Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Abu Dhabi
What's the deal with Abu Dhabi? It's not in the planned Grands Prix nor is it with the changes. Mobile mundo (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence it has a contract for 2018.Tvx1 23:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * And there's no evidence that it doesn't have a contract, either. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the fact its on the calendar for 2018 not enough evidence? 17:30 14 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.119.26 (talk)


 * I genuinely have no idea why you're asking this. The discussion was created when we only had a list of races with and without contracts rather than a calendar. At the time there was no evidence Abu Dhabi had a contract for 2018, but there was no evidence that it did not have one either, so it was omitted from the article entirely. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Mclaren confirmed with Renault power units
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131767/mclaren-agrees-deal-to-leave-honda-for-renault PD001 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling this section will turn into a discussion that goes on for a while - this is the same situation as the Sainz deal Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You anticipate correctly. Nobody from McLaren or Renault has confirmed the deal to Autosport, so how can Autosport know that it has happened? More to the point, how can the reader know? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Now confirmed but page protected, its going to be a busy news day!! MetalDylan (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * http://mclrn.co/Renault — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalDylan (talk • contribs) 10:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This also appeared at the official F1 website. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2017
Move Carlos Sainz from Toro Rosso to Renault. Changed Toro Rosso engine supplier from Renault to Honda, and McLaren from Honda to Renault. CT Sheffield (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2017
Change McLaren-Honda in constructor section to McLaren-Renault. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/headlines/2017/9/renault-power-for-2018-mclaren--honda-switch-to-toro-rosso.html 124.169.203.55 (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2017
McLaren switch to Renault engines: http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/inside-the-mtc/mclaren-racing-and-renault-sport-racing-confirm-partnership/ Toro Rosso switch to Honda engines: http://www.scuderiatororosso.com/en_IT/article/scuderia-toro-rosso-join-forces-honda Sainz Jr. moves to Renault: https://www.renaultsport.com/carlos-sainz-joins-renault-sport-formula-one-team-for-2018.html Andrija Domitrović (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Constructor" and "Engine" columns
Why is the Engine supplier included in the Constructor column? What's the point of the Engine column then? Could be there a case where the engine supplier is not included in the Constructor name?
 * Because that's how the FIA credit results. Some teams, like Ferrari, build their engines; others, like Haas, buy theirs. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exacty. Haas is the constructor. They don't construct their own engines. So shouldn't there only be "Haas" in the constructor column, instead of Haas-Ferrari?


 * No, because the FIA credits results to "Haas-Ferrari". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I'll try to make it easy to understand. What's the point of the "Engine" column if the engine is already included in the Constructor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.145.2.177 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The engine column also shows the spefication. This for instance tells our readers in 2017 that Sauber uses a different Ferrari power unit than Haas and Ferrari themselves.Tvx1 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you looked at any of the previous years' pages you would see that they have the actual power unit model number. Whilst this is not relevant at the moment as the manufacturers haven't announced that info it should still be included. Let's not try to reinvent the wheel here! MetalDylan (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2017
Renault have announced that Sainz will be joining them. 85.232.200.72 (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2017
Because everything's been confirmed and you don't need to hold us back for a week JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2017
Change the team #55 Carlos Sainz Jr. to Renault in the table of teams and drivers Rhyskakes (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not do the mentioned above on this one (unless you are an admin) - Why is there still a dispute?
This is mainly aimed at admins to explain - how can there be a dispute when the new engine deals etc. are backed up by credible (literally the official teams) sources? I can understand protecting the page to stop the changes being reverted, but why hasn't the page been updated to include this information? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; because this isn't the only protected article with requested edits. Sometimes it takes time for an admin to get around to making the requested changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Engine update
Its been some time since the official engine/driver announcements so why hasn't anything been updated yet? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See discussion in this section. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is because there are a few editors who don't want to accept the FACTS (Sainz is off to Renault, Honda is powering TR, McLaren is powered by Renault etc.), and one of these editors has asked for a 24 hour delay to be placed on it for some reason, even though the sources are official and there is therefore no room for doubt as to their reliability. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty ridicules considering the announcements are from the OFFICIAL team websites, I can understand the Autosport/Motorsport website argument but now its hindering other editors and especially the readers with this 24 hour thing. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. Many people say that Wikipedia cannot be trusted (it can be edited by anyone etc.), and I never agreed with this in the past, having always found it very reliable. Normally, after reading a news story, the Wikipedia pages are already updated, but clearly this is no longer the case with F1 articles given there are a few editors who appear to control the articles, regardless of the facts. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; because this isn't the only protected article with requested edits. Sometimes it takes time for an admin to get around to making the requested changes.


 * ''"there are a few editors who don't want to accept the FACTS (Sainz is off to Renault, Honda is powering TR, McLaren is powered by Renault etc.)"
 * I don't dispute that at all. I never did. What I disputed was adding that content to the article based on an anonymous source.


