Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Article Creation
Personally, it's about that time of year when we create the next season of Formula One. I've already submitted an article for review, which can be reviewed, edited etc. below: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2016 Formula One season Pch172 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... NOT substantially identical to deleted versions (I can see them!) Discussion said it was "six months or so too early" and that was last November - so we are well past that date where these pages get created. Typically these are created when there is specific referenced material pertaining to the year (rules changes, course changes etc.). In this case we have a new news article (some 3 days old, of 25/07/14 12:40pm) which is showing that there has been a new race contract signed to run an Baku in 2016. --Ron h jones (Talk) 18:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One article dated today makes the article not substantially the same? The rest, the list of races, is almost verbatim copied from the 2015 article. Look at the retrieved dates when that part of the article was originally edited. That's a dead giveaway and BTW led to 2016 Formula One Season being deleted. You used your administrative abilities to override an AFD and a SALT....William 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No. These articles have to be created sometime. User:Bretonbanquet did say last November - "Wait six to eight months at least" - that's because now (mid summer) is the time that contracts are done, and there is  specific changes to the year's race from last year. We now have an news article that states that there is a contact signed. Readers like to know what changes are going to happen from year to year, when we have some of that information confirmed, then we create the page. Ron h jones (Talk) 19:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You made my point. As an editor, you think the article should be created. You used your administrative abilities to do it rather than go to DRV which any other editor would have had to do. Another case of WP rules not applying to administrators around here. Nothing will get done about it either. You can call an editor a 'petulant piece of shit' and get away with it. Per an ANI discussion of two years ago. You can stalk editors and or block them for a nonexistent personal attack and have your fellow admins say you've done just that but never ever see any form of punishment for it....William 19:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never called any editor anything derogatory - I've blocked plenty who do so. WP:SALT does not insist on going to DRV to unprotect. Ron h jones (Talk) 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll stick to that and say that around now is the right time to start work on the 2016 article. There's already a few things to put in there, and that volume of info will increase steadily from now on. Like Ronhjones has said, this type of article has to be created sometime, and it's about now that people start asking about 2016 rule changes, driver contracts, race contracts and all the rest of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And there is enough unique content compared to previous years - namely Haas and Azerbaijan - to warrant the article being created. The article never should have been nominated for speedy deletion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm declining to speedily delete this. The rationale for deleting it in the most recent AfD was that it was too soon to write an article about this subject and several participants mentioned summer 2014 as about the earliest time when the issue could be revisited. That rationale no longer clearly applies to this article, and G4 excludes pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. While editors may still come to the decision that it is too soon to have an article on the subject, the decision isn't obvious and the issue should be discussed at AfD rather than speedy deletion.  Hut 8.5  22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You see, this is why I still think we created this article way to soon. Instead of improving and gradually expanding the article with new information, the only thing we are doing with it is reverting vandalism and unsourced speculation. Tvx1 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can reasonably hold off the creation of an article on the grounds that it might be subject to vandalism or unsourced speculation. We have to assume good faith in edits, and since most of this stuff is coming from IP editors, I think you will find that they simply read a news story or heard a report during a broadcast and edited it into the article, unaware of the standards that we expect of editing. And I suspect part of it is spill-over from the 2015 article; they can't remove Alonso from and/or add Vettel to Ferrari there, so they do it here instead. Disruptive editing like that tends to come in fits and starts&mdash;there is a high concentration when the media is focused on it, but when nothing eventuates, it naturally quietens down. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Williams
I thought it was standard practice to only add a team to a season table more than a year away once at least one driver was confirmed - as we did with McLaren. Or in Haas' case, being a brand new entrant, it is notable to include them without any drivers. Twirlypen (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. Someone added Williams into the table because they believed they had details of the chassis name. I removed the chassis because the supplied reference didn't actually confirm the name of the 2016 car. I should have removed Williams from the table entirely, which I have now done. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That someone would have been me. You have correctly pointed out that the source wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Thanks for that. I was going to remove them entirely myself, but you beat me to it. Tvx1 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix of America
I personally don't think this should be included in the list of planned Grands Prix as it has been delayed for 3 years and the circuit is nowhere near completion. In fact, it is now speculation more than anything. Holdenman05 (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the presented sources, they have a fifteen-year contract which is enough to include them here. Tvx1 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The contract is in place and the event is confirmed, it's just that the original organisers failed to deliver. At this point, the FIA is simply looking for another group to accept the existing conract. The multiple sources state this, and Bernie is on record saying that 2016 is the earliest that this event will happen. So, since a contract exists and Bernie has said the event can still take place in 2016, it should stay in the article (and all subsequent articles until the contract runs out — see below) until it is CONFIRMED that it won't take place. This sort of follows the Korea example above. As far as the circuit being "nowhere near completion," keep in mind that this is a street circuit on public roads. Aside from a 3.2 mile repave and the setting up of barriers and spectator stands, there isn't much that needs to be done in terms of major, time consuming work. The paddock building is already built. This doesn't require nearly the amount of time or money it takes to build a permanent, purpose-built, FIA Grade 1 race facility and nearly half the work is already done.


