same driver.
 * The main reason why we cannot put the driver numbers on this page yet is, as you stated, the drivers can only state their preference, but the ultimate decision which number they actually receive is up to the FIA. Tvx1 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the most important point is that the drivers have several choices as to their number, and we can't add any numbers without knowing all of the numbers.

All of this is academic, anyway. The IP editor above only raised the issue as a straw-man argument against Sirotkin's inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly we're not going to include numbers until there is an official entry list or any sort of real confirmation whatsoever. I fail to see how this even warrants a discussion. Eightball (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd actually suggest hiding/removing the car number column until the entry list had been published - having the column there full of TBAs is just going to encourage people to put values in there - like this and this. DH85868993 (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If they keep getting added, then I would support hiding the numbers column until the entry list is published. In addition, I think we should change the mouse over tool-tip to say "Driver Numbers" rather than "Car Numbers". JohnMcButts (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be changed to Driver Numbers. Tvx1 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, car numbers have been confirmed and should be ready to be put on the drivers table. Alonso as 14, Raikkonen as 7, Vettel as 1, Perez as 11, Massa as 19 and Bottas as 77. Thank you. No exception unless stated.--86.28.99.104 (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? Where have they been confirmed? Because I have not seen them published anywhere.


 * Sources like Facebook and Twitter are insufficient because of the priority system. For example, Valtteri Bottas might have requested #77, but because he finished low down in the WDC, he will be one of the last drivers to get his number assigned - and if someone higher up wants #77, Bottas will miss out.


 * So we need an entry list published by the FIA to confirm the numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They haven't been confirmed, and I object strongly to the IP's high-and-mighty tone - "no exception unless stated"; really? Luke no 52  (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 10:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have not understood the way the numbers are to be assigned, and have therefore made the mistake of thinking the drivers' declarations of their number submissions are confirmation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just put the Car numbers collumn on the page. Here are some of the links of drivers confirming their numbers. Although all the car numbers are not confirmed by the FIA but these numbers mentioned in the links are to be reconfirmed.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111929 http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/raikkonen-picks-number-7-bottas-picks-77/

Drivers whose numbers have not been confirmed can be put as TBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.99.104 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You know those aren't confirmations at all? These drivers have chosen the numbers; the FIA haven't said that they can have the numbers yet. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these are confirmations but these are to be reconfirmed. Prove it. That number colomn needs to be done.--86.28.99.104 (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know what the word "confirmed" means - the drivers have selected the numbers they want, but the FIA haven't assigned numbers yet. And get off your fucking high-horse. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove that comment now please. You are wrong. Anybody else agree to what i have mentioned earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.99.104 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No. The drivers have each submitted three number preferences to the FIA. Once the FIA has received all of the submissions from all of the drivers, they will assign those numbers based on a priority system. As champion, Vettel gets his first choice. As runner-up, Alonso is second. And so on and so forth down the running order. Each driver has submitted three numbers in case another driver also chooses their preferred number.


 * Here is where we get to the major flaw in your argument: Jean-Eric Vergne. You have listed all of the drivers who have said that they want a particular number. But Vergne has announced all three of his choices: 21, 25 and 27. How would we know which number to put in the table? We don't know which one is his preferred number.


 * Likewise Jules Bianchi. He has said he wants 7, 27 or 77. But it is believed Raikkonen will take 7, Vergne could get 27, and Bottas has applied for 77, and all three have a higher priority than Bianchi. So what do you propose we do in that situation? How do you even know that the drivers will actually get the numbers they say they want?


