Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship

Sergey Sirotkin

With sources on Sergey Sirotkin, "set to" imply that he is not confirmed to Formula 1 coming 2014. At the same time, he do not have a Super Licence required to drive a Formula One car.

If "set to" does imply that he will be taking the seat in 2014, then Romain Grosjean should be having the 2014 seat with Lotus.

After the United States Grand Prix, Sauber seems to be keeping their current 2013 drivers for 2014, and they are Nico Hulkenburg and Esteban Gutierrez. StandNThrow (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The previously-established consensus is that Sirotkin has the seat for the time being, but may lose it. The source that has been given makes it clear that Sauber have a full testing programme set out for him, one specifically designed to earn him a superlicence.

Your argument is weak because you are trying to predict the Sauber line-up based on speculation - you admitted as much when you said Sauber "seem to" be keepin Hulkenberg and Gutierrez. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with my colleague, here. The sources that are presented clearly show that Sergey has a signed contract with certain conditions. The list of drivers and teams on this page is the list of SIGNED teams and drivers. As Sirotkin is signed to drive, his presence in the list is certainly justified. If it were a list of 100% certain drivers and teams none would be in the list at the moment because they still have to agree to the new Concorde Agreement and they won't be able to compete if they don't. Tvx1 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

SAUBER Drivers: To be confirmed. Engine: Ferrari. http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/8953770/whos-where-in-2014-the-driver-line-ups-and-engine-deals-for-next-season StandNThrow (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And Sauber trump the Sky Sports F1 website as a source. They have made it clear that Sirotkin has the seat, but they are unable to formally confirm him until he gets a superlicence. That would not normally be enough to justify his inclusion in the table, but Sauber have also made it clear that they have developed a programme for Sirotkin that is specifically developed to get his superlicence. It is felt that because of this, the seat is effectively Sirotkin's, and that the only thing that can prevent his getting the seat is force majeure, which we cannot predict. Prisonermonkeys (talk)<

What sources show Sergey has signed a deal to drive for Sauber during the actual races in 2014? These sources don't seem to be here or on the article. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The source given in the article, which makes it clear that Sirotkin will race if he gets a superlicence and that Sauber have developed a programme for him to earn a superlicence. It was this programme that the consensus was established on, since the team is directly addressing the issue that would otherwise prevent him from racing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that he signed a contract to a development programme that could get him into a racing seat as early as 2014. The source in the article merely assumes he will be ready to race. This is the original article about Sirotkin: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108789. If this kind of contract still makes him a signed driver for 2014, then I won't nitpick this again. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sergey has failed to complete both aspects to gain the seat; one being obtaining the super license and the other being that the Russian support for Sauber have failed to deliver the promise on finance much in the same way that quantum has yet to deliver the money for Lotus. Upon 100's of sources claim this. Though his note should be kept in the info; his name should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You have no reliable sources for either of those claims. And those changes cannot be made without reliable sources to support them. Especially since the content on the page is already reliably sourced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have done a bit of research and I have found a source which clearly explains Sirotkin's situation: http://www1.skysports.com/news/12040/8913485/ Tvx1 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow well done sir, you're not kidding when you say "A bit". May I ask; do you always use dated articles? The least you could do was use the one from November. Besides, you are correct eitherway, I do not have any "Proof". By proof you do mean things like news websites (Dated as they are). However the argument goes though, following the sport with a keen eye in forums, it's common knowledge that Sergey will NOT be driving for Sauber in 2014 and that has been confirmed countless times through Social media linking with the team itself. The eye's are on Sutil to be taking the seat instead. Ironic as it is that you don't accept real proof straight from those working in the team itself because it's on a social media site (More-so more reliable than news sites), i'll just let you leave it as it is. Besides, no one actually looking into the driver line up next year will even trust Wikipedia so it's no loss. Joetri10 (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That may well be, but do you have any source at all supporting your claims? If so, post them on the talk page here and we can discuss further. Secondly I posted the link that I posted because it was unclear for some users what the original deal was and I wanted to clarify the matter for them and that particular source gave a clear explanation of the deal. Tvx1 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Besides, internet forums are not considered to be reliable sources. Your entire argument seems to be based on rumours of one driver joining the team, thereby proving that Sirotkin will not. Ignoring for the moment that this is a rumour and thus unacceptable for Wikipedia, it neglects to explain why Sutil will replace Sirotkin and will not race alongside him.