 * ''"one of these editors has asked for a 24 hour delay to be placed on it for some reason"
 * As I explained, the deal is quite complex, with six parties (McLaren, Toro Rosso, Renault, Honda, Red Bull, Sainz and Palmer) who are all affected. We need to make sure that we cover everything. And given the content dispute, it's better that we achieve a consensus on what to update before making the request. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Mclaren with Renault in 2018 Kosyo Dimitrov (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 September 2017
McLaren is now under Renault powered engines starting in 2018 OkayishEditor (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Does nobody read this page? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

All the changes that need to be made
I've gone through the article and put this together&mdash;a list of all the changes that need to be made:


 * In the team and driver table


 * In the sub-section "team changes"
 * * McLaren terminated their engine partnership with Honda and will instead compete with power units supplied by Renault. Toro Rosso part ways with Renault and will adopt Honda engines for 2018. The decision to end the partnership was necessary to make Renault engines available to McLaren as Renault were unable to supply four teams.


 * In the sub-section "driver changes"
 * * Red Bull Racing released Carlos Sainz, Jr. from his Toro Rosso contract and loaned him to Renault's works team for one year. With Renault electing to retain Nico Hülkenberg, Jolyon Palmer lost his seat with the team.

There are also a few things that have been reported, but not yet confirmed: If you have sources that confirm these or refute them, please share them here. We can request a further update to the article once the confirmed changes are accepted, or update ourselves at a later date. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Renault may end their supply of engines to Red Bull at the end of 2018.
 * Honda may have taken a 40% stake in Toro Rosso as part of the deal.
 * Pierre Gasly and/or Nobuhara Matsushita may join Toro Rosso (if both do, Daniil Kvyat is out).
 * Carlos Sainz, Jr. may join Renault as early as the 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix (if this does happen, it still bears mention in this article because Palmer is definitely out abd it's a condition of the Honda deal).


 * McLaren Renault : http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/inside-the-mtc/mclaren-racing-and-renault-sport-racing-confirm-partnership/ Toro Rosso Honda: http://world.honda.com/news/2017/c170915beng.html?hootPostID=60d62a439e46b8100668de2c591082e0 & http://www.scuderiatororosso.com/en_IT/article/scuderia-toro-rosso-join-forces-honda Sainz to Renault: https://www.renaultsport.com/carlos-sainz-joins-renault-sport-formula-one-team-for-2018.html?lang=en I think this should be enough proof to make the changes Pch187 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point I think we can already have the table updated. Thus I have prepared a proper edit request below in the change X to Y format with properly archived refs inserted. If nobody objects I will activate the edit request template, which is now hidden. Then we can further discuss and finalize the text for the bullet points in the changes sections.Tvx1 23:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I'm okay with that. But I do think we need to be able to demonstrate a consensus on the wording before we get the protection lifted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm no talking about getting the protection lifted. I just want to request that an administrator updates the table.Tvx1 08:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Reboot
Okay, the formal request to update the table has been posted. And administrator should action it anytime now. That leaves us to agree on the additions to the changes section. I would suggest the following bullet points to be added to the drivers' and team changes section.

Drivers' changes:
 * Carlos Sainz, Jr. signed an agreement to drive for Renault's works team in 2018. He is loaned from Toro Rosso for one year.

Team changes: Tvx1 16:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * McLaren terminated their engine partnership with Honda. They opted to sign a supply deal for Renault power units for three years.
 * Toro Rosso ended their partnership with Renault. They signed an agreement to use Honda power unites in 2018.

McLaren-Renault-Sainz edit requests
I would like to propose that we wait 24 hours before making any edit requests related to Sainz, McLaren, Renault, Honda and Toro Rosso. It's going to take a little bit of time to sort everything out since each part of the deal is dependent on every other part, abd it would be better if we all agree on a single edit request rather than multiple ones. 24 hours should give us enough time to agree on everything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All changes have been officially announced so I think we can make one single edit request now.Tvx1 11:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Here are all the sources needed: McLaren-Renault partnership: http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/inside-the-mtc/mclaren-racing-and-renault-sport-racing-confirm-partnership/ Sainz to Renault: https://www.renaultsport.com/carlos-sainz-joins-renault-sport-formula-one-team-for-2018.html Toro Rosso-Honda partnership: http://www.scuderiatororosso.com/en_INT/article/scuderia-toro-rosso-join-forces-honda End of McLaren-Honda: http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/inside-the-mtc/mclaren-and-honda-agree-to-conclude-formula-1-partnership/ MLVD (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I would propose the following edits:
 * Under the "team changes" section:
 * * McLaren terminated their engine partnership with Honda and will instead compete with power units supplied by Renault. Toro Rosso will part ways with Renault, freeing up the supply chain for McLaren, and will adopt Honda engines for 2018.


 * Under the "driver changes" section:
 * * Red Bull Racing released Carlos Sainz, Jr. from his Toro Rosso contract and loaned him to Renault's works team for one year. With Renault electing to retain Nico Hülkenberg, Jolyon Palmer lost his seat with the team.