 * You don't know that at all. So we cannot add any numbers until we know all of the numbers, and for that we need an entry list from the FIA. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you have repeatedly explained that we need an official entry list or at least a FIA confirmation to add driver numbers, yet you now have added one without supplying a source. Please practice what you preach. Gamma127, you need to actually incorporate a refrence in an article to overrule a citiation needed template, not just refer to it in the edit summary. Furthermore, the source you referred to only list the preferences of the drivers and does not confirm that they will actually get this numbers. Tvx1 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You requested a source. I gave you one. Moreover Prisonermonkeys already wrote a source in the Edit summary.
 * Yes, it is true, that this article contains some unconfirmed numbers. But it also sais that Magnussen got the 20 as his number. --Gamma127 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid even Magnussen's number remains unconfirmed in that source. The list provided clearly puts Magnussen's number in the column labeled "Wunschnummer" which translates as "preferred number" Furthermore, a couple of drivers ranked above him have not stated their numbers yet. If even one of them chooses 20 as well Magnussen will not get it. Whether you want it or not, we can't be certain at the moment. Tvx1 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The number is confirmed in the source: McLaren-Pilot Kevin Magnussen wird in seiner ersten Formel-1-Saison mit der Startnummer 20 antreten. means Magnussen is going to drive with #20 in his first Formula 1 season. Otherwise --Gamma127 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes what you cite there is correct. However directly underneath that text there is a list which clearly puts Magnussen's #20 as preferred number. This is similar to this source . I have explained in my earlier reply how another driver might get that number instead of him. This is not FIA confirmation but the driver's preference. Tvx1 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the guys who works for Red Bull (I am unsure of his exact role in the team) posted an update on Twitter yesterday saying that number choices would be revealed. It appears that the FIA informed teams and drivers of their numbers yesterday, but did not publish an entry list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That may well be, but we do not have proof to substantiate that. Number choices would be revealed? Which number choices? The preferred choices of the drivers? The choices of the Red Bull drivers (i.e. Vettel, Ricciardo and possibly da Costa)? Confirmation of some numbers chosen by the drivers. How can the FIA even assign the definitive numbers if not everyone has stated their choices yet? There are even three driver slots still to be filled so how can they already assign numbers then? If you read the Motorsport Magazin and Sky Sports sources provided earlier you will notice that the list of preferred numbers is all but complete. Please stop making premature conclusions. Concerning Magnussen the sources provided do not prove that his number has been confirmed by the FIA so we can't include it yet. Tvx1 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am just going by what the guy from Red Bull said, and I do admit that I added the coding for the column in in anticipation of an entry list being published. When that did not happen and Magnussen announced his, I anticipated the drivers revealing their numbers one by one. Then it was time to go to bed, because I am on the other side of the world.


 * As for those three vacant seats, the FIA gave December 23rd as the due date for number choices. Those three seats were vacant then, too. The drivers who get them will apply for numbers once they are confirmed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see how the "Red Bull Guy" saying "Driver choices will be revealed" made you conclude "The FIA has confirmed the numbers" and didn't make you think he was referring to the Red Bull drivers for instance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the last thing we should do here is anticipate. That is something for news sites. We do not need to make additions to the pages as soon as they are published in order to have a scoop. We need to take the time to carefully analyse and verify the reliability of sources before acting upon them. It's no problem at all if we are a day or two late in updating.


 * Regarding the vacant seats. It's not as easy as you claim. They cannot just fill in these numbers on the entry list afterwards. Just imagine Caterham signing Paul Di Resta for instance. His number choice could influence that of all those who finished behind him in the previous WDC. This could have a major influence on the entry list. So it wouldn't be illogical if the FIA does not assign the final numbers until all of the driver seats have been filled. Tvx1 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The FIA cannot wait until every seat is filled. Maybe one seat would be vacant until the week before Australia. At the latest the beginning of the official tests, every driver has his number. Probably they have their numbers at the presentations at the end of this month. And then the numbers are final. I do not think, that they alter the numbers when Webber fill in spontaneously in Australia.
 * Magnussen has already confirmed his number, so the FIA probably made the assignment. --Gamma127 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jenson Button (#22) and Daniel Ricciardo (#3) have also done so. We've now got three drivers revealing their numbers, and if there was any doubt to begin with, Ricciardo specifically used the word "confirmed". It's the Moscow Rules - once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times is a pattern. Given that we have had a member of RBR revealing that the numbers were to be released, and three drivers subsequently announcing what numbers they have been given, I think that is enough to consider it confirmation. I'll hold off from editing it into the article for the time being. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The key word we are looking for is FIA. It is not present in the tweets, so we can't be certain. Furthermore, how can FIA confirm Ricciardo's number if Vettel, Hamilton, Hülkenberg and Sutil still have to state their choices? And what would happen if Caterham or Marussia were to sign Di Resta? The Sky Sports source supplied above makes it clear that the all the numbers currently known are driver choices and not FIA confirmations. I suggest we hide the driver numbers column (once again) until we have som entry list like we had originally agreed upon. Tvx1 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please ask the FIA for more details. McLaren confirmed their car numbers today. So the numbers are allocated. --Gamma127 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * - it's all sorted now, we can stop fighting. Even if Sky Sports fucked up the title. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. NOW we do have an entry list and there is no longer a problem with displaying the numbers. Tvx1 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
Reading trough the article I noticed that there is no explanation in the article on how the numbers are assigned to the drivers. I feel this contributes to the numbers been added to the article when only the preferred number of a driver has been revealed. I think it might be helpful if we explain the procedure in the sporting regulation changes section as an expansion of the new driver number's entry. Furthermore the procedure isn't entirely clear in the provided sources. What happens when two new drivers choose the same number? For instance, what would happen when Magnussen and Kvyat both choose #20? Who will have priority then? Tvx1 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is number assignment important for content? Does it affect the racing? --Falcadore (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sub-heading
(I put these sub-headings in because I do a lot of editing on a mobile device. Sometimes, the discussion goes on for so long that my browser is unable to handle it. By using sub-headings, it is easier for me to contribute to dicussions.)

