Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship

New car numbering system

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

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

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

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

Assuming the change happens, I think this is the best method for ordering the table. I would suggest (and perhaps this is what you meant) that the table be ordered by the constructor name, rather than team name. For example, this would mean it would be Red Bull, not Infiniti Red Bull racing. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Another way to do might be sort by lowest number within the team - like in V8 Supercar's example. --Falcadore (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what Prisonermonkeys was referring to when he said "ordering the table to reflect this would be based purely on which driver is at which team in a given year...". I think ordering by Constructor name is the easiest, fairest, and most stable for changes between seasons. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Consensus

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

All in favour? And is anyone opposed? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, we've already had permanent numbers in Formula One before albeit based on the teams. Some research on the wikipedia articles dealing with the seasons from that era shows that the practice was to order them by number nevertheless. Maybe we should remain consistent with the already established practice? Tvx1 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the numbers then where connected to the teams, not the drivers. So, Ferrari had for years numbers 27 and 28 (i believe), and the drivers for Ferrari did get one of these numbers, and an other number when they transfer to an other team. So, that system will not work now Perijn (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Retroactively changing all of the tables to list constructors alphabetically would be a pointless and unnecessary exercise. Even though those tables changed from year to year, those changes were dictated by a single, consistent rule. Numbers correlated with WCC finishing positions. But if we arrange the tables from 2014 numerically, they will change from year to year based on the whims of drivers who choose numbers for personal reasons. That is what I want to preserve - the stability of the table now that the numbering system has changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a possible alternative, which is to arrange the teams by championship finishing order (as we currently do) and then drivers within teams by their number. This will result in the least amount of change from previous seasons. Readers are used to coming to these pages and seeing the most successful teams at the top of the table. However, I recognize that this is Wikipedia, and simple/convenient/effective solutions are rarely agreed upon. So when this idea is inevitably shot down I would support Prisonermonkeys' suggestion. Eightball (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I like your proposition. Tvx1 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of that. It certainly seems counterproductive to list teammates at disparate points in the table, so grouping by team should continue. Once there we are just left with the question of how to order the teams - numbers, now being driver-determined, are irrelevant to the matter, so we are left pretty much with alphabetical or heirarchical (I suppose we could order by engine, but even then we'd have to decide within a single manufacturer). While alphabetical may be an equitable arrangement, by previous year's championship order makes more sense to me. It has some continuity with the previous system anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer Eightball's idea of listing by WCC order. It maintains consistency with previous articles and it brings more meaning to the table. Drivers should probably be listed by number order although the numbers are purely arbitrary. We never worried before about maintaining a consistent order of teams within the table, so I'm not entirely sure why we would do so now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1	Sebastian Vettel	All
					46	Daniel Ricciardo	All
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	P	4	Lewis Hamilton	All
					6	Nico Rosberg	All
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	P	7	Fernando Alonso	All
					14	Kimi Räikkönen	All
Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-TBA	TBA	TBA	P	56	Romain Grosjean	1–17
					71	Heikki Kovalainen	18–19
					85	Pastor Maldonado	All
McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	P	12	Jenson Button	All
					90	Kevin Magnussen	All
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	P	27	Nico Hülkenberg	All
					85	Sergio Pérez	All
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari	P	23	Sergey Sirotkin	All
					59	Adrian Sutil	All
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	20	Daniil Kvyat	All
					25	Jean-Éric Vergne	All
Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	P	19	Valtteri Bottas	All
					72	Felipe Massa	All
Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	P	40	Jules Bianchi	All
					98	TBA	All
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	36	TBA	All
					64	TBA	All

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

I never said that arranging the teams by WCC position would make things complicated. I said that arranging the table numerically would make things complicated because a team's position in the table would depend on which drivers (and therefore which numbers) they had. Arranging the table numerically is a bad system because the table would go through half a dozen reshuffles every year as drivers moved about. Mid-season changes could wreak havoc, as would edits based off rumours of driver moves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That looks ok to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No one is suggesting arranging the table numerically. Even if we did, how in the world would that result in the table being shuffled about multiple times per year? Nothing you're saying makes any sense. Let's just keep doing what we've been doing - arranging the table by WCC finishing order - and SLIGHTLY modify it to accompany the new numbers. BB already did it, FFS. Easy. Eightball (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You act like their are dozens of mid-season changes every season while there have been only two in the last three two seasons. Anyways iI support the proposal of ordering by WCC finishing order as well. Bretonbanquet's visual example proves that it works just fine. Tvx1 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Confirmation

At which point are we considering numbers for each driver to be confirmed? Various drivers have 'confirmed' that they have their chosen number (e.g. Massa claiming to have 19 ) but nothing from FIA/FOM/etc. ItsAudioworm (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I propose we wait until the FIA release the full list. While it's true that drivers have stated their preference, it's still possible that one of the drivers who finished higher up the order will pick the same number as Massa or Bottas.JohnMcButts (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I had the same concerns and was planning to put the question myself here, but you have beaten me to it. Taking everything into account. I think would be best to wait until the official entry list is released as well. Tvx1 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever any doubt about confirmation. As soon as the FIA said that drivers needed to submit three numbers in case two or more drivers applied for the same number, it was obvious that we would have to wait for an entry list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we use the same logic for drivers? Because it doesn't include Sirotkin? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the entry list only contains drivers the teams have submitted to the FIA. Sauber signed Hulkenberg and Gutierrez late last year for the 2013 season (and there was no debate over their inclusion in the article), but did not submit the paperwork for the provisional entry list. So even though they had signed the drivers, Hulkenberg and Gutierrez did not appear on the first entry list. They appeared on subsequent lists, but not the first one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

[1] A current list. Something's missing. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Identical to the Hulkenberg/Gutierrez example explained above. This is provisional entry list and Sauber clearly haven't submitted all the paperwork. Tvx1 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a line of discussion that is better suited to other parts of the talk page. We will never achieve a consensus if we are having the sane debate on four different fronts. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. Now could we refocus THIS discussion to the numbering system. Tvx1 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to refocus this discussion to the numbering system. Why not have the numbering system be consistent with the above logic surrounding Sirotkin? Discuss it here, discuss it above; the inconsistency of it all is making the whole situation appear even more absurd than it already does, which is saying something. If a three-word response to an unquoted question is sufficient confirmation re: a complex and secretive driver contract, why isn't a driver's announcing his own number sufficient in this case? And please, don't tell me I don't understand Wikipedia, or the purpose of the table, explain the logic that justifies reaching two different conclusions off highly similar sets of premises. Thanks. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Because most drivers have been announcing their number choices on Twitter, and Twitter is not a reliable source as it is self-published. WP:TWITTER makes this pretty clear. Secondly, the preference system means drivers might not get the numbers they declare on Twitter - Jules Bianchi says he wants 7, 27 or 77 as his number, but Bottas says he wants 77, Vergne has listed 27 as one of his three choices, and it has been suggested that Raikkonen wants 7. All three will get priority over Bianchi, so how could we reasonably include any of those numbers for Bianchi? We don't even know which number Bianchi's first choice.

If you wish to discuss Sirotkin, please do so in the Sirotkin section instead of making specious arguments in other sections that disrupt and distract from the actual issue under consideration. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, there seems to be a misunderdstanding about the WP:TWITTER clause. I will cite the entire section:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

In essence, this means that we can use a tweet as a source for something about a driver as long as it's published by the driver him/herself and concerns an information about that same driver.

The main reason why we cannot put the driver numbers on this page yet is, as you stated, the drivers can only state their preference, but the ultimate decision which number they actually receive is up to the FIA. Tvx1 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

All of this is academic, anyway. The IP editor above only raised the issue as a straw-man argument against Sirotkin's inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we're not going to include numbers until there is an official entry list or any sort of real confirmation whatsoever. I fail to see how this even warrants a discussion. Eightball (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest hiding/removing the car number column until the entry list had been published - having the column there full of TBAs is just going to encourage people to put values in there - like this and this. DH85868993 (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If they keep getting added, then I would support hiding the numbers column until the entry list is published. In addition, I think we should change the mouse over tool-tip to say "Driver Numbers" rather than "Car Numbers". JohnMcButts (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed to Driver Numbers. Tvx1 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

So we need an entry list published by the FIA to confirm the numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• They haven't been confirmed, and I object strongly to the IP's high-and-mighty tone - "no exception unless stated"; really? Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 10:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Drivers whose numbers have not been confirmed can be put as TBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.99.104 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• You know those aren't confirmations at all? These drivers have chosen the numbers; the FIA haven't said that they can have the numbers yet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these are confirmations but these are to be reconfirmed. Prove it. That number colomn needs to be done.--86.28.99.104 (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think you know what the word "confirmed" means - the drivers have selected the numbers they want, but the FIA haven't assigned numbers yet. And get off your fucking high-horse. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You requested a source. I gave you one. Moreover Prisonermonkeys already wrote a source in the Edit summary.