 * The only thing speculative is that since the contract was signed, do the years on the contract start counting from 2013, or do they start counting from when the event begins to take place? Twirlypen (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The years count from the first year the contract stipulated them to hold the race. According to the source the contract was signed in may 2013. The first time they appeared on the calendar following their signing was for the 2014 season. So that's the first year from their contract. It thus runs up to and including the 2028 season unless it's terminated prematurely. Tvx1 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indian GP 2015/2016
I don't quite understand why my edits are being reverted re the Indian GP not taking place in 2015. The most recent sources quoting Bernie himself say it will not take place until at least 2016: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/motor-racing-calendar-indiaformulaone-idINDEEA240DT20140305 http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/148021.html and the BBC one formally in the article. A quick glance at the sources stating it will be in 2015 in the 2015 Formula One season article are all published in 2013 and are therefore out of date compared to these 2014 sources. Surely we should work with the most recent information and sources?  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Has there been an official announcement? --Falcadore (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, just Bernie talking about the potential development of the calendar. It happens this time every year. It's best to just wait until the draft gets published in September. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So, what's the situation with India? All the sources I can find talk about a five-year contract. It debuted in 2011 so we've already had those five years. So 2016 doesn't figure in that contract. Is there any source that clearly states they have a contract for 2016? It seems that we are including it based on Bernie's hints even though our standard for including a planned race in our articles is that must have a contract. Tvx1 00:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right, there really isn't anything stating that India will have a race in 2016. It's out the table now. QueenCake (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Korean Grand Prix
If you take a look at the article about the Korean Grand Prix, you will find that the contract was signed from 2010 to 2016, so the race should still be under contract in 2016. While it is likely that it will not take place, as in 2014, it should still be included here, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwerg Nase (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It probably should, especially considering it was temporarily added to the 2015 calendar because of their contract. Tvx1 (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it. If you find better sources than I did, please add them. Thx!Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be added, even though it will almost certainly be taken off again later (as it was this year). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For the sake of reaffirming concensus, I agree. Twirlypen (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Korean Grand Prix venue
A user has challenged the validity of the Korean Grand Prix, if taken place, would be at the Korea International Circuit. I am to believe that the actual 2010-2016 contract signed by the FIA and event/venue organisers specifically stipulates that the event be held at the circuit, which was purposely built specifically to serve the contract, not unlike nearly every other Grand Prix contract in existance today (sans Germany, of course, whose stipulations were widely commented on before it ever became an issue). Twirlypen (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Got a source to support that theory? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Seeing as every other contract on the calendar is structured in a way that it is tied to the venue that hosts it, except Germany, which again was extensively broken down and reported on, I doubt the onus is on me to prove that this one instance doesn't follow the norm. Got a source proving the actual theory that it can/will be hosted elsewhere? Twirlypen (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Even the defunct Indian Grand Prix was directly tied to Buddh International Circuit. So yeah, it's on you this time. Twirlypen (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the onus is on you I'm afraid. The 2015 calendar never specified a venue, despite it being included on the basis of a contract as stated by Ecclestone. At the same time it was reported that the race would either take place on the Korean International Circuit or a new circuit on the streets of Seoul. We just follow through on the situation from last year. Tvx1 06:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hence why I chose my words wisely. It was my fault that I assumed, though I don't think absurdly, especially in this case, that the contract was tied to the only FIA grade 1 circuit within the country. Serious question though, is my assumption that most current contracts are tied to the circuit essentially baseless? A la Belgium to Spa, USA to CotA, China to Shanghai, Britain to Silverstone, etc?? Twirlypen (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I think it'd be appropriate to see what the contract says, given that's what the event's inclusion on this page is solely based off of. Yes, there may have been a contingency plan for 2015 had KIC not been able to host that year, but KIC very could well be the default circuit. I wouldn't know where to begin to look for the official language of the contract, if it's even available. But given the sources above, I can't make much more of a case. Twirlypen (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Baku Street Circuit name
Just to point out, the table currently states Baku Street Circuit (Azadliq Avenue) with the note displaying this. What reference do we have that the circuit is actually got Azadliq Avenue in the title. The footnote explains where it is located, so unless a reference is found I propose that we remove the Azadaliq Avenue from the circuit title, but keep the footnote. Pch172 (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to remove this a while ago, but was reverted. Apparently this is vital for disambiguation, even though there are now three ways of disambiguation used in that one cell of text. The specification between the brackets, the footnote and the link to the article for the correct Baku Street Circuit. The presence of the Azadliq Avenue is not intended to seem part of the official name, but to be there for disambiguation (hence why it's between brackets) just like, for instance Paul Hanley (tennis). That being said, I have no problem with it being removed. Tvx1 10:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Provisional calendar leak
Per Formula One Management, the calendar leaked at the end of April 2015 has been confirmed as valid. Included, the 19 races on the 2015 calendar, plus the additions of German GP and Azerbaijan GP.

NOT included on the calendar are the Korean GP or the GPoA. Do we still include these races here, even if the calendar is provisional, since FOM has confirmed its validity?