I hate to be a pain - really, I do - but I have been thinking about it, and I am no longer convinced that arranging the teams by their WCC order from the previous year is the best way forward. When the article is written, it should be easy for the reader to understand it. A reader with no understanding of the sport should be able to click on "Random page", wind up on the article, and once tey have read it, understood what is happening. With that in mind, what is easier to follow:


 * Arranged by 2013 WCC positions


 * Arranged alphabetically by constructor name

I believe that the latter option is better, because there is no obvious reason for the way the first table is arranged. If someone who has no experience of Formula 1 reads the page, they are not going to know the 2013 WCC standings, and so the table will appaer to be a random jumble. If they are an editor, they may even move to reorganise the table.

However, the second table arranges the teams alphabetically, and although the numbers may be out of order, there is a clear logic to the way the teams are ordered, and that makes it better than the first way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the points you've made. If someone wants to know the results of the 2013 season, they can consult the 2013 page.  We also list the defending drivers' champion and constructors' champion at the top of the page. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's true, they can do that. Which reminds me of another point I wanted to make: the reader should not have to go to other articles just to make sense of this article, least of all for something like understanding the order of the table. The final WCC order is not immediately obvious on the 2013 season page, either; the reader would have to do a bit of searching within that page, and if they have no prior knowledge of the sport, they may not even know what they are looking for to begin with.


 * Arranging the table alphabetically be constructor is the way to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree here. You're making a bigger problem of this than it really is. The outcome of the previous constructors' championship and drivers' championship is explained in the lead of the article. By finding the defending constructors' champion on top of the list further down the page it is pretty obvious how it is arranged. Tvx1 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is obvious at all. The reader should not have to explore the article for clues as to why the table is arranged that way. We might list the reigning WCC champions in the article lead, but we make no mention of the other ten teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a matter of calling our readers idiots does it not? If one reading the page finds that RedBull are listed at the top and also notices very clearly that RedBull won last year then it would click right away in their minds. If it does not then why would they (find any reason to) care or ask questions? I also doubt they would just find this page randomly and not be intrigued to understand more about the sport and it's recent seasons and then you'll have made a problem seeing as previous Wikipedia articles have listed the teams by their WCC ranking. The most logical, professional and accurate way is to list them by their WWC, if not just for the sake of consistency within Wikipedia anyway. This really should not have been a problem to agree on. Joetri10 (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not assume they are idiots. And yes, they can find the page at random - that's what the "random page" link does. You are also making a massive assumption by claiming that because Red Bull are described as the reigning champions, that a reader with no understanding of the sport would immediately make the connection that the teams in the table are arranged by championship finishing order.

