Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 4

Remove Alonso from the list please
Can somebody please remove Alonso from the Table please. it has been unofficially announced that Alonso is leaving the team. Chances of staying in Alonso are very little and this adds up more because Vettel is leaving Red Bull and he is set to drive for Ferrari.90.222.223.74 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You said it yourself. it has been unofficially announced is not enough.  We wait until either Alonso or a named Ferrari team member states that he is no longer with the team. JohnMcButts (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be removed from the table. The table is for drivers who have confirmed seats at those teams for the season in question. Alonso does not. His current contract does not change that situation. Dancraggs (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No the table is for drivers who are signed! Read the title of the section. We cannot remove him until he himself or his team announce that his contract has been disbanded. Patience is the keyword.Tvx1 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alonso is currently under contract, which for the sake of argument, counts as signed and confirmed until otherwise officially announced by himself or Ferrari. Unfortunately, a literal ton of hot air and tee-hee Riddler comments by Alonso, however sensible it may be and sound now, doesn't warrant a change to the table. Trust me, I have made edits in the past regarding future situations that seemed completely obvious, only to have them turn out false at the last minute. Twirlypen (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For damn's sake, just remove him from the table. DanCraggs is right. Alonso is no longer under consideration. Can't you read the links? I suggest you leave a link on Alonso's slot. This needs to be done ASAP.--80.7.132.5 (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No can do. The thing is, you think he is no longer under consideration due to all the speculation around him. Read the links yourself. None quote Alonso or his team saying his contract has been disbanded. And as long as neither of them have done so we cannot remove. If there is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia it's not to do things ASAP. Check out WP:NOTNEWS. We have the luxury of having time on our side. Be patient and wait and see what happens. Tvx1 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All veritable sources state that Fernando Alonso has a Ferrari contract for 2015. The ex-team president has said that Alonso requested to be released from his contract, something the team has never definitively confirmed or denied that they've allowed Alonso to do. Alonso himself has been dodgy on the issue since rumors began and also has not definitively said one way or the other. Kimi has a significant chance of finishing outside the top 10 for the first time in over 10 years. How can you be entirely sure Kimi won't be Kimi, change his mind and simply retire at the end of this year instead of at the end of next next?? You don't know the Iceman if you legitimately believe that has no chance of happening. Ferrari sure knows this, and Alonso doesn't want to get caught saying something he shouldn't be saying while still currently under contract with Ferrari for 2015. The list will be changed once the proper sources state that it's changed. Twirlypen (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly Tvx1. So please think again. It is now the right time for Alonso's name to be removed from the table. His future remains unknown so there is very little chance he will remain with Ferrari next year. If you are American, do check out this link from the BBC. It said that Alonso is closing on a deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29875221

So this should be least enough for Alonso's name to be removed temporarily before you ask any further questions--90.222.223.74 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you can mistake my words for me agreeing with you, anonymous. You're missing the point. "On the verge" and "close to being done" does not mean done. If and when it is done, signed and confirmed by either Ferrari or McLaren, then we can change it. Anything less than confirmed information on the future is WP:SPECULATION, which can't be published. See the Manor discussion below. Twirlypen (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It dose not matter, it is enough for him to be removed temporarily. It is "Unknown" and it has never been reconfirmed for him to race for Ferrari for 2015. It dosen't mean people are gonna look into this wikia page and believe that Alonso will be racing for Ferrari for 2015. The whole world would believe it but soon commonsense has said that he is not, even though he is confirmed or not. So, i still vote for Alonso's name to be removed. --90.222.223.74 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You're incorrect in that it does not matter, because it does. Wikipedia isn't about what is common sense or what we think will happen. The simple fact is that Alonso is still currently under contract with Ferrari - ergo, he is still currently scheduled to drive for them in 2015. If and/or when Ferrari say that Alonso has been released from his contract, THEN we can remove him... or McLaren (or any other team) say that they have signed him, we can then add him to their respective list. This is why drivers like Button & Magnussen aren't on the list - they do NOT have current contracts for 2015. Reports that deals are imminent or on the verge are purely speculative, and are not to be used as credible sources. I link that because you seem to be ignoring these policies, which are policies of all of Wikipedia, not just the Formula One project here. Specifically, point #5 applies in this situation. Twirlypen (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Read the BBC source you presented us with. Nowhere does is quote Alonso saying:"My contract has been terminated.", Ferrari stating:"Alonso's contract has been disbanded." or McLaren (i.e. Ron Dennis) stating:"We have signed Alonso for next season." In fact, it literally states that he hasn't signed with McLaren (yet). The article is nothing but BBC's Andrew Benson speculating what the Spaniard will do. If you come to Wikipedia in search of latest developments on Alonso's situation you are patently in the wrong place. Read WP:NOTNEWS. We can only publish facts. Tvx1 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you 2 take that to the person who put down that Alonso will leave Ferrari at the end of the season. Because if you guys are proved right, then that statement will have to be removed on your behalf. Because i've tried everything the best i can to prove Alonso will move to Mclaren when is not confirmed and you guys believe the policy states that anything developing Alonso which have not been confirmed should not be put on the Wiki page. Also, i'm not in the wrong place, i am a right person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Alonso#Ferrari_.282010.E2.80.932014.29

