Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 5

German Flag for German GP
Despite the location of the German GP has yet to be announced, we can be pretty certain it will take place somewhere in Germany, which means that the flag of Germany should be present in the list of races. It's not like other Grand Prixs, just as San Marino or the European Grand Prixs. Pch172 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Prove it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke? Eightball (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The flag corresponds with the physical location of the venue. Look at the European Grand Prix as a prime example - we used the flag of Spain rather than the flag of Europe because the circuit was in Spain. There is currently no venue for the German Grand Prix, so how can you claim that the race will be in Germany? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's the GERMAN Grand Prix. Do you want me to prove that Germany is Germany? The European Grand Prix is not a relevant comparison as it has no fixed host country. The German Grand Prix is, by definition, in Germany. This is not up for debate. If you're going to sit here and disagree with objective facts then I will be reporting you to the admins for vandalism. Eightball (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been 75 German GPs, the first one being in 1926. EVERY SINGLE ONE has been held in German territory. This discussion right here is why Wikipedia is awful. Truly, truly awful. Why is there any disagreement? HOW is there any disagreement? There should be a German flag there. Duh. End of discussion. No discussion needed. No thought should even cross your mind. There is not a second side. Eightball (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been a Swiss GP in France and there have been Luxembourg GPs in Germany and so on... I know as well that is very unlikely it will take part outside of Germany, but the fact is this an encyclopedia and we can only publish facts proven by sources. Since the location has yet to be announced we cannot publish where it's going to be, not even the flag. We are in no rush whatsoever to include information. We can easily wait until more information on this is published and we find out what the correct situation is. This is similar to a an article about a football tournament. Take for instance the 2016 European Football Championship Qualification. Even when, ahead of the last game day, say Slovenia can only be eliminated by virtue of losing their final match to San Marino, something which is next to impossible given the fact that San Marino has never won a qualification match, we still can't list them as qualified for the tournament, because mathematically they aren't certain yet. Next to impossible or overwhelmingly certain are not enough. We need actual certainty. We're not arguing that the race will take place outside of Germany, we're arguing that the status is unknown which IS a fact.Tvx1 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The race will be in Germany, and THAT is a fact. The status is NOT unknown. Publishing anything else would be a farce and a lie and is nothing short of intentionally misleading readers. Eightball (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then prove it with a source!Tvx1 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a tautology. Eightball (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact that we're agreeing above and arguing here is kind of beautiful. Eightball (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, stop edit-warring. Repeatedly undoing other users contributions is not going to win you a dispute. I'll put it pure and simple: if you want your edit to stick you need to add a source confirming it will take place within Germany. Pretty certain is NOT enough. We write based on sources and NOT like you based on personal opinion. Read WP:Verifiable and WP:OR. The fact that we agree in the above discussion and disagree here is only proof the fact that me and you choose to (dis)agree based on the presented arguments and not on the contributor, nothing else.Tvx1 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit warring, I'm removing a lie. If you have a source suggesting that the race may not take place in Germany, by all means, provide that source. But guess what? YOU CAN'T. BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. Eightball (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what? I'll stoop to your level. Reference 41 on the article itself. Until 2018, the German GP alternates between Hockenheim and Nurburgring. Care to guess which country those two tracks are in? Eightball (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That article is FIVE years old and is quite obviously trumped by the current calendar stating the venue is TBA. It's UNKNOWN. You know things change over the years. In 2010 both Korea had a contract that including this season. Do we still include them. No? Why? Their contract for this season where later disbanded. If the official calendar lists the venue as TBA than something has changed since the agreement in 2009. We don't assume where it is going to be. And yes you are edit-warring. You repeatedly undid other users contributions. You know, Prisonermonkeys has just been blocked three times in just over a month for displaying such an attitude towards edit-warring. That can happen to you just as well. Edit-warring is forbidden by policy. Tvx1 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It says TBA because it hasn't been decided which of those two tracks will host the race. Both are in Germany. The race will be in Germany. THIS IS AN OBJECTIVELY TRUE FACT. YOU CANNOT DISAGREE. DISAGREEMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Why are you so dedicated to posting lies? What do you think is a more important Wiki policy: edit warring or not publishing lies? Eightball (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally, I'm not assuming anything. It WILL be in Germany. YOU are assuming that it might not, and that assumption is objectively incorrect. It will be in Germany. We are done here. Eightball (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Enormously missing the point Eightball. Edit-warring. Don't do it. You have a reason? To use your own somewhat patronising manner guess what? It does not make a difference, don't do it. Still want to talk about your reason for the revert? Ummmmmm, no you are still edit-warring and your reason for doing it still does not matter.
 * Don't edit-war.
 * Was my response patronising? Yes it was, but maybe it needs to be. Demonstrate that you understand that you do not edit-war. --Falcadore (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not care about any of your rules more than I care about removing lies and vandalism from articles. If there were not editors apparently dedicated to lying then I would have no reason to edit war. Eightball (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wiki policy quite clearly states: "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring." I am reverting vandalism, ergo I have broken no rule. Eightball (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. I actually agree with you that the flag should be there, but I think however being a super-aggressive pedant is just going to get you banned in short-order.
 * Claiming vandalism will not wash in the slightest. The presence of the little splash of colour in the flag or its absence does not even slightly constitute vandalism, because the little flagicon, on its own, makes no claim the race will not be in Germany. But I'm sure you won't listen to me. --Falcadore (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I quite honestly don't care if you ban me or block me or what, so long as lies are removed from this article. If the Honda/Racing Engineering article is gone and the German flag is in then ban away, my job is done. Eightball (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. I can't ban you and would never claim otherwise. The absense of a flag is not even slightly a lie. If another flag was placed there, you would have a case, however it's just absent. Claims of lies and vandalism are entirely in your own head.
 * A flag's absence is not in anyway shape or form is not a lie. Lieing involves a statement. A flags absense is not a statement, it's not anything, because nothing is there.
 * This sort of editorial behavior just gives everyone else in the F1 group a bad name. --Falcadore (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the flag pretty obviously implies that the race may not take place in Germany. That alone is a blatant lie. Eightball (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can think of a few reasons that have nothing to do with content. You should not draw a conclusion from the lack of a statement. --Falcadore (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not me I'm worried about, it's the people who aren't as informed as I. I am aware that Wikipedia is a nightmarish hellscape of Byzantine rules and poorly-thought-out policies, so when I see something like the flagicon missing I naturally chalk it up to incompetence and move on. The average reader doesn't know that, though. They view Wikipedia as an authority and will thus draw the conclusion that the flagicon is missing for a reason, e.g. that the race might not take place in Germany. We all know that this isn't the case, and why so many editors seem hell-bent on maintaining a lie in this article is beyond me. I've always said that Wikipedia needs one policy that overrides all policies: be the best encyclopedia possible. Instead, the #1 goal of most editors seem to be enforcing the rules, rather than trying to be the most accurate and helpful encyclopedia we can possibly make. Eightball (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see someone arguing over the presence or absence of a flagicon (not the substitution of another flagicon), with no other content changing at all, and I assume the editors have lost their perspective of what the actual goal is.
 * Tables are the addendum to articles. The actual important bit is the text. Does the text state anywhere the Grand Prix will not be held in Germany? --Falcadore (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is another thing that Wikipedia has gotten totally wrong. Tables are not an addendum. Tables are where the eye is drawn. Tables are much, much easier to parse information from than prose. So the fact that the table indicates the race won't be in Germany overrides anything that is written in the text of the article, because most readers are going to check the table first, and may not even read the body of the article. Regardless, none of that matters. The fact that we are even discussing this is comical. The race will be in Germany. That's not up for debate. The flag should be a German flag. That's not up for debate. What are we even talking about? Eightball (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about the subject at hand instead of your own behavior, I'd love that. --Falcadore (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? What's the point? There is no debate over the content. The race will be in Germany and we have to indicate at such. This is a simple fact. Eightball (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the words German Grand Prix have that covered with or without the flag. Why is the flag so important that you have to edit war it into place? --Falcadore (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you got it totally wrong. We are not indicating that the race will not take place in Germany by any means. We are indicating that situation is unsure. And that is the only truth. This all boils down to you believing that when Nurburgring (the expected host for 2015) is unable to host, the Hockenheimring will be perfectly able to lay Bernie's hosting fee on the table just like that, despite normally being only expected to raise that amount of money once every two years. Do you even have a remote idea of what sort of money one needs to pay to be allowed to host a Grand Prix? You are just continuously make personal conclusions. What you are doing is pure ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This why we, at wikipedia, have decided to take the safe option when we are no certain of something. We are an encyclopedia, not a news site. WE ARE IN NO RUSH TO PUBLISH THINGS. We wait and see. There is no rush whatsoever to include that German flag. Take a dictionary and look up the word ”Patience". It's something you really need to learn to have. It's been our general practice that no venue=no flag. Tvx1 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are objectively wrong and I'm not discussing this with you any further. If you want to take this to dispute resolution or whatever so an admin can tell you you're objectively wrong, be my guess, but please don't continue to vandalize the article in the meantime. Eightball (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the words German Grand Prix is somehow inadequate? That they are meaningless unless the flag is there? --Falcadore (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an amazing amount of discussion for something so trivial. It took me ten seconds to find a reliable source (published today) that gives the location of the German Grand Prix without any ambiguity -- Daily Telegraph, 2015 F1 race calendar (official). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but there is nothing more official than FOM and FIA. We currently have an FOM source stating the venue to be TBA. They must have a very good reason to do that. That's why we take the save option and write TBA as well until we have more information on the matter. Tvx1 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That source is likely going by the typical scheme of alternating races between the Nurburgring and Hockenheim. However, the Nurburgring has been in recent dire financial trouble and was recently sold, so this is likely the reason for the FIA listing it as TBA, their contracts may be under renegotiation.'