Recent discussions about other issues with the page have emphasised the need for readability in the article. If that is the case, then listing the teams alphabetically is the only way forward. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you being so incredibly stubborn to get your own way? In every f1 page to date the driver list has been listed by the previous years WCC listings because of their driver number. Now that they choose their own car number you are choosing to change it to the simplistic form of alphabetizing just because they now don't hold the numbers? It's illogically lazy. There's not a sporting page in existence that does not list the participants in any other way but by their current ranking. Even in motorsport related Wikipedia articles the tables are as such, even if vague at best. People are not fools, those who use Wikipedia are educated enough to read what is in front of them and if they are seriously interested in Formula 1 then they will look at previous years. You are doing nothing but confusing the system laid in place which has been used since the start of all these pages. I went to look at who edits previous years and your name is nonexistent which makes me think just how much you care/or know about these pages and more so you just wanting control over something and claiming "Look, I did this". No one has agreed with you and changing the format is not "The only way forward". I ask of any other editors when the time is right to please change the list to the correct standard and format in previous years. I want to hear nothing more about this whiteknighting. Joetri10 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PM, you're the only one keeping this argument going. Please grow up, stop dragging your feet, and let's get back to being actually productive. This is ridiculous. Eightball (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, the previous season articles have arranged drivers in an order that is immediately clear - from the lowest number to the highest. Even to a reader who has no idea that those numbers are assigned based on the WCC finishing order from the previous season, the method to their arrangement is clear. However, from 2014, the numbers will be chosen by the drivers based on personal preference. If we continue to arrange the table based on WCC finishing order, the table may not make sense. For example, say Ferrari finished ahead of Mercedes, and that Raikkonen and Alonso chose the numbers 7 and 14, while Rosberg and Hamilton chose 6 and 44. By arranging the table based on WCC positions, we get a situation where the team with "bigger" (for lack of a better word) numbers is listed before the team with "smaller" numbers - in other words, the team with car #7 would be listed before the team with car #6 for no apparent reason. Even though the team that finished ahead in the WCC standings is listed first, the numbers are out of order, and it was the numbers that showed the arrangement in previous seasons.


 * Secondly, look a little further back in the season articles. I tend to switch focus from the current season to the future season some time around September. Last year was an exception because I could not watch most of the races. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Joetri10 and Eightball have said here. You're making a much much bigger issue out of this than it really is. Furthermore the latest most concern that you have raised would be as much a problem if we order it alphabetically than if we order it by WCC order. Say for instance the Caterham drivers choose 47 and 65, the Force India Drivers choose 5 and 32 and the Red Bull drivers (who would be near the bottom of the list) choose 1 and 2. The team with the "bigger" number would be listed higher up as well. So what are you actually suggesting? That we order them by driver numbers? Tvx1 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Prison, you are ignoring the bigger picture as a whole here. Yes the numbers were what previously made the listings more to the reader however as the page will state something along the lines of: Recent changes by the FIA dictate that drivers can now choose personal car numbers as apposed to the old system which automatically assigned numbers based on the previous years WWC ranking. Although drivers were given the choice to choose multiple numbers, priority is given to where the drivers finished in the previous years WDC. Not only would that explain why the numbers are listed strangely/differently to recent years but why they out order. After all, they are simply just car numbers. If you're so extremely dead set on having them go in order then add a tab option do so? Joetri10 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All I am doing is proposing that we use the same system as the IndyCar season pages, like 2013 IndyCar Series season. They arrange the team and driver table alphabetically by team name, and it works just fine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And all anyone else is doing is suggesting that we keep doing the best approximation of what we've been doing because there's no reason to change it. You've yet to give one single reason why you think it should be alphabetical, not one. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over, we might as well just make this change now. I could have poorly raised a child in the time you've spent pointlessly bickering about nothing. Eightball (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Echoing what Eightball said, you are arguing against an already in place system with a system being used on one page that actually, is a little bit more complicated. Talk about joining the minority. Once the numbers are officially released, we will update the table to it's normal conduct. So yes, this conversation is over. Joetri10 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You do realise that these are called "career numbers" for a reason, right?


 * If we were to change the order of the table, then yes, it would only be on the 2014 season article - for now. But the drivers will be carrying the same number for the rest of their career (unless they happen to become World Champion, and even then, they have the option of using their number).


 * This is one of the major reasons why I have been pushing for the alphabetical order - it might be immediately obvious that the 2014 table is arranged based on the 2013 standings, but as we get onto 2015, 2016, 2017 and beyond, it becomes less so because the numbers will stay the same. That's why arranging the table in numerical order when numbers were assigned by WCC standings was a good idea, and it is also why arranging the table based on WCC standings is a bad idea when the numbers do not reflect positions from the year before the way they once did. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that this page is about the 2014 season, and that the standings from the 2013 season are helpfully included in the 2013 page. This page is for everyone, not just Formula 1 fans.  Ordering alphabetically is easier for readers who are not familiar with the sport to understand, and will not make it any harder for F1 fans to use this page. JohnMcButts (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain to me the merits of placing the teams in the previous years constructors' championship order? It never has been before. Claims of consistency within Wikipedia are wide of the mark. --Falcadore (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about Falcadore? Or are you just trying to be clever because it's not funny and it's not helping.
 * Looking as far back as the 2007 season, the chart has always listed the teams in order of their previous WCC position. The only one that is a bit messy is 2009 due to Jenson Button winning for Brawn which then disbanded leaving Button to join McLaren, carrying over his No.1. Technically on this then yes well done, we have been listing them by their car numbers. The problem here though is why does a car number matter when the actual reason we were listing them by car number was because of where the team finished in the WCC anyway. Stop fighting this because it's getting ridiculous now. Follow the system you have put in place yourself or just don't edit at all. Joetri10 (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * But the numbers given to each team no longer correspond with each team's finishing position from the previous season. So again, why is it so important to arrange the table based on those positions? We have always taken the approach that season articles only cover things that affect the season as a whole. If a team changes drivers, that gets mentioned. But if they change sponsors, it does not affect the season as a whole, and so does not get mentioned.