Please go to this link to delete the statement about Alonso leaving Ferrari.90.222.223.74 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't put the honus on us to prove speculation to be correct. That's the job of the sources we use to provide the content to Wikipedia. I highly suggest you take the time to thoroughly review what the definition of an encyclopedia is and the policies of this website. No one is denying that the rumors are strong and that the chances are likely that Alonso leaving for McLaren will happen. But, like a parent trying to explain to a small child, I repeat myself that we simply don't add or remove previously sourced information based purely on "what we think will happen" or, again in other words, pure WP:SPECULATION. Therefore, rumors about what is likely do not get published. As far as whatever you're saying about his own article, it's been correctly removed because it is unsourced. If someone does put it in the article without a credible source that provides clear information, such as the examples Tvx1 provided, then it too will be reverted (and it has). However, don't tell us to ignore Wikipedia policies, give us speculative articles and then tell us that it should be good enough for everybody just because you say you know for sure and you're a right person. That's not how we solve things. Twirlypen (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to avoid acting as though a rumour (which is open knowledge in this case actually, but anyway) is true before it's been confirmed. That's completely understandable and correct. It's another thing, though, to not even acknowledge the reports at all and to present the article as if nothing has happened and it's clear Alonso will be driving for Ferrari next year (something literally everyone interested in the sport in any capacity knows isn't true and has been discussed endlessly in legitimate sources). Saying things like "but the table says it's drivers who are signed" is just completely missing the point. If that's what the table says then change it. Communicate the information that we all know. Make it clear that there are some explicit comments (Di Montezemolo's announcement) showing Alonso will leave.


 * There are countless ways that can be done within Wikipedia's rules - e.g. have a small bit of text saying "although Alonso is signed for 2015, recently departed Ferrari President Luca Di Montezemolo has said that Alonso is leaving, noting that 'he wants another environment' and 'he is at an age when he cannot wait to win again'". That doesn't break any Wikipedia rules and immediately transforms the article from something that looks hopelessly out of date to something that's useful and presents the relevant information people need to understand the situation. It isn't unsourced (there are countless sources for Di Montezemolo's comment) it isn't speculation (reporting the comment isn't saying he will definitely leave, even though that's abundantly clear). You can even keep him in the table for all it matters, but please, update the article to reflect the latest developments rather than intentionally making it misleading just to "win" a debate. 158.143.82.199 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with 158.143.82.199's point of view. I realise the table is labelled as signed teams and drivers, but I suspect most casual readers won't pick up on that subtlety and will interpret it that Wikipedia is saying that Alonso will definitely drive for Ferrari next year (perhaps evidenced by the number of people who have come to this talk page asking for his name to be removed). I would not object to Alonso's name being left in the table, with a (reliably-sourced) footnote describing the speculation. WP:SPECULATION does say "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". DH85868993 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The table is for signed teams and drivers. Whether you want it or not. If random users don't bother to read the titles then, sadly enough, it's their problem. So removing him is out of the question as long as he or his team don't simply state his contract has been disbanded. He must have got a damn good reason not to have announced this. I would not object to add a footnote with some further explanation though. However it is fundamental that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and NOT a news site. We DON'T have to be up to date to the last second. We have the luxury to wait until clear, unambiguous sources appear and the situation has become crystal clear. If our articles are not entirely up to date, than so be it. There are even templates to warn users that an article documents and upcoming event and that things might change rapidly. Tvx1 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I'm not in favour of Alonso's name being removed from the table. I am in favour of a footnote being added. (My previous comment possibly doesn't make that clear). DH85868993 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am oppose to a footnote. Speculation is speculation, regardless of whether it appears in the body of the article or the footnotes. We know Alonso is still under contract at Ferrari,  and no amount of speculation about the current status of that contract will prove otherwise. Including a footnote is essentially WP:WEASEL. We still need to apply the same standard as we have in the past - Alonso or Mattiaci (or Dennis or whoever a new team principal might be) confirming it themselves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I have been on the wrong end of putting highly probable speculation into an article, only to have it turn out to be not true at the last second. We went on and on over the JEV thing because a reliable source came out months later contradicting the original source used to say something definite about him. This hasn't happened with Alonso. Nothing definitive has come out, despite all the rumors and gossip. IMO, even the ex-principal's statements shouldn't be used because A) he made them after he left the team, and B) even he said it wasn't definite - just that Alonso requested to be released.