Furthermore, if the Russian deal had collapsed and was the common knowledge that you claim it to be, why hasn't it been reported by any mainstream news source, considering that it was pitched as being the deal to save the team? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually is has in Germany, Russia and Switzerland. The Forum works together to collect information from foreign websites and Social Media accounts from those within formula 1. Highlighting two deals that had fallen through within the workings of Maldonado's contract. One being that PDVSA was well aware that the Russian backing did not fulfill the promise of money and even Sergey was lacking the License. Strictly PDVSA told Pastor you shall work for Lotus whom also had their deal burst with Quantum; a deal also known to have fallen through without any actual mainstream news saying of that status. You know why most of this doesn't come out to the public? because it's confidential. The common knowledge now is that Sutil will be alongside Gutierrez whilst Hulkenberg lines up with Perez in FI. All of this has been mostly confirmed. I understand you need your "proof" and that forum's and social media are not worthy proof. Well let me let you on a little secret. Where do you think these news outlets get their stories? We are all in the same boat, they are simply behind us. All im asking is for his name to be removed from this list because even F1 itself doesn't confirm his seat. Joetri10 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need the reminder that Wikipedia is not a news source. Wikipedia does not function to put the latest news and breaking stories on the internet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It records what is, not what might be. If there is doubt we wait until there is not doubt and then publish. --Falcadore (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You cannot have your way unless you provide links. Link the news stories from Germany, Russia and Switzerland. Just saying they said it isn't good enough. And just because the media may get their news from forums doesn't make the forums reliable. If you provide the links to the references, Sirotkin may be removed. Common sense is not Wikipedia policy, verifiability is. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/brazilian-grand-prix-prologue/ Whether you can believe Adam Cooper is completely up to you... He knows from other sources which are incredibly hard to find when faced by 2-4 months of news. http://grandprix247.com/2013/10/24/petrov-emerges-as-sauber-candidate-at-expense-of-teenager-sirotkin/ Another site acknowledging the collapse of the deal also. Joetri10 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is hard to find or not, Wikipedia writes on what is announced, not on what jounralists write - have a read of WP:NOTNEWS. Adam Cooper does not make announcements on behalf of any Formula One teams. You know why that is? Because they don't employ him.

Maybe if this is the sort of story you like to write you should join [Wikinews] because that is where this sort of material belongs. You need to ask yourself do you want to be a journalist or a documentarian, because at the moment you are confusing the two roles. --Falcadore (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read what you said? None of the news outlets write on behalf of f1 or it's teams. They write about what is announced through the mass amount of pipelines and publish it due to relevance/what will make news. Every news article that gives source is from a journalist, whether they are writing on their own website or one such as the SUN. You even have Jenson Button listed as confirmed when in fact he is not. McLaren have never said that Button is staying; only that they would like him to stay. Now yes, Button says his deal is all but signed, but who announced that? A journalist, it's not however official. What about the second article I linked? The actual point here is no matter what I link you, you will not accept it, that's why I haven't linked you any because you will dismiss it. You asked me for sources, I gave you two, one being even more reliable then mainstream media because HE WORKS IN F1!. It's been announced and known that the deal has fell through, it is fact and it made news. He is not confirmed for 2014, even Sauber have said that now. Joetri10 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again I'd like to point out that the list on this page is NOT a list of 100% certain confirmed drivers. In theory, it is possible that none of those listed actual drive in a 2014 race. Anyways, contrary to the impression you seem to have got, the sources you provided are helpful and give some additional information on the situation. Regarding the article from Adam Cooper: it's his personal opinion and thus his personal speculation on what could happen and is therefore not good enough as a source for this article. The second article is good and tells us that Sauber are looking for some alternatives (e.g. Vitaly Petrov) just in case as well as for someone to fill their SECOND slot. What interests me in your comment is, and I cite: "It's been announced and known that the deal has fell through, it is fact and it made news." Do you have any sources confirming exactly that? If so, link them here and will review and consider them and you know Sirotkin might actually removed from the list.

On a side note. If it is true what you say about Button, he should indeed be removed from the list. Tvx1 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you fail to understand that news reporting belongs on wikinews not wikipedia? Do you not understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper? --Falcadore (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2013/12/15324.html Sirotkin is not confirmed for Sauber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.120.217.67 (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We've already explained the reasoning behind the difference between that source and this article in a related discussion further down this page. Notice the difference in nomenclature for the currently unoccupied seats on the source and on this page. TBC on the source, TBA on this page. That shows the difference in mechanics of both lists. Tvx1 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not change the page to use TBC since F1 does the same? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Other drivers are still in the frame for the seat, with some probably ahead of him. He shouldn't be listed as signed. The section ought to be changed to "Announced", anyway, since the contents of these contracts are private. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The contents of the contract might be private, but the fact that the contract had been signed is public. Changing the title of the section sounds like an attempt to create a loophole in order to justify removing verified content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across that way. I'm saying the title of purpose of the section should be changed regardless of the Sirotkin situation: it's epistemologically flawed. Or, have it broken out into two: "Signed" and "announced" and let people bicker over that. But if someone who isn't intimately familiar with the sport comes to this page and looks, they'll assume Sirotkin is going to be in the seat next year. If Sirotkin *doesn't* get the seat (and the smart money says he won't), I'm curious to know what the explanation is going to be from those who won't permit the edit. For all the certainty you and others here seem to have about Sirotkin (and I'm starting to wonder what the motives are), you have Autosport saying four seats are open, the BBC saying Sauber decided Sirotkin isn't yet ready for F1 in 2014, and Sky saying "it's expected" that Gutierrez will stay. A contract has been signed, but nobody knows what's in that contract, and nobody's ever said that he has a contract to drive in 2014. Sauber may have an option on him for 2014, but *nobody* here knows the probability that the required conditions will be met to get him in next season, and negotiations are still taking place for that seat, and this seems to be the only place where it's considered a foregone conclusion that Sirotkin has the seat. It clearly and obviously isn't, despite the loud protestations of some. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not our place to comment on what the probability of Sirotkin racing is. None of us are in a position to know. All we can do is edit the article to reflect what available, reliable and verifiable sources say. On the one hand, we have Sky saying that it is "expected" that Gutierrez will get the seat, but with know way of knowing what they are basing that on, and no way of verifying it. On the other hand, we have two reliable, verifiable sources quoting people within the team as publicly saying Sirotkin will race for them provided that he gets a superlicence, and that the team has developed a programme aimed at getting him that licence. The latter wins every single time.