 * The same logic applies here: the final WCC standings from 2013 do not affect anything in the 2014 season, so arranging the table based on the those standings does not make sense. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Prisonermonkeys, the 2013 standings do affect something in the 2014 season. They determine the order in which the pit boxes are assigned to the teams, which will affect the pitstops during the season. If we arrange the table by WCC position we reflect the order of the teams in the pit lane at each grand prix. If we arrange them alphabetically the numbers would be just as random than if we arrange them by WCC order. Tvx1 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, how does that have anything to do with the way the table is arranged? It's even more obscure than arranging the table based on WCC positions.

Secondly, the pit order is not fixed. When the new Silverstone layout was used for the first time, there was controversy when the pit order was changed at the last minute so that the top teams would be under the corporate boxes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What an incredible misconception to justify using "Same Logic". Changing/Gaining sponsors is in fact possibly one of the most important aspects in this sport right now what with money being spent like grain fed to chickens. I'm actually surprised this page doesn't note when sponsors are gained/changed.
 * And look, this is getting just plain stupid now so i'll propose a table that we can all agree on that I mentioned a short while back.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" border="1" style="font-size: 85%;"

! Constructor ! No. ! Race drivers ! Rounds ! rowspan="2" | Red Bull-Renault ! rowspan="2" | Mercedes ! rowspan="2" | Ferrari
 * align="center" | 1
 * 🇩🇪 Sebastian Vettel
 * align="center" | All
 * align="center" | 67
 * 🇦🇺 Daniel Ricciardo
 * align="center" | All
 * align="center" | All
 * align="center" | 9
 * 🇩🇪 Nico Rosberg
 * align="center" | All
 * align="center" | 84
 * 🇬🇧 Lewis Hamilton
 * align="center" | All
 * align="center" | All
 * align="center" | 3
 * 🇪🇸 Fernando Alonso
 * align="center" | All
 * align="center" | 52
 * 🇫🇮 Kimi Raikkonen
 * align="center" | All
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * By adding the option to sort the table, the original layout would be that of the WCC whilst giving the option to not only alphabetize the team names but everything else. (Though this is just a rough drafted example as I'm not great with scripting and I don't know how to make it organize their names and not the countries without tagging them to the end of the name and not before it. You get the point though) Joetri10 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great compromise. Tvx1 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The trouble with that table, is that it can't be reverted to original layout of the 2013 WCC standings without adding a field that shows the 2013 finishing positions. This is a list of teams and drivers competing in the 2014 season, not a result table for 2014. The information about 2013 is, as one would expect, on the 2013 page. JohnMcButts (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about Falcadore? Or are you just trying to be clever because it's not funny and it's not helping.
 * Looking as far back as the 2007 season, the chart has always listed the teams in order of their previous WCC position. The only one that is a bit messy is 2009 due to Jenson Button winning for Brawn which then disbanded leaving Button to join McLaren, carrying over his No.1.
 * No Joetri it is not. It has ALWAYS been numerological order not constructors championship order. There have been in recent times two occasions when a team has requested to be put at the back of the numbers - mainly because they guessed the numbers then ordered their merchandise and later found out they had guessed the numbers wrong. Those two years, in 2010 Virgin swapped with BMW Sauber as technically in constructors order Virgin should have been ahead of Sauber because Sauber was completely de-registerred as a team during the ownership change from BMW back to Peter Sauber and associates. Brawn also went to the back of the number in 2009 even though they should have been further up the order. So no your assumption that it has been Constructors order in the past is NOT correct.
 * Additionally seasons backwards from 1992 - prior to the assignment of number in constructors order - the teams are ranked numerologically as well.
 * So all those who have claimed that Wikipedia has been ranking the teams in constructors order - no we have not. It's always been numerological order. Constructors order is, and always has been bogus and should NOT be used as a basis for argument.
 * All you had to do was look at a season prior to '93 and you would have seen that. --Falcadore (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for your information, on the official entry list they are arranged by WCC order as well.,,, Tvx1 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense
People...