[source]. Twirlypen (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also [this]. Twirlypen (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we should. They have a contract. The "leaked calendar" is nothing but a proposal. And proposals can be rejected. Nothing official or final. Tvx1 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FOM also does not approve the calendar, the FIA does. So wait for the FIA to publish the calendar they have approved.  The359  ( Talk ) 17:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Red Bull
This may seem trivial to discuss at this point, considering what we already know - the team is contracted to use Renault power units and Ricciardo is under contract as well - but given the team's ongoing threats to leave the sport (most recently Marko's comments that either Audi enters as a supplier or the team leaves), should we be including them? Or do we take the more probable "keep them until they actually leave" approach? Twirlypen (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Personal opinion- they're contracted to be Red Bull Renault next season, and until the time something else is confirmed (Audi engines or leaving sport), this is the best, most reliable information. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was referring to including the team entirely, not just Renault as their engine supplier. But after some thought and the direction these discussions tend to go, I think we are going to keep the table as-is until an official statement is made... and I would tend to agree. Twirlypen (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ricciardo and Renault not being apart of 2016 Red Bull is just speculation. And that has never been acceptable. Wait until it gets a lot louder than this. --Falcadore (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly the same as with Alonso last year. As a long as a termination of contract has not been announced, we cannot remove them. Tvx1 12:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Does Massa have Williams contract for 2016?
Looked for sources about whether Massa has a Williams contract for 2016-, and  all say he has "multiple-year contract" from 2014, which doesn't explicitly say how long. Asking because an IP tried to add Williams, but had both drivers as TBA. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Leaked Calendar
Sky Sports (reference at bottom of table) and several other websites have reported the following dates for next years calendar. Should we implement these into the current table (as we usually do for provisional calendar - this one has been confirmed by FOM) or leave until the FIA announces provisionally later this year? Pch172 (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally believe we should be going by this calendar for the list or races next year, and remove Korean and GPoA from that list as - to me - it's pretty obvious those two won't happen it 2016. Then again, some will go on about the sources which are incorrect and we will therefore go by incorrect information. CDRL102 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Source specifically states that calendar has not been approved. If the calendar is not approved, why would we add it?  The359  ( Talk ) 19:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * See earlier discussion at . DH85868993 (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * While FOM has confirmed it is genuine, they have also confirmed it is a proposed calendar. And that's the keyword here. A proposed calendar ≠ an approved calendar. For all we know (parts of) it might be rejected. We have reliable sources stating that GPoA and Korea have a contract to host a race next year. Remember last year? The proposed calendar did not include Korea either, until Bernie remembered they had a contract and had them added out of fear of being sued. Tvx1 22:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Official speculation is still speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But the contract with Korea has clearly changed, hence why it isn't there anymore, so we are placing Korea on this list based on an old source. CDRL102 (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a more up-to-date source saying Korea no longer has a contract (other than the leaked calender)? If not, then Korea stays, as the last relevant reliable source says Korea has a contract. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * [This] states that the organizers are actively trying to get the event to return in 2016. While that could be construed as the event no longer has a contract, the article is full of weasel words like "...is understood to..." and "It is believed...," so this should not be taken as a source one way or the other towards altering the table as it is right now. Twirlypen (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Force India engine supplier
Would [this] be a suitable source for Force India continuing to use Mercedes power units in 2016? Twirlypen (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * By the looks of it, it's a blog post. I've looked for sources for Lotus, Force India and Williams and there is no mention of any of them having an engine contract for 2016, although Force India and Williams have "2014 and beyond". Pch172 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I haven't found much either. For the record, Lotus's Renault contract for 2014 states that it's until 2018, and we know how that turned out just a year later. Twirlypen (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Forza Rossa
I've not seen any news since November regarding FR's prospective entry to the 2016 championship. Therefore, will they or wont they?! Any ideas? db1987db (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, until we have a source saying they will, then they won't - and that's why we don't have them in the article or in the table. Twirlypen (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, Forza Rossa Racing got merged with Ion Bazac months ago. It doesn't appear the team even exists anymore - if it ever did in the first place. Twirlypen (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sauber
Thank you very much. Greetings from Switzerland!
 * Hi to everybody, unfortunately you did forget to mention the Swiss Sauber F1 Team in your F1-listings for 2016 season with drivers Felipe Massa and Marcus Ericsson. There are only 8 teams on your list, but now still 10 teams are competing in the Formula One Championship!


 * We haven't forgotton, Sauber will be added once they are 100% confirmed, and you mean Nasr not Massa. CDRL102 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Sauber team have not announced drivers for 2016. Can't compete with no drivers, now could you? Haas is an exception due to being a new entry. Manor also have not indicated their line-up (or if they will even participate - that Marussia points money is only good for one year), and there is also an open tender for another team to join the grid in 2016 or 2017. There could be 9 teams, or as much as 11. We have to wait and see. Twirlypen (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi #17 retirement. Should It be in 2015, not 2016.
I feel that the retirement of [[Jules Bianchi]}'s #17 should be in the 2015 changes not the 2016 changes Georgeday868- 01:14


 * The rules state that drivers can only pick numbers ar the start of the season. Anyone who joins mid-season gets a number assigned to the team. The rules already prevent them from choosing #17, but only in 2015&mdash;these rules spply from 2016 on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since numbers are blocked until the drivers haven't competed for two consecutive entire seasons, his number wouldn't have been available for 2016 anyway. Even if he were still alive. So it should not be mentioned in either article. It's better suited for the driver's article anyway. Tvx1 11:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should maybe be in the 2017 article (when that article gets created), but not 2015 or 2016, as no-one could have used #17 anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That article already exists, by the way. Tvx1 11:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's two seasons inactive, not three? Oh boy... anyway, I agree it should go on the driver's page. The number would not have been available in either season so it does not pertain to the subject of the article. Twirlypen (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

2016 tyre choices
This states that it's been initially passed that teams would be allowed to choose their dry tyre compounds up to several weeks before an event. Does this have any weight in being included in the article? Twirlypen (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The strategy group does not govern the rules. They can only submit proposals. Whether or not they are accepted lies within the responsibility of the FIA through its WMSC. Your source is dated mid-may. Since then the WMSC has convened. The most important thing they announced was the calendar. If they published any accepted rule changes we can include them, otherwise not. Tvx1 16:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Engine suppliers
As mentioned previously, several teams don't have relevant sources for engines. Pch172 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * McLaren - http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/23/mclaren-exclusive-2017-f1-report/ says it's through 2017. Now, I know its a blog, but one quote says "According to the F1 business insiders at Pitpass, Honda motorsport chief Yasuhisa Arai told a group of journalists at this past weekend's race in Shanghai that the deal with McLaren will be exclusive not only in 2015, but also in 2016".
 * Williams, Force India, Lotus, Sauber - All their sources have something along the lines of "beyond", but doesn't specify if they have engines for the 2016 season
 * Marussia/Manor - who knows.
 * McLaren - I'm afraid we can't use that. Experience has taught us that Pittass fails WP:RS.
 * Williams, Force India, Lotus, Sauber - Agree. As a long as 2016 is not specified we can't use it.
 * Manor Marussia - They're not in the article yet because they haven't announced anything for 2016 yet.


 * Bottom line, just be patient. There's no rush to add these things to the article. Information becomes available over time and articles find their way accordingly. Tvx1 16:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned earlier in another discussion, the reference for Lotus using Renault in 2014 explicitly stated the contract was until 2018, and look how that turned out. Twirlypen (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Drivers not yet confirmed.
Perez is NOT yet confirmed for 2016, the phrase "and beyond" normally means there is a team option that could be taken up. Recent stories confirming Hulkenberg have mentioned that Perez is expected to line up alongside but not guaranteed. verstappen also cannot be confirmed for STR until the Red Bull lineup is confirmed. 145.8.104.65 (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources suffice for now. Concluding that "and beyond" only means a team option is speculative, unless a source exists quoting the team or driver stating otherwise. The recent Williams source states that Pérez isn't confirmed, but this doesn't quote anyone from the Force India team. The source linked with Pérez does. Same thing with Verstappen. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 20:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2015
Nico Hülkenberg will stay in Force India for 2016. http://f1tothemax.com/f1today-net/hulkenberg-staying-put-at-force-india-for-2016/