I think that covers everything succintly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you guys need any help in fixing your mistake? It seems the page is now very much out of date. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You can help by not turning this into an exercise in one up-manship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Someone does need to actually make the changes though... MetalDylan (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; it takes time for changes to be made. Given the controversy of the past few days, with people wanting to use articles that rely on anonymous sources to add content before it was officially announced and the complexity of the deals involved, it's probably better that we get a consensus on the extent of the changes needed first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Surely it is just what has been mentioned above with the additionally relevant table changes? I know it's tricky and a pain but if the page at least looks right on the face of it then less people are gonna come to the talk page asking why the info is out of date. MetalDylan (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"freeing up the supply chain for McLaren"- what does that mean? Apart from that, edit seems reasonable. And I think WP:NODEADLINE applies here- better to do it right than do it quickly & badly. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; Renault said that they didn't have the capacity to manufacture enough engines to supply a fourth team, so if they were going to deal with McLaren, one of their customer teams would need to switch to another supplier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well then I'm fine with the proposed changes. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I see Prisonermonkeys is still as cantankerous as ever. Put myself and a few others I know off of contributing to F1 Wikipedia pages...good for the community spirit eh! Enjoy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6BF1:400:E5A4:C96C:DC09:9ECB (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering he's trying to get consensus to avoid another unnecessary set of edit warring, I don't see what the problem is, IP editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - The problem is Prisonermonkeys has difficulty admitting defeat, and they are trying to draw out the process of updating the point, so it can be considered that they are 'right' for as long as possible, even when there are OFFICIAL sources counteracting the information in the article right now. He cannot have it both ways, one time it is not right to make a change because the sources are 'unreliable', and now we can provide RELIABLE sources, we still cannot make a change for 24 hours, double-standards? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Renault said that they didn't have the capacity to manufacture enough engines to supply a fourth team" Considering TR is moving to Honda engines, it doesn't take a lot of working out to realise that only 3 teams will be using Renault engines in 2018 - in 2017 there were 3 teams with Renault engines (Renault, TR, and RBR), add 1 to that as McLaren are using them that takes us to 4, then remove 1, as TR are moving to Honda, and it becomes 3. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"Prisonermonkeys has difficulty admitting defeat"
 * The fact that you think achieving consensus is some kind of competition speaks volumes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "The fact that you think achieving consensus is some kind of competition speaks volumes" When did I say achieving a concensus was a competition? I was merely pointing out that you appear to have a tunnel vision that your viewpoint is the correct one and that even when people provide suitable evidence (official sources etc.), you still appear to support your viewpoint, such as asking for a 24 hour block, although the article is clearly no longer correct. This one-sided attitude suggests you have a strong support for your viewpoints, and likewise there is evidence above that you have a disregard for opposing viewpoints, hence the 'competition' reference. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@
 * ''"such as asking for a 24 hour block"

I have explained why I proposed waiting 24 hours.

Firstly, the article was protected because of edit-warring over the use of an anonymous source. Although we have official sources (which you will note that I never disputed once they became available), that doesn't mean the problem is going away. Say we request the changes and the protection is lifted, but in 24 hours another story based on an anonymous source claims that Robert Kubica has joined Williams. The problem starts all over again. Just because Sainz was confirmed at Renault, that doesn't make all anonymous sources equally acceptable.

Secondly, the deal is a very complex one. There are seven individual parties (McLaren, Toro Rosso, Renault, Honda, Red Bull, Sainz and Palmer) who are party to it or affected by it, and each part of the deal depends on every other part of it. Rather than rushing to include everything in the article and get the protection lifted, we should take the time to understand everything that is happening and accurately present it in the article.

Thirdly, the admins clearly do not trust us to work together, so taking the time to form a consensus will show them that we can work together. Because the protection is due to automatically expire on 21 September&mdash;the day of the next WMSC meeting that will announce the regulation changes for 2018 and so will bring substantial additions to the article.

Finally&mdash;and this is really more of a side point&mdash;I don't know where you're getting the idea that I don't believe Sainz will drive for Renault is coming from. I never said that he wouldn't; what I said was that I didn't think that an article based on an anonymous source was suitable evidence for an encyclopaedia. That's what I took issue with&mdash;not Sainz going to Renault, but the use of an anonymous source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "taking the time to form a consensus", my point was that you are the only one standing in the way of a concensus - a concensus should have been formed once the official sources were released, but the only person going against the concensus was yourself, asking for a 24 hour block. You could have simply said, I accept the official source, and therefore back up the edit requests, but the fact you didn't shows that you are still against the update to the page, and therefore you are standing in the way of a concensus being reached. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, we could have reached a consensus by now if you had given some feedback/suggestions for the wording of the bullet points that need to be added to the changes sections instead of constantly attacking the contributors.Tvx1 11:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious at this point that you haven't even read what I posted and you're just responding on principle. I made it pretty clear that we should form a consensus for the wording that would accompany the changes. But you wouldn't know that, because you're clearly just responding to the person posting rather than what is being posted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that no matter what the bullet points say, the fact that the page still shows Sainz contracted to TR is clearly incorrect, and your '24 hour block' has lead to an inability to request a change to this. We can of course decide on the wording of the bullet points separately to this, but the Driver/Constructor table needs updating. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Prisonermonkeys hasn't blocked anything. It was merely a suggestion. The page was already under full protection way before that. You do realize that no administrator has visited this article since, don't you? You do also realize that the admins deal with more than only this article, don't you?Tvx1 15:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the mere fact that they suggested it means that a concensus cannot be reached, as Prisonermonkeys is disagreeing with the idea of editing the page. I appreciate the suggestion may have been made with the best of intentions, but I believe it would have been best to have tried to reach a concensus before making any suggestions of a block - surely it wouldn't have been hard to reach a concensus after the official sources were released. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. The point of waiting to submit a request was to give us time to form a consensus so that when we did put the request in, the admins could see that everyone was able to work together. Because as soon as the protection was lifted last time, we had editors who immediately started edit-warring. It was intended to be a show of good faith so that the admins would have confidence that they would not need to protect the page again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point, but I feel this is in fact backing up the admins belief that everyone cannot work together. It comes to something when a 24 hour block is required when official and undisputed sources are released - if we could all truly work together, this block would not be necessary, as there would be no need to argue against sources as clear-cut as these. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) It was not required; it was proposed. There isn't any formal mechanism at work here.
 * 2) That 24 hold was proposed 48 hours ago. 10:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, the block didn't come because of Prisonermonkeys' request. The block was imposed way before that and is scheduled to end on the 21st of September. In fact, it resulted from your constant reverting on Thursday evening. Prisonermonkeys merely suggested that we take some time to make one formal and complete edit request. Your claim that they are not interested in editing is utterly false. The first part of that edit request has been active for over twenty four hours now. That it hasn't been actioned yet is up to the administrators. I have attempted to reboot the discussion below so that we can get consensus for the second part. If you would stop commenting on the contributors here and start giving suggestion in the below discussion we could actually get somewhere. I don't know where you got the idea that not being able to edit the article equals not being able to get consensus. We can get consensus through discussion as well and we can request that an administrator edits the article for us.Tvx1 10:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