Yes, it is true, that this article contains some unconfirmed numbers. But it also sais that Magnussen got the 20 as his number. --Gamma127 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid even Magnussen's number remains unconfirmed in that source. The list provided clearly puts Magnussen's number in the column labeled "Wunschnummer" which translates as "preferred number" Furthermore, a couple of drivers ranked above him have not stated their numbers yet. If even one of them chooses 20 as well Magnussen will not get it. Whether you want it or not, we can't be certain at the moment. Tvx1 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The number is confirmed in the source: McLaren-Pilot Kevin Magnussen wird in seiner ersten Formel-1-Saison mit der Startnummer 20 antreten. means Magnussen is going to drive with #20 in his first Formula 1 season. Otherwise [2] --Gamma127 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes what you cite there is correct. However directly underneath that text there is a list which clearly puts Magnussen's #20 as preferred number. This is similar to this source [3]. I have explained in my earlier reply how another driver might get that number instead of him. This is not FIA confirmation but the driver's preference. Tvx1 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the guys who works for Red Bull (I am unsure of his exact role in the team) posted an update on Twitter yesterday saying that number choices would be revealed. It appears that the FIA informed teams and drivers of their numbers yesterday, but did not publish an entry list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That may well be, but we do not have proof to substantiate that. Number choices would be revealed? Which number choices? The preferred choices of the drivers? The choices of the Red Bull drivers (i.e. Vettel, Ricciardo and possibly da Costa)? Confirmation of some numbers chosen by the drivers. How can the FIA even assign the definitive numbers if not everyone has stated their choices yet? There are even three driver slots still to be filled so how can they already assign numbers then? If you read the Motorsport Magazin and Sky Sports sources provided earlier you will notice that the list of preferred numbers is all but complete. Please stop making premature conclusions. Concerning Magnussen the sources provided do not prove that his number has been confirmed by the FIA so we can't include it yet. Tvx1 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The FIA cannot wait until every seat is filled. Maybe one seat would be vacant until the week before Australia. At the latest the beginning of the official tests, every driver has his number. Probably they have their numbers at the presentations at the end of this month. And then the numbers are final. I do not think, that they alter the numbers when Webber fill in spontaneously in Australia.

Magnussen has already confirmed his number, so the FIA probably made the assignment. --Gamma127 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

The key word we are looking for is FIA. It is not present in the tweets, so we can't be certain. Furthermore, how can FIA confirm Ricciardo's number if Vettel, Hamilton, Hülkenberg and Sutil still have to state their choices? And what would happen if Caterham or Marussia were to sign Di Resta? The Sky Sports source [4] supplied above makes it clear that the all the numbers currently known are driver choices and not FIA confirmations. I suggest we hide the driver numbers column (once again) until we have som entry list like we had originally agreed upon. Tvx1 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

• [5] - it's all sorted now, we can stop fighting. Even if Sky Sports fucked up the title. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. NOW we do have an entry list and there is no longer a problem with displaying the numbers. Tvx1 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

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

Sub-heading

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

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

Arranged by 2013 WCC positions

Constructor	No.	Race drivers	Rounds
Red Bull-Renault	1	Sebastian Vettel	All
	67	Daniel Ricciardo	All
Mercedes	9	Nico Rosberg	All
	84	Lewis Hamilton	All
Ferrari	3	Fernando Alonso	All
	52	Kimi Raikkonen	All

Arranged alphabetically by constructor name

Constructor	No.	Race drivers	Rounds
Ferrari	3	Fernando Alonso	All
	52	Kimi Raikkonen	All
Mercedes	9	Nico Rosberg	All
	84	Lewis Hamilton	All
Red Bull-Renault	1	Sebastian Vettel	All
	67	Daniel Ricciardo	All

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

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

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

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

Arranging the table alphabetically be constructor is the way to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Recent discussions about other issues with the page have emphasised the need for readability in the article. If that is the case, then listing the teams alphabetically is the only way forward. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

PM, you're the only one keeping this argument going. Please grow up, stop dragging your feet, and let's get back to being actually productive. This is ridiculous. Eightball (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

All I am doing is proposing that we use the same system as the IndyCar season pages, like 2013 IndyCar Series season. They arrange the team and driver table alphabetically by team name, and it works just fine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And all anyone else is doing is suggesting that we keep doing the best approximation of what we've been doing because there's no reason to change it. You've yet to give one single reason why you think it should be alphabetical, not one. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over, we might as well just make this change now. I could have poorly raised a child in the time you've spent pointlessly bickering about nothing. Eightball (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Echoing what Eightball said, you are arguing against an already in place system with a system being used on one page that actually, is a little bit more complicated. Talk about joining the minority. Once the numbers are officially released, we will update the table to it's normal conduct. So yes, this conversation is over. Joetri10 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would like to point out that this page is about the 2014 season, and that the standings from the 2013 season are helpfully included in the 2013 page. This page is for everyone, not just Formula 1 fans. Ordering alphabetically is easier for readers who are not familiar with the sport to understand, and will not make it any harder for F1 fans to use this page. JohnMcButts (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the merits of placing the teams in the previous years constructors' championship order? It never has been before. Claims of consistency within Wikipedia are wide of the mark. --Falcadore (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about Falcadore? Or are you just trying to be clever because it's not funny and it's not helping.

Looking as far back as the 2007 season, the chart has always listed the teams in order of their previous WCC position. The only one that is a bit messy is 2009 due to Jenson Button winning for Brawn which then disbanded leaving Button to join McLaren, carrying over his No.1. Technically on this then yes well done, we have been listing them by their car numbers. The problem here though is why does a car number matter when the actual reason we were listing them by car number was because of where the team finished in the WCC anyway. Stop fighting this because it's getting ridiculous now. Follow the system you have put in place yourself or just don't edit at all. Joetri10 (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

The same logic applies here: the final WCC standings from 2013 do not affect anything in the 2014 season, so arranging the table based on the those standings does not make sense. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, the 2013 standings do affect something in the 2014 season. They determine the order in which the pit boxes are assigned to the teams, which will affect the pitstops during the season. If we arrange the table by WCC position we reflect the order of the teams in the pit lane at each grand prix. If we arrange them alphabetically the numbers would be just as random than if we arrange them by WCC order. Tvx1 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

What an incredible misconception to justify using "Same Logic". Changing/Gaining sponsors is in fact possibly one of the most important aspects in this sport right now what with money being spent like grain fed to chickens. I'm actually surprised this page doesn't note when sponsors are gained/changed.

And look, this is getting just plain stupid now so i'll propose a table that we can all agree on that I mentioned a short while back.

Constructor	No.	Race drivers	Rounds
Red Bull-Renault	1	Sebastian Vettel	All
	67	Daniel Ricciardo	All
Mercedes	9	Nico Rosberg	All
	84	Lewis Hamilton	All
Ferrari	3	Fernando Alonso	All
	52	Kimi Raikkonen	All

By adding the option to sort the table, the original layout would be that of the WCC whilst giving the option to not only alphabetize the team names but everything else. (Though this is just a rough drafted example as I'm not great with scripting and I don't know how to make it organize their names and not the countries without tagging them to the end of the name and not before it. You get the point though) Joetri10 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a great compromise. Tvx1 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The trouble with that table, is that it can't be reverted to original layout of the 2013 WCC standings without adding a field that shows the 2013 finishing positions. This is a list of teams and drivers competing in the 2014 season, not a result table for 2014. The information about 2013 is, as one would expect, on the 2013 page. JohnMcButts (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about Falcadore? Or are you just trying to be clever because it's not funny and it's not helping.

Looking as far back as the 2007 season, the chart has always listed the teams in order of their previous WCC position. The only one that is a bit messy is 2009 due to Jenson Button winning for Brawn which then disbanded leaving Button to join McLaren, carrying over his No.1.

No Joetri it is not. It has ALWAYS been numerological order not constructors championship order. There have been in recent times two occasions when a team has requested to be put at the back of the numbers - mainly because they guessed the numbers then ordered their merchandise and later found out they had guessed the numbers wrong. Those two years, in 2010 Virgin swapped with BMW Sauber as technically in constructors order Virgin should have been ahead of Sauber because Sauber was completely de-registerred as a team during the ownership change from BMW back to Peter Sauber and associates. Brawn also went to the back of the number in 2009 even though they should have been further up the order. So no your assumption that it has been Constructors order in the past is NOT correct.