There's also the case of making sure Räikkönen remains on board after his horrid season. If anyone has the ability to throw a wrench into this, it's Kimi. I have no doubt that if Alonso or Ferrari's mind is made up about this, it won't be long before the end of the season that they announce it. They gave Massa a decent farewell even after he openly announced that Ferrari can go f--- themselves and he is driving for himself midway through his final season. It's not a stretch to think that Alonso deserves at least an equally decent and public farewell from Ferrari. Twirlypen (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we're going into somewhat dangerous territory if we start justifying this, as TvX1 does above, by saying its the users' fault if they misunderstand the information in the table. There's no merit in making something more difficult to interpret than it needs to be. For instance another (somewhat more mundane) solution to this issue could be to simply insert a small amount of text in the paragraph above the table making it clear that just because someone is signed it doesn't mean they will definitely be driving and that the lineup could change before the start of the season. I don't see what the problem would be in pointing that out - it's the sort of thing that's self-evident to people who follow the sport, but not at all self-evident (I imagine) to someone who knows nothing about it. If we think people are going to read that and go "oh, but it just says they're signed so maybe that means it's not going to happen" I think we're assuming an awful lot on the part of readers (and it's completely unnecessary because we can just point it out to them explicitly). 158.143.82.199 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, it all comes down to what you can and what you cannot prove. And you cannot prove that Alonso will leave Ferrari. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It plainly states in the first sentence "The following teams and drivers are currently signed to take part in the 2015 Formula One World Championship." There is absolutely nothing deceptive about this. They are the teams currently entered for the 2015 season and these are the drivers that the teams currently have signed to drive for them. The sources account for the information provided in the article. If someone cannot figure out that the future isn't set in stone, then yes, I have to agree that it is their problem. What if, heaven forbid, a signed 2015 driver is killed at the race in Brazil? Should we omit everyone on the grounds that "there's a chance..." "but what if..." "the rumors highly suggest..." No, that's why the policies of Wikipedia are in place. Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill. Twirlypen (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It should be very obvious that when a reader visits the page of the 2015 season of a sport, that the year in question still has to start and this is something that will happen in the future. Likewise, everybody knows that the future is not set in stone. You really ought to have a bit higher estimate of our readers. Frankly, I think you are trying to fix a problem that (a) doesn't really exist and (b) affects very few readers if it does exist. Tvx1 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Food for thought: Axis of Oversteer&mdash;which is not a reliable source, but bear with me; I have a point&mdash;have published an article on the Alonso situation, as reported by the Italian and Spanish media (blog post contains links to relevant articles), in which Alonso says he will stay at Ferrari if he feels Ferrari present the best option for him. They are comments that the English-speaking media (specifically the British press) have not picked up on, fir whatever reason. So we can't prove that Alonso is leaving Ferrari. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I honestly, truly believe that the reason Alonso and/or Ferrari haven't announced anything is that they are waiting on what Kimi will do after the season. I know he's said that he will race in 2015 and finish out his contract, but I don't know... it's purely a hunch on my part, but I think he's the X-factor in this whole situation. Twirlypen (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * the reasons don't really matter. The delay in announcing a decision doesn't actually affect the decision itself. Trying to figure out why isn't our job; it's speculation, and verges on WP:NOTFORUM. If you do wish to debate that, I suggest you join a forum, like Autosport, F1 Fanatic, GTPlanet or F1 Rejects. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I guess I should follow my own advice and go over more policies here. Twirlypen (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't apologise; you haven't done anything wrong. You're a fairly new editor, and a lot of this stuff is learnt as you go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To Tvx1: is it really so ridiculous to suggest some people might read this table and be confused as to whether it's an official confirmation of what's going to happen in 2015 or not? You do realise, for instance, that many people reading it might have zero knowledge of how the sport works and may not even speak English as their first language? Does it really break Wikipedia's rules to add a simple clarification somewhere in the article - as I suggested, something simply pointing out that the 2015 lineup is subject to change and can't be taken as a final confirmation? What specifically is your objection here beyond questioning the intelligence of anyone who might misunderstand it - which, incidentally, is just about the single worst attitude anyone can take in this sort of situation (i.e. failing to correct potential ambiguities because any misunderstandings can be blamed on the reader). This particular attitude is something I encounter on Wikipedia over and over again - the idea that there's some merit in making things more ambiguous/complicated than they need to be simply because "anyone who doesn't get it is an idiot". 158.143.82.199 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you fixating me? This is not my decision. Read WP:Consensus. Multiple users discuss and decide together what's the best way forward. If you can convince the others in to a consensus to include some extra prose to repeat that the future is not set, than be my guest. I won't object it, in fact I can't even do that. By the way, I'm not the one questioning the cognitive skills of our readers, you are. The word signed is included three times in the article (in the contents box, in the prose of above this table and in the title for the section in question). I give our readers the basic courtesy of respect that they can understand this. Oh, and just that you know, I don't speak English as a first language either. Tvx1 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented any argument in that response as to why we shouldn't add a section of text clarifying that the table is subject to change. If you have no objection to that at all then fine. Does anyone else object to this? I'm happy to add such a note, but I will give it some time before I do in case anyone else has a problem with it. 158.143.82.199 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no need to explain that things are subject to change. You are assuming that Alonso will move because the media are saying that he will move, but Alonso himself has said nothing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think a general "things are subject to change" note would be particularly useful. The speculation is specifically about Alonso, so the note should reflect that. As I see it, the point of the note is to inform the reader that although Alonso has signed a contract with Ferrari for 2015 (which is why his name is and should remain in the table), there has been widespread and well-reported speculation that he will not actually drive for Ferrari next year. (As opposed to, say, Ricciardo, who has also signed a contract for 2015, but about whom there is no such speculation). DH85868993 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But doing that would imply that the speculation is to be taken as confirmation. Look at the Axis of Oveesteer blog I linked to - it contains links to reputable Spanish and Italian media outlets who have stories where Alonso himself says he will stay at Ferrari if it is the best place for him to be.