First part
Could an administrator please execute the following changes:

Change the teams and drivers from:

to

<references group="N"/> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 2017-09-15T23:39:18 (UTC)


 * Updated with announcement of Sergio Pérez. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Completed the ref.Tvx1 10:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked at WP:AN for an admin to come make the table change. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Primefac (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request 18 September
Since nobody has objected to the wording, could an admin please update the article with the following text:

* McLaren terminated their engine partnership with Honda and will instead compete with power units supplied by Renault. Toro Rosso parted ways with Renault and will adopt Honda engines for 2018. The decision to end the partnership was necessary to make Renault engines available to McLaren as Renault were unable to supply four teams. * As part of the agreement between Renault and Honda, Red Bull Racing released Carlos Sainz, Jr. from his Toro Rosso contract and loaned him to Renault's works team for one year. With Renault electing to retain Nico Hülkenberg, Jolyon Palmer lost his seat with the team. Thank you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the "team changes" section (this should go above Sauber, as we list changes alphabetically)
 * Create a new section under "team changes" called "driver changes" and add the following
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely it is Red_Bull_GmbH that released Sainz?
The article states that "Red Bull Racing" released Sainz from his Toro Rosso seat, but surely it is the parent company (Red_Bull_GmbH), of which Toro Rosso and Red Bull are both subsidiaries, who released Sainz? - RBR are competitors against TR and therefore 'technically' have no influence over TR, so the only people who are connected to both teams and could release Sainz from his seat are the board members at Red_Bull_GmbH. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually. He wasn't released from anything. That text shouldn't have been there. He is still under contract with Toro Rosso and is merely loaned out by them.Tvx1 21:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure his Toro Rosso contract expires at the end of 2018. This hasn't been pitched as "he goes to Renault for a year, then back to Toro Rosso", but rather that Red Bull are loaning him out and will decide his future when the year is up. CRB wouldn't let him have two contracts with two teams at the same time.


 * Also, it would be incorrect to say Red Bull GmbH released/loaned him because Red Bull GmbH is a massive company and probably not directly involved in deciding driver line-ups. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, at the END of 2018. This means that it's still valid throughout 2018.Tvx1 04:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - I totally agree, Red Bull GmbH is a massive company, but RBR and TR are both separate F1 teams, who are 'technically' competing against each other like any other 2 teams. As the two teams are 'technically' completely separate, RBR should 'technically' have no power over the TR contracts, so it should really say TR released/loaned him to Renault. As we understand this was RBR's decision, surely it would have to go through Red Bull GmbH, as this is the only connection between RBR and TR. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; Red Bull Racing manage the Red Bull YDP. The drivers that the YDP sign are placed at Toro Rosso. While you are correct in saying that they are separate entities, there is nevertheless a relationship between the two. The key is that Toro Rosso do not sign drivers independently of RBR&mdash;everything goes through Helmut Marko and the YDP. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Toro Rosso and McLaren constructor names
Recently, Prisonermonkeys changed the constructor's name column for McLaren and Toro Rosso from "McLaren-Renault" and "Toro Rosso-Honda" to "McLaren" and "Toro Rosso" alleging we haven't a proof the two of them will be known as "McLaren-Renault" or "Toro Rosso-Honda". I think he's basically right as no definite comment on this was given (all the PR was the standard "it's all so great" without much precision), but I personally think we should name them as "McLaren-TBA" and "Toro Rosso-TBA" as we don't have a reliable proof they'll be able to rebadge the engines with their own names either. Following Renault history in Formula One, they always prefer (or rather insist) to include their company logo and name where possible (and the "Renault brand on next year's McLaren" and "marketing and communication benefits" comments seem to suggest they plan to do it again), they don't do this anymore with Red Bull because it's only a (forced) marriage of convenience for both parts by now. As for Honda, they'll only get F1 exposure from engine/team branding in Toro Rosso (the "choose your own name" was linked to the Renault contract) and they want to prove McLaren were wrong again, so it's unlikely they won't appear in some form in the constructor name.