 * As for Eightball, if you want to bring in an admin, feel free, but he'll likely just tell us to removal all the flags per MOS:FLAG. As for proof, you demand that a source for Honda prove what they say, but you want to just pretend we don't need proof for the race being in Germany?  We held steadfast on not removing Alonso from Ferrari, on not adding Vettel to Ferrari, despite overwhelming evidence and rumor because it did not meet our criteria for referencing and we were not going to welcome guesswork.  This should be no different.  We have no source for the official location of the German Grand Prix, so assuming it is in Germany is without merit to this discussion.


 * If you're going to plug your ears and ignore discussion, proclaim that you're only going to follow the rules that you want to follow, then your opinion is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The359  ( Talk ) 20:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. For the sake of clarity, we have always left out the flag of the nation when a venue was unknown. This is how we dealt with an exact same situation two years ago. Tvx1 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care how you feel about that source or any source. I don't care how you dealt with this previously. This matter is not up for debate. The race will be held in Germany. This is an undeniable, objective fact, and stating anything even slightly to the contrary is a lie. I will revert any lies as vandalism. This is not a content debate as the content is impossible to question. Eightball (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , where is your source to say that the race will be held in Germany? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For 75 races and nearly 90 years the German GP has never once been held off German soil. If you wish to imply otherwise, YOU need a source. Furthermore, I have provided one source showing that Hockenheim and the Nurgburgring have contracts through 2018, and another source showing that The Telegraph (a reliable newspaper) expects the race to be held at the Nurburgring. If you'd like to ignore both of these sources in favor of lying then you are simply proving yourself as a vandal and I will ask that you be blocked from editing and hopefully banned outright. Eightball (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to clear up one more thing: when the FIA says "TBA," they mean either Hockenheim or the Nurburgring. They do not mean they have absolutely no idea where the race will take place. That is not a source that suggests what you three vandals are suggesting, which is that the race may not be held in Germany. Again, that latter point is objectively untrue, AND AGAIN, none of this should even require a source. Eightball (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "For 75 races and nearly 90 years the German GP has never once been held off German soil"

That's a logical fallacy&mdash;just because something has always happened one way, that does not imply (much less confirm) that it will always happen that way.
 * "I have provided one source showing that Hockenheim and the Nurgburgring have contracts through 2018"

If it was that clear-cut, why does the FIA list the race as "TBA"?
 * "The Telegraph (a reliable newspaper) expects the race to be held at the Nurburgring"

The Telegraph does not trump the FIA, and the word "expect" does not have high modality. There is an element of uncertainty.
 * "I will ask that you be blocked from editing and hopefully banned outright."