Additionally seasons backwards from 1992 - prior to the assignment of number in constructors order - the teams are ranked numerologically as well.

So all those who have claimed that Wikipedia has been ranking the teams in constructors order - no we have not. It's always been numerological order. Constructors order is, and always has been bogus and should NOT be used as a basis for argument.

All you had to do was look at a season prior to '93 and you would have seen that. --Falcadore (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for your information, on the official entry list they are arranged by WCC order as well.[6],[7],[8],[9] Tvx1 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of the system being used

Okay, this is a bit unusual but with all the tables in the above discussion, my mobile browser cannot handle it when I try to edit, so I am forced to create a new subsection so that I can actually contribute to the discussion.

Anyway, I noticed that the table has been re-edited in the past hour or so to order the table, based on WCC order with the edit summary that the system made no sense. So that there can be no cause for confusion, I am going to describe the reasoning behind it.

The table is currently arranged sequentially based on the lowest number being used. The lowest number at Mercedes is 6, and the lowest at Ferrari is 7, so Mercedes is listed first. Likewise Williams and McLaren, where the lowest number at Williams is 19 and the lowest at McLaren is 20; therefore, Williams is listed first.

This does create a couple of unusual patterns, like Sauber and Toro Rosso going 21-99-25-26, or Lotus and Force India going 8-13-11-27, but this system is widely used in motorsport season articles, mostly for touring car racing. V8 Supercars, the BTCC and WTCC all do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's the system Formula One articles have been using all along. So I don't see why it has to be justified by comparing to Indycar and WTCC. --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Now the list looks more confusing and unprofessional as it did previously!

I give up with you guys, I actually do. The fact that it's been SO hard to just change the table to WCC standing when now even the FIA has listed it that way is just extremely appalling. I get it, it's been listed by driver numbers in the past, but that was BECAUSE OF THE WCC STANDINGS. Yes, I get it, sometimes there were exceptions but for goodness sake. I just think you two love a good argument, you two should be ashamed. Joetri10 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No actually you are wrong. Prior to 1993 it was never in constructors order. Since then there have been several small examples where the number order has varied from constructors order and we've always chosen number order instead of constructors order. Just because you've been led to believe something other than the truth does not mean I should agree with you and not point out the truth. If you feel frustrated it is because the foundation of your argument is false and that is certainly not my fault. --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore, I was pointing to those other examples because they are separate to Formula 1, because I thought it would be easier to show it at work if I used an example outside Formula 1 so as to avoid confusion.

Joetri10, it does not matter what format the FIA publishes an entry list. We are free to use our discretion in how we represent it in the article. For instance, the draft entry list for this year's Rally Sweden lists competitors in the order that they registered for the event. However, the relevant articles show these entries in the most convenient way. To be honest, I do not understand your fixation with listing the entries by WCC order. As Falcadore rightly points out, the table has always been arranged numerically. The difference between 2013 and 2014 is that the FIA has changed the system for assigning numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The numbers that were arranged numerically were from where the team finished in the WCC (in recent times). How are you not getting this! Previously RedBull listed as Car No.1 and No.2 because they won the WCC, Ferrari finishing 2nd meant Alonso and Massa were 3rd and 4th and so on. The numbers were convenient but otherwise only support the reason in which they were listed. Now that drivers can chose their own number you scrap the actual concept while holding on your "Original System" which actually now, is used in f1 completely different. It's not hard. For the record, the other sites that use a system other then ranking make no sense either. Joetri10 (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No other season articles for any series arrange their numbers based on WCC position. Touring car pages and Formula 3 go sequentially. NASCAR, DTM and WRC go by manufacturer, then sequentially. IndyCar pages go alphabetically by team name, then sequentially within the team. ERC and IRC pages do not use numbers at all. In short, Formula 1 is the only series that ever had numbers that were assigned by championship position. Even then, that was only incidental. The FIA could have assigned numbers based on whoever was voted Most Eligible Bachelor each year, and the numbers would have been arranged sequentially in the articles. You are working this whole thing backwards - you are assuming that we prioritised WCC standings in arranging the table, and that the numbers just happened to be in sequential order. But this is not the case. Those tables were arranged in numerical order, which just happened to reflect WCC standings.

Furthermore, it does not matter how the sources given represent the entry list. So long as we show the same content as they do and maintain a neutral point of view, how we represent that content in the article is our perogative. Since numbers no longer coincide with WCC position, the decision was taken to arrange the teams in numerical order rather than WCC order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No Joetri it wasn't. I'm sorry you chose to believe otherwise but that is not the case. Do you need proof? --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the last straw. Everyone here but you is in agreement to sort the table as we've been doing all along, in WCC order, as EVEN THE OFFICIAL FIA ENTRY LIST IS SORTED. Furthermore, literally not one single person thinks the god awful way you've tried to sort the table (by lowest number, lmao) is in any way helpful. It provides no value whatsoever and is a completely random departure from what we've been doing. Please stop acting like a child and return to contributing instead of vandalizing. You're not going to get your way. Eightball (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And you know what else? I'm certainly a douchebag, but I still try to assume good faith. But I cannot do that here. It's pretty plainly obvious to me that you're upset that everyone (read: everyone) is disagreeing with you and are responding by editing the article in a way you know no one wants. You've even questioned the FIA entry list itself. What source in the world would we possibly trust if not the official entry list released by the people who run the sport? Eightball (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument holds absolutely no weight. You claim that the table should be arranged based on WCC order because that is the way it has always been done. But those tables were only arranged based on WCC order because the numbers assigned to the teams were based on the WCC order. Since the numbers are no longer based on WCC order, arranging the table based on WCC order makes no sense.

On top of that, you don't have a consensus. You claim that I am a lone voice arguing in favour of one system, but there are at least two other editors who I share my views with. And as I said, it does not matter how sources arrange content; we are free to represent it however we choose, so long as we are accurate and neutral about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. Just stop. Eightball (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As Prisonermonkeys says, numerical order has always been the basis for these tables (and in my opinion it is sensible that it should remain that way). If you look at any of the season articles between 1974 and 1995 (when teams generally kept the same numbers from season to season) you will realise that this is the case. Take 1986, for example. Tyrrell finished in 9th/10th in the previous season's WCC, but are listed 2nd. Ferrari finished 2nd the year before but are 13th on the table.

As an aside, I would suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism before you accuse other editors of vandalism, just because you happen to disagree with their edits. Such behaviour is not exactly constructive. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nor do I think it's particularly constructive to repeatedly and stubbornly edit the page to make it worse simply because you can't get what you want, which is what Prisonermonkeys is doing, hence why I call it vandalism. If he wants to try to justify sorting the table in the least useful, least supported way then he can go ahead. Until then I'm going to insist that what he's doing is vandalism. Eightball (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Look Eightball, I'm sorry that you believe it has always been constructor's order in the past but that is simply not the case and it is a conclusion you've leapt to. --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "least supported way" when four editors - myself, John McButts, Falcadore and now deape gecweld - are if the same opinion?

On top of that, why do you keep removing 8,000KB of content? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I do have to apologize for that, I did not release the version with the corrected table omitted the team/driver changes. Sorry. Eightball (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I would like to point out that I have voiced support for sorting the table alphabetically, not based on lowest number within the team. This table is designed to inform readers about what teams (and drivers) are competing in the current season. It is NOT meant to show the results of a previous season. In addition, basing the table on the lowest number in the team is ridiculous. It means that the table would have to change whenever a driver changes teams mid-season, and the order is not clear for new readers. Alphabetical is by far the fairest, easiest to understand, and it will be stable during the season.

If I had to guess, the only reason why these other series use the 'Lowest Number First' is to guarantee that reigning driver's champion is listed first. This is not a problem for us, as we list the defending champion at the top of the article (we even have his picture). JohnMcButts (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't guess. It's what Joetri and Eightball have done leading to this mess of a discussion. And as some series, most notably NASCAR, do not award #1 to the defending champion, or in the case of most open wheel series because they are ladders towards F1 or Indycar so there is never a defending champion. Race number is simply a convenient sorting mechanism. Like alphabetical order of drivers name, although that becomes difficult in linking team mates together. Sorting by team name is difficult for most series because teams are not always well known or even easily identifiable where team mates have individual sponsorship arrangements and sometimes change during the year. Race number is simply the most consistent value that allows sorting via teams.