The fact that you think some of us think this is a contest speaks volumes. We are not taking the side of Sirotkin, trying to lead people into believing that he will race. We are taking the stance that the article should reflect what the available sources say, and given that we have two reliable, verifiable sources saying that Sirotkin has the seat, then that is what the article should say until such time a source that is as reliable and verifiable as the existing sources becomes available which directly demonstrates that Sirotkin does not have the seat. A source saying that Sauber will announce their second driver does not count because they can still announce Sirotkin at that later date. Nobody is going to score any points if that new source becomes available. A source saying that Sirotkin will not race in 2014 does not prove that he was never going to and that the article was wrong for months on end. If you think that is the case, then you clearly have no idea what Wikipedia is about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are the three remaining slots marked "TBA"? Sirotkin's still TBA. What's the rationale for not marking that seat as TBA since they haven't announced it? This talk page is a good indication of some of the reasons why a table of "signed" drivers, when announcements are what count, is an inherently fraught concept. If this issue is in any way a representative indicator, then Wikipedia is apparently about riding hobby horses in circles. (Also, I never said anything about anyone thinking this is a contest, so please, reply to what I actually say, as opposed to putting words in my mouth and then referring to it as "fact". It's out of place on a site that's supposed to foster a fact-based culture.) 76.90.20.73 (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? That has been explained at least six times now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The rationale is that the sources say otherwise. Your argument clearly show that you fail to understand the working of the table as according to the provided sources it was ANNOUNCED the he is SIGNED to drive. I stand by my colleague here. We are not taking the side of Sirotkin, trying to lead people into believing that he will race. If Sauber announce a different driver instead of Sirotkin, no problem. We will change the article accordingly. Unless a reliable and verifiable source is provided, complying with the specifications explained further down on the talk page, that Sirotkin does not have a contract anymore; his seat will not be changed to "TBA" in the meantime. Tvx1 (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"Sauber have confirmed that they will announce his (Sutil) 2014 team mate at a later date." http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2013/12/15347.html. How much longer does this need to drag on? He is not confirmed to be a race driver - which is what the header in that table states - and this is coming from the FIA! Even if he is contracted, this still does not preclude the possibility he will end up a test driver. Until Sauber and the FIA come out and publicly confirm their driver lineup, it is inaccurate to list Sirotkin as a race driver for Sauber.

Autosport's already backing away from saying Sirotkin's signed for 2014. (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111853/) The Sky source cited is over three months old, and is also vague in that it didn't quote the question, but editorialized it. What hasn't been explained to me is why this table needs to be "signed" drivers and not "announced" drivers. As it is, it's obviously a problematic premise, and the vast majority of us who disagree with a couple of full-throated defenders of the practice can't seem to get an answer as to why it should be signed drivers, since F1 driver contracts are notoriously complex, and shrouded in secrecy, often full of contingencies and all sorts of terms that later turn out to result in something vastly different from what's sold to the press as negotiations continue. I understand the working of the table; that's an odd way of doing things. If we're going to say a driver is signed, that needs to be clearly defined. And as it stands, its definition is obviously murky, at best. For all we know, Sauber's using this to try to close the financing deal, feel he isn't ready for 2014 (as they've indicated before), and are waiting for the first test to be able to keep his funding but get another driver in the seat for 2014, while he continues to prepare. It's not our job to speculate about that, and assuming he's signed to race in 2014 is perhaps the most direct from of speculation. He's unannounced, and there's nothing speculative about that, and so basing the 2014 driver table on announcements makes much more sense. If some continue to disagree with that, it seems a highly sensible compromise to have a clean way of indicating which drivers are announced, and which are presumed to be signed but remain unannounced (in and of itself an interesting thing). As an aside, the reluctance to discuss that without resorting to questionable argumentative tactics isn't helping the discussion. I hope we can maintain Wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good faith, civility, attacking, and edit-warring (each of which have, to a disappointing degree, been on clear display at various points in this discussion). 76.90.20.73 (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there is consensus to not add Sirotkin until Sauber says so. If there is no consensus, then Sirotkin should STILL be removed since no one can prove at this moment he'll drive for Sauber in 2014. Argument over. If he's confirmed at a later date, he will be added at that later date and no earlier just because of rumors that cannot be confirmed by Sauber, the most reliable source when it comes to their drivers. I don't get why speculation is allowed just for Sirotkin, and I don't think anyone else does either.GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, but if you say "you clearly don't understand what [wikipedia/the table] is about" forcefully and insultingly enough, and do so often enough, then you get your way. 76.216.137.21 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Great summation of what's going on here. I don't see why two people should be able to make decisions for the page without taking into consideration anyone else's opinions. That sounds a little rude, but if it were false, we'd be having this discussion without Sirotkin's name on the page. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not two people taking decisions for the page without into consideration anyone else's opinions. We have taken your opinions in to account and have clearly explained based on the sources why we disagree with it. Furthermore, I you take a look a the page's history you will notice that multiple other users have reverted your edits on this issue. Tvx1 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Call it what you want, but at least it is coming to a close. I'm sure you already knew how this would turn out. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again

Jesus FUCKING Christ!