You're the one in violation of 3RR. Abd you continued to edit-war even after being warned about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "If it was that clear-cut, why does the FIA list the race as "TBA"?" Again, is this a joke? There are two possible tracks. But both tracks are in Germany, ergo, the German flag is correct. Eightball (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you are assuming that the race will take place in Germany, which you have not demonstrated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know where Hockenheim and the Nurburgring are? I'll tell you: Germany. And I have already provided a source (it's in the article, twice) stating that the German GP will take place at one of those two tracks until 2018. Thus, it is proven that the race will take place in Germany. What else do you want me to say? Also, why are you three trying so hard to remove information from this article? Who is paying you to deface it? I'm very confused. Eightball (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you think that there are two tracks. I don't think it is certain for one second that Hockenheim will gladly cough up the required 14€ million to be allowed to host the race, which they are normally only required to gather once every two years. Hockenheim only has a contract to host in even-numbered years, not in the odd-numbered years. If Nürburgring are unable to host in 2015 it is more likely that there will not be any German GP at all, rather than that it being moved to Hockenheim just like that. But above all, we don't know any of that for sure and that's why state TBA and wait until more information is published. Learn to be patient! Tvx1 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This, right here, shows exactly why this project has become such a joke. With all the work that needs doing, we're arguing about a flag and people are trying to get each other blocked.

a) If the German GP is held outside Germany, I will eat my own head. This is not something that requires a source. It's like asking for a source that the cars will have four wheels next year, because not all F1 cars have had four wheels. There is a culture here of spending weeks / months demanding sources to prove or disprove the bleeding obvious, and it ends up in blocks, page protection and other measures that make us look stupid. It also puts off new editors getting involved. Enough already.

b) Stop edit warring. There's no excuse for it and it always ends up in blocks and page protection. Some people just never learn. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I apologize for being a part of this, but I highly doubt your comment will help resolve this. It's a matter of pride of those three, I fear, and they likely already know they're wrong. They just don't want to admit it. Eightball (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

, please explain this to me: the source you provided says the race will alternate between Hockenheim and the Nurburgring. If Hockenheim hosted the race in 2014, then by rights, the Nurburgring should host it in 2015.