I have twenty to thirty years of race programs stacked on my shelves here from a variety of regional, national and international motor racing series. Is it a co-incidence that they ALL display drivers in numerological order? What does it say in the race programs you own? What is the prefered method of the hundreds of motor racing series official websites out there? It is by a very long way the most used method of sorting competitors in a list the world over. Why is that not mentioned anywhere in these discussions? --Falcadore (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I have completely lost your logic right now. Within a week you have supported three(!) different systems of ordering the table. You started the week having agreed to the WCC order proposal, than you suddenly changed your mind and supported the alphabetical order proposal and now you suddenly change your support to something you shoved aside right from the beginning: the, somewhat, numerical order proposal. How are we ever going to reach a consensus on this issue if you keep changing your mind every five steps. Having said that, why do we need to endlessly make comparisons with other motorsports? This is like comparing tennis to football to baseball. They all use balls to score points, but apart from that they have different rules and have different traditions. They same goes for all the motorsports. They all use a vehicle to win races but aside from that, they all have different rules and traditions. It's sheer madness to try and forge some consistency between all of them. I think our primary concern should be to try and keep some sort of consistency between the boundaries of our own project. If there is one thing that has been somewhat consistent throughout the majority of the formula one season's pages is that the defending champion is listed on top of the table. That is, if he was still competing of course. I can think of at least three examples (1971,1993,1994) where the defending champion did no longer compete. If we put the three proposals to the test, it immediately takes out alphabetically. Now if we go by WCC order, we would have the problem that we have no guarantee that the defending WDC champion will remain with the WCC champion and therefore that he (or she) will be on top. With the numerical order the defending champion will be on top as long as he/she exercises the right to uses number 1. All in all I feel that going by somewhat numerical order is not a bad compromise.

Putting this whole situation in a greater context it's time that we put this ridiculous, childish discussion to and end, because frankly to much time and cyberspace has been spent bickering about a stupid order for a simple table. It's really sad that a bunch of grown up people cannot get to an agreement by having a debate with even some remote civility. All of us should ask themselves the question how many readers actually care about there being a logical order. To give an example: can anyone give me an explanation which logical order there is in the tables for the 1951 Formula One season and for the 1960 Formula One season? Yet I don't see any complaint by any user about a lack thereof. So is it really a matter of life an death for all of you to see your favorite proposal being selected. Please take a moment to think about that. Tvx1 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to change my mind? I liked the idea of WCC standings. Then I changed my mind after I though about it. Then Falcadore convinced me to go with numbers rather than alphabetically.

Also, I do not see why we need to list the defending WDC first. The table is not there to reflect championship standings. It is there to reflect entries. The champions are already covered in the lead, both in prose and photographically. Listing them first in the table because they are champions is not going to improve anyone's understanding of the season.

On top of that, two season articles with an unusual format do not make your case. As far as I can tell, the argument for keeping WCC order boils down to "we have always done it that way".

Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We have always done it that way, it maintains consistency, limits confusion, AND it's the way the FIA sorts their own damn list. I fail to see how this is the slightest bit complicated. Eightball (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As I, and several other editors have been trying to explain, we have not always done it that way. Numerical order is the consistent policy that we have followed (even though it may have appeared that we were following WCC order).

The apparently unusual format of the two tables mentioned (and, in fact, all the entrant tables prior to 1974) actually follows essentially the same logic of all the post-1974 tables. Since there were no permanent numbers allocated in those seasons, and the actual numbers allocated often varied considerably from race to race (e.g. sometimes only even numbers were used), the entrant tables follow numerical order based on the first race that an entrant participated in. So, taking 1951 as an example, the entrants up to and including Peter Hirt were numerically in that order for the first race, the Swiss GP. Following those entrants are Ecurie Belgique and Pierre Levegh, who first appeared in Belgium (in that order, numerically). Etc. Just thought I'd clear that up, as it seemed to be causing some confusion. If anything, this seems to back up the argument that numerical order should continue to be used, for consistency, if nothing else. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1: Understanding Prisonermonkey's logic is not the goal. Coming to a conclusion is.

As I see it we have the existing method of ordering by race number, the occasional used elsewhere alphabetical by team, and the never used previously constructor's order.

I ask all of you - what is the purpose of a racing car's number? Is it not, (and always has been) to individually identify one car of of the many in the race? The only purpose of a race number is to be the primary source of individuality amongst the competitors. Why not respect that? Ever since they first started putting numbers on race horses well over a century ago it was for the exaact purpose of singling each competitor out for the purposes of identification in programs and in event scoring. It is the most obvious method of sorting competitors in a list.

Two suggest the previous years constructors order is illogical because it implies that each year the results are expected to be the same as the previous.

Race numbers were invented expressly for this purpose. Why is that difficult to understand? --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Every year before this (unless you start going really far back) has been sorted by WCC order. Obviously some of you are going to claim that, no, it was sorted numerically, and the fact that numbers were assigned based on WCC order is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter if you're right. The simple fact is that, for whatever reasons, teams ended up being sorted by the previous year's WCC order. And that's how we're keeping it. End of story. Also, none of you have even attempted to give me a reason not to just use the FIA's order. So there's that. Eightball (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: collapsible table for test drivers

With the 2014 regulations changing to allow teams more time in FP1 and their being encouraged to run rookie drivers, I am a little concerned that if we continue with the table system used on previous season articles, then test drivers are going to dominate the table if teams start rotating those FP1 drivers. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if only a handful of teams actually do this, then we get ourselves into a situation where we have a large column full of blank space. And given that the table is for teams and drivers who are actually competing, the column seems a little out of place. So, as an alternative, I propose using a collapsible table to show the FP1 drivers, similar to the one used on the 2014 World Rally Championship season article.

This is what the the table would look like under the current system:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds	Free Practice driver(s)
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	#	Daniel Ricciardo	TBA	Antonio Felix da Costa
					#	Sebastian Vettel	TBA

And this is what it would look like with a collapsible table for FP1 drivers (I forced the table width for cosmetic purposes; this could be changed):

Teams and drivers who competed in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	#	Daniel Ricciardo	TBA
					#	Sebastian Vettel	TBA

Teams and drivers who took part in Free Practice 1 sessions
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Driver	Rounds
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	#	Antonio Felix da Costa	TBA

The advantages of this are many: it keeps the secondary information in the article, but does so in a way that it does not distract from the main focus of the table; that information is available should the reader choose to pursue it. It allows us to be more accurate in highlighting which FP1 drivers took part in which rounds without the risk of extending the main table beyond its bounds. And if certain teams choose not to enter a driver in FP1 sessions, then we haven't dedicated space to covering something that does not happen. It is a neat and tidy system that keeps the most relevant information in the most appropriate place.

There are some drawbacks. For one, it requires some duplication of information, and may cause the article to grow in size considerably. Secondly, it does mean another table in the article, which I think will be unpopular, even if it is hidden (but only because I couldn't figure out how to attach it to the bottom of the existing table whilst keeping the collapsible function intact). And users browsing on mobile devices will always see it, because the mobile version of Wikipedia doesn't allow for the collapsible function at all.

Personally, I am in favour of it (if I wasn't, then I wouldn't suggest it), and would like to trial its introduction through the year. If successful, we might be able to roll it out to other season articles. I think it addresses every issue everyone has ever had with the presence of the test driver column and is worth including. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

At the F1 wiki we have a table that lists test drivers on our 2013 article. Maybe adding their "official" role into the table may be a good idea? Also, we only need the "number" column in the testers table if the test drivers also get to pick their own numbers.

Anyway, I don't think the testers table is actually a good idea. The sheer amount of wikitext added in is too much and surely it represents a bit of stat creep? I believe the data can be added in brackets and/or via a tooltip. So a final column entry could look like this:

Free Practice driver(s) (Rnds)
Antonio Felix da Costa (5, 11, 15)

Which saves a lot of space and basically shows the same data, but kinda has a lot of tooltips. If testers get to choose their own number, this number can be placed where flag guidelines advise it to be placed. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about what happens when a team runs five or six FP1 drivers over the season. That field will become the largest, and will overshadow the rest of the table. Look at the 2010 season article - before the definition of test driver was redefined this year, they had five separate drivers listed in that column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you could make the specific cell text in the column hideable, again, like on my wiki page, stating something like "five FP1 drivers", which can be expanded to show the drivers and the rounds. I really feel that creating a whole new table is just a little excessive, especially when most of the data gets repeated.