Anyways, that's my take on the issue, I know it isn't that important, so I leave my thoughts here instead of making a potentially disputed change. I'll accept whatever the consensus on this. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Should the same principle be extended to Force India and Sauber? I mean, we know they'll be using Mercedes and Ferrari engines respectively, but do we have confirmation that the constructor names will be "Force India-Mercedes" and "Sauber-Ferrari"? (Noting that Red Bull is a different case, as we have a source which says their Renault engine will continue to be badged as "TAG Heuers"). DH85868993 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; I think that we can reasonably assume that the full constructor name will remain the same year on year if we have a reference for the engine supplier and it is the same engine supplier. Force India are "Force India-Mercedes" in 2017, and with the Mercedes deal continuing into 2018, it is reasonable to assume that they will continue to be "Force India-Mercedes" in 2018 because there is no evidence of a change. Likewise, Sauber are continuing to use Ferrari engines and there is no evidence of a change, so the name "Sauber-Ferrari" is appropriate. On the other hand, McLaren switched from Honda to Renault, so we cannot assume the full constructor name will be "McLaren-Renault" because a) they haven't entered any races, and b) Renault have allowed their engines to be rebadged. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thought it was worth asking the question. DH85868993 (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Related: does anyone know when to expect the next 2018 entry list? They usually release them on a pretty regular schedule near the end of the season, but I don't recall when to expect the next. I think maybe mid-November? Wicka wicka (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So what about Haas? They're listed as Haas-TBA, but following this logic, surely "Haas-Ferrari" goes in here? Spa-Franks (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's normally early december, when the next WMSC convention takes place.Tvx1 15:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It's usually December, but that's no guarantee of a complete entry list. We had no idea what Toro Rosso were doing this year until the week before the first race.

@ &mdash; we have no source as to which engine Haas will use, so we cannot make any assumptions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Haas' contract with Ferrari was only two years. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Williams vs. Haas images
I have replaced the image of the Williams in the "technical changes" section with an image of a Haas. The reason for this is that because of the angle is difficult to tell whether the t-wing is a part of the shark fin or the rear wing in the Williams image, especially when viewing a thumbnail. The angle of the Haas image makes is much easier to separate the two. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; as per your edit summary:
 * ''"but that image is too blurred"
 * Sorry, but that's a load of garbage. It's either a problem with your resolution or a problem with your eyes because I can see the Haas image just fine without my reading glasses. And if you look at the Commons pages for both the Grosjean and Massa images, it's a distinction without a difference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at the two images at full size (1:1) side-by-side and on the one of the Williams the detail of the t-wing is crisp and clear, you can see how it joins to the fin and even the carbon fibre texture on its surface. OTOH, the image of the Haas so blurred that it is difficult even be able to tell that the fuzzy t-wing is attached to the fuzzy fin. There is no doubt that the image of the Williams is far sharper and clearer than the one of the Haas. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"Look at the two images at full size (1:1) side-by-side"
 * We should not be requiring readers to look at the full-size image just to understand its relevance to the article. Viewing the thumbnail should do that.
 * ''"on the one of the Williams the detail of the t-wing is crisp and clear, you can see how it joins to the fin and even the carbon fibre texture on its surface"
 * Details which are only clear when you view it in its full resolution. You cannot see them in the thumbnail view. Because of the high angle of the shot and the position of the car, it looks like the t-wing is attached to the rear wing.
 * "the image of the Haas so blurred that it is difficult even be able to tell that the fuzzy t-wing is'' attached to the fuzzy fin"
 * I have no idea what you're talking about, since I can see it perfectly clearly, even without my reading glasses. Hell, I'm red/green colour-blind and I can still see it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to differ then. Let's see if this attracts any other comments. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, the Williams image presents these details much clearer.Tvx1 16:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that the Williams image is more clear. It has a higher resolution than the Haas image. But the Haas image has a high enough resolution that it would be acceptable in the article. What the Haas image has in its favour is that the angle of the shot makes it easier to distinguish the individual elements&mdash;rear wing, t-wing and shark fin&mdash;from one another, especially in thumbnail form. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I find it easier to distinguish them on the Williams' image. That's what my reply meant.Tvx1 11:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In the Williams image, there is no apparent gap between the shark fin and the rear wing. With the t-wing being on the same horizontal plane as the rear wing, it is difficult to tell if it is attached to the shark fin or part of tge rear wing.