Why are you still named Lotus engines as TBA, when OFFICIAL FIA entry list says that the Lotus engines is Renault???

And article, which says that Lotus engine is TBA comes from MAY!!! From this time many things are changed!

How long you are persist that Lotus engines is TBA? The first tests? Or first race? Or FOREVER??? AdamKot34 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion directly above here is discussing how reliable the FIA is as source for confirming drivers, engines etc. One of the issues is that the FIA entry list included several errors (Wrong name for Lotus, and McLaren).  In the past, the FIA entry list was only used for confirming car numbers. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just ridiculous. Why are you certain the FIA is wrong? We don't know what was written on the paperwork sent to the FIA. The Mclaren objection has already been overturned in the other discussion. Only the company name is listed as Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes. A legal name of a company cannot be changed from one day on another. It takes a certain procedure to do this. There's probably a logical explanation for the other "discrepancies" as well. Why can't we just reflect the FIA source in the article now and, if needed, change something if new sources are published that prove the opposite? After all we do not have proof that the FIA list is wrong. Only the suspicions of one or two users! Tvx1 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain, but Joe Saward, a well respected F1 Journalist, pointed out the discrepancy in the FIA list in his recent blog post. here . He double checked the names on the official list of companies registered in the UK.  You can search here  For 'McLaren Racing Limited' and 'Lotus F1 Team Limited' or by their company number, (01517478) and (01806337) respectively.


 * For the record, I was simply replying to AdamKot34, letting him know of the discussion in the section above, and pointing out the main argument used against it.  I was not trying to voice my support for either side in my reply, but I can now see that the way I worded it was poor.  I agree that using the FIA list until another source overturns it is probably the best option.  Another possible solution, is that we could change it to say either 'TBC', or 'Renault' and use a tool-tip to state "Renault has been listed as the engine supplier for Lotus in the FIA entry list, however, this has not been confirmed by the team itself." To look something like this.
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="font-size: 85%;"