Joiozev (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * somebody's already added him, Bazj (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Red Bull-Renault
Please wait until either Red Bull or Renault confirm the use of Renault power units before removing content. The Autosport source used previously to remove Renault is neither, as it doesn't source Red Bull or Renault, nor does it even say that Renault has accepted Red Bull's offer to terminate the contract - only that the request was issued and as stated in the edit summary, it is understood that Renault will accept - which hasn't happened yet. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 21:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. There are to many "it is understood's" and 'sources suggest's" for it to be even remotely usable. It's utter speculation. It really baffles me that such an otherwise high quality publication publishes these utter non-stories from time to time. Tvx1 01:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Manor
I feel the need to bring this up. As it stands, there is a zero tolerance policy on the inclusion of Manor until a driver is signed, but that's kind of a pointless argument - if that be the case, remove Haas. Holdenman05 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No not only a driver. Simply something. They haven't even announced a team name. Haas has at the very least announced a power unit supply. We simply can't include Manor Marussia yet, because they haven't signed anything for 2016 yet. Tvx1 15:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120753?source=mostpopular I think this source tells us almost all we need to know (bar drivers). Holdenman05 (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite on the contrary, it tells us hardly anything. Just that they have some rough plans regarding the next car, without actually confirming that its introduction will be pushed back until 2016. Just that that is what will most likely happen (=speculation). Tvx1 13:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The "zero tolerance" policy you refer to allows the inclusion of new team entries, provided there's a source of their confirmation for the season that they enter, such as Haas in 2016. Manor has no such sources. If they'd like to say they want to keep Will Stevens on for another year, then great, we can add them. But please familiarize yourself with the policy before you criticize it. Also, that source has applications for the season article, in the section where it states that Manor plans to introduce a new car later in the year. This source can now let us state that those plans have been scrapped.  Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 04:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, there is even further prose underneath the table concerning Haas. We can't have a whole section about a new team being entered (with sources) and then have them excluded on the table they just read. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 04:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So what is the cutoff line to include a new team in the chart? Is it signing a driver, picking an engine provider, or having plans for the upcoming year? What counts as confirmation? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They have to have confirmed something specific. Either signing a driver, either a power unit supplier, either the name of the car or at the very least have appeared on the entry list for the season in question (which has yet to be published for 2016). Other than that, a new constructor can be included back with a source confirming when they will enter. In this case it's very simple. We can't tell our readers anything at all about their 2016 entry, so there really isn't any point in including them yet. There are a number of columns in the table. We have to be able to provide something in at least one column other than entrant and constructor when we want to add a team. In Marussia's case we cant even support the team name.Tvx1 14:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What a daft conclusion. The major teams have been included since the beginning of the article and are every yar despite there being similarly little confirmation of their participation beyond "well of course they will be" speculation.  If you must make an issue out of the lack of detail then supply that information as a caveat.  Either way the list is more useful to anyone wanting to know about next season if it includes the team.  Either that or you must remove the driver listings that are probable (Perez - option for next year but no confirmation, Verstappen - could be at RBR instead of STR until RBR confirm their lineup).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.104.65 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * None of your claims is right. The, they included contracted drivers, a list including a team about which we can't say anything (not even the correct name since they're still in the transition from Marussia to Manor) isn't more useful at all and you still haven't provided any proof of Perez just having an option and Verstappen being considered for Red Bull. Tvx1 14:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Renault F1 participated in some form or another for 34 seasons. Your logic that they will be there "just because they are a major and established team" is flawed on that example alone. Further, Manor Marussia is neither of those things. The team's first version was in 2010 and has switched names 4 times since then and flirting with bankruptcy. Hardly established and very very speculative to claim that they will race without a single source saying so. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 04:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand where this sudden change of inclusion for teams has come from. We certainly never used to do things this way. In the past we would generally carry forward all information, excluding drivers, under the assumption that things would be the same the next season, instead of becoming too obsessed over exact dates announced to the media. What we are stating right now to our readers is that Manor are not going to be in F1 for 2016, which is likely incorrect as we know teams are meant to be signed up for the length of a Concorde agreement. Just because their drivers and engine supply are not yet publicly known does not imply they will not be here next season - similarly having driver contracts in place does not state that a team will be. I see no problem with adding Manor to the table, with TBAs where certain information is not yet known. QueenCake (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash; I think it was done to prevent the creation of future season articles too far on advance. There was a scenario where we would have a handful of articles that were effectively empty except for the teams. They didn't have any new content to differentiate them from previous season articles. The whole idea of "only add a team when they have confirmed something specific" is a countermeasure to that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's a bit of a sledgehammer approach to the problem. At this stage, when we have enough content to fill the article apart from the teams, it doesn't seem necessary to hold to that idea and exclude Manor. We'll be better off trying to find a friendly admin to apply creation protection on the future season pages to combat that problem. QueenCake (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We are assuming Manor will compete because they are racing in 2015? As I argued in the discussion below, they have confirmed nothing for 2016 aside from "intentions to build a car". Even Haas has stronger ties to the season than Manor. While I agree that Manor would be competing, and I'd be a little surprised if they didn't, this is Wikipedia. We write about what can be proved - not what we believe to be true. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Consistency in wlink titles