What on earth is going on here!? When did it become acceptable for speculative nonsense like this to become considered a reliable source? Sure, it comes frm Autosport, but it was used to claim that Lotus will use Renault engines, that Grosjean will race for them, and that Sirotkin will not race for Sauber. And yet, if you had actually taken two fucking minutes to read the article, you would have seen that absolutely NONE of this is supported with anything resembling any kind of evidence in the body of the article.

Is it too much to ask that you read your fucking sources before you fucking add them into the article.

Fuck, I'm pissed off at the consistently low quality of edits from people who don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is all about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Good that you as a "high quality" editor have understood that wikipedia is all about swearing to others, let's hope that "low quality" editors adopt that strategy too. It will for sure make this a better place for everyone. Im also dead sure that your comment has settled the reliable source problem once and for all, for who dares to oppose a writer that is bold enough to use four letter word and its derivatives so many times. You are my hero! 87.95.194.56 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps Prisonermonkeys should have "taken two minutes" to read the guidelines at the top of this page about politeness, about behaviour towards new users (the edits you are fuming over were by a user who seems to have created user page on 30. October and edited an article first time on 7. November and has done only a little editing yet) etc..."Wikipedia is all about" people who can control their temper and contribute in a civilized way. 87.95.194.56 (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right. We should absolutely tolerate it when people make the same mistakes over and over again and show no indication that they have learned anything. Because we have all got nothing better to do than purge the article of bad edits made by people who ought to know better considering that we went through the whole sorry process two weeks ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The user in this case was not doing same mistakes over and over again, actually he had reverted some stupidities by others (in A. Scerdi case for example) please check his edit history, which is small. Besides the guidelines are for you as much as for anyone else. There is no excuse in breaking them. I will not be commenting more however.87.95.194.56 (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys, can you remove Sergey Sirotkin's name from the driver lineup please, he is not confirmed and there are some recent news reports over Gutierrez is set to stay for Sauber. But this is not confirmed but I do need Sirotkin removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.99.104 (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We are attempting to establish a consensus on what to do about Sirotkin. However, those "recent reports" about Gutierrez are not confirmation and cannot be used to include him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

But they are enough to at least remove Sirotkin. They certainly prove Sirotkin is out of the picture. This is over and you know it. I will wait until Sauber's announcement to add Gutierrez's name... which is what we should have done with Sirotkin. Why didn't we? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sirotkin should be removed

Sirotkin should be removed from list for now. According to formula1.com (after all the official F1 website)t confirmed: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2013/12/15324.html - this is a more authoritative source than Autosport. --SmilingBoy (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Autosport are quoting Sauber, who are more authoritative than the official F1 website. And despite being the official site, the general opinion is that it is only good for car numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sirotkin is not yet on the formula1.com website because it is not 100% certain he will drive for them. He has signed deal with Sauber; which Sauber themselves announced, bases on certain conditions. That's enough to list him here since, once again, we are giving a list of SIGNED drivers here and not of 100% certain ones. No drivers would be on such a list yet as they still have to agree with a new Concorde Agreement, which is an mandatory condition for them to drive. Tvx1 (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, when I added Romain Grosjean's name into the list of drivers in 2014, after many sources have confirmed his dealing, Prisonermonkeys removed him from the list. Whereas, Sergey Sirotkin is not listed under Sauber for 2014 and have yet to confirm his deal, Prisonermonkeys wants his name to be kept. I really don't get it, or maybe I'm just new and I'm missing out somethings. StandNThrow (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty easy to explain. Grosjean had not been announced by his team, Sirontkin has. --Falcadore (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - wait until the conditions (licence) have been met first, then see if he is confirmed. Burgring (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The consensus here is that he has the seat for the moment. If you remove him from the list on the basis that there is a condition to his contract, than you should remove all of the drivers, and all of the teams as well, currently on the list as they still have an unfulfilled condition for competing: agreeing with a new Concorde Agremeent. Furthermore I thought I had already made it clear that this not a list of 100% certain drivers. Theoretically, it is possible that none of them actually compete in a grand prix next season. They might get ill, get injured or might even die before the first race. Regarding the teams anyone of them could go into receivership before the first race. All of these are examples of a cases "Force Majeure". Sirotkin not getting his Super License is considered to be a de facto case of "Force Majeure" Tvx1 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys: "you have no right or power to override unless you can form a new consensus (and you will need recent, reliable sources to support it)." And what rights or power do you have to override that Sergey Sirotkin has the seat, when his drive for Formula 1 has not been confirmed/listed under FIA, Formula.com, SkySports F1, Planet F1, Autosport? You can report me for disruptive editing to the administrators, but I got prove to substantiate my stand that Sergey's seat is not confirmed. And that will not warrant a ban on me. StandNThrow (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not proven anything. If you had, you would have a new consensus to show for it. As we have previously demonstrated, those websites are often publishing content that is unsubstantiated. Formula1.com is rarely used on Wikipedia for anything other than car numbers, because it has been slow to update in the past (especially when waiting for an entry list). Sky Sports might have listed the Sauber seats as TBA, but we had a reliable source that contradicted it, and since that source came direct from the team, it took priority. The list Autosport published included Grosjean before he was announced by Lotus, and gave no reason for the Sauber seats as suddenly changing to TBA. And I have no idea why you are even bothering with Planet F1. It's useless.