 * In the end, it comes down to what we can prove. We can prove Alonso has a Ferrari contract. We cannot prove that he will break it, no matter how much speculation might suggest it. We have always maintained the standard that confirmation must come from a named and quoted member of the team considered senior enough to announce it. It is a rule that was introduced in 2009 surrounding all of the speculation regarding Alonso. We have never made changes to articles on the back of anything less since then, and I for one feel that it is one of the most important standards that the WikiProject observes. We should not make any exceptions to that rule, least of all because there is a lot of media attention to the possibility of change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree that leaving Alonso's name in the table but with a footnote implies that the speculation is to be taken as confirmation. You keep saying "it comes down to what we can prove" - we can prove that there is widespread speculation that Alonso will not drive for Ferrari in 2015. And regarding the standard that confirmation must come from a named and quoted member of the team considered senior enough to announce it - that is the standard we apply for adding a name to/removing a name from a table. I don't recall that standard ever being used to prevent the addition of a footnote. DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We have never used a footnote for this purpose before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well there's a first time for everything, isn't there? I should also say that I'm not opposed to the note making it perfectly clear that there has been no official statement from Alonso or anyone else that he will not be driving for Ferrari in 2015 - maybe something like this: "Fernando Alonso has a contract with Ferrari for 2015 (ref). There has been speculation that he will not drive for Ferrari next year(RS)(RS)(RS) but this has not been confirmed by Alonso or Ferrari and Alonso has said he will stay at Ferrari if it is the best place for him to be.(ref)" DH85868993 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right. There is a first time for everything. Now, however, is not that time. Its inclusion still hangs on speculation, and speculation is speculation, no matter how much there is. Even if we give equal weight to both outcomes, it still amounts to "this might happen, but then again it might not". Wikipedia is not a news service, and it is neither our job nor our responsibility to make sure readers know the exact state of affairs from day to day. If Alonso leaves, then we remove him. Not beforehand. To do so would be speculating, introducing original research, and effectively using weasel words. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We clearly have differing views on this. I think/hope I've made my view fairly clear, so I probably won't add anything further for a little while, to allow others to have their say. DH85868993 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but please allow me to make one final argument: if we start using footnotes to point out these situations, where does it stop? Should we also include a footnote for the second Toro Rosso seat listing the drivers under consideration? The two McLaren seats to outline their prospects? A note speculating about Hamilton breaking contract at Mercedes? Eventually we would reach a critical mass of speculative footnotes with the only apparent check and balance being that if it gets reported in the media, it can be included. That sets a poor standard and undermines the point of an encyclopedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with PM. I wouldn't object to adding to the prose to make clear that things are subject to change (like every provisional list in the RS actually does). But adding a specific footnote for every driver who's future is speculated on is really a bridge to far. That's really a can of worms. Wikipedia is not a news site. Read the policy WP:NOTNEWS. It's perfectly acceptable for us to be a few days out of date. Tvx1 (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a heads-up&mdash;there's a click-baity article on Autosport with a headline that suggests Alonso has announced a move to McLaren, but the text of the article makes it clear that it's a non-story, and certainly not confirmation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Tvx1 (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So I sort of switched off from this debate, but I can guess what has been going on, and frankly it's getting a bit ridiculous. While I agree that it would go against Wikipedia's guidelines to remove Alonso, it's totally absurd for him still to be there. Anyone with even the faintest knowledge of F1 at present knows that there is zero chance of him driving for Ferrari next year, so honestly it's just misleading to leave his name there. The core principle of an encyclopedia is to inform, and right now this article is not doing that. WilliamF1two (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the truth is what you can prove with sources. For the most part, articles are representative of reality because of the 24-hour news cycle, but sometimes we end up in a situation where something that is "common knowledge" does not have any sources to back it up. The article can only reflect the sources&mdash;to change it based on anything else is both speculative and original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No it is not totally absurd by any means. You think that there's zero change he will drive for them because clearly you take all the speculation for truth and because you still don't understand the scope of the table despite it being explained thrice in the article. On this day the only thing we can prove through the sources is that he currently has a contract with Ferrari. Whether you want it or not, that's what we are bound with. Just what is it that you don't understand about the word patience. There is no rush to remove him. The man himself has said there is no deadline to make his decision. Tvx1 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * PM I see your point, absolutely I do, but that doesn't change the fact that we are essentially peddling misinformation at the present time. Blindly sticking to policy in the face of all the facts is shockingly closed-minded. I think you're misinterpreting me Tvx1, I understand the table perfectly, but only because I'm very familiar with F1 and know that just because a driver is "signed" doesn't at all mean he will be racing, and while that's sort of alluded to in the text (only once though, in a totally non-confrontational way where are the other two times you speak of?), a casual reader with no background knowledge would be absolutely justified in getting the wrong idea from the table. Perhaps, rather than breaking our policies to remove Alonso, we should add a caveat in the paragraph above the table noting that it is common in Formula One for the "confirmed" line-up to change?