I have recently noted that the Suzuka Circuit is actually known as the "Suzuka International Racing Course", with "Suzuka Circuit" as its common name. This has created a discrepancy in the table where we refer to it as the Suzuka Circuit. Compare this to Sao Paulo: its common name is "Interlagos", but we give its actual name, "Autodromo Jose Carlos Pace". Similarly, we name the German circuit "Hockenheimring", not "Hockenheim"; the Italian circuit as "Autodromo Nazionale Monza", not "Monza"; and the Spanish circuit "Circuit de Barcelona-Catalyuna", not "Barcelona". Therefore, we should either give the actual names of the circuits, or the common names of the circuits. Not a mixture of both. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Having read COMMON more closely, this is actually something that I now agree with. However, it opens the can of worms we had discussed earlier regarding entry names. Yes, Merhi's wiki title is Roberto Merhi, but his entry name is Roberto Merhi Muntan. Same with Felipe Nasr (Luiz Felipe de Oliveira Nasr). Do these full names get included in the tables as well? Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 08:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash; in those cases, I think that we can accept the driver's preferred names. Sure, the FIA is the highest authority, but if Nasr wants to be known as "Felipe" rather than "Luiz", I don't think that it is unreasonable to oblige that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should just apply WP:COMMONNAME to all the names- Monza, Suzuka, Interlagos, Merhi. Note that Merhi has 2 surnames because of Spanish naming custom, but the Spanish naming custom also says they commonly just use 1 of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * But then you're going to wind up in a ridiculous scenario where we have "Hockenheim, Hockenheim" and "Monza, Monza" and "Interlagos, Interlagos" since we give the circuit and the location. As an encyclopedia, we should use a more formal tone given out purposes, and applying the common name is simply too colloquial. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should stick with the full names of the circuits. The reason we have always done this is because some location actually have more than one circuit. Using full names allows us to tell which one the Formula 1 race actually uses. A few examples I can think of are Valencia, Detroit and for 2016 Baku. On the other hand, the Suzuka Circuit refers to itself as Suzuka Circuit. Tvx1 08:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way,, do you actually have a source for your naming of the Suzuka Circuit or at the very least that it is being used presently? Tvx1 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I do. Oddly enough, the FIA doesn't really name the circuits, but I have Sky Sports F1 referring to it as Suzuka International Race Course: Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I went through the FIA calendar in the source used for this article and the list of circuits on their website, which didn't reveal the use of Suzuka's full name. The PDF file of circuit grades didn't reveal anything either. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Formula1.com refers to the course by their full name. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, the F1 source is certainly sufficient to go by. Tvx1 09:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Lotus
I removed the British flag from the Lotus team, as there's no reliable sources saying they'll be a British team next season- they might well be a French team if Renault rebuys them. I think listing any flag on here is speculative. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I had always assumed that the flags represented the current nationality of the registration, not necessarily what it is going to be. Other than that, I agree with the removal. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 10:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would even go so far as to question whether Lotus should be in the table at all. They might have announced Maldonado, but their financial predicament is well-documented, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that their participation in 2016 is about as certain as Manor's. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They have a contract with a driver. That is sufficient. That is the current state of affairs. Whether or not it will be honored is beyond or concern. We don't predict the future. Tvx1 12:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Lotus flag should remain British as the team is registered with British racing license. Until further notice I advise to not change the flag - change may occur if and only if the buyout agreement is acheived. But until the Lotus will be considered as British team under the Union Jack. Ivaneurope (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (Update) Now if Renault buys Lotus the nationality may change, but any nationality changes are subject to approval by the FIA, who publishes the list of participating teams and drivers in the FIA Formula One World Championship. As of this update I suggest that if and when the purchase is finalised even though Renault is French manufacturer the team should be still listed as British until the FIA publishes the list. In footnote it'll be described as "Nationality subject to change by the FIA" or similar. Ivaneurope (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The FIA does not need to authorise nationality changes. They accept the entry paperwork through national sporting bodies, which dictates the nationality. The team is only registered with a British licence for 2015. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the financial situation should be acknowledged&mdash;I have included a footnote for this purpose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Grosjean to Haas
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns31962.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.27.125 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you read that source, it clearly says that Grosjean to Haas is a rumour. Until it's actually properly confirmed, then he shouldn't be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. The usual standard that we expect is a direct quote from someone who is named (so no inside sources) and represents either the driver or the team; in this case, Grosjean, Gene Haas or Gunther Steiner. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * First word of title and article: "Rumours" Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sergio Perez is not (NOT) confirmed, at Force India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.27.125 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? Tvx1 16:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's not actually confirmed, but this source (which is more specific than the one in the article) says he has contract for 2016, so we don't have much choice but to include him. It's a problem we have here with multi-year contracts being far more ambiguous than we would like. QueenCake (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sergio Perez in silly season 2015 is a prime example of what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia. Articles are written according to what can be proven by outside sources, not necessarily what we know to be true. Of course, anyone following Formula One knows that Sergio Perez isn't 100% confirmed for 2016, but as long as sources continue to state that he has a contract for 2016, then he gets put into the article in the table marked drivers signed under contract for 2016. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 04:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And shortly afterwards... he is confirmed. When will people finally learn to be patient? Tvx1 21:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've updated the source for Perez with the one Tvx1 has provided so hopefully we can put a close to this chapter of silly season. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Grojohn has signed for hass: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120977 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.162.213 (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Lotus driver Romain Grosjean has signed to race for Formula 1 newcomer Haas next season, AUTOSPORT understands.  Key word highlighted in bold. Nothing is confirmed. Be patient. And learn how to spell. Holdenman05 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Lotus have confirmed that Grosjean is leaving the team. http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news/2015/09/lotus-von-grosjean-abgang-kalt-erwischt-steigt-palmer-auf-15092520.html Pontlieue (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's sufficient. I've removed him. Tvx1 15:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Holdenman05 learn how not to be a dick. Striking comment by IP 206.72.192.145. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 03:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015
Manor GP is missing. Please add.