! colspan="7" | Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix ! Team ! Constructor ! Chassis ! Engine ! Tyre ! No. ! Drivers !rowspan=2| Lotus-TBC
 * rowspan=2| 🇬🇧 Lotus F1 Team
 * rowspan=2| 🇬🇧 Lotus F1 Team
 * rowspan=2| E22
 * rowspan=2| TBC
 * rowspan=2 align="center" |
 * align="center" | 8
 * 🇫🇷 Romain Grosjean
 * align="center" | 13
 * 🇻🇪 Pastor Maldonado
 * }
 * Again, the 'TBC' could be replaced by 'Renault' if that is preferable. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When I click on your sources #20 and #21 it produces an error message. For the record, regarding Lotus' TBC it's not solely their engine supplier but rather their whole entry (i.e. their whole participation), as well as Marussia's, that is TBC. Why should we only list their engine as TBC then? Tvx1 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because we have independent confirmation of everything else - Grosjean, Maldonado, Bianchi, Chilton and Marussia's new engine deal have all been confirmed separately by the teams. Lotus' engines are the only thing depending on the entry list, which makes it quite clear that the team still needs to confirm it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because we have independent confirmation of everything else - Grosjean, Maldonado, Bianchi, Chilton and Marussia's new engine deal have all been confirmed separately by the teams. Lotus' engines are the only thing depending on the entry list, which makes it quite clear that the team still needs to confirm it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Tvx1, It looks like I can't just copy paste the search link, so I've changed it to the company search. I also added the the names, as well as the company numbers for both teams. Hope that works better.  JohnMcButts (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Prisonermonkeys, you've (again) missed my point! Why ONLY list Lotus' engine supply as TBC an not their ENTIRE PARTICIPATION as well as Marussia's like the source says? Tvx1 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because everything else within the table has been independently confirmed. Chassis names, engine suppliers, drivers and so on - the teams have publicly announced them all. The only thing the entry list truly reflects is the paperwork those teams submitted to the FIA. The FIA evidently have not received all of the paperwork from those teams, and since we have no way of knowing what paperwork was submitted and what was not, we cannot use the entry list to support the inclusion of Lotus' engines because we do not have any other sources to support it. We even have a source that openly contradicts it, with Renault announcing that they only want to support three teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Prisonermonkeys, I'm starting to partially understand your point. Still, I like to point out that I'm not advocating to put Renault in the list as Lotus' engine supplier. I'm advocating to put Lotus' and Marussia's entire participation as TBC because that is what the source says. Tvx1 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tvx1, we can reasonably assume that they will compete, barring a case of force majeure (which we cannot predict). And we have no idea why those teams are listed as "TBC". For all we know, Marussia was listed that way because Max Chilton had not submitted number preferences, and the FIA needs to know what number to put on the timing sheets. On top of that, every team's participation is technically TBC, since there is currently no Concorde Agreement in place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,Prisonermonkeys, it is so certain that they will compete that they will already miss the first test session. They have no engine supplier yet with only two months to the first race in which an entirely new engine formula will be required. The goal of an encyclopedia is to represent the sources as accurately as possible. We also need to maintain a neutral point of view. Right now we are displaying a anti-FIA point of view. Autosport and Sky Sports, to name a few, all mention them being TBC. So why can't we follow them. Is it that unacceptable to have at least a footnote or a tooltip mentioning they are TBC which can remove if they are confirmed? The FIA must have had a good reason to put hem TBC. The most likely one that comes across my mind is that both teams have failed to pay their entry fee yet. Tvx1 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree with John. If the entry list says the details are to be confirmed, then the details are to be confirmed. We would need a second, supplementary source to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A query - have Lotus formally announced which engines they will use this season? If yes, print that. If no, wait until the do. Very simple. --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. But what happened if Lotus uses Renault engines at the test and still don't formally announced which engines they will use this season? AdamKot34 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If they use them, there'll be an article/newspiece on one of Autosport, BBC, Sky Sports, etc that we could source for it, saying basically that they used the engines, but have not officially announced it. — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 22:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No what ifs. There is far too much focus on speculation in these talk pages. What if this, what if that. NO. Speculation is one of the worst enemies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a news report. We don't have to write anything until it is actually confirmed. There are so many places on the internet where people can write about whatever they like. Wikipedia writes what is, not what might be. No ifs, no buts. We don't have to write anything at all until Lotus say "we are using these metally things over here".
 * If you want to write about all kinds of soft news and speculation, go to Wikinews, that is where it is supposed to be, not here. --Falcadore (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But when will you consider things "confirmed" if even the FIA themselves are not good enough for you? There would be no Formula 1 without them, they govern the whole damn thing. They deal with the administration and so on. Why don't they get any credit of reliability at all? This is just to crazy for words. Tvx1 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Siiiiiiigh. No exceptions. When the team announces. It is the same standard we use for drivers. It is worth bearing in mind the FIA has been wrong several times in the past. --Falcadore (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

AdamKot34, the article will be updated to include Lotus' engine supplier as soon as an announcement is made. If that means we have to wait until the car launch, then we wait until the car launch. If we have to wait until the first test they appear at, then we wait until that first test. If that means we have to wait until the first race, then we wait until the first race.

Just because the reference used to support the "TBA" is from May last year, that does not mean that it is any less true than it was nine months ago. I agree that things have likely changed since then, and that if Lotus do not have a supplier by now, then they stand little chance of making the first race of the season. However, we cannot change that entry until such time as we have a reliable and verifiable source confirming the engine supplier. The FIA entry list is invalid in this case because it notes that the team's entry remains to be confirmed. And before you point it out, every other element of those entries - drivers, chassis names, Marussia's engine supplier and so on - have been independently confirmed by the team's in question. But Lotus have not commented on their engine supplier, and until such time as they do, our hands are tied. Anything else would be speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I understand this situation. Thank you for explaining problem. AdamKot34 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Lotus are planning to use their own "Lotus" engine? I find it weird a car manufacturer that makes it's own engines uses customer engines in it's sporting arm. That puts a spanner in the works — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICryOverSpiltMilk (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ICry, that is actually a very, very complex issue born out of the naming dispute over the rights to the Lotus name. The short version is that when the team and manufacturer were created, they were created separately by Colin Chapman. Twenty years after a team carrying the Lotus name last competed, the manufacturer acquired the rights to the Team Lotus name and started sponsoring Renault when Renault started to withdraw. The team was then renamed Lotus F1 ... and then the manufacturer backed out. Lotus F1 still have the rights to use the Lotus name, and continue to do so. And that is just the summary version. Caterham were involved as well, and for a time there were two teams competing as Lotus, a case before the High Court and an absolute mess.