 * Blindly sticking to policy in the face of all the facts is shockingly closed-minded."''
 * I ask you&mdash;what is a 'fact'? It is something that we can prove to be true. How do we prove it to be true? With reliable, verifiable sources. And what do those reliable, verifiable sources say? That Alonso has an existing contract with Ferrari and that he is considering his options for 2015.


 * You want to remove Alonso from the table so that the article is representative of reality. If so, that change will need to be supported by a reliable, verifiable source in which Alonso himself says that he will leave Ferrari; alternatively, you can find a source from a senior Ferrari figure&mdash;be it Marco Mattiachi or Sergio Marchionne&mdash;saying the same thing. To change it prematurely suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of key Wikipedia policies, including no crystal balling, no original research and the need for sources that are reliable and verifiable.


 * If you want to change the article, you need to prove it first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. On what basis do you claim that we are peddling misinformation? On the basis that you think a lot of the speculation to be true fact. Well sorry, that's not how wikipedia works. Even your casual reader can easily find out why Alonso is included in the table, by clicking on the reference that is used to justify his inclusion. Do you really not think Alonso and Ferrari might have a bloody good reason no to have announced his contract having been terminated? Why do you think he has said there is no deadline to make up his mind? Why is so difficult for you to have patience? Wikipedia is not a news site. We don't provide minute by minute accurate information. It's perfectly okay for us to be temporarily outdated whilst we verify facts through reliable sources. And yes the word signed is present thrice in the article. Once in the contents box, once in bold in the title of the teams and drivers section and a final time in the prose above the teams and drivers table. Tvx1 (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I reject your accusation that I do not understand Wikipedia policies, as I clearly stated "While I agree that it would go against Wikipedia's guidelines..." (poor choice of word, I meant policies). I merely think that the policies, in the really very unusual scenario, do not serve to help the encyclopedia as they usually do.


 * Tvx1, As far as I'm aware (and I agree this is not fact, but fairly solid speculation), Ferrari are not announcing his departure due to an agreement with Alonso that they won't do so until he has confirmed his own plans, which at present he hasn't - as far as we know, no deal exists with McLaren, or indeed anyone else. I would argue that Alonso making up his mind is not choosing between staying at Ferrari or not, but choosing what do know that he's left. And I apologise vis-a-vis it appearing three times - it does indeed, my mistake.


 * The thing is that a casual reader would have no reason to click the reference for Alonso - it would be a perfectly logical thing to think that he has signed, therefore he will drive - no need to investigate further for them.