37.33.134.159 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Please see the discussion immediately above for the sorts of citations that are needed. - Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.


 * Manor's participation will be confirmed (at the latest) in November when next year's team roster is announced (the deadline for paying the participation fee). There's talk in the news of them switching to Mercedes engines which indicates that they at least intend to continue next year, but it's definitely not a confirmed announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.166.128 (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * When (if) that happens in November, then the team can be added. Until then, your statement falls under the very definition of WP:NOTCRYSTAL/WP:RUMOR, specifically this portion of item #5) "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not including Manor when they are an existing F1 team that have made no indication that they intend to leave F1 is confusing. On the other hand, I understand that only officially confirmed information is included. Maybe we should rephrase the sentence above the table to "The following teams have a license to compete in Formula One in 2016, and the following drivers are confirmed." or something similar which would allow for the inclusion of Manor without including speculation. Pontlieue (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Does Manor have a licence to compete in 2016? I have not seen any sources saying they have paid their entry fee and/or that the FIA has accepted it... Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 04:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course, participation is always subject to paying the entry fee. You won't find any sources for the other teams either, so it sets quite a double standard if you require it for Manor. But if they hadn't got a license, they'd have to go through an application process like Haas in 2014. If you would apply these standards to all teams, you shouldn't include any teams and drivers section before the official entry list is published. After all, announcing a driver doesn't mean you will take part (see USF1 or Stefan GP). Pontlieue (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The other teams have drivers and various sourced partnerships go work off of. Even Haas has a partnership with Ferrari & Dallara, and it has long been sourced that they are joining the grid in 2016. Manor has nothing. This is Wikipedia - we write about what we can prove, not what we think to be true. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * USF1 and Stefan GP's entries were written about so long as there were sources saying so. When new sources came out that they would be withdrawing their entry, then they were removed. Manor may very well be racing in 2016. In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't. But we can't include them here without sources just because they raced in 2015. That's crystal-balling. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with not adding Manor for 2016- there are no sources saying they'll definitely race next season. They might just go bust like they Caterham- this time last year, I'm sure most people expected Caterham to be on the grid for 2015. Until Manor sign a driver for next season, or have a reliable source saying they're definitely racing, then they shouldn't be included. Assuming they will be racing is just crystal ball speculation. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I still think that Manor should be included in some way, without having to resort to speculation. As the sole purpose of the team is the participation in F1, they'll either go broke or they will race, which is why I think they should be included. The 2017 season page has a section of existing, but unconfirmed races. Maybe we could have a similar section for currently competing, but as of now unconfirmed teams for 2016 and 2017. Pontlieue (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Simply wrong. Manor could easily withdraw from the sport without going broke, just as Red Bull have threatened to do all season long. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And as far as the 2017 page with existing, but unconfirmed races, read the text a little more carefully. It clearly says "The following eighteen Grands Prix are currently under contract to take place in 2017". Under no circumstance does it state that these races are going to happen, just that they are currently under contract to take place - most importantly, and again this emphasizes that this is Wikipedia - WITH SOURCES for each event. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In regards to the tracks, I was referring to the part: "Grands Prix under contract for 2016, but not for 2017". You're bringing up Red Bull - so surely, including two teams that have threatened to withdraw are included, while a team that has not done so is not. But if you guys put arbitrary rules above the goal to have an accurate depiction of F1, then I'll no longer annoy you. Red Bull's and Lotus' participation in F1 for next year is just as speculative as Manors. In fact, thing in F1 are changing so fast that anything on this page is to some extent speculation. Pontlieue (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But for all those teams we can prove that they have nevertheless already signed a contract for something for 2016. For Marussia, we can't. We can't even prove their name for 2016. So why do you keep insisting on including them when we can tell our readers nothing about them. Absolutely NOTHING. Why are you in such a rush to include them? Why can't you just wait some time until more specific information is published in the sources? After all, the next season is still seven months away. Tvx1 11:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's very specious reasoning. We can't prove any other team's name either, we're just copying information from 2015 on the assumption that it will all be the same - which it almost certainly won't be. Your statement that we can't tell readers anything about Manor is patently false. What we can tell them is that Manor Marussia will be competing next year, using the same name in the absence of evidence to the contrary, which we can prove to the same extent as every other team. In the absence of an entry list, Manor announcing they will introduce a new car next year is just as much proof as another team announcing a driver signing.


 * You may not all have seen it, but by including 10 teams while excluding another one, we are making a firm claim that Manor won't compete in 2016. In this case, the absence of information on Manor is actually information on Manor, rather than a position of being unknown either way. If you're still following me here, to be consistent on this issue, we either include all teams from when the page is created in the table, and fill in the other fields as they become known, or wait and keep the page blank until an actual entry list is first created. QueenCake (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So it is being suggested that we include Manor under the following information in the table:

Entrant: Manor Grand Prix Racing Constructor: TBA-TBA Chassis: TBA Power unit: TBA Tyre: Number: TBA-TBA Driver: TBA-TBA

And not only that, but to do so for all teams simply because they competed the previous season? Literally the only thing that can be proven, via sources, about Manor is what tyre brand they will use. Nothing else. Even the use of the Marussia name is hardly assumed to continue and to suggest otherwise is a clear violation of CRYSTAL. If this were McLaren or Williams or Ferrari or some other clearly established team, then I could see the case, but this is Manor - a six year old team that's changed hands three times since inception. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At a minimum, yes. I would prefer to use Manor-Marussia and Marussia as the constructor, but I'd be happy enough with just keeping Manor Grand Prix if that's what can be agreed upon (I don't really want to start an aggravated debate on this). Please keep in mind that if it's WP:CRYSTAL to use the Marussia name, then it's equally crystal balling to use Scuderia Ferrari, or Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team, or Lotus F1 - particularly Lotus as it's future is under active discussion - as we have no proof that those teams will use those names next year. Now personally I'm fine with using them, even if we may be technically breaking some policy, under good old fashioned common sense, but I do want us to be consistent here and not apply different standards to different teams. QueenCake (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The reasoning that we are claiming that Marussia won't compete is outright ridiculous. At no point is there something in this article that hints it is a table of teams and drivers that will compete. It literally states that it is a list of who and what has currently been contracted for 2016. Concerning Marussia, we don't have evidence that anything has been contracted at all. So we simply cannot list them. I will remind you that both Caterham and Marussia were already developing a 2015 car this time last year. While Marussia narrowly made it into 2015, Caterham didn't. In september 2008 Honda was making good progress on their 2009 car, yet there was no Honda that season. Similarly Toyota and BMW were developing cars for the following season in september 2009, yet neither of them competed in 2010. HRT was up and running in september 2012 without any imminent signs of doom, yet little over two months later the team folded. Tvx1 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No it's really not. The table states it is a list of teams and drivers currently signed to take part in 2016 - ergo those teams and drivers in the table, and only those teams and drivers, are taking part for 2016. So Caterham and Marussia built cars last year before going under? Yes, and every team are building cars this year, but the possibility all of them might withdraw is not a reason not to include them. If you're insisting on exact fidelity to sources, could you find a source that proves any of the teams have an entry for 2016? I'll give you Haas, who do have a separate 2015/16 entry, but how do we know Ferrari will compete next season, or that Mercedes will enter under the "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team" name? Show me the sources.