I expect (and indeed plan) that the image will be removed entirely once we get a decent-quality shot of the final halo design, since it's a far more significant change to the technical regulations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why can you simple not accept when I say that I find it less difficult to tell that from the Williams image. I know best myself what I see and I can full well assure that is easier to see those things on the Williams' image.Tvx1 15:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept that you find it easier to see. But we're not writing the article just for ourselves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked someone else's opinion and I gave mine. We're talking about an image here and thus on which we can see something best is what matters. And myself and have stated independently that we can see the requested details better on the Williams' image.Tvx1 23:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Williams image from the article. Firstly, someone has found a good image of the halo, and I think that should be the priority for the section. Secondly, re-reading the regulations, I don't think that the shark fin/T-wing will be as tightly regulated as expected when it was first announced (apparently teams like the shark fin for advertising space). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Grand Prix?
Catalonia has gained independence, what should we do with the Spanish Grand Prix, just leave it? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Catalonia has declared independence, which is rather distinct from actually achieving it. For now, yes the Spanish Grand Prix stays as is, unless something should occur in the region to jeopardise it. You're right to keep an eye on things, although our parochial interest in the Grand Prix is marginal in the scheme of things. QueenCake (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. They aren't independent yet. It takes quite some time for such a massive change to be completed. Moreover, Spain has already moved to disband the Catalan government and take full control of the region. But what matters most to us is that owners of the circuit de Catalunya have a contract to host the Spanish Grand Prix and as long as nothing changes regarding that contract we have no reason to change anything.Tvx1 18:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And even if Catalonia does achieve independence, that does not necessarily mean that the name of the race would change. It could still be run as the Spanish Grand Prix; Liberty and the FIA would need to approve a name change. And the race could just as easily be moved to another venue in Spain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2017
The Silas (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Blank request. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Calendar dates
I'm noticing a slight inconsistency in the article. The calendar lists the date that race takes place on. However, when it comes to the entry table, we include drivers once they have taken part in a Grand Prix weekend and we define that weekend as starting with scrutineering on the Thursday (Wednesday in Monaco) before the race. Therefore, the calendar should list two dates for the start and end of the race meeting. For example, the Australian Grand Prix is listed as taking place on 25 March, but under the definition we use elsewhere in the article it should be between 22 and 25 March. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or you could simply change the column's title to race date.Tvx1 09:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is terminology that we don't use elsewhere in the article. Like I said, we define a Grand Prix in very particular terms as part of our decision-making process. The reader doesn't see it because the reader doesn't need to see it&mdash;but an unintended consequence is that the entry list is updated to include a driver taking part in a Grand Prix three or four days before the article says the Grand Prix takes place. We cannot have one set of rules governing the structure of one section and a second set of rules dictating another section with no explanation of the difference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure we can. In fact we have had it like that for years now and I don't see any evidence that this creates a problem for our readers. The most important thing is that the sections of content are adequately supported by reliable sources. And that clearly is the case. Our teams and drivers' tables are sourced to the actual entry lists and our calendars, including dates, are reliable sourced as well.Tvx1 16:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this isn't an inconsistency at all. The article is perfectly accurate as-is. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this was ever an issue. Why reinvent the wheel? MetalDylan (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017
Change to do: Sauber F1 Team to Alfa Romeo Sauber F1 Team, as said in here: https://www.sauberf1team.com/news/the-sauber-f1-team-enters-a-multi-year-partnership-agreement-with-alfa-romeo

Also the constructor changes to Sauber-Alfa Romeo, while the power unit remains Ferrari Drfebusinc (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The team name has been changed, please provide a reliable source for the constructor change. OZOO (t) (c) 10:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's better to wait the official FIA entry list before making the construsctor change from Sauber-Ferrari to Sauber-Alfa Romeo. Ivaneurope (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction: the constructor must remain Sauber-Ferrari, as said in here: https://f1ingenerale.com/cosa-succede-con-gli-sponsor/ It's in italian, but I can translate this piece of text: "L’Alfa infatti non fornirà i motori a Sauber, ma sarà Title Sponsor (i motori saranno forniti da Ferrari e marchiati Ferrari)." Alfa will not provide engines to Sauber, but will be Title Sponsor (the engines will be provided by Ferrari with name Ferrari).

So... no problems at all!

Engines and other article issues
It says in the article to refer to the talk page, but I can't find reference to it. Why aren't the constructors listed up as Toro Rosso-Honda and McLaren-Renault?? (This is also on the F1 2019 page). Also, until the official name of McLaren's entrant is given, this should be marked up as TBC. The only engine name that is currently unconfirmed is Sauber, as this may be renamed as Alfa Romeo. (The source currently on the Ferrari engine is dated before the announcement). Pch187 (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * See here. MetalDylan (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; the short version: McLaren and Toro Rosso have not entered anything with a Renault or Honda engine yet, so how can we know what to call them? Especially since we know manufacturers are open to rebadging engines like "Red Bull–TAG Heuer". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2017
Insert Charles Leclerc (Monaco) and Marcus Ericsson (Sweden) as Alfa Romeo Sauber F1 Team drivers (Leclerc with number TBA, Ericsson with number 9) https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/sauber-confirms-ericsson-leclerc-for-2018-f1-season-985150/ Drfebusinc (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Please". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Weird headers
Why we should over-complicating the code with "Driver details" column in the Teams and drivers table, what the function of it and why we can't just use number and driver column? Or it is just another strange "aesthetic" thing produced by Prisonermonkeys? It leads to assistive technologies will get confused as they cannot know which previous headers still apply to parts of the table after the first one and it is correct not only for the headers in the middle of the table. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the policy you are enforcing only applies to table-wide headers. Did you not notice the way all of the examples provided only used table-wide headers? Please make the effort to understand the policies you are trying to enforce.


 * Secondly, some degree of clarification is needed given the repeated headers in the full version of the table. You should not be promoting a simplified table structure when it arguably makes the table unclear while a more complex structure improves the ability of readers to understand the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is just the examples, the policy doesn't addressed solely to table-wide headers (if addressed then provide a quote). The policy is not the point, the point is that the issue with assistive technologies remains the same. Do you really think that a reader wouldn't understand that column "race drivers" include driver names? It is only overloading the table and doesn't helps at all. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does help mobile and tablet users. The tables often extend beyond the width of those screens. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It might seem unnecessary right now, but I think the "Driver details" header will be more obviously useful once the Rounds and Free Practice drivers columns are added. Personally I think it really helps with readability to lump it all under one header. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But does it necessary in the season when we don't have Free practice drivers? Like in 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship? I think that keeping the header format is more important. As we even keeping pointless tyre column due to consistency, despite that since 2008 we have a single tyre supplier. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In its current form, the table extends beyond the width of the screen on mobile devices. It helps with readability. I know because I use the mobile version of Wikipedia almost exclusively.