 * All that is somewhat by-the-by though. I'm prepared to concede this point, as there is a clear majority against me. Democracy and all that. On the other hand, is there any objection to my suggestion that we add a small note in the text above the table to mention that "signed" is not at all synonymous with "will drive" in F1 circles? That would make the whole table a lot less confusing to a casual observer. WilliamF1two (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "I merely think that the policies, in the really very unusual scenario, do not serve to help the encyclopedia as they usually do."

You say you reject claims that you don't understand policies, but then you go ahead and say this. WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL are three of the most important policies on Wikipedia. Where some policies, like those in the Manual of Style, can be observed at the discretion of editors, these three cannot. This may be considered an unusual situation, but that is not grounds to ignore those policies because it is convenient to do so&mdash;and certainly not to break WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WEASEL in order to do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Technicalities and policies aside, I have said I concede the point. I would appreciate your opinions on my suggestion. WilliamF1two (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes&mdash;it's a weasel word. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think it is. It's a fact. You could provide many, many examples if you wanted to. WilliamF1two (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Examples don't apply here. You're essentially phrasing things in such away that gives you a chance to maintain the position if it gets refuted. It's a weasel word. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It goes back to the general understanding that while we can prove with verifiable sources that Alonso has a Ferrari contract for 2015 (and 2016 as well), the future is not set in stone for anyone. This should be assumed by everyone, casual reader or not. I bring up the same point I brought up earlier - any one of the currently signed drivers could have something completely unforeseen happen to them that would cause them to be unable to drive. To point out that "these drivers are signed but that doesn't mean they 100% will drive" removes any credibility the table has and the references used to fill them, and essentially makes the entire thing WP:SPECULATION. Twirlypen (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well OK, I can see I'm going to get nowhere with this, I'll let it go. But it seems like a very odd situation to me. I would argue the table looses its credibility by including Alonso... Although if Autosport are right, this debate will all be null and void very soon anyway, when he's confirmed at McLaren. Thank you folks. WilliamF1two (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If they are right. Tvx1 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * By the argument being presented, there's only going to be 3 teams competing in the 2016 season using only 2 drivers, because that's what the table says. Also, there's strong talks that Formula One might go back to V8s by then, so we should include a note that it might happen. Twirlypen (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, valid points. Out of curiosity, what is the differentiating factor that means Ferrari and Merc get to be in that table, but not the other teams? WilliamF1two (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ferrari and Merc have a driver signed for that season, proven by sources. The others don't. And the preference is not to have a table with dozens of TBAs. Furthermore, as Marussia and Caterha have shown, it's not because a team is competing in the current season, that they automatically will be competing in two years time as well. Tvx1 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks WilliamF1two (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, what we all knew for weeks has finally been confirmed so this is no longer an issue for Alonso. However I would say that in future it might be an idea to go for maximum clarity rather than making the article more ambiguous and difficult to understand than it needs to be. The opposition to a simple clarification that the status of drivers is subject to change was somewhat mystifying. It would be a contribution that would clear up any potential ambiguities without detracting from the rest of the article in any meaningful sense.


 * The justification for this by Twirlypen above that "it would make the whole table speculation" is entirely spurious. We're not talking about speculation, we're talking about two statements of fact: 1. That the drivers in the table are currently signed to take part for their respective teams in 2015, and 2. That despite being signed drivers can (and in many cases will) move before the season starts - which is precisely what happened with Alonso. Indeed the argument is that the second statement is apparently so widely understood by everyone reading the article that it doesn't even need to be stated - so why would stating something everybody supposedly already knows change the status of the table to speculation? That's completely illogical - if everyone already knows the fact in question, as Twirlypen asserts, then stating it explicitly changes nothing; whereas if it's not the case that everyone already knows the second fact, it simply clears the issue up for anyone who *doesn't* know it already. In other words, despite the best efforts of the argument above to establish some kind of downside to adding a clarification there isn't any tangible cost to doing so.


 * So we're really making a call based on little more than blind assertions. Some people in this discussion think 100% of people will read the table and assume that it's still subject to change so there's no point in stating it explicitly (an odd argument in my view given clarification would cost nothing in terms of readability, but if people want to argue that then fine). Other people (like myself) assert that it's possible someone would read the article and conflate the word "signed" with "confirmed" and therefore think it's an official confirmation of who will actually drive in 2015 when there are in practice still negotiations ongoing that could see drivers move (as happened with Alonso). There's no hard evidence for either perspective, they're both just as legitimate as each other, but faced with a situation in which there are potential ambiguities and no agreement from editors over which side is correct you have to side with caution and give the reader all of the information needed to understand the situation. Is there a serious objection in that case to altering the first sentence to: "The following teams and drivers are currently signed to take part in the 2015 Formula One World Championship, although this lineup is still subject to change." Eight words that ensure 100% of people will read the table and understand it rather than getting the wrong end of the stick (at virtually no cost to the readability of the article). Lewdswap (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no fundamental problem with that and I never had. Tvx1 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This case is now closed. Please do not make any further comments 94.5.95.91 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And how do you get to decide that? Tvx1 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Because this part is getting into a section of arguments and this section can class as spam and it will be requested for deletion94.5.95.91 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Although this particular question of whether or not Alonso would leave Ferrari has been answered. A question still remain. Should we find a way to make it more clear that the contents of the drivers table of a future season is not set in stone and is subject to change. And if yes, how? Tvx1 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that's a bad idea. It reeks of WP:WEASEL, a statement that gives us an out if things go down differently to what the article says. I also think it's a knee-jerk reaction to the current situation and so we run the risk of losing sight of the forest because we're too busy focusing on the trees.