So why, then, does the FIA list it as "TBA"? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Pride has nothing to do with it. Hate to say it Bretonbanquet, but I disagree with you on point a. I know just as well that is very unlikely that it will take place outside of Germany, but what we need in an encyclopedia is certainty. You know, confirmation. There is no rush to enter a flag for the venue whatsoever. Why is so unacceptable for you to WAIT? What is it with some of you you don't understand about the word PATIENCE?? Just think of my football example I presented above. I'll eat my head as well if Slovenia is eliminated by virtue of losing to San Marino, but as long as that match hasn't been played we can't treat San Marino not winning as a certainty. We have been able to deal with the German situation in the exact same manner two years ago (no lag, TBA) so what has actually changed that we have to throw out that consensus. Does WP:Consensus actually mean anything to you? Furthermore as The359  has currently pointed out, displaying a flag of a country for something called "TBA" is deviation from MOS:FLAGS. And we already have enough problems with the MOS flags people that we really don't have to provoke them. Tvx1 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that the chance of it being held anywhere else is so unlikely as to be negligible, and the two German tracks have a deal till 2018. Not everything needs a source. While there is no rush, there is also no need to delay an edit (however trivial) while we await confirmation of something we are already 99.9% certain of. I have to say I don't agree that your football analogy is similar: a similar analogy might be asking for a source that the match will be played with 11 men on each team. Just maybe San Marino will turn up with 10 men; it wouldn't be the first time, right? Better ask for a source. This kind of argument is why Wikipedia showed Alonso being at Ferrari in 2015 long after the entire planet knew he was leaving. Reliable sourcing is important, obviously, but let's not let it obscure reality. I do agree with you about causing problems with MOSFLAG. This isn't an argument we really need right now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You and Eightball still have this utterly wrong. It is not the case that they both are contracted to host all the races and that the actual venue is determined by whichever has the money to bay Bernie's fee for that year. The fact is that Hockenheimring has a contract to host it in even-numbered years (i.e. they are contracted to host it in 2016 and 2018), while Nürburgring has a contract to host it in odd-numbered years (i.e. they are contracted to host it in 2015 and 2017). It is not the case that if one venue can't host in their scheduled year that the other will automatically step in. Do you genuinely believe they always have € 14.000.000 lying around waiting to be transferred to Bernie's account. Why do you think both of them dropped from having a race every year to one every two years in the first place? Because they couldn't afford a yearly Grand Prix anymore. Those are the exact same reasons why there have been talks of alternating between a Belgian and a French Grand Prix. What has become of your sense of reality. If Nürburgring is unable to host it is much more likely that there will be no Grand Prix at all than Hockenheim stepping in like it is no effort at all. Including the flag on the basis that if will certainly be one of both is pure nonsense. It can just as easily be neither. We dealt with this situation in the exact same manner two years ago without any such drama, so why has this now become so unnacceptable?? What's happened to WP:Consensus? Apparently a consensus has no value anymore. Tvx1 (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, try not to get into the "utterly wrong" and my losing my sense of reality, and stuff like that. Let's stay outside that. The FIA has confirmed a German Grand Prix, so it will definitely happen. We can rule out it being held in France or Italy, for example, because seriously, that has never happened before, and it will patently never happen. A German Grand Prix in France or Belgium? And you ask about my sense of reality? The European GP is not the same thing, as that always moved around. The Swiss GP, Luxembourg etc were so named to avoid having two races with the same name in one year, so this is not a case of that. You're talking about a possibility that has no precedent whatsoever. As for consensus, we're discussing it now. It has not been discussed before, so there is no prior consensus. Whatever happened two years ago, there was no discussion and no controversy. Now we have both, so we are now establishing consensus. Or trying to. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May I stress that the FIA calendar is provisional. So no it's no definite it will happen, especially since the venue is now TBA. And you're wrong about the 1982 Swiss GP as well. It was always intended as a Swiss GP and it was organized by the Swiss Automobile Federation (ACS). It was only held in France because motor racing was (and still is) forbidden on Swiss territory. Furthermore, the ACS has often used the Dijon track to hold their national racing events. Still you have failed to prove how Hockenheim will be able to produce the required €14 million to relieve Nürburg as host if necessary. Tvx1 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's OK as a source for the other races, but not for this one. The Swiss GP was never intended to be held in Switzerland, unlike this case, that's my point. The ban's been lifted anyway, AFAIK. I haven't failed to prove that other point, because I haven't tried. I don't need to prove it and neither does anyone else, because it doesn't actually have anything to do with the German GP being held outside Germany. I have a life to lead, and I don't intend to waste any more of it sitting here, arguing about a reference being required for something which doesn't, by any credible stretch of the imagination, need one. It's bedtime, and in a few hours day will follow night, unless of course you need a source for that. Sorry if that seems flippant, but this is the most ridiculous discussion I've ever had on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, per Bretonbanquet's comment above I will abstain from participating in this waste of a discussion. However, I will still monitor the page and ensure that the German flag correctly remains. Thanks for all the fun, guys. I hope you can stop trying to vandalism the article and instead contribute to its improvement. Eightball (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ALSO sorry for that last revert, I assumed you had removed the flag and thus made an ass out of myself. I reverted my own revert so we're back to your latest version. Thanks for the added source/clarification/etc. Eightball (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not even a little bit constructive. Instead of leaving the discussion alone and sitting on the article, how about you leave the article alone and take part in the discussion? You still haven't demonstrated that the race will take place in Germany. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Answer me this, please: how do we even know that the race will take place at all? It appears on a provisional calendar - one that is subject to change. And without a venue, the race is one of those things that is subject to change. So how can we reasonably say the race will take place in Germany when we cannot say for certain that the race will take place at all? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of you still operate under the mistaken belief that Hockenheim will have no problem to step in and produce the hosting fee required without any effort, despite them not being contracted to host in 2015 in the first place. They are currently contracted for 2016 and 2018 and NOT for 2015. Nürburgring having financial problems is not Hockenheimring's problem. I don't know why you consider the option of no race at all utterly impossible and thus keep ignoring it. It's not impossible just because you say so. This is why we, at an encyclopedia, always take the safe option if were not sure. In this case TBA until more information is published. Can you explain to me what your fundamental problem with being patient is?? And : The ban on racing in Switzerland has not been lifted. The amendment was proposed, but it failed to get ratified on two occasions. And to both of you, this can could be seen as canvassing colluding. Tvx1 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to pop back in here., maybe you can just explain what you mean by that last comment. Who exactly are we canvassing? Nobody else is even mentioned. You patently don't have the first idea of what canvassing is. Strike it immediately, that's a disgrace. Go and read WP:AGF. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant could not will. Bottom line: stop colluding on your talk page. And yes that could be seen as canvassing colluding. Canvassing Colluding with each other to form a firm block against the other users in this discussion. Why is it that you can accuse us of ganging against another user and that is not to be considered a failure to AGF, but when you are the accused it's immediately a disgrace. Furthermore what you are writing on your talk page is not really AGF either. Tvx1 (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Could by whom? Find someone or withdraw it. Don't wave accusations around when you can't back them up. You have to be kidding me. Colluding? We already agreed with each other, yet you reckon we're canvassing each other? Canvassing is trying to bring in previously uninvolved editors to try and back up your case. What Eightball did was to inform me that he was done with this moronic badinage, and I agreed. We gave up. Hardly "forming a firm block", is it? I don't mind being accused of things, except when they are so far off base it's unbelievable. Why don't you take that accusation to ANI and see how it goes? What we wrote on my talk page is a polite way of saying that this discussion is a total waste of time, perpetuated by people who are not new to long, irretrievably pointless discussions about proving what is patently obvious to all, or at least most. This is very, very poor from you. In fact, don't use my talk page, and don't ping me unless you want to retract that ludicrous accusation, or inform me of an ANI case you're starting. You know, backing up what you're saying. As for this "discussion", you people do what you want with the flag, and maybe it'll be you who puts it back when the German GP venue is confirmed. My first post here has been utterly vindicated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one that started accusing us of ganging against another user. Stop being lecturing about AGF when you didn't do so yourself in the first place. Apparently you are allowed to cry out all the accusations you want and all other users have to slavely abide the rules. Withdraw your accusations and you will probably get a similar action from the users you've offended. I still fail to see why it's so unacceptable for you to wait and see what happens before claiming unsourced certainties in the article. Tvx1 (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I said there was a "hint" of ganging up, and I said it on an admin page. See the difference? You also started an edit-warring report when you were on 3RR yourself. You start on about canvassing without even knowing what it is. Forget the article itself (which I never edited anyway), you do what you want with it, as you clearly know best. Do you ever wonder why this project only has about half a dozen regular members these days? Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So is perfectly fine to accuse someone of bad faith as long as it's on an admin page then?Tvx1 (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse anyone directly, unlike you, and yes, I did it on an admin page where I might realistically be called upon to back it up, which I would have done. The history shows one editor edit-warring against three or more others, with nobody showing any signs of stopping. That is a fact, backed up by an admin just protecting the page. The idea that someone who has reverted four times is really any worse than someone who has reverted three times is a tad disingenuous, to my mind. The protecting admin has said he could have blocked the lot of you for edit warring, so maybe that will hit home. Your accusation of canvassing is just surreal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The user you mention has reverted five times (or even six although the sixth was self-reverted), labeling some of them as vandalism, and signaled their intention to solely focus their intention on reverting. How you don't consider that to be worse baffles me. Yes I have reverted three times within 24 hours and I have already stated that I forgotten about my first edit which was way before the latter two. And no I'm not proud of it in the least. And yes canvassing was not the right wording, colluding would have been more accurate. Tvx1 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He had reverted four times to your three when you started that case, that's my point. Pot/kettle. Yes, I see that you'd forgotten your first revert. The admin has made his point that he could have blocked all of you, surely that makes it clear to you. Colluding is not accurate, for God's sake. Read it again, there was no discussion there about how best to argue with you, or how to formulate an argument, or how to collaborate together – simply no collusion. Just exasperation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, two of EIghtball's reverts were to Prisonermonkeys' edits, not mine. Tvx1 (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If I can ask a question for, well, everyone, why does the German flagicon have to be there in order to establish the race will occur in Germany? As Eightball has said, the German Grand Prix has never not been held in Germany, surely then in this instance, the appearance of the flagicon is superfluous at this time? --Falcadore (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. And there is the issue with MOS:FLAGS as well. Tvx1 (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not bothered about the flag itself; what surprises me is the reason people are giving for removing it, i.e. that the German GP might be held outside Germany. There's no substance to that claim whatsoever. Therefore, while the flag is not instrumental to the understanding of the information (as is the case with all the races, hence the MOSFLAGgers objections), there is no logical reason not to have a flag if the other races do. Easily the lamest edit war I've ever seen. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are discussing with us for hours, and you missed our fundamental point entirely. We are NOT claiming that the race might take place (we don't speculate about the future here) outside of Germany, we are a claiming that the situation is UNKNOWN per the source and that in such a case it is wise to take the safe option and write TBA until more information becomes available, which has been our practice for years, and per MOS:FLAGS we should not have a flag displaying the nationality of TBA. Why is such a obsession for you to display this flag even when the venue has yet to be announced. As Falcadore has already said there are enough words to state that it is the German Grand Prix. Tvx1 (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Tvx1 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense. What you've just said there is that you're not saying it might be held outside Germany, but you don't know if it will be held inside Germany. The source has said nothing about it being held outside Germany, that's pure speculation on your part. Then you say "Why is such a obsession for you to display this flag", when I've just said "I'm not bothered about the flag". What part of that simple, basic sentence was a struggle for you to understand? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No we're not speculating by any means. In fact we cannot care less where the race will actually take place (if it does). That has never been point of our argument in the first place. The point is we have a solid source that states the situation to be unknown. And we have a general practice that says no venue, no flag. And this practice was never intended for one particular Grand Prix. What will actually take for your to understand this? Just how many different users do you want to tell you? Tvx1 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you aren't sure if it will take place, get it off the calendar. Oooh, what will it actually take to make me see the light? For fuck's sake. I am not the one suggesting that the German GP won't be held in Germany, and yes, that's what you're doing. This kind of obfuscation has crippled the wikiproject; it is effectively dysfunctional. If this were a professional motorsport publication, it wouldn't last a week. How many times are you going to be part of an unending discussion about the bloody obvious? How many users do I want to tell me? You know this discussion is currently 4 against 4, don't you? That's even assuming Falcadore is with you. Don't pretend it's some kind of landslide in favour of rational reasoning. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're no suggesting that it will not take place inside of Germany. And now matter how many times you claim otherwise that will not change the facts. Tvx1 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think you are suggesting, you are implying that there is a doubt that it will be held in Germany. Otherwise there is even less of a scrap of logic for your argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