Unless... you want to remove the repeated data from the testers table and have a much smaller table, that only lists "constructor" (constructor-engine combination, not official team name), "number" (if driver gets his own), "driver" and "rounds". Data is not repeated and readers can refer to the above table for the extra data. I realise that this table won't work if multiple chassis, engine or tyre manufacturers are used, but with the way F1 currently works, none of those are likely to change mid-season. —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to continue with the current system for now and worry about it if one team runs 5 or 6 drivers (and we think it makes the table look ugly). DH85868993 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I still think that places undue weight on their presence and role within the team. The race drivers race; they take part in every session over the course of a Grand Prix weekend. In 2014, FP1 drivers will drive the car for thirty minutes (or at most two hours) at the start of the first session. Putting them in the same table as one another places too much emphasis on FP1 drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

How about we don't tabulate them AT ALL and only mention them if they somehow make a significant contribution to the season. If teams are going to change FP1 drivers on a case by case basis, perhaps individual Grand Prix reports could carry the information in a non-tabulated paragraph of text?

It should be born in mind the this 2014 season article is a summarised report of the season. If FP1 drivers have no real influence on the season then why mention them at all? Wikipedia isn't a collection of tables. Tables exist to expand upon the text not replace it. If the FP1 drivers aren't worth mentioning in the text then they definately are not worth tabulating. --Falcadore (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

They take part in the event and the eventual consensus was that they should be mentioned in the table, but only if they take part in an FP1 and don't race. I say we leave it as it is (I know I suggested improvements, but this is a reasoned suggestion). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a test driver who drove in FP1 gets promoted to a race seat, then he would be removed from the FP1 drivers column for that team and placed in their race drivers column. This would mean that the data on which rounds he drove in would be lost; considering that one aspect of the column would be compromised so easily, then changing it seems misguided. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're debating something different than the previous consensus, then not showing is an option. --Falcadore (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing the collapsible table. I feel those drivers make enough of a contribution to merit inclusion in the article, but I feel their inclusion in the table alongside the drivers who qualify and race overstates their importance. The advantage of a collapsible table is that it allows us to include them without overstating their role by providing that content in such a way that the reader can follow up on it if they so choose.

The main disadvantage is that it doubles up on a lot of the table content (ie the constructor-chassis-engine-tyre combinations), but exactly what that collapsible table would include is open to discussion. I really just copy-pasted the raw code over to highlight how it would work and what it would look like. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think something like this would be ideal if we use a separate table.

Teams and drivers who took part in Free Practice 1 sessions
Team	Driver	Rounds
Red Bull–Renault	Antonio Felix da Costa	TBA
	Sébastien Buemi	TBA
Sauber–Scuderia Ferrari	Robin Frijns	TBA

It removes the information that is unnecessary for a FP1 driver table, as it is already included in the main table. JohnMcButts (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That is more or less one of the things I proposed above. I am fine with this if it is all that is changed/added. But there has to be something that states "but did not race". —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

GyaroMaguus, that is easily fixed - put a bar across the top of each table, one with the heading "Teams and drivers who competed in Grands Prix", and the other with the heading "Teams and drivers who participated in selected Free Practice 1 sessions". That should differentiate them. I think I did something similar when I first proposed the collapsible table format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I find that to be a workable solution – it even helps explain what the first table is about to anyone who knows nothing about F1. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we will also need to figure out which fields should be included in a collapsible table for FP1 drivers. The constructor, driver and the rounds are the obvious ones, but I think we would also need to include the chassis and tyre used to demonstrate that the FP1 drivers are using the same cars as the regular drivers (although since everyone will use Pirelli tyres, I am wondering if the tyre column(s) are needed at all). We would probably also need to include the FP1 drivers' numbers, since they are apparently getting their own, and the FIA would need some way to recognise them on timing sheets (when third cars were used in 2005 and 2006, those cars had their own numbers, so there is a precedent here). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If the drivers do get their own numbers, then we add them in a column to the left of the driver name; otherwise, we shouldn't include the column (as it would only confuse). Since that all the drivers will be using the same chassis and tyres as the regular drivers, I think a note at the bottom will suffice (with text like "all drivers use the same chassis model and tyres as the race drivers from their respective teams"). —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly certain they will get their own numbers. Antonio Felix da Costa and Carlos Sainz Jnr. have both revealed what numbers they want, and the FIA would need some way of distinguishing them on the timing sheets, even if they do not have a decal on the car they drive. But only time will tell - we will need an entry list to confirm one way or the other. Hopefully one will drop this week. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"(Name) Grand Prix" vs. "Grand Prix of (Name)"

Now that the New Year is here, I feel it's time to bring this up. It's probably going to be one of argument sues that seems like we're all jumping through hoops to achieve something that seems like a purely semantic issue, but I have a feeling that if we ignore it, then it's going to be more complex to deal with later on.

Traditionally, events have been referred to as "(Name) Grand Prix", like the Australian Grand Prix. However, the final calendar released by the WMSC, events are now referred to as "Grand Prix of (Name)", so Australian Grand Prix will become Grand Prix of Australia. The purpose of this discussion is to figure out which name we should contonue to use. Given that the WMSC article is the primary source for the race names, they appear in the calendar table as "Grand Prix of (Name)", and I have applied that throughout the article - even to races that have been referred to as "(Name) Grand Prix" before the change.

The big issue here is WP:COMMONNAME, and it would be easy to bring that up and stop the discussion there. After all, Grands Prix have always been referred to as "(Name) Grand Prix", so why change them if that is the name that is going to be used by everyone?

However, the issue is not as simple as that, and I believe there is a precedent for changing the name.

Right now, the FIA is going through a process of standardising the names by which aspects of the championship are referred to. For example, in the World Touring Car Championship, cars are now classified as belonging to the "TC1" or "TC2" class. In the same way, cars in the World Rally Championship are being reclassified. Where they were once referred to as "P(number)" depending on their eligibility criteria, they are now being referred to as "RC1" and "RC2".

Likewise, they are standardising the names of events for all World-accredited championships. WTCC races are known as "Race of (Name)", like Race of Argentina. Likewise, WRC events are known as "Rally of (Name)", such as Rally de Portugal (though that is in the local language). The point is that the FIA is standardising the names for all of these events, and for this reason, I believe that Grands Prix should be referred to as "Grand Prix of (Name)". This name appears on every single piece of paraphenalia related to Grands Prix.

Now, COMMONNAME. Yes, I am aware of it. It does, for instance, quite clearly state this:

Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.

And yes, "(Name) Grand Prix" is the most commonly used, whilst "Grand Prix of (Name)" most commonly appears in the formal title of the event. However, COMMONNAME also states the following:

We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change.

I believe that, in this case, this is the most relevant part of COMMONNAME. The standardisation of names across multiple aspects of multiple championships shows that the subject of the article has changed, and so we should consider the usage. It's ultimately a bit of a semantic issue, since the only thing that really changes here is the ordering of the words. However, if the issue does not get addressed, then we could be getting into trouble later on.

So here is what I propose: follow through on the name change for a year. Rather than having "2014 Australian Grand Prix" as a page title, go with "2014 Grand Prix of Australia". After one year, we see what the FIA does. If they continue using the title "Grand Prix of (Name)", then so do we. If they revert to "(Name) Grand Prix), then we can go back and move the articles. Because at this point, I think the name changes across the board are too compelling to ignore. If it was just Formula 1, then I wouldn't be raising the issue, but because the FIA is standardising names across all of their World-accreddited championships, it is effectively an attempt at creating a new COMMONNAME (though they're not doing it solely for Wikipedia's benefit). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to wait and see if this new term is adopted before we start using it. If at the end of 2014 (or sooner, if necessary) it is clear that the new label for a Grand Prix is 'Grand Prix of ____', then we can make the changes you propose. Thus far, this new system is not being used in advertisements for races ([10] and [11]), by race promoters [12], or in FIA press releases ([13] and [14]). JohnMcButts (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Those advertisements have existed for months. As for the article from the race promoters, there is no way to tell if that is just the author of the article using the term. And of the two press releases, one is rather obscure and only tangentially related. Most importantly, it will take a while for the name to catch on. The standardisation of names across the World Championships is hard to overlook. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is going to have to be done on a race by race basis. If the Grand Prix of America (the one in New Jersey) takes off then using one or the other will be impossible due to the lack of distinction between the United States/American Grand Prix (the one in Texas). This is going to have to been applied with common sense. The official title of the race Sepang may well have been Malaysia Grand Prix sine 2011 but common usage is Malaysian Grand prix as used pre-2011. This is where a blanket policy is unworkable due to lack of distinction which will be caused if the Second USA race takes off. Also the common usage of races titles which are used in each Race Article title needs to be taken in to consideration. Blanket changing from (country) Grand Prix to Grand Prix of (Country) is a recentism and lacking of common sense as this could mean each and every race article title would need changing. This would be an unnecessary forking which is likely to cause needless and easily avoidable confusion. Finally would any change to Grand Prix of (country) be applied historically? Confusion and impracticality arises when dealing with races such as Detroit Grand Prix or United States Grand Prix West or Caesars Palace Grand Prix. Changing to a uniform Grand Prix of (Country) is just going to be confusing when looking back historically as the titles of races will inevitably be different. The simplest thing is to work on a race by race basis. For example I can never foresee the race held in the Principality of Monaco currently commonly called the Monaco Grand Prix becoming commonly called the Grand Prix of Monaco. Sport and politics (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The individual race articles going back sixty-five years would not need to be changed, and you know it. The change to article titles would only need to be applied from the change in race titles. To suggest otherwise is misleading.