 * While articles should be written with one eye focused on how it will ultimately look (generally this time next year), the other eye needs to be focused on how the article currently looks. Previous versions of the article have no bearing on the current version, and while it's one thing to keep in mind the various permutations and combinations of future versions, acknowledging their potential existence in the article is WP:CRYSTAL.


 * I think that the article best represents the current situation. Alonso's future will be resolved&mdash;we just need patience. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Virtual Safety Car
The proposed system using a Virtual Safety Car has been given the go ahead and will now be implemented from the first race of the 2015 season in Australia. Please can an administrator please ass this information to the Sporting Regulations section of the article. Ref: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117009 Thanks


 * The page is no longer under full protection so you don't need to request an administrator for an edit anymore. In fact you can make such an edit yourself provided it's joined by a reliable source. Anyways, this one has been done now. So, ✅ Tvx1 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 November 2014
The rule for a standing restart after a safety car has been abolished as has the rule for double points. Reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30238076

MetalDylan (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That can't be done just yet. Although the Strategy Working Group agreed to it, the changes need to be ratified by the World Motorsport Council gor them to come into effect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @, I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that everyone would agree with such an edit if and when confirmation from the WMSC comes through. It's not a contentious edit in any way&mdash;it just hasn't been finalised by The Powers That Be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but until TPTB do OK it, the edit request shouldn't remain open; see WP:PER. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why was this thread enclosed in ? The proposal wasn't closed as unsuccessful, because the decline is not permanent. If the World Motorsport Council do ratify the changes, a change to the article text (with ref) may still be proposed here, and the y altered to n. -- Red rose64 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Undid the closing action. Sorry for that. Tvx1 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They have been confirmed now. Tvx1 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Can this be collapsed as "edit made?" This talk page is insanely way too long as it is. Twirlypen (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

✅, Tvx1 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
Could an administrator change the lead of the article from the current version:

The 2015 Formula One season will be the 66th season of the Formula One World Championship, a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Twenty drivers representing ten teams will contest twenty Grands Prix, starting in Australia on 15 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 29 November as they compete for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships. Mercedes will begin the season as the defending Constructors' Champions, having secured their first championship title at the 2014 Russian Grand Prix.

to the following:

The 2015 Formula One season will be the 66th season of the Formula One World Championship, a motor racing championship for Formula One cars which is recognised by the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. Twenty drivers representing ten teams will contest twenty Grands Prix, starting in Australia on 15 March and ending in Abu Dhabi on 29 November as they compete for the World Drivers' and World Constructors' Championships. Lewis Hamilton is the defending Drivers' Champion after securing his second title at the 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Mercedes will begin the season as the defending Constructors' Champions, having secured their first championship title at the 2014 Russian Grand Prix.

This to accommodate Lewis Hamilton winning the title. I have already entered a ref in the new text, so it can be simply copied and pasted over the existing lead. Tvx1 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On that note, can we please add the following image to the article lead?




 * It should go above the existing image of the Mercedes, for consistency with other season articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer it to be this image. Lewis Hamilton October 2014.jpg, the defending World Drivers' Champion.]] Burgring (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter which image it is, so long as he is in Mercedes colours. Preferably, the image should be the same as the one used in the Lewis Hamilton article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, in the entry list, his car number should be changed from #44 to #1 since he is the world champion. 111.92.11.42 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. He has the right to use number. That doesn't mean he will. We need a source stating that he will in order to make that change. Tvx1 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If I may ask,, why did you remove the image of the Mercedes from the article? We typically have an image of the defending Drivers' and Constructors' Champions in season articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly describe the exact issue. This diff consolidates all the changes that I've made to the article based on this edit request. I've not removed any image of the Mercedes from the article, as per the diff. I might be missing something here. Do clarify and I'll make the relevant change if there is no opposition to the same. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 06:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * @, I think what you have done is simply changed the file name. The two images show different things, but they have similar names. The file "Lewis Hamilton 2014 China Race.jpg" shows Hamilton's car, while the file "Lewis Hamilton October 2014.jpg" shows Hamilton's face.