All of this is inconsequential, anyway. The administrators won't care that you found all those sites. They will see an editor who repeatedly went against an established consensus at a time when the issue was being widely discussed on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And what rights or power do you have to override that Sergey Sirotkin has the seat, when his drive for Formula 1 has not been confirmed/listed under FIA, Formula.com, SkySports F1, Planet F1, Autosport?

Well...Formula.com, SkySports F1, Planet F1 and Autosport can not confirm anything, they are not official sources. --Falcadore (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

All of this is inconsequential, anyway. The administrators won't care that you found all those sites. They will see an editor who repeatedly went against an established consensus at a time when the issue was being widely discussed on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you really want to say this twice? --Falcadore (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I've been having a few problems with copy-pasting on my mobile, which is probably the cause. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The surmising of a definite place isn't supported by the cited reference; all that does is give Autosport's interpretation based on a brief encounter with the team several months ago. This is pure speculation at the moment. If it were establshed fact, more recent published commentary would support it, not contradict it as it does. Burgring (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that none of that recent commentary is coming from verifiable sources. There was a similar story a few months ago that claimed Sirotkin would not drive because NIAT, one of the Russian companies involved in the deal, had not paid the team. The story gained momentum until Sauber pointed out that NIAT had not paid because they were not required to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

How many times do I have to stress that this NOT a list of 100% certain confirmed drivers (and teams) but of SIGNED drivers (and teams). Sirotkin has a signed contracted to drive next season so his presence on the list is justified. We have established a consensus here that him not getting his Super License is a de facto case of force majeure. Unless anyone can provide an acceptable source, to specify it would need to name and quote someone in the team who is in a position to speak for the team (e.g. Monisha Kaltenborn, Peter Sauber,...), which confirms that Sirotkin's contract has been terminated or that he failed to meet the condition, to support the numerous claims that have been made here so far, he will not be removed from the list. Tvx1 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for any mistake caused in here. Let's just hope this will go forward peacefully and happily. StandNThrow (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please remove Sirotkin, has not been confirmed by Sauber, the source given doesn't confirm anything. Makes Wikipedia a waste of time if rumours are posted as facts. 86.166.15.17 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We explained the reasoning for his presence on the list time and time again. I'm not going through this anymore. Please read the above discussion and you will find your answer. It's actually only a few lines above this reply. Tvx1 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

[2] Sirotkin may have been announced by Sauber for one of their racing seats earlier this year, but there is a reason he isn't on any other lists of F1 drivers for 2014. His contract is not for a 100% racing position in 2014. Why is Wikipedia the only site that believes Sirotkin is going to be racing in 2014? If this isn't true, then he shouldn't be on this page yet. How old are those references for him anyway? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Whew. Never mind. Sauber said they'll announce their second driver at a LATER DATE. No more of this Sirotkin argument. He's not the driver. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they just said "we'll announce our second driver at a later date", not "we'll announce our second driver at a later date, but we can tell you it won't be Sirotkin". So yes, enough of this nonsense. You're letting your opinion of whether or not Sirotkin will race decide which sources you pay attention to and how you interpret them.

If you want to remove him, you need to prove that he won't race. Which you haven't done yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Guys, just forget about it. We all know Gutierrez will be announced for the team by the end of the year and Sirotkin the Reserve. It's been common knowledge for a few months now. Just let these Wikipedia police keep their out of date rumors up until it's all sorted because they seem hell bent on making this page incorrect. It's all over now. I gave up after posting sources, so there's not much else anyone can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be "common knowledge", but without a shred of evidence in support of it, it has no business being on Wikipedia. Including it without that evidence violates half a dozen of Wikipedia's most important principles, and willingly ignoring sources that are more reliable because you do not like them violates half a dozen more.

As for the "sources" you posted, it took less than two minutes to demonstrate how poor they were. You need something much more compelling than that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This has not been a particularly auspicious episode for the project, and when this Sirotkin saga is finally and mercifully over, we should probably agree on a different strategy for displaying drivers before the start of a season. Right now Sirotkin is almost more notable as a point of argument on Wikipedia than he is as a racing driver. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with the existing system. I just think we've seen an influx of editors who don't really understand how sources actually work, given the number of speculative and unverifiable references that have been provided as "evidence". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You didn't spend "2 minutes" explaining why they were poor. You outright excluded the evidence over your own belief that journalists who in fact work within the infrastructure of the news pipeline are not as credible as tabloid reporters whom share news announced publicly. The idea that you expect a company such as these to announce that funding deals have fallen through or being held up is laughable. You wont ever get that sort of tabloid news because it's highly confidential. Things leak however; they rapidly update and they change, situations become different and time changes set in place plans. No other site aside from Wikipedia has kept Sirotkin as confirmed, only that he has been announced. I gave you another source that publicly; yet un-notably mentioned the deal with the Russian company had not come into fruition. You have your rules on here so bad that they trip over each other. If at all Sirotkin is TBC and not TBA. The contract is not signed for him to race with Sauber for 2014 but to race with Sauber period, he was just in the running because the seat was vacant but time Is running out servilely and they needed to act upon it. Changing the list and adding TBC**, adding the cited source would be better. You can not and will not dig yourself out of this overlapping hypocritical hole by mentioning loopholes and you cannot use your own personal opinions either because I know that is what you're doing. One could say what I state is personal opinion too but it's not. I told you Sutil would be in Sauber and Perez in Force India did I not? Because I knew. The cited sources I could link you would be from the same group of people as what I showed for Sirotkin. People who operate within F1 and not major news companies waiting to publish something known weeks ago. This entire discussion is pointless, do not reply to it and I won't reply back. Joetri10 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: your argument is "nobody is going to confirm that it happened, which means that it obviously happened". Everything you have said contradicts itself, because it is one thing for a source to be WP:RELIABLE, but that same source must be WP:VERIFIABLE. If something is reported, then it should be easy for us to independently confirm it. When you start relying on industry contacts and anonymous sources, we get into murky territory because we cannot find it for ourselves.