 * Ultimately there is already plenty of speculation in this table, which is included under the same reasoning to exclude Manor/Marussia. All that can be proven is some teams have signed drivers or engines, and every team entered must use Pirelli tyres, but none of that proves that the teams are entered for 2016 - and until the FIA release an entry list you'll probably struggle to do so. Now as I said before I'm fine with ignoring the lack of a source in the interests of common sense, but if we're going to say "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team" are competing on this principle, we must also say Manor Grand Prix Ltd. have an entry (we could use the company name if that's any easier?). QueenCake (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * But we are not by any means claiming that anyone has been entered for 2016. Just where does it say that? If you genuinely believe we list teams on the principle that we assume e.g. "Infiniti Red Bull Racing" has been entered for 2016, I'm really at loss here. All this table currently aims to do is to give is an overview of who has a contract today, on the 24th of September, for the 2016 Formula One season. If those team names are such a problem, we can easily hide them until an entry list has been published. There is certainly no speculation whatsoever. We can prove with a source that Lewis Hamilton has a contract to drive for Mercedes in the 2016 season, we can prove with a source that McLaren has a contract to use Honda power units if they compete in the 2016 season. There is no claim whatsoever that these contracts will be honoured and that the competitors will compete in the setup presented in the list, only that these are the contracts that exist today. Concerning Marussia, we have no proof of any contract. How much clearer can I make this to you? Tvx1 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If we're not making that claim, why are we listing anything then? We can prove Hamilton has a contract with Mercedes, but it doesn't matter in the slightest for this page (about the 2016 F1 season, not Mercedes driver contracts) as until Mercedes gains an entry for the 2016 season, and it has to be proof of Mercedes as only the teams are entered to the series, there's no proof Hamilton will have any part in the 2016 F1 season. I think this is ridiculous myself, but this is the logic of your argument - you're speculating that Mercedes will be part of the 2016 F1 season because they have signed Lewis Hamilton, but excluding Manor-Marussia (and you should say Manor-Marussia, if you're being so insistent on sourcing) because they have no driver or engine signed, despite the fact that the existence, or lack of, these contracts has no bearing on the subject of this article (the 2016 F1 season) until it is confirmed the team will actually play any part in the season. Your logic dictates we have to include all the teams including Manor based upon common sense that all will continue in the absence of evidence to the contrary, or none of them on the basis that including any team will be speculation without an entry.


 * Furthermore, this criteria of inclusion has never been used for previous seasons, and has never been the subject of any kind of consensus from the wider community, and on that basis if any editor would to add Manor, neither you nor  can start reverting the edits without violating WP:OWN. I don't want to start edit warring here, but at the moment my point based upon previous unspoken convention, and yours based upon this new criteria of a driver or engine contract, are both equally valid. QueenCake (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If it comes to that, I'll revert it solely for being unsourced, as we do for just about all content that is added without a source. OWN?? Okay, you can go to the admins on that one if you really feel that way. By the way, IGNORE says it's okay in certain situations but definitately not to solely edit by it. In this case, you're simply just failing to achieve a concensus on a disputed matter but are declaring that you'll go ahead and re-add it anyway. That's more a sign of OWN that anything the rest of us are doing. Anyone can say they want to build a car for next season. I really want to, so might as well add Twirlypen GP to the table based on that. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 04:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, Twirlypen GP is not an established racing team, has not been granted an entry by the FIA, and is not negotiating about an engine deal with Mercedes. The point about being granted an entry by the FIA is the most important one, and why I insist on including Manor in this page. Pontlieue (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We can all drop it now. Marussia has been added through an announcement of their power unit suppliers. And it's Marussia, not Manor. Tvx1 10:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)




 * "The point about being granted an entry by the FIA is the most important one, and why I insist on including Manor in this page."


 * And on Wikipedia, we insist on only including content if it is supported by a reliable and verifiable source. The team has only been added now because we have such a source.


 * On Wikipedia, the truth is what we can prove with sources. And sometimes you will find that what we know to be true and what we can prove to be true are two completely different things. We have known for some time that the team would compete; we could even say that we could reasonably assume that they would. But it is only now that we can prove it, which is why it was only added to the article today. If you're going to continue to edit, then I suggest that you get used to this idea very quickly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Prisonermonkeys, I have never argued against this principle. I fully agree that rumours have no place in Wikipedia. I have just argued that a confirmed entry granted by the FIA should be enough to justify an inclusion, instead of needing a confirmed driver or engine supplier. As for continuing to edit, I don't think I will continue contributing to these pages for future Formula 1 seasons, because the way we are working here, it makes little sense to create them so far in advance (just look at the ridiculous four-team table on the 2017 page).Pontlieue (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Aside from Manor Marussia having a power unit supplier and no longer need to be witheld from the table, where is their confirmed 2016 entry that you keep claiming exists? You can't just say it exists and everyone is supposed to take your word for it. You have to cite your sources, and they have to be reliable. Meaning, from the FIA stating "Manor Marussia has entered for the 2016 season" or from Marussia stating "We have entered our team for the 2016 season". An article stating that they want to build a car doesn't suffice, because as I said, anyone can state they want to build a car, but that means very little as far as encyclopedia standards go that it will race. My Twirlypen GP example is proof of that. You wanted to include Manor Marussia simply because they said they wanted to build a car. Whether or not Manor is an established team (debatable in itself, though not here) vs Twirlypen GP not being one is cutting straws and frankly original research.