 * The following is what should appear in the article:




 * Sorry for the confusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. To follow the procedure, kindly write below the exact changes to be made, in the format you did earlier, that is, from "aaaa" to "bbbb". Thanks.  Wifione  Message 10:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @, okay, here we go:


 * The article lead currently contains the following markup to include an image of Lewis Hamilton:


 * Lewis Hamilton October 2014.jpg, the defending World Drivers' Champion.]]


 * Can you please edit the following markup into the article directory underneath the above markup:


 * Lewis Hamilton 2014 China Race.jpg will be the defending World Constructors' Champions.]]


 * For reference, the article lead should look similar to that on the 2014 season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this is now done? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's all good. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, to be really honest, the pictures are quite large in comparison with previous season's articles. But that's nothing really pressing. Tvx1 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. The pictures have been successfully resized. Tvx1 (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Carry-over penalties
I have removed the specifics of the revised carry-over penalties that were added overnight because I felt they were simply far too detailed. The most salient points to take from the WMSC meeting are a) that there has been a change, b) that the change is now a time or pit penalty, and c) that the exact nature of this penalty will be decided by outstanding grid spaces. As we have seen in recent seasons, these penalties are very uncommon, and so I think that detailing the schedule of those penalties takes things a step too far. We would be better off including them in individual race articles as needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nico Hulkenberg
I feel the section on Nico in the Driver Changes section is ill-suited for the season article, as it pertains more to Nico's career rather than the season itself. I did not want to delete that part right away in case others feel otherwise. It may be suggested that he might skip the Korean Grand Prix, but it is my understanding that his contract is with his team in Formula One, and the WEC is out of luck if there are scheduling clashes. Opinions? Twirlypen (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really have my doubts as well whether this is important enough for this article. Tvx1 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I only put it in because of the clash between Korea and Spa. It may affect his availability for either race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand that the dates clash, but I feel that it should be understood that his contract is with Force India, and they are the ones allowing him to race in WEC at all on off weekends. He has no contractual obligations to race for Porsche, as far as I know - ergo, I feel it would be more appropriate information in his article, or at most the WEC article. Twirlypen (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If there's no further opposing opinions or better reasons to keep this than "it means he might not race" even though he has a clear cut contract with Force India, then I'm going to remove this in the next 24 hours and place it in the WEC article. Twirlypen (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. Prisonermonkeys has already removed it this morning. Tvx1 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, well then, good work gentlemen and/or ladies, on to the next one. Twirlypen (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Korea analysis
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/319933/analysis-why-is-korea-back-on-the-calendar/

Sorry for the mobile link. Does anyone think any of this content is worthy of the article? I realize most of it is speculation, but it does go into how the teams are allowed a fifth power unit if the season goes beyond 20 scheduled races, indicating that even if Korea is (likely) later canceled, teams will still be allowed a fifth PU without penalty. At the very least, this tidbit isn't currently mentioned in the rule changes. Twirlypen (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this "tidbit" is not a particular rule change for the 2015 season. I remember this "extra power unit if more than 20 races" rule being there for quite some time now. Hence why it isn't mentioned in this article specifically. Tvx1 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I may respectfully disagree. Did this apply to last season as well? It was never mentioned. The rule this year is that the alloted number went down from 5 to 4, so that 5th power unit could be very significant. It was very much a nonissue last season because there were only 19 rounds scheduled. Having 21 scheduled this season puts this right in the spotlight. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Cheers Twirlypen (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For a long time last year, there were 22 scheduled races on the calendar. With the Grand Prix of America, Korean Grand Prix and Mexican Grand Prix all on the calendar. So it was very much an issue. The aforementioned races were ultimately dropped from the calendar released in december. The exact number of power units was different of course (5&6).Tvx1 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I do remember Mexico and New Jersey being included on the 2014 provisional calendar, which would have been 21 races. Korea I think was excluded as soon as that Jeep fiasco happened - I don't recall them being included on any 2014 list. Either way, you're probably right in waiting for the final calendar to be released later on to consider including this. Twirlypen (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Korea was only removed from the final calendar in december . Tvx1 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

semi protection request
IP users are adding ridiculous names to the Caterham team. Can we ask for an autoconfirmed user only request? Twirlypen (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've posted a request at WP:RPP. Tvx1 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected this until 1 February 2015, by which point hopefully there will be no need to speculate about what is being disruptively speculated about. If it's still unclear then ask for it to be extended if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)