 * As for the tyre column, that's a separate issue. You might get more of a response starting a separate section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide screenshot with the extending of the width? I also checked mobile version but hadn't seen that the width was extended.


 * My remark was more about consistency of the table, not about tyre column. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've got this one that I uploaded about eighteen months ago: When the table is up against the left border of the screen, all I get is the entrant column and "Red Bu" of the constructor column.

That's why we use the nowrap template. It forces everything onto one line for mobile and tablet viewers without affecting the desktop version. It extends the width of the table even further (it's impossible to make a table within the size of a mobile screen), but it makes everything much easier to read because it's all on one line. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you using the Wikipedia app or the mobile site in a browser? Just curious. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In-browser. I don't like the app. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. But I don't see how that screenshot justifies the extra header for the drivers in any way.Tvx1 13:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you had tried viewing the article in a mobile browser, you would see. It's hardly the most intuitive design. The best articles in mobile browsers are the ones that are highly structured, just like this. And since it in no way diminishes the ability of people using the app or the desktop browser from viewing it, I don't understand why we're having this conversation. It smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you really think I never read this site through the mobile browser??? I just don't see how this:


 * improves the table in any way. The race drivers and free practice drivers cannot fit on the screen simultaneously anyway and people can really understand that the columns detail the driver details without us having to spell it out. If it ain't broken don't try to fix it. And what were you trying to achieve ? In that you edit you replaced correct header formatting with markup creating the simulation of a header. The result of that is that assistive technology no longer knew that they were headers, which is the exact opposite of what we want to happen.Tvx1 19:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses a sans serif font as its default font. The individual letters are missing the "feet" that you would see in a serif font. This is actually less than ideal because the eyes have a harder time following from one line to the next. If you've ever gotten to the end of one line and moved on to the next, only to realise that it's the same line that you just read, chances are that it's because you're reading a sans serif font. Given the size of a mobile screen&mdash;even when rotated horizontally&mdash;you read far more individual lines than you do on the desktop version. Add in the side-scrolling effect when viewing a table and it gets even more complicated. The headers create a uniform structure to the table: the cells that have a rowspan of 2 have headers with a rowspan of two; the cells that have a rowspan of 1 still have headers with a rowspan of 1. Spatially, the table is constructed to make it easier to read in light of the limitation of the font. In short, it helps mobile and tablet users and it doesn't detract from the desktop version.


 * The header also makes it clear that the number is a driver's number. Formula 1 isn't like Supercars or NASCAR where numbers are owned by the team. Using a Tooltip the way we used to is not an option because mobile users cannot see them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely, all of that suggest its better to have one row of headers on one row and not a row with one row of headers in one cell and two rows of headers in another. The latter only exacerbates your problem. And concerning the numbers, as you know not all the numbers are the drivers'. Some are actually owned by the teams (e.g. Giovinazzi, Di Resta, Hartley and all the FP drivers in 2017) like in other classes of motorsport.Tvx1 00:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"Surely, all of that suggest its better to have one row of headers on one row and not a row with one row of headers in one cell and two rows of headers in another"

No, because the table and the headers are evenly spaced.
 * ''"not all the numbers are the drivers'. Some are actually owned by the teams"

I really don't think that we need to be detailing the numbers used by FP1 drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "No, because the table and the headers are evenly spaced."
 * No they're not. All the header are twice as large as the headers stuffed into the rightmost cell of the table right now.
 * ''"not all the numbers are the drivers'. Some are actually owned by the teams"
 * We already do. Regardless, every year there are some race drivers who use numbers which are their teams'.Tvx1 00:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"All the header are twice as large as the headers stuffed into the rightmost cell of the table right now"
 * The headers with a rowspan of 2 (eg "Entrant") are positioned above cells with a rowspan of 2 (eg "Scuderia Ferrari"). The headers with a rowspan of 1 (eg "Driver name") are positioned above cells with a rowspan of 1 (eg "Sebastian Vettel"). That's the point&mdash;the headers are formatted to be the same size as the table cells they sit on top of. That's why they're called "headers"; they sit at the head of a column.