Furthermore, what you forsee is irrelevant. That's crystal balling. All you need to consider is the evidence, which you have made a point of avoiding. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the tone needs ratcheting down a few notches, this is getting unnecessarily heated, personal, and hysterical. This is a fairly minor and technical debate over one part of articles. Suggesting wider implications of any outcomes is not "misleading" as claimed. For example what will the title of the article for the race in Sochi be. Will the title be Russian Grand Prix or Grand Prix of Russia. For consistency with other article titles and for lack of confusion in my opinion it should be Russian Grand Prix This is not crystal balling and nor is discussing historical article titles and nor is discussing if article titles would need changing for existing races. Also claiming "individual race articles going back sixty-five years would not need to be changed" is crystal balling if claiming they could potentially need changing in the future is also crystal balling. All this it is, is a sensible reasoning and logical extending of the affects any blanket name charge will have. Attacking the inserting of an opinion to illustrate a point is wholly unnecessary and does not add to the discussion as as done by stating "Furthermore, what you forsee is irrelevant". This discussion needs to focus on the points of discussion and needs to avoid hysteria which is being demonstrated here for reasons which are passing understanding. The evidence in this case has little bearing on the outcome, that is just a starting point. What has a greater bearing is what is in the best interests of Wikiepida and its users and not a rigid interpretation of any "evidence". Sport and politics (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So your argument is to pick and choose which pieces of evidence we use based on what might be inconvenient for the reader? And then you claim that this argument should focus more on facts than opinions, but that we should not rigidly follow the evidence?

You are clearly trying to make an issue out of something that is not a problem. Since races were "(Name) Grand Prix" in 2013 and "Grand Prix of (Name)" in 2014, the issue of naming articles simply uses that date as a cut-off point. Or, if you would prefer, that date relative to its announcement (so Russia would be the Russian Grand Prix because it was announced before the change). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The trouble for using 2014 as a cut-off point for the name change, is that this same format was used in the WMSC calender for 2013 [15]. Should this format be retroactively used for the 2013 season? Again, I say we wait to see if this naming practice is adopted, beyond the WMSC press releases, before we make this change. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The evidence in a situation like this is just a starting point for discussions. Evidence is available from many places and claiming all must be rigidly interpreted is not in the best interests of an encyclopaedia article. This is not a technical Formula One article for individuals with extensive knowledge of Formula One this has to be an easily accessible to all users not just those "in the know". I would also like to clear up a misinterpretation I stated "to focus on the points of discussion", which is completely different to "facts" points of discussion include the wider implications of any change and the ease of access to those with little or no knowledge of the subject matter. This proposed change has many possible connotations and they all need fathoming out and discussing calmly. Simply ignoring any possible implications of this change is not in the best interests of the discussion, Wikipeida or it users. Using date as a cut of point misses out articles for the overall race as opposed to the race by individual year. Does the article Australian Grand Prix get changed to Grand Prix of Australia or does it stay at Australian Grand Prix. likewise does the article Russian Grand Prix move to Grand Prix of Russia? these are all legitimate points of discussion. 10:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is a simple solution. Apply the changes to the season article and the race articles. Wait and see what happens in 2015. If the name change stays in place, keep the changes. If not, revert them.

Furthermore, there is something of a precedent here. Many of the races that have a title in the local language directly translate to "Grand Prix of (Name)". It is already an established practice, and is simply being standardised.

It is the most grammatically correct way of presenting the names, as well. The "(Names) Grand Prix" title is acceptable, but in the cases of "Bahrain Grand Prix" and "Abu Dhabi Grand Prix", it's improper - "Grand Prix of Bahrain/Abu Dhabi" is more accurate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can some sources to back and verify the claims of "grammatically correct way of presenting the names" please be provided. As far as I can see both are equally acceptable grammatically. Use in sentences as an example of the both such as "Welcome the the 1997 Australian Grand Prix." or "Welcome to the 1997 Grand Prix of Australia." Both are acceptable and neither are improper or less accurate. The first version is in my opinion simpler as it uses less words and has the race identifiers at the start and not split at the start and end. With regards to local languages this is the English Wikiepdia and names/phrases etc. have to reflect the names in English and not translations into English of non-Englsih names, when there is a distinct English alternative or equivalent to the non-English phrase or word. Using direct translations from non-English names is only applicable if no English alternative or equivalent exists. The structure of the English language is also significantly different from other languages and places adjectives before nouns as opposed to say French which places the noun first. Take for example "Blue t-shirt" in French that is "Tee-shirt bleu" which directly translates in to English as "T-shirt Blue". So swapping the syntax round is not the common English language Syntax and non-English words and phrases have no bearing or precedent on the English Language or the use of the English language . Finally Wikipedia is not a place for experimentation and experimenting in this manner will create unnecessary confusion and inconsistency. The article titles need basing in what is best for an encyclopaedia article and for ease of access to all readers, not just users with significant prior knowledge of the subject matter. If by 2015 the common names for races in English is Grand Prix of (Name) then by all means go ahead and use the format Grand Prix of (Name). Until then though saying this could become the norm and the FIA want that to be the common names for races (regardless of weather the FIA officially call them Grand Prix of (Name)) is just pure crystal balling and the current format should not be changed from (Name) Grand Prix, until such at time as the format (Name) Grand Prix is no longer the common name in English. Sport and politics (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In the 85 year history of the Australian Grand Prix it's never been known as the Grand Prix of Australia. 85 years. Less than 30 of that has been Formula One world championship. The race has an amazing and rich history which has nothing to do with the World Championship, or the European championship that preceded it. Grand Prix of Australia has nothing to do with the first five and a half decades of the race. That's just one example. Shall I detail more? And that is without knocking holes in the parrallel examples of rallies and touring car races. Rallies have had all kinds of names, some with no geographical component at all.

I think it is incredibly premature to even contemplate moving the race names. New races? Possibly, even probably that would be good. Not for any others. --Falcadore (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if there were a case for moving articles and/or changing the names of them (and I don't believe there is a good case for that), the fallout would make it not worth the effort. I do not believe this project is capable of such an overhaul, and the prospect of endless arguments about the semantics / translation of the name of each race should be a cause for concern to all. I'd also make the point that article titles are simply to describe the contents of the article, and do not need to be carbon copies of any official title, particularly with regard to generic race articles, e.g. British Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with John McButts and Sport and politics: my suggestion/preference would be to stick with the existing naming scheme for now and if, at the end of 2014 (or sooner), it becomes obvious that the COMMONNAME has changed to "Grand Prix of XXX", then we can go back and update the names of the 2014 events. DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sport and politics, could you please take a mmoment to consider the arguments made here before you make changes to the article? So far the arguments presented oppose moving articles, but you have removed content from the page based on over-linking. I invite you to review previous season articles, many of which contain a title for the "race title", and another of the Grand Prix name. The race title name is used to express the full, formal title of the race, which often includes sponsors or local names for the race. In this case, those titles are being supplied by the WMSC, and are the only titles supplied in the references given for the calendar. This is an established practice that I have not seen disputed here, so I think you have misunderstood the arguments being made. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is overwhelming here no other user is in support of changing to Grand Prix of (name) at this point in time and until that consensus changes and only when that consensus changes should the changes be made. As for removing over-linking is in line WP:OVERLINK. What the WMSC council say is NOT A TRUMP CARD OR A LAW. In this case as the consensus is clear to use the format (name) Grand Prix. Sport and politics (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, no other user here is in support of changing article names. The use of a particular title in this article itself has not been discussed. And while that might sound like semantics, I don't think anyone will appreciate you putting words in their mouth.