You claim that you told everyone that Sutil would go to Sauber and Perez would go to Force India. That's very nice for you. Unfortunately, it gets you nowhere. You are not a source. You may have contacts in the industry, but you are still asking the reader to take your word for it. You might have been right those two times, but how can we be confident that you will be right other times? Just look at the situation with Kimi Raikkonen: people with industry contacts variously claimed that he would go to Red Bull, that he would go to Ferrari, and that he would stay at Lotus. Only one was correct. So if we start relying on people who claim to have the inside track, there is the massive potential for incorrect information to seep into the article.

All of this is academic, anyway. What this boils down to is that we have two reliable, verifiable sources that quote senior team members saying that Sirotkin will join Sauber. If you want to remove Sirotkin from the table or replace him, then you need a source that is just as reliable and just as verifiable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about there. I didn't say "nobody is going to confirm it" I said the team wouldn't announce it publicly. It has however been confirmed within the team and outside it. Whether they chose to publish it is up to the specific news outlet.

As for your handy links there. I looked through that. Most of those rules are subject to personal opinion as I stated. One of the articles you dismissed was due to the person who wrote it. Yes he runs his own blog but he also works for the media, writing for news. He is credible but again, personal opinion. Raikkonen's situation is completely different to Sirotkins whilst the news of Checo, Hulkenberg and Sutil was known in advance. Some sources may be wrong, however some are correct. Again, this is pointless. Joetri10 (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: why weren't Sutil, Perez and Hulkenberg added to the article before they were actually added?

Answer: because they didn't have reliable, verifiable sources to support their inclusion.

So if we can't add drivers without a reliable, verifiable source, why can we suddenly start removing them without a reliable, verifiable source?

Also, the Raikkonen situation is no different to this. We had multiple pundits claiming he would certainly sign with a variety of teams, using their industry connections as credentials. You are claiming that Sirotkin will not race, using industry connections as credentials. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's just freaking send a text message or email message in Russian to Sirotkin and ask him if he is going to get his Super License and race in 2014. Let's stop this freaking debate already. StandNThrow (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000 and Joetri10, unless you provide us with a reliable and verifiable sources that complies with the requirements specified earlier in the discussion Sirotkin's position is not going to be changed in the article. The reason why the article from the journalists that has been provided here has been disapproved as a source for this article is not because who he is, but because what he writes in his articles. He gives his own personal opinion about what he thinks the situation for next season will be, and does cite the teams and drivers. It's similar to BBC's Eddie Jordan or Andrew Benson giving his opinion. It's their personal speculation and most importantly it's not verifiable. Now, Joetri10, it is very obvious from your replies that you are still unwilling to understand the mechanics of the table provided and the goal of wikipedia and of an encyclopedia in general. You are claiming that we are the only site claiming that Sirotkin is confirmed and not just announced. Well, that is exactly the opposite of what is shown here. As I have stressed time and time again this is NOT a list of 100% CONFIRMED DRIVERS!!! This is a list of SIGNED drivers. It shows what has been announced in reliable and verifiable sources up to this day. It does not try to predict what is going to happen with 100% certainty at the 2014 Bahrain Grand Prix and beyond. As is stands, none, absolutely none of the teams and drivers is confirmed a the moment as they still have to sign a new Concorde Agreement. If this list was based on confirmation, then nothing would be in it until the start of the race at the 2014 Bahrain Grand Prix. If Sauber announce a different driver instead of Sirotkin than that wouldn't mean we were wrong, but that Sauber has changed its mind. Nothing more, nothing less.Tvx1 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