 * ''"every year there are some race drivers who use numbers which are their teams"
 * Oh? Who raced in 2018 with a team's number? You're assuming that it will happen, which is CRYSTAL. I have given you a whole argument based on improving the readability of the article for some people without compromising the readability for others&mdash;which you haven't refuted&mdash;and the best you have got in response is something purely speculative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody has raced with a team number in 2018 because logically no one has raced in year that hasn't even started yet. I have never claimed anyone did. I only referred to the season which have passed. I never claimed it happened in 2018. Your sarcastic comment is utterly ridiculous and unnecessary. And you're comment about the rowspans is completely wrong either. If you look at the previous' seasons tables, you'll see that you're one or two rowspan headers head columns containing cell with rowspans of up to seven. Moreover, the two rows spanning headers have twice the vertical width of each of the individual one row spanning headers. There lies the basic flaw in your reasoning, you're all thinking about what the table looks like now and are complete ignoring the future development of it. And you have given exactly zero evidence of improved readability. It's just your personal opinion.Tvx1 16:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "And concerning the numbers, as you know not all the numbers are the drivers'. Some are actually owned by the teams (e.g. Giovinazzi, Di Resta, Hartley and all the FP drivers in 2017) like in other classes of motorsport." This is an extremely bad faith claim, for the record. In other motorsport series, like NASCAR or IndyCar, ALL numbers are owned and controlled by the teams. This is wholly and completely different from the fact that the FIA allocates a chunk of temporary numbers to each team for use if their reserve drivers participate in a session. These are not "owned" by the teams; drivers are still able to claim them. In no way does this one small exception justify changing the table. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it was justified by Tvx1's screenshot. Which proves the point that the extra header aren't processing correctly. So the extra header only confuses. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ''"I think it was justified by Tvx1's screenshot."
 * Except that he has deliberately misconstrued it. He has a single header spanning all drivers when he knows perfectly well that there is one for race drivers and one for free practice drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the current formatting improves accessibility for some people without compromising the article or accessibility for others. Just because you don't see that benefit, that does not mean that the benefit does not exist. Without an actual policy-based argument to oppose the current formatting, your entire line of argument amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we at least update the table so it makes that clear and matches the 2017 article? i.e. the top headers are "Race drivers" and "Free practice drivers," with "No." and "Driver name" headers below. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; yes, absolutely. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Image of Mercedes
I really think that we should avoid using the current image of the Mercedes as it just looks bad. The argument for it seems to primarily be that it is a more recent photo but is this really a reason to use an inferior image?

MetalDylan (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"The argument for it seems to primarily be that it is a more recent photo but is this really a reason to use an inferior image?"
 * Yes. The team regularly updated the car throughout the season. Plus, the image is taken from Austin, which is where Mercedes won the title.


 * ''"the current image of the Mercedes as it just looks bad"
 * In one of your edit summaries, you justified changing it because the background was blurry. But the background isn't the focus of the image; the car is, and you can see the car clearly in the Austin image, so what's the problem? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's also the fact that the framing is not as good (actual car takes up far less of the photo) and although the car is in focus the marshall and red bull engineers in the background detract from the car itself. But hey it's just my opinion and I'm trying to gauge a consensus. MetalDylan (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the US photo only shows the car side-on whereas the earlier one is angled so actually shows more detail. MetalDylan (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"the car is in focus the marshall and red bull engineers in the background detract from the car itself"
 * You were the one complaining that the background was too blurry. Now you're complaining that it's too clear?


 * ''"Also the US photo only shows the car side-on whereas the earlier one is angled so actually shows more detail"
 * Except that the car was updated between Sepang and COTA and it was the COTA car that won the title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Lewis Hamilton 2017 United States GP (38000080131).jpg


 * Perhaps this one, also from COTA, would be better? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that angle is awkward. Ideally, we want the car in profile. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the need for the car to be in profile. All we need is an image that shows the car as well as possible, as this indeed does. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't the angle of the shot is awkward and some of the details around the back end of the car are unclear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're on the wrong track here. The angle of the shot is dynamic, not "awkward" as you put it. The details of the car are unimportant, because this is an article about the 2018 campaign (which doesn't feature this car). If readers want details, they can visit Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ for them. I'd be interested in getting the opinion of some other editors (MetalDylan in particular). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is just a placeholder until the new car is revealed and we get a picture of it. The details of this one are of no importance to 2018.Tvx1 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The angle of the shot is dynamic'', not "awkward" as you put it."
 * So, in other words, it's a shot of Hamilton and as Hamilton is the more popular driver, it should be a photo of his car?


 * I don't care if you call it "awkward" or "dynamic" or "Susan"&mdash;the two proposed shots give a better view of the wjole car. This is an encyclopaedia, not an art gallery or the Lewis Hamilton Fan Club. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Er... where the hell did all that come from? It is my view that the image I proposed gives the best view of the car. Although the rear of the car is obscured, all other aspects of the car are in full view. I don't care who is driving the car, or whether it meets some sort of artistic standard. Nor do I really give that much of a shit about it, since this is merely a placeholder awaiting a 2018 example, but I'll thank you to assume good faith and maybe think a little bit about your attitude when addressing other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I still maintain that best image is the one I originally proposed because it fills the full frame, theres is nothing else in the photo, the lighting is good and the image in focus. Put simply, its the best photo of the 2017 merc available, regardless of whether its the most recent, this page just needs one from the relevant year. MetalDylan (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy with the image you suggested. The higher angle shots are superior to the profile shots, especially since this is meant to be a placeholder. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually there are some similar quality images available of Bottas driving it as well, if that's the only problem:
 * Valtteri_Bottas_2017_Malaysia_FP2_2.jpg
 * Valtteri_Bottas_2017_Malaysia_FP1.jpg


 * This any better?Tvx1 15:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * These look good too. As you said, it is only a placeholder. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "It is my view that the image I proposed gives the best view of the car''. Although the rear of the car is obscured, all other aspects of the car are in full view."
 * But the angle is awkward and I fail to see how it gives the best view given that you ackowledge that the rear is obscured, which is a criticism that cannot be levelled at any of the other images. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't see the rear of the car in literally any of these photos, including the one you are promoting. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This whole debate is ridiculous, especially considering this is only a placeholder until we get an image of the 2018 car. When it doesn't matter, you pick what looks good! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

When I say "the rear of the car", I mean the space betweem the sidepod and rear tyre; the equivalent of the rear quarter panel. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But for this article, why does it matter? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)