As for the WMSC, you are correct in saying that they are not a trump card or law. They are, however, the authority on the subject - if anyone can give a formal title to a race, it is them. And, as has been explained to you, the practice of including race titles in season articles is commonplace. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikiepdia simply does not work the way are you are arguing it does Prisonermonkeys. It works on consensus and in this case consensus is clear and the format which has clear consensus is (Name) Grand Prix and NOT Grand Prix of (Name). Sport and politics (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And that has only been discussed within the context of article titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You are far, far to quick to bring up WP:OWN to justify removing edits that you disagree with. I would like to remind you of WP:AGF and suggest that you refrain from accusing other editors of breaking a policy as serious as OWN unless you can show actual cause. In this case, the content you are claiming is only in the article because of OWN has actually been there for months, and is supported by references like the WMSC calendar. Other parts have been included for the sake of standardising the names in the article to avoid confusion. None of this was being debated until the issue was brought up, and nobody accused anyone of breaking OWN until somebody disagreed with you.

If you look at my edit history, you will notice that I edit a lot. This is in part because I tinker, editing bits and pieces as they occur to me. But it is also because I do most of my editing from a mobile device, which has its limitations. For example, if I want to copy and paste a URL into a large article, I cannot do it directly as my browser may inadvertently overwrite data (especially if the auto-correct picked up a spelling mistake). I am forced to make three or four edits just to get that URL into the article. That does not mean I think I OWN it. It just means I have to do the best that I can with what I have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome I have replied to the comments left on my talk page there. This is not a war of attrition and is not a one man show to attempt to drown out others. I have stopped reading what you are writing Prisonermonkeys as it is too long to read and it is more of the same as before. The principle of the format as a whole has been discussed not as is being claimed on what the format should be for article titles. The consensus is very clear and the outcome is very clear the clear outcome and consensus is (name) Grand Prix. Sport and politics (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you did not respond at all. Your first response was to try and shut the conversation down. It was only after I reposted it here that I got any response. And at least I did the courtesy of reading everything you wrote. You, on the other hand, have ignored AGF, accused me of breaking OWN when I disagreed with you (which you have done before), went out of your way to avoid the issue, and when I took the time to try and soothe your doubts about OWN, you come back with "tl;dr". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Refocusing

The discussion was straying off topic, and I would like to see us refocus on the issue at hand. The consensus seems to be that using this new naming system for the individual pages for 2014 races is is not supported.

That being said, Prisonermonkeys has brought up two issues that I would like to see addressed. With regards to the race titles within the article, we have both the the Calender table and individual races, such as "Sebastian Vettel [...] after securing his fourth consecutive title at the 2013 Indian Grand Prix."

As Prisonermonkeys pointed out, in previous years the table has had two columns; 'Race Title' (changes year-to-year, due to sponsors, and also uses the local term such as "Gran Premio de España") and 'Grand Prix' (linking to the page of said Grand Prix). I have no problem using this new format in the Race Title column if that is the official race title, but I feel that we should continue to use the current format in the Grand Prix column. As for how we refer to individual races, I think it would be best to continue to use '___ Grand Prix' with the possible exception of the 'Grand Prix of America' as that is/was the common name for it. JohnMcButts (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there really is a name change, its take up is clearly not universal by this official reference. --Falcadore (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Prisonermonkeys was referring to the way that the calender was presented in the WMSC press releases [16] and [17]. This is, to me, not enough to warrant the changes that have been listed in the above discussion. It is also worth pointing out (again) that this same format was used for the 2013 calender. [18]. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the 2013 calendar, you will notice that there are two columns that essentially contain the same information. One is the "Race title", which includes the full formal name of the race, including sponsors and/or local names. The other is the "Grand Prix" column, which contains wlinks to the articles for those races. All I did was effectively merge these two columns together, since without sponsors or local names on the WMSC calendar, having two columns seemed redundant. But I also felt it was important to acknowledge the formal names given by the WMSC, especially since the only references for the calendar give the races as "Grand Prix of (Name)". The wlinks outside the calendar were piped in the same format for the sake of consistency throughout the article. Seeing as we have "United States Grand Prix" and "Grand Prix of the United States", it is not inconceivable that readers may mistake links to the "Australian Grand Prix" and "Grand Prix of Australia" as referring to two separate races, particularly if they have no prior knowledge of the sport. I have always felt that someone should be able to click the "random article" link, land on this article, read it, and fully understand it without having to read other articles to gain that understanding.

Parallel to this, I am left questioning the need for the "Race title" column in its full form. After all, we do not actually link anything in that title, and we have always taken the stance that the only thing that should be included in the article are things that affect the season as a whole. For example, not so long ago it was an established practice to give the start times for the race in both the local time and UTC. However, these had no bearing on the season as a whole, and since we are an encyclopaedia and not a television guide, the start times were removed. I am applying similar logic here: how necessary is it that we acknoweldge the title sponsor of a race? And how important is it to include the local name of that race? If the answer is "not very" (or similar), then why do we have a whole column devoted to it? After all, what effect does the change from "Qantas Australian Grand Prix" to "Rolex Australian Grand Prix" really have?

Of course, there should still be some way of acknowledging the way the FIA refers to races in the article. But it is redundant to have one column reading "Grand Prix of Australia", and the next colum reading "Australian GP". Surely the two can be merged, thereby performing the same functions as before, but in less space. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Local name of the race? There is only one name, really. Put simply, the opening race of the calendar is not known as the Grand Prix of Australia, and should not be referred to as such. --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Falcadore the use of Grand Prix of (name) anywhere is just a total nonsense unless the name of the race is intentionally done like that for a new race such as Grand Prix of America. Currently that is the only exception all other races in all parts of Wikipeida being referred to as Grand Prix of (Name), such as Grand Prix of Monaco is fanciful lunacy and sheer confusion to users with little or no knowledge or the subject.. Sport and politics (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Weren't you cautioning against "hysterical reactions" a few days ago? Because I think attempting to characterise an edit you disagree with as "fanciful lunacy" is a rather hysterical reaction. Between this and the way you accuse editors of breaking WP:OWN when they make edits you dislike, you are really making things difficult. Everyone here has made well-reasoned arguments. You just go straight to unreasonable aggression to try and force your preferred edits through. Maybe it would be in the best interests of the article if you backed off. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

-Edit- deleted the already proven facts, my mistake--

I think the reason behind this entire misunderstanding is likely due to the translation which causes it to be written in a more formal way when written in English (seeing as it's originally written in French and/or because they (FIA) are French). They also cannot confirm sponsorship so that is why that is not present as of yet (Like every year).

-Edit- In-fact after reading through the hefty pointless babble a second time, it appears that JohnMcButts found what I was looking for earlier on which actually makes this entire post rather meaningless. But it begs the question, why the heck had this blown up for no reason?. This should have been ended way before John had to go and find previous publishes. Does no research anything on here? I would have thought people had learnt from the Sirotkin situation. Though cant say I'm shocked personally. Joetri10 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your snide remarks are unnecessary. The fact that you are willing to judge the merits of an argument based on your opinion of the person making them rather than the contents of said argument speaks volumes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My snide remarks? My attitude in my own personal opinion too is horrible but you seem to cause an immense amount of problems for no reason. You stick SO hard to how Wikipedia works that it makes you oblivious to what you're actually talking about. Joetri10 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are unlikely to discover this for yourself, but Wikipedia only works when we can provide readers with reliable, trustworthy sources to support content in the articles so that those readers may be confident that that the content is truthful, rather than something we have made up. Unfortunately, by its very nature, the truth is what we can prove with those sources, which means it does not necessarily reflect reality as well as it could.

If you would rather trust to undefined "common knowledge"; to rumours, speculation an hearsay; or to the questionable and unproveable claim tbat an editor as a personal source that gives them access to knowledge that is not in the public sphere, then you have no business editing Wikipedia. We deal in what is reliable, what is verifiable, and what can be proven. We do not deal in rumour-mongering or the thinnest threads of speculation. If we relaxed out stance the way you feel we should, then we would immediately have a problem: Robin Frijns would be listed as a Marussia driver because someone in Malaysia put a cartoon picture of him in Marussia overalls on Instagram, and he would also be listed as a McLaren driver because a Dutch blogger claimed Honda "owed" Jos Verstappen a drive, and because he retired, Frijns inherited the debt as the best-placed Dutch driver. I have seen both of these (and more) ridiculous stories presented as proof positive that Frijns would join both teams.