At some point, Eightball sarcastically compared this argument to be not unlike being asked to prove that the cars will have 4 wheels. There's a very direct and specific FIA rule passed in the 80s that says 4 wheels is the maximum amount of wheels a Formula One car may have. Ergo, it cannot be proven that the cars will have 4 wheels. The Swiss Grand Prix was twice held in France, in 1975 and 1982. The Luxembourg Grand Prix was held in Germany in both 1997 and 1998. Further, the San Marino Grand Prix was never once held in San Marino, with 26 runnings from 1981 to 2006. I have given you 30 instances in the past 40 years when a Grand Prix wasn't held in the country it's named after (this is an example of something that actually cannot be argued with, since you like to claim that about your statements as well), so don't go around shouting and beating your righteous chest, making accusations of vandalism, announcing with some false sense of authority that there's NO WAY the German Grand Prix can be held in any other country besides Germany. Twirlypen (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is currently taking place in the United Arab Emirates. Tvx1 (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, in the interest of fairness, Abu Dhabi is a city within the UAE. I wouldn't lump that in with the above examples of Grand Prix being hosted outside of their namesake nation, as the ADGP is an (even rarer) example of Grand Prix being named after the host city, rather than the host nation. Twirlypen (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true. What I was intending to refer to is that we use the flag of the Emirates, and not the flag of Abu Dhabi , and thus that the flag is directly connected to the venue and not the race and as a result of that we came up with the practice of no venue, no flag. Tvx1 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those examples are not the same thing. Those races were always intended to be held in different countries to their names. San Marino doesn't even have a circuit. Apples and oranges. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The argument being presented as irrefutable fact is that a Grand Prix cannot be held in a country or location other than what it's named after, despite no literature, bylaws, sources, or regulations ever existing that confirm this. Intentional or not, it has still happened 30 times in the last 40 years - more than enough to disqualify automatic presumption. Twirlypen (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Breton. I fact, I consider this to be a unique situation. The 1982 Swiss GP was held in Switzerland because of a lot of successful French drivers, and because Switzerland couldn't actually host a race. The Luxembourg GPs were because Michael Schumacher was popular with the Germans, and because Luxembourg couldn't actually host a race. The San Marino GPs were because of the tifosi, and because San Marino couldn't actually host a race. Germany has at least two circuits capable of hosting the race, the Nürburgring and the Hockenheimring. Some of the other circuits, such as the EuroSpeedway Lauritz, may be able to host the race. As for Abu Dhabi, remember that the race organisers basically get to choose what GP name to host the race has (including, of course, sponsors). Technically, the Malaysian Grand Prix is the "Malaysia Grand Prix" (note the missing "n"). So this is an entirely different situation to the ones you have noted above. — Gyaro –  Maguus — 00:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel like I may be misunderstood. I'm not disagreeing that they were under different circumstances. I know those events were planned that way. My main point is that we are being told that the German Grand Prix must be held in Germany (or any other country's GP), and that somewhere the FIA has this regulated. That is what I'm disagreeing to. Twirlypen (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This may or may not conflict with what I said above but there are no rules regarding official names of Grands Prix. The (2015) Sporting Regulations (chapters 8 and 9 being the relevant parts) only state that the ASN of the country needs to apply to hold the race and it should be organised by a body nominated by the ASN.  This means any name can be chosen, and technically, it can be held anywhere as long as the country's ASN approves.  Since I plan to stay entirely neutral throughout this discussion as long as the DRN is being held, one can quite easily argue that while the organisers and the ASN can nominate a new circuit, realistically, they won't go outside of Germany.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 01:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting over ...
Alright, let's forget about the above and work towards a resolution.

I am of the belief that the flag should not be included until a venue is announced. The flagicons are tied to the physical, geographic location of the circuit hosting the race. If there is no venue, then there can be no flag.

Secondly, the assumption that either Hockenheim or the Nurburgring will host the race is wrong. The event-sharing arrangement dictated that the Nurburgring would host the race in odd-numbered years; however, the FIA currently list the venue as "TBA". Obviously, something has happened that makes the event-sharing arrangement unworkable. Therefore, we cannot rely on that event-sharing agreement as evidence that the race will be in Germany.

Whether or not the race is likely or unlikely to be in Germany is not the point. Right now, we have reliably-sourced information that says there is no venue for the German Grand Prix. No venue, no flag. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that it's not pure a Germany GP practice we're discussing. Our no venue, no flag practice is a general one that applies to every GP for which the venue on a (provisional) calendar is listed as TBA. So I would really like to know why we would have to make an exception for Germany. Tvx1 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to resolve as far as procedure goes. --Falcadore (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Precisely. This is nothing new, and yet for some reason it hasn't been followed up on this time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of debate. The German flag will remain as it is objectively fact. I have also provided sources supporting said facts. You have no recourse but to concede. Eightball (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You've never answered, why is the flag neccessary next to the text and your own statement that the German Grand Prix has never been held outside of Germany. Why is the flag absolutely necessary? What difference does its presence make that is not covered by the words Germasn Grand Prix? --Falcadore (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the conversation we're having. How about this: one of you contacts the FIA directly and asks them if there is any chance the German GP won't be held in Germany. If they say yes, you can remove the flag. Eightball (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, don't avoid the question. You have been asked several times now.
 * German Grand Prix or German Grand Prix 🇩🇪, why is one of these clearly stating a race is in Germany and one is not? Can you not answer such a simple question? --Falcadore (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for&mdash;one of the WMSC members happens to be a family friend. How do you think I got into the Williams pit last year? Of course, anything that he says would just be hearsay because it couldn't be considered a source, which is what I think you're angling for.