[3] Sauber says they have not announced their second driver yet. Why are you all assuming Sirotkin will be the second driver next year? Sauber hasn't made a decision yet! This source is two days old. How old are the sources are being used to keep Sirotkin's name on the article? They're out of date. If you aren't going to accept Sauber F1 Team as a reliable source, then my guess is Sirotkin is paying you to keep his name on the article. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't ask for proof that he won't race. That's just plain stupid. Maybe I'll add my name. Can't prove I won't race in 2014. I apologize for being blunt, but this argument is just silly. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No it's not silly. If you add your name it will be removed by a lack of a reliable and verifiable source to substantiate it. We do not need proof that you will not race to do that. Regarding Sirotkin there are reliable and verifiable sources, which cite Sauber F1 Team themselves, that say he will drive for them so to remove him you would need a reliable and verifiable source that says exactly the opposite. That an announcement will be made in the future is not enough by itself as it does not say that I could be anyone except Sirotkin. I have had enough of your claims that this site is being used to publish propaganda for Sergey Sirotkin. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is not a news site and we do not publish the latest scoops on a day by day basis on our site. The date of source is of absolutely no importance. We are only, and I repeat only, interested in the contents of a source. Tvx1 (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify once and for all why this source [4] does not trump those used for Sirotkin in the article. I know it's a list of signed drivers, but Sauber have not announced their second race driver, therefore it's not clear what Sirotkin has been signed to do, per the Sauber source that confirms Sutil. This source confirms that the previous sources are inaccurate, at least to my eyes. It is a valid source that clearly states that Sauber have announced one driver. I do think that a list of announced race drivers would be an improvement on list of "signed drivers". Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Another thing – this consensus that we agreed regarding having a list of signed drivers as opposed to a list of blokes who are actually going to drive next year – it might be time that we had a look at it. I might well have been part of it, but I suspect it's not working. Anyone got a link to it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Pic signed a multi year deal with Caterham, there's nothing to prove he isn't racing for them next year. Why aren't we listing him? Edible plywood (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Because a new source became available, one where Pic said his future with the team was not guaranteed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet the source you mention does not trump the earlier sources because it does no state that the to be announced driver will not be Sirotkin. We all know that they cannot officially confirm him because of the condition in his contract. We agreed on a consensus to add him nevertheless.

I can't see the possible difference between a list of announced drivers and list of signed drivers as we now list those who been announced to be signed.

Lastly I can't possible see what the improvement of changing to a list of "blokes (or lassies) who are actually going to drive" because you can't actually put anyone in such a list on a an encyclopedia until the start of the first race of the season. Tvx1 (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense that we rely on an old source simply because no new name has been announced. Sirotkin was "signed" and we were told he was being prepared for racing. That hasn't been repeated for three months. We don't know anything of the sort regarding conditions in his contract. I strongly suspect he hasn't been confirmed because they're waiting to see how much money the others come up with (specifically Gutierrez) compared to Sirotkin. The superlicence is neither here nor there. "We agreed on a consensus to add him nevertheless" makes no sense, what do you mean? There's certainly no consensus here specifically concerning Sirotkin.

There's a difference because when a team announces a driver, that's usually it. Sirotkin was not announced / unveiled as a Sauber driver. Your last point makes no sense – every other source manages it, and we're starting to look stupid here. We are definitely not reflecting other reliable lists of 2014 drivers. People come here looking for a list of drivers who will race in the 2014 season, not a list of drivers who the teams have been signed with no certainty of actually racing. Again, does anyone have a link to the broader consensus? I am wondering if the inclusion of Sirotkin is in the spirit of that consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea of changing the section from "signed" to "announced" is nothing more than an attempt to change the structure of the page so that Sirotkin can be removed. Aside from it being a bad idea to change elements of the article outside the scope of disputed content instead of forming a consensus, it also opens up a whole can of worms that we could do without.

The reason why we use "signed" is because a contract exists between team and driver, which has the signatures of all parties on it. It is a legally binding document, which all involved must observe. And while that contract can be broken, it can only be broken when something changes within the team.

On the other hand, "announced" is much more open to interpretation. What is an announcement? Quantum Motorsport announced that they would buy into Lotus next year and made a lot of noise about it, but no contract has been signed yet.

The best definition for what qualifies as suitable for inclusion is the one we have: people within the team who are named and quoted as saying it will happen. This driver is now "signed"; a contract exists. If we keep that definition, but rename it as "announced", then we are just changing things for the sake of pushing through other changes, and potentially compromising the article.

At this point, I would like to mention that I, personally, am of the opinion that Sirotkin will not race next year. However, I cannot find any reliable, verifiable sources that support this, and so the article must reflect the best available sources. Since we have two sources quoting the Sauber team principal saying that Sirotkin will race if he gets his licence and that the team are working on getting that licence for him, then the only thing that could supersede that is a) the team principal saying that he will not race after all, and/or b) the team principal saying someone else will race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, no it isn't. A problem has clearly arisen in which a driver has been put on this list when most people (including you now) don't believe he'll race. That makes an encyclopedia look stupid. That is a very good reason for changing the criteria for inclusion on this list. Also worth noting is that this very discussion actually appears to form a consensus to remove him, particularly in the absence of this old consensus to list only "signed drivers" – the numbers are pretty clear. People keep saying this isn't a list of 100% confirmed drivers. Why isn't it? Where's our discussion on it?

Secondly, while contracts may exist between team and driver, we have zero idea of what is in those contracts. Therefore we should not be using our interpretation of "contract" to determine who goes on the list. Sirotkin (for example) might have signed a contract which has a clause saying "Sauber reserve the right to make Sirotkin a Friday tester if Gutierrez comes up with more cash." We have no clue. Once a driver is "announced", (and by that I mean confirmed by the team to be racing in 2014 with no conditions) he should be listed. We really do have a new Sauber source that puts Sirotkin's participation as a race driver in sufficient doubt to remove his name from the list. Sutil was announced and Sirotkin didn't even rate a mention. It said "The second driver for the 2014 season will be announced at a later date." To me, that is clear as day, yet we're listing him. They do not need to name a different driver for there to be sufficient doubt over Sirotkin. The sources saying he will race are ancient in F1 terms. Ancient. And TVX1, the date of the source does matter. At best, Sirotkin merits a footnote at the moment. We lose nothing by removing his name (because nobody else has him listed in similar tables), and we gain clarity. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Prisonermonkeys here. I have the same opinion. As for Bretonbanquet the condition I was referring to is him earning his Super License. That has always been common knowledge. The consensus regarding him was achieved in a discussion a short while ago that has now been archived. You can find it here. It's strange you're so oblivious about it because you were involved in it as well.