 * But no, they will not be building their own engine. They do not have the facilities, and even if they did, they would have announced their plans to build an engine by now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lotus don't make their own engines. The Lotus Elise is powered by a Toyota engine as are the Lotus Exige and Lotus Evora. --Falcadore (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lotus have made engines before. The Type 918 V8 was a Lotus-built engine, and there was the whole Lotus 900 series of four-cylinder units; but I would agree that it is unlikely we will have a Lotus-built engine in F1. We may, however, find that the engine is badged as a Lotus; the T128 LMP car uses a Praga unit badged as a Lotus, and there's plenty of precedent for rebadged engines in F1 (Mecachrome and Megatron being two that I can immediately think of). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

13 Racing number.
Shouldn't it be mentioned that Pastor Maldonado's racing number, number 13 is considered unlucky as why its never been used in recent years before. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Utterly pointless trivia. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe on his article, under the "personal life" section (if there is one), but only if he gives a specific reason for it. For example, Nico Rosberg chose #6 because it was the number his father carried when he won the 1982 title. But even then, I would have reservations about including it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You could pretty it up and put a ribbon on it, but in this article, it is purely trivial. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - Chilton's Car Number
According to his twitter account, he says he will race with the #4 car this season. Here is his twitter account. This is a first party source, I doubt you'll find anything better than that. Many thanks in advance, RomeEonBmbo (Talk) 01:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerospeed (talk • contribs)
 * The above discussion, "The remaining car numbers", is about how to address the issue. Even though Chilton's preferred number satisfies all of the conditions set out for a number choice and would normally guarantee it, we cannot say for certain that he will actually get it - it is conceivable that Giedo van der Garde and/or Charles Pic also applied for it, and although they have not been confirmed at Caterham, the FIA may have asked them for number choices regardless of this in the event that they were retained so that they might get their preferred number, even if they had to wait for a new contract. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The remaining racing numbers
I'm going to spin this off from the above discussions so that it does not get caught up in the debate, and also because I think it is something that can be resolved pretty quickly.

Max Chilton has taken to Twitter overnight to announce that he will carry #4 on his car. When it came to all of the other numbers, we waited for the FIA entry list first, but it is unlikely that the FIA will release a second list just to publish Chilton's number.

Of course, it could simply be the number he wants (though the wording makes it pretty clear he has it), but even so, the only conditions on the number selection process were that the numbers had to be between 2 and 99, and that two drivers could not have the same number. Chilton's selection satisfies both of these conditions.

So, since the FIA (probably) won't publish new entry lists, and in the interests of keeping the page stable, what would we be willing to accept as confirmation of the remaining numbers? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is very likely that the FIA will indeed publish a new entry list before the season begins, once all the slots are filled - that is, when Caterham announces their drivers and their respective numbers. Though I think a simple confirmation from Autosport, BBC, Sky or other reliable media outlet should be enough to warrant inclusion on the table here. X X X antiuser eh? 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see those publications running a story on this. Autosport might do it through the "Grapevine" column, but that is mostly for soft news.


 * I suppose that if it comes down to it, photos of the cars would suffice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest we wait until all the remaining driver and number slots are filled. That way we can enter all the remaining information in the table in one edit and the page will remain as stable as possible. Tvx1 (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I am anticipating that the FIA will wait for all the ducks to be lined up in a row before releasing a new entry list. I am just wondering if there are any other sources that could be considered viable if that list is some time coming. I suppose timing sheets from the Jerez test would work, because the FIA needs to assign a number to each driver to ensure that they meet their distance quotas. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the FIA have added Chilton's #4 to the original entry list they issued. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Max Chilton's number.
Max Chilton's number has been confirmed to be "4" on his twitter. I cant seem to be allowed to edit the article so I posted it on here instead. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the discussion above sorry. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You cannot edit the page right now because it is fully protected. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Lotus-Renault
Here is the confirmation of the Renault engine in German. "Lopez: Wir fahren mit dem Renault-Motor". Hunocsi (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 15 January 2014
Could you enter Renault Energy F1-2014 in the engine column of the 2014 teams and drivers table for Lotus F1 Team's entry. It has been confirmed per the following source. Tvx1 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)