Like I said, the probability of a circuit in Germany hosting the race is not the issue here. The issue is that we have a procedure which we follow that says if there is no venue, there is no flag.

Now, you have repeatedly provided sources that we have repeatedly demonstrated to be faulty. Yes, there is a contract that says Hockenheim and the Nurburgring will share the race. The problem is that the Nurburgring is supposed to hold the race in 2015, but the FIA has released a calendar listing the venue as "TBA", thereby demonstrating that the original contract is uncertain. So how do you explain that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please PM for a moment don't distract Eightball from the question I have for him. --Falcadore (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out something that is most likely true, 99% true, probably true, however you want to term it, is not a fact. Unless you have a WP:CRYSTAL ball, you misuse the term fact, just as you have previously misused the term lie.  The359  ( Talk ) 11:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a crock, and there's no way I'm getting involved with this again. I'll say this: there is nothing anywhere, no source whatsoever, that suggests the German GP will be held outside Germany. That is pure speculation. The venue will be in Germany, and there is no suggestion that it won't be. The track might be TBA, but there's no hint that the country itself is TBA.

Falcadore's point is a different thing. While it's clear that the flag is not vital to the understanding of where the race is to be held, that's just a reason to get rid of the flags altogether, not one of them. If it's not necessary for Germany, it's not necessary for any of the others either. If you have flags for the others then it's not logical to leave one off for Germany.

The359, most of the information in this article, whether sourced or not, is not 100% guaranteed to happen. None of the races, teams, drivers are certain to be a fixture. Nobody synthesises any of those sources to say that things are uncertain. So why are we synthesising "German Grand Prix: Venue TBA" to say "There might not be a German Grand Prix"? It's not crystal balling to say that something is scheduled when we all know it it's 99.9999% likely, and there's nothing to say otherwise. I'm not continuing with this, it's like some kind of psychological purgatory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll have to continue. A DRN has been lodged and you're included. Tvx1 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that laugh. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said before, this is just going to open up MOS:FLAG once again, and our reliance on setting our own rules for it. I believe the article was perfectly fine in its version prior to the edit warring in which there was no flag, and the assumption that not having a flag is either a lie or misleading readers is completely reaching.  I also agree that having a flag is a logical conclusion and everyone agrees it is 99.999% true.  However since this is a matter of debate, as silly as it may be, I don't see anything wrong with erring on the side of caution and simply not having a flag.  There is absolutely no requirement for us to have the flag, and not having it will hurt nor hinder anyone's understanding of the table or article.  Would it perhaps help if we did away with the empty flag template and left-aligned the TBA, so as not to give the impression of a missing flag?  I understand that people will disagree with it, and I am not proclaiming one argument more correct than the other, but will it be better to simply agree on a cautious approach so that we can get this over with, get the article unlocked, and move on to more important things?  Then once the Nurburgring/Hockenheimring question is answered everything will be back to normal.  The359  ( Talk ) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But then people might accuse us of being sensible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not helping.  The359  ( Talk ) 22:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're reaction is one of the most sensible that has been provided so far. I too prefer nothing else than to err on the side of caution. There are some technical issues with your compromise though. The flags sit in their own column, so we would have to enter the TBA in the flag column. Now I would have no fundamental problem with that, but I guess some readers might perceive that as country to be announced. Maybe it would be better to have a colspan of 2 and center-align the TBA. Like this:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="font-size: 85%"

! Round ! Grand Prix ! style="border-right:0px"| ! Date ! 10
 * style="border-left:0px; background: #F2F3F4;" ;align="left" |            Circuit
 * German Grand Prix
 * style="border-left:0px" colspan="2" align="center"| TBA
 * 19 July
 * }
 * Tvx1 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the centre-align is necessary. Just TBA with no flag is fine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case it would look like this:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="font-size: 85%"

! Round ! Grand Prix ! style="border-right:0px"| ! Date ! 10
 * style="border-left:0px; background: #F2F3F4;" ;align="left" |            Circuit
 * German Grand Prix
 * style="border-right:0px" |TBA
 * style="border-left:0px" |
 * 19 July
 * }
 * or this:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="font-size: 85%"

! Round ! Grand Prix ! style="border-right:0px"| ! Date ! 10
 * style="border-left:0px; background: #F2F3F4;" ;align="left" |            Circuit
 * German Grand Prix
 * style="border-right:0px" |
 * style="border-left:0px" | TBA
 * 19 July
 * }
 * Is that fine for you? Tvx1 (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with either. We solved the mobile issues months ago, so there's nothing wrong there, either. Of the two, I prefer the blank flag space. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting over 2.0
Can we be satisfied that Eightball is the only dissenter to not having the flag in place? If so I think we have a consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's slightly inaccurate. It's not as if I've changed my mind; I think taking the flag off is not the correct thing to do, although like you, I am not about to edit war over it. The simple fact is that people disagree and there is no compromise possible: there's either a flag or there isn't. We've got two other editors who made one comment each and they shouldn't be forgotten either. I see people above dicking around with formats for the table, but that's really not relevant to the discussion. If people are trying to find ways of making the lack of flag look less obvious, they're forgetting that all the other races have a flag, and one race not having a flag is always going to be obvious. I wonder if there's a case for just following MOSFLAG to the letter in this case and taking the venue flags off altogether. Let's face it, flags are nothing but a pain in the ass to this project. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No races don't have flags, VENUES have flags. And no venue=no flag. Why is it so difficult for you to accept a general accepted practice. In the above, we're are trying to find a way that will remove any possible interpretation that no flags means that the race could be staged in another country. I have now realized that the neutral flagicon ([[

Image:Flag of None.svg|24px]]

) we put there before could be interpreted as such. I disagree that the flags cause disruption just because one user declared a war on this. These are the sort overreactions we can really miss in these discussion. We haven't forgotten the other users as well. We have either pointed out their interoperation in correct or their presented source trumped by newer ones. Furthermore they haven't signaled to be very fussed about having it their way either. At the moment I see 6 users actively participating in the discussion. Four prefer to err on the side of caution and not put a flag. One has declared war and you have declared it to be incorrect action to err on the side of caution but have stated that you will not cause disruption over it. Tvx1 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really think there's a case for that. Anything like that would have to be implemented project-wide. And while it's not an issue for the 2015 season article, there are plenty of examples&mdash;like the Luxembourg and San Marino Grands Prix&mdash;where the location and the title of the race don't line up. Removing flags entirely will demand a discussion on what to do there.