That is what you are opening the door to, so you will forgive me if I am unwilling to budge on WP:RELIABLE or WP:VERIFIABLE. You will find few long-teen editors who are. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? That was the topic on Sirotkin? I'm talking about how this specific topic was handled. I mean for starters the topic was started (By yourself ironically enough) on the basis that one published article titled the races differently because "Blank?" (And if you tell me because they have titled other motorsport races in the same manner then boy help me). Not only did you Not do any other research to support the actual change but you misinterpreted the source material; Again!. I mean for goodness sake Prison, do you not understand what common sense even is! because you seem to lack a lot of it. So many things brought question to my mind the second I even glimpsed upon this discussion. Was this of difference to recent years? = No. Did they ever have talks about it? = No. Was it formula 1 headlines news? = No. You jumped the gun so fast that you didn't even think of tradition; they wouldn't change something like that. I hadn't even seen it mentioned once in the forum(s) I'm in either and all the major and minor headline news gets mentioned there. Prisonermonkey, I ask of you and for you actually think: What are you doing!?

I think its great what you're doing, it really is. You want this page to be as accurate as it can be whilst sticking to the script but please stop rubbishing common sense and logic. I know I couldn't bring the sources your wanted on Sirotkin, but most of them were "Unreliable" anyway in your manipulating fashion of loop-holing the rules but if you followed any form of F1 news, whether it be forums or twitter, you would know more than any news outlet could tell you, and it would be right! Including what's going to happen this week with Caterham (Though that may go un-published till later)

So seriously, stop clinging onto clauses, rules and your own personal opinion of published news that's vague at best because sometimes, you simply have to read between the lines. Joetri10 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting all the personal bickering aside, I have to say I largely agree with Joetri10 here. We have no proof that it's FIA's intent to introduce a uniform naming of the races across all the motorsports they govern. Additionally the manner in which the formula one races were titled on the official calendar was no different than in previous years. So, at this time, there is no case to change the way formula races are named on Wikipedia. Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Test Drivers/Free Practice Drivers

I think it would be a good idea to introduce a test drivers or free practice drivers column. We did this in 2013 so I think it would be a good idea. I am new to wiki so can someone else please do it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyhead99 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We have plans to. However, we have no idea who those drivers might be, so we are not in a position to add them just yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I know that Sergey Sirotkin is a test driver for Sauber and I think Susie Wolff for Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyhead99 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And Antonio Felix da costa and Sebastian Buemi for red bull. Pedro de la rosa for Ferrari. That's enough isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyhead99 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We need to know which rounds they are driving at. Last year, it was decided that test drivers should only be included in the article if they actually drive in at a race meeting. Just joining a team - they need to have some kind of discernable contribution to be included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Need to add driver numbers which have already being confirmed. Thats what I was looking for.

Ricciardo - 2 Rosberg - 6 Räikkönen - 7 Grosjean - 8 Pérez - 11 Alonso - 14 Massa - 19 Magnussen - 20 Button - 22 Vergne - 25 Bianchi - 27 Bottas - 77

All others remain TBA

Phmoutinho (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Ricciardo's apparently chosen #3 as his preferred number according to Planet F1: (http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9108608/Button-bags-22-) and Ricciardo's Twitter: (@danielricciardo)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.34.190 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus thus far has been to wait for the FIA to publish a full entry list before adding any numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done: - None of these numbers are actually confirmed. They are the drivers preferred choices and wether they will actually get them depends on the numbers that still have to be chosen by other drivers (including those who have yet to been signed) as a result of the priority system formulated by the FIA. Tvx1 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Done - In the meantime an entry list has been published and the numbers have been added. Tvx1 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of FIA entry list for things other than car numbers

At the risk of starting another convoluted discussion, I have a question based on an issue in the current editing history of the page: how reliable is the FIA entry list for things other than numbers?

The entry list is being used to reference Lotus as using Renault engines, and normally this would be fine, but the list has errors is in - most notably, it names McLaren as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes", even though we have a source that disprove this; that sponsorship ended last year.

In the past, the general attitude has been that the entry list was really only good for car numbers, and that discrepancies should be taken on a case-by-case basis. For example, Sauber announced Esteban Gutierrez for the 2013 season, but Gutierrez was not listed on the entry list.

So, I think there is a case to answer here: can the entry list be used as a reference for anything other than car numbers, given that there is a documented history of it using outdated information? How can we prove that Lotus will actually use Renault engines and that the entry list used the 2013 information because it was what the FIA had on file? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just found the answer to my question: Lotus is officially listed as "TBC".

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112089

Don't know why I missed that first time around. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually ...

The FIA list puts Chilton in the second Marussia seat - but every other source lists that seat as TBA. So I guess the questio is still valid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, while I had my questions too on why there were no other sources confirming Lotus having an engine deal, I think that it is not up to us to question the reliability of the FIA. After all they know much more than we do. What proof do we have that they are wrong and not us? Maybe Mclaren didn't apply for a name change yet? Sauber continued an additional season under the BMW Sauber name after BMW left and there was no longer any BMW involvement at all. Given the fact that the publication comes directly from the FIA we can use it as a source as that is enough verification.

You should read the Autosport and FIA source carefully again as they list the entire Lotus entry (as well as the Marussia entry) as subject to confirmation and not only the engine. In fact the Autosport source list them as Lotus-Renault. Regarding Chilton, publication by Autsport and SkySportsF1 (to name a few) list him as a Marussia driver as well. Tvx1 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

When we have so many contradictory sources, reason to believe one of those sources might be outdated, and no way of demonstrating which is the most accurate, then perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave those contested fields as TBA for the time being, and do what we usually do and wait for the teams to confirm or deny. For example, the FIA list has Chilton at Marussia, but the Autosport article suggests a deal has been done, but not announced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia policy what we have to do when reliable sources disagree, is to present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. Tvx1 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I know what the policy says. I also know that there is a difference between sources disagreeing with one another, and sources contradicting one another. For example, how do you present what both sources say when the FIA publishes an entry list with Vodafone sponsoring McLaren, but McLaren say (and have said for nearly a year now) that they are no longer involved with Vodafone? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The team name of McLaren is McLaren Mercedes. No Vodafone in there. The Company Name is still VODAFONE MCLAREN RACING LTD. But that is not the team name. --Gamma127 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I was using that as an example to try and show what I meant by it. I had to simplify it a little to make the point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it seems they were completely right about Chilton. Anything else you want to put in doubt? Tvx1 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense

People...

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

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

How long you are persist that Lotus engines is TBA? To the first tests? Or first race? Or FOREVER??? AdamKot34 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion directly above this one is discussing how reliable the FIA is as source for confirming drivers, engines etc. One of the issues is that the FIA entry list included several errors (Wrong name for Lotus, and McLaren). In the past, the FIA entry list was only used for confirming car numbers. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. Why are you certain the FIA is wrong? We don't know what was written on the paperwork sent to the FIA. The Mclaren objection has already been overturned in the other discussion. Only the company name is listed as Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes. A legal name of a company cannot be changed from one day on another. It takes a certain procedure to do this. There's probably a logical explanation for the other "discrepancies" as well. Why can't we just reflect the FIA source in the article now and, if needed, change something if new sources are published that prove the opposite? After all we do not have proof that the FIA list is wrong. Only the suspicions of one or two users! Tvx1 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but Joe Saward, a well respected F1 Journalist, pointed out the discrepancy in the FIA list in his recent blog post. here [19]. He double checked the names on the official list of companies registered in the UK. You can search here [20] For 'McLaren Racing Limited' and 'Lotus F1 Team Limited' or by their company number, (01517478) and (01806337) respectively.

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

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers
Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-TBC	E22	TBC	P	8	Romain Grosjean
					13	Pastor Maldonado

Again, the 'TBC' could be replaced by 'Renault' if that is preferable. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

When I click on your sources #20 and #21 it produces an error message. For the record, regarding Lotus' TBC it's not solely their engine supplier but rather their whole entry (i.e. their whole participation), as well as Marussia's, that is TBC. Why should we only list their engine as TBC then? Tvx1 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Because we have independent confirmation of everything else - Grosjean, Maldonado, Bianchi, Chilton and Marussia's new engine deal have all been confirmed separately by the teams. Lotus' engines are the only thing depending on the entry list, which makes it quite clear that the team still needs to confirm it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, It looks like I can't just copy paste the search link, so I've changed it to the company search. I also added the the names, as well as the company numbers for both teams. Hope that works better. JohnMcButts (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you've (again) missed my point! Why ONLY list Lotus' engine supply as TBC an not their ENTIRE PARTICIPATION as well as Marussia's like the source says? Tvx1 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree with John. If the entry list says the details are to be confirmed, then the details are to be confirmed. We would need a second, supplementary source to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A query - have Lotus formally announced which engines they will use this season? If yes, print that. If no, wait until the do. Very simple. --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. But what happened if Lotus uses Renault engines at the test and still don't formally announced which engines they will use this season? AdamKot34 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)