 * And as far as 2017 is concerned, that has it's own talk page if you wish to voice concerns regarding that article, but the size of the table doesn't dictate article validity. The 2017 season has enough reliably sourced information pertaining to it that it can support it's own article. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To add on to what said, Wikipedia is not about what we know to be true. This is explicitly why we include New Jersey's Grand Prix of America in future articles, because as far as what can be proven, the 15-year contract is still active, albeit being breached. Because the sources exist, they have a place in the article until the FIA releases a calendar for a particular year that doesn't have them on it. Content and information can only be added once reliable sources say so. Of course, anyone following Formula One in the slightest knows that the event will likely never happen but, again, the third sentence of verifiability, "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors", it doesn't matter one bit what we think or believe.  Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to add a bit to the confusion... If you read the full article that is provided as a source for Manor's Mercedes engines deal, you'll find the following sentence there: "The class-leading Mercedes engines would be a significant boast for minnows Manor, who are currently running Ferrari's 2014 power unit. However, unlike Lauda, Wolff said a deal hasn't been done yet." So what is the truth if two leading guys seem to disagree on wheher the deal exists? Can we include Manor in this table yet? 176.93.45.57 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Toto Wolff is executive director of Mercedes Formula One team and is a shareholder in Williams F1. I don't believe he has any standing on engine supply deals. Then again, I don't believe Niki Lauda does either, unless I am totally mistaken and power units are in fact supplied by the team, rather than Mercedes-AMG GmbH. Interesting twist nonetheless. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Grosjean's time with Renault/Lotus
If we can say that Vettel spent 15 years with Red Bull and their junior developement programme, then we can certainly acknowledge Grosjean's time with the team when it was under a different name. Further, if somehow we decide not to, then it would be five years, not four. He was with the team in 2011 as well when they were known as Lotus Renault. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to accept five&mdash;even six, as he was test driver in 2011&mdash;but it should be noted that in 2009, it was Renault. The physical team might be the same, but the name was different.


 * I mostly took issue with the statement that he was with the team for seven years, because that would put him in the team in 2008, and I can't really substantiate that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * He was with the team in 2008 though, per the source I added. I'll give you that he wasn't involved in 2010, but he was in every other season from 2008-2015 in some capacity. And it is noted that is was once Renault. And when you say things like "I can't really substantiate that", it comes off like the source doesn't meet your requirements. I'm not trying to come at you, but I do suggest choosing words a little better. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the wording. It means it doesn't seem to be supported by the sources. You really have to stop taking offence that quickly. Tvx1 05:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "By 2008, Grosjean was in Formula One as a test driver for Renault. In August 2009, Renault named Grosjean to its race seat alongside two-time Formula One champion Fernando Alonso." What am I missing here? Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm more curious as to whether he drove. His results matrix has his FP1 appearances in 2011, but nothing for 2008. I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that he was with the team if he wasn't actively doing anything for them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Not what we know, what we can prove." Sources say he joined Renault in 2008 as a test driver. Whether or not he drove is irrelevant. He was with the team, regardless or not as a driver of any capacity. He could have been a desk boy, but the source says he joined the team as a test driver in 2008, so we write that he was part of the team in 2008. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 06:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Vettel's result matrix for anything Red Bull only goes back as far as 2007 for Toro Rosso, but we write that he was with them for 15 years because that's what the source says. Don't go changing the rules now because it doesn't sit well with your personal requirements for someone to be considered "on a team". Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 06:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And what was Vettel doing in that time? Racing in a series of junior championships to gain experience. What was Grosjean doing? I don't know. So if he wasn't driving, then perhaps the wording of the article should be changed, because the current wording insinuates that Grosjean was driving for the team when he was not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. It says he was with the team. Further, "if he wasn't driving" is again irrelevant. You are changing the wording based on "what you know", when "what can be proven" is that he was a test driver. Do you have a source saying that he didn't drive? Or even that only drivers can be considered members of a team? It's ridiculous that the rules are constantly twisted to meet what is preferred wording instead of going by what the source says, which was your argument not even a day ago. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wording implies that Grosjean has been racing for eight years - he hasn't" - Uhh, what? It says quite clearly seven years in the prose. Stop dumbing down the casual audience. The source is available if they want a year by year description, or even better, they can go to his own Wiki article. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "It says he was with the team."
 * Well, that's just terribly vague wording, then. From that, we could insinuate that he was a caterer or the guy who books tickets for the team before he started racing. It wouldn't be a problem if he had only ever been a racing driver, but he had multiple roles over an eight-year period. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And we don't need to dissect what each of those roles were in the Driver changes section. They can go to the source provided or, even better, his own Wiki article. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Romain Grosjean will leave Lotus at the end of the 2015 season after spending seven years between 2008 and 2015 as a race driver from 2012-2015 & 2009, a practice driver in 2011, and a test driver in which he may or may not have actually raced a car in 2008. Also, the team switched names from Renault to Lotus in 2011." WP:UNDUE Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at some of the previous season articles. This is taken from the 2015 season article:
 * "Esteban Gutiérrez and Adrian Sutil were released from Sauber, where they were replaced by former Caterham driver Marcus Ericsson and GP2 driver Felipe Nasr. Gutiérrez and Sutil went on to join Ferrari and Williams respectively as reserve drivers."
 * That's what we should be aiming for: short, sharp, and to the point. It names the drivers that left and where they went, and the drivers who replaced them and where they cane from. The scope of the paragraph is limited to what actually changes: the person in the seat. I imagine that this article would ultimately look something like this:
 * "Romain Grosjean will leave Lotus at the end of the 2015 season to join the newly-formed Haas F1 team, where he will be joined by former McLaren driver Kevin Magnussen. After Renault completed their purchase of Lotus, Esteban Ocon was named as Grosjean's replacement."
 * This actually did come up a few years ago, probably following the mass changes in 2010 when the article started losing focus and getting bogged down in superfluous details. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * From - "Sebastian Vettel left Red Bull Racing at the end of the 2014 season after fifteen years with the team and its wider junior development programme to join Ferrari in the place of Alonso."
 * From - "Felipe Massa left Ferrari at the end of the 2013 season after eight years racing for the team."


 * This isn't a new situation. "Left the team" and stating the amount of years they spent there is perfectly acceptable. I am certain there are more instances of this wording before 2014, but for Grosjean we have to detail and dissect his entire work history? Is it because I was the one to add it? Keeping it simple is exactly what I'm trying to do here, so I don't know why you bring up that argument. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, maybe by February of 2016 that is what it will say. But this is right now. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough with your latest edit. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Yes, maybe by February of 2016 that is what it will say. But this is right now."
 * I just feel that it pads the article out for the sake of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And I have no qualms with that argument. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 08:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)