 * To my mind, there is no issue here. We have a procedure which we have always followed&mdash;no venue, no flag. This instance is no exception to that rule. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Make that 7 participants, and 5 that prefer to err on the side of caution. Twirlypen has just joined. Tvx1 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, should a consensus be formed, the onus will be on to observe it. Disagreeing with a consensus is not a licence to ignore it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, circuits don't have flags. Circuits are within locations that have flags.  And to take it further, circuits do not necessarily represent a country.  Yes, we know the one race per country standard has been kept, with major exceptions, for the 60+ years of the sport, but the circuits do not represent their countries on anywhere near the level that the teams and drivers do.  They are not on the same level as an Olympic host country representation as an example.  They host races simply because a promoter or the circuit has made an agreement with FOM.  Occassionally governments are involved in this, but that is generally in the construction of the circuit and not as much with the hosting of a Grand Prix.  The359  ( Talk ) 03:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @: what would you propose as an alternative, then? Moving the flagicon back to the Grand Prix column? That would at least line up with their use in the results matrices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove entirely? If the races do not represent a nation, and the circuits do not represent a nation, what use do the flags have other than to spice up the chart with some color?  Even the results matricies don't require them, they are only serving the purpose of giving the reader a visual identifier to match up results with certain races.  But it's all just redundancy that creates problems for us.  Does USA, GBR, GER, etc. not suffice in explaining things well enough?  How much can we lead common readers by hand to assume they need help in figuring things out?  The359  ( Talk ) 03:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The flags are the sole means by which it is presented in which country a Grand Prix takes place. For instance, currently the only thing that denotes that the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix takes place in the United Arab Emirates is the flag. Likewise, in the 2016 article the only thing that tells our reader the Baku European Grand Prix will take place in Azerbaijan and the Grand Prix of America takes place in the United States are the flags. That's why they are there. If we remove them we would have to replace them with the name of country. But that leaves us with the same problem. No venue, no country. Which one user does not want to accept at all, and another user who doesn't want to agree with. The flags are not the problem by themselves. It's wanting to list a country when a venue is TBA that we are discussing. Tvx1 (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How hard would it be to add the name of the country to the end of the circuit location? I mean, technically MOS:FLAG says that the flag is supposed to be used alongside the name of the country, which we do not do.  You can't assume people recognize every country's flag.  The former European GP, listed as occuring in Valencia in our season calendars, makes no mention of Spain.  The flag is not a suitable substitute.
 * We can handle Eightball's possible objection to not listing the name of the country when we get to it. Quite frankly his suggestion that the name "German Grand Prix" already implies it is in Germany doesn't really require us to put "TBA, Germany".  The359  ( Talk ) 04:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bretonbanquet: Fair enough, and I apologise if I've left you feeling ignored. --Falcadore (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Falcadore, absolutely no problem. I'm starting to warm to the idea of removing the flags altogether. We cannot justify a situation where flags are the only thing that denotes the country the race is being held in, as Tvx1 has outlined. That's 100% against MOSFLAG. F1 articles have long ignored MOSFLAG and I'm not really surprised those guys think we're troublemakers.
 * I'm not sure we need to add the name of the country separately either, sinply because when we list the name of the venue, the name of the country can be in the name. The problem with this "no venue = no flag" thing, which as far as I know was never discussed anyway, is that both tracks in the running for hosting the race are German. I also don't accept airbrushing out the wishes of the other two users who only made comment. They made their wishes known,; they just have the sense not to drag on and on with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the flags must be the most stupidest proposal this discussion has produced. They're not mere pictures, they're templates that even allow blind people to find out what they mean with their screenreader. For those of us who posses vision there's a mouseover. I really hope that I don't have to recall Pyrope's scientific evidence regarding the advantage of having some minor visual key, instead of pure text. The worst part is it's not even the issue. The issue is that two users demand that a country is present in the circuit cells (no matter in what form) even when the venue has to be announced. It's not because you have never given your personal approval that the practice has not been accepted. It's one of the core principals of WP:Consensus that when an edit is made to an article and no objections are raised a consensus is considered to be achieved. I have already cited an example when we have applied this practice before and no objections whatsoever were raised back then so that is considered to be accepted by consensus. And you really need stop to desperately cling to those extra two users to add to your weight in the discussion. They have raised their concerns and we adressed them. They have not raised any objections afterwards. That's to be considered approval. Tvx1 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just ask the MOSFLAG people to join the discussion, and see what they say. Pyrope is right about the visual key element, but some of our flags just don't conform to the MOS; there's really no way round that. There's no national representation highlighted by these flags as the circuit does not represent the country, and they're not directly accompanied by the country name. We have a much stronger case for keeping flags for drivers and teams if we get rid of some of the other flags. We've argued the toss and won most of the arguments, but only really by brute force. You've never addressed the issue that both the venues in line for the race are German, so what exactly are you waiting for? The whole "no venue = no flag" thing is only rational or relevant if there's a potential for a different flag to be used, which there isn't. Since you know about consensus, you'll also know that it can change at any time, and there's a DRN ongoing. And I don't "really need" to do anything; I really don't. You certainly cannot consider that the other two users have approved of your ideas when they have not actually done so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You still don get it, do you? There's only ONE venue in line venue for the next German Grand Prix. Hockenheim is NOT required by contract to step in if Nübrurgring can't host. Hockenheim has a contract for 2016 and 2018. NOT FOR 2015! How long will you keep denying that. The no venue, no flag practice was not initiated for a particular race. It was a neutral, general practice. No exceptions. So why are we required to make one? Regarding MOS. That's a guideline. Not a policy, certainly not a law. We have just recently achieved a near-unanimous consensus that it CAN'T be enforced. So why do you suddenly start regarding it as law again? Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You've seen the contract then? Thought not. Hockenheim might not be required to host the race, but they might host it anyway. Contracts can and do change if all parties are happy to change. I don't believe you are party to any discussions between Ecclestone and the two circuits. Why are we required to make an exception to this apparently rock solid practice? Because I believe it is ludicrous not to do so in this case. You want to follow unwritten rules just because they exist, regardless of any sense to them. And I'm not regarding the MOS as law, don't make things up. That discussion was not about flags for circuits. But we're still violating the MOS and I'm tired of having to defend our flag policy (on occasions practically alone) when I actually don't even really agree with it. Funny how you want to stick to your unwritten "no venue = no flag" rule to the absolute (unwritten) letter, yet you have no problem ignoring a bloody project-wide guideline. Bonkers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You fundamentally can't violate a guideline. And we can't assume that Hockenheim will step in. You just can't assume that they have €14.000.000 lying around to give to Bernie. That's a gross violation of WP:CRYSTAL (which is a policy which you can violate). Tvx1 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can and we are. I'm not assuming Hockenheim will step in, where the hell did I say that? Sod the 14 million, however relevant that may or may not be. I'm saying it will patently be one or the other, and both are German. That is not crystal balling. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is crystal balling. Whether you want it or not. Whether you are going to admit it or not. No matter how many times you say otherwise it's not going to change it. Frankly we don't care in the slightest what you think it's going to be. We care about what the sources say. Tvx1 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't. No other circuit has been mentioned anywhere, and no other country has been mentioned anywhere. That's what the sources say. Who's "we" and why exactly should what you care about matter to me? We're not getting anywhere here; we'll never agree, and we should leave space for others if they want to say anything else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It IS crystalballing because you consider it to be an indisputable certainty that the race will take place. For some obscure reason you refuse to consider the option that it won't. That is crystalballing spelled out for you. Too bad. We cannot assume that. Let me remind you of 2011. The Bahrain GP was firmly contracted on the calendar. Yet, it got cancelled shortly before it should have taken place. Race are sometimes taken of a calendar. Live with it. If a venue is listed as TBA on a calendar we cannot consider it an indisputable certainty it will take place. Above all, your stance is still based on the mistaken belief that taking the flag of temporarily implies that the race will undisputedly take place outside of the scheduled host country. WRONG! Tvx1 (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be losing your temper, I suggest taking a break. I'm not refusing to consider the option that it won't take place at all, but nothing has ever been found to suggest it won't. If it's cancelled, we can take it off, the same as if any other race is cancelled. But it's on the calendar. The flag issue has nothing to do with that, you're now talking about a different issue. Your last sentence is a nonsense. Again, I suggest cooling down a bit; you're all capital letters and "live with it", and as I've said, we're not getting anywhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right on only one thing. We're not making any progress at all. How pathetic it is, it seems the only way out is via the DRN that has been opened. However, than can't progress either if Eightball doesn't notify the included users. Tvx1 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The DRN is at Dispute resolution noticeboard for those who are unaware and/or want a convenient link to it. — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I type,,  ,  ,  ,  and  all need to post their dispute summaries.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 21:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First I've heard of a DRN. --Falcadore (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well now you have. — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 23:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Eightball didn't notify anyone of a DRN. This was how I found out as well. Thanks GM. Twirlypen (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, Eightball hasn't been on Wikipedia at all since filing the report. Tvx1 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that if we continue to have flags for venues then we should keep the German flag as the venue for the German GP is almost certain to be in Germany. On the other hand, I would support removing all flags altogether. Burgring (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For the same reasons that we kept Alonso in the Ferrari table until everything became official, I would vote to not keep the German flag for the venue until a definite location is determined. "Near certainty" is why we still waited until the end of the Russian Grand Prix to put Mercedes as WCC in the 2014 article. Twirlypen (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So the DRN has ended with the conlusion that the flag should be left out until a venue is announced. This leaves us with one more question. How's the best way to present this? Like this:

Or with center align, like this:

The advantage of center aligning being that the missing flag will be less notable; Any thoughts? Tvx1 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer the center align. For your reason stated that it draws away from the flag not being there, as well as, at least to me, it's more aesthetically pleasing. Twirlypen (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Table order revisited
Okay, so one year on from the introduction of career numbers, I'd like to revisit and review the ordering of the table. I'm not looking to reopen old wounds, but rather have a frank assessment of the system and see what works and what doesn't and consider options from thereon.

We have sorted out the markup issue for mobiles, which is a big plus. And I think that the somewhat complex markup has actually worked really well to deter vandals.

If I may make one suggestion, it's that we should consider revisiting the alphabetical-by-constructor arrangement as the default order of the table. Mobile users don't get the sortable function, so perhaps we should go for numerical order. I know one of the major arguments against this was the potential for confusion given the non-sequential numbers, but that is a system used in other season articles, and I haven't seen it cause any confusion whatsoever. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should leave it as is. Sorting by alphabetical order and by numerical order doesn't make a large amount of difference in my eyes; it only changes which team the reader sees first as they scroll down. I personally prefer numerical order, but seeing as alphabetical order was decided on after that long, long discussion earlier this year, I say leave it. Kytabu Talk 09:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I too would agree to leave it as is. The only difference I would immediately think of to offer, would be to put the defending champion first on their teams listing, regardless of driver number, and/or indicate that they are the champion by bolding or italicizing their name. Twirlypen (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's what the number 1 (if Hamilton uses it) and the picture at the top of the article are for. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think a change is necessary, especially when the discussion took as as long as it did before (and I don't want it to happen again). I believe that alphabetical is a neutral option that everyone can understand easily.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 10:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should change either. I don't really see the advantage of changing it to numerical order. There's no need to emphasize the defending champion either. Last year I thought that previous season's WCC order was good option but in the meantime I know that is wrong. What matters to his season is who is this season's champion. But that has still to be decided. We have to look at this in the long term. If you read the 2004 Formula One season article now it's not really relevant who was the 2003 champion. Only what happened in 2004. If their is one change we might consider is to change the order of the table at the end of the season to reflect the WCC outcome of the season. But at the moment we can only do that for 2014, not yet for 2015. The only thing I consider somewhat confusing about the alphabetical order we are currently using is that it's ordered on the contents of the second column. Tvx1 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alphabetical is still the most neutral choice. I don't think the numerical option really makes sense if the numbers aren't going to be in numerical order.  While it might make sense to many motorsports fans, we have to remember that this is for everyone.  JohnMcButts (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are only two viable options, alphabetical or previous years constructors championship position (Yes it IS relevant because when compared with the final table lower in the article it shows movement from one season to the next), number is no longer a sensible option as it is meaningless.
 * Previous year's WCC might seem relevant now, but that will rapidly fade away. Just took a look at the 2014 season article. Just how relevant would it be now having Red Bull on top, when the season was dominated by Mercedes? There's only one viable option to incorporate WCC: Listing them alphabetically during the season and listing them on the outcome of that season's WCC once the season has concluded. Tvx1 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think we should list alphabetically until the FIA produces the list every year with all the driver on it, and the table should be ordered to that document. Pch172 (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the current alphabetical listing, followed by a rearrangement at the end of the season to reflect the standings is the safest and most neutral option. As far as which column we use to alphabetize the table, currently the second column (Constructor), would it really make that big of a difference if we used the first column (Team) instead? Twirlypen (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)