I still fail to see the sense of the Signed/Announced argument. When a team announce a driver they announce that he/she is signed to drive for them. There is no other type of driver announcement and it's exactly the same way for the Grands Prix.

My last point does make very much sense. When you want a list of drivers who are 100% certain going to drive next season you can't list anyone before the start of the first race because it's not 100% certain anyone is going to drive until the start of the first race. For instance, theoretically, it is possible that a driver, on the morning of the race, stumbles down the stairs of his/her hotel and breaks his/her leg and thus will not be able to participate in the race after all. Or worse, a driver could stumble while entering the cockpit of his/her car on the starting grid, fall over and break his/her arm preventing the driver from taking part. There are numerous other examples I can think of. Such a list is quite simply unworkable. Tvx1 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've moved my comment back to where it should be, as I was directly addressing PM's comment. You should probably reword your comment to fit its position – place comments at the bottom please as it makes this stuff very hard to read otherwise. The discussion you link to does not take into account the later sources. I was referring to there being no consensus here to add him, and this discussion trumps the older one because we have more source material now. I'm not surprised I don't remember that older discussion, I made a single (flippant) comment.

Sirotkin was not announced as "signed to drive" with no conditions. He has never been announced in the way that Sutil has just been announced for example. I'm sure you can see the difference. If the September claim that he was going to drive in 2014 is valid, why has it never been repeated by the team? Using sources is not just a case of picking one and sticking to it rigidly.

Your last point is one you've made several times, and it's been ridiculous each time you've made it. Sure, there could be a nuclear war and there'd be no races at all. Be serious. By your criteria we'd have no table at all. We are (or should be) perfectly capable of doing what every other motor sport source does and make a list of confirmed drivers for 2014. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If the September claim that Sirotkin will not drive is invalid, why hasn't it been refuted by the team? We don't expect teams to post weekly updates about who will drive for them, so why are we starting now?

If the Russian deal is off, why is it only being reported in publications outside the mainstream? Why aren't they quoting anyone as saying it will not happen, and are instead referring to reports in foreign-language publications?

I am yet to see any conclusive proof that the deal is off. So why is it suddenly okay to make unsubstantiated changes to the article, simply because reliable, verified content is unpopular? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

They're not likely to refute their own claim because it makes them look silly (sillier than they already look). They'll just clarify it when they announce their second driver, and they have made it clear they have not done that yet. Not weekly updates no, but they have not referred to Sirtokin as a 2014 driver at all over the last three months. Seems odd, surely?

I have no idea about the Russian deal. As far as this list goes, the Russian deal and Sirotkin's participation in 2014 are not connected. This table is not concerned about the reasons for a driver's participation or whatever oiled the wheels of his deal, only that he's either in or out. I know this project is often starved of common sense, but common sense surely dictates that the Sirotkin drive is, at best, in some considerable doubt. The table does not reflect that, and it should. You're saying this content is reliable... we just don't know that it is. In fact you and I, and plenty of others, have stated openly we don't believe it'll happen. It seems daft to leave it in, especially when we have a new source leaving the seat technically open. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the positioning of my last reply. Apparently we were typing our reply to the previous post simultaneously, but you beat me to it in posting it. There was no bad faith involved there. That being said, why do we need another consensus confirming the earlier one here? You are once again making up Wikipedia policies to suit your argument. We've explained that Sauber cannot officially "announce" a driver who doesn't have a Super License. No team can do that. The new post on their site does not exclude Sirotkin as driving for them. We have articles from two independent sources to substantiate his inclusion. There are now new reliable and verifiable sources since september that proof the opposite. The only thing we know is that Sauber is looking for other drivers in case Sirotkin does not get his Super License. What my and Prisonermonkeys' personal view is on what might happen is completely irrelevant as we act by the sources on Wikipedia.

Now, you are the one that came up with the ridiculous idea of having a list of "blokes who are certainly going to race next season" It's your criteria that would see us having no list. My criterium is the current practice of having a list of Signed drivers. It has worked fine for years and one difficulty turning up does not justify changing the whole practice. There's no problem at all with all the other drivers currently on the list. Every rule has an exception sooner or later. Tvx1 (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The team might not have referred to Sirotkin as their 2014 driver for three months, but I do not recall them referring to him at all in that time. He is not a subject that has come up in any context, be it that he is driving for them or he is not driving for them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem TVX1, no bad faith assumed. But I am plainly not making up Wikipedia policies: here's one for you – consensus can change, "especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances". You're missing the point, and no, we do not know that Sauber is looking for other drivers in case Sirotkin doesn't get his superlicence. He'll probably get it (and Sauber know it) and he probably won't race for some other reason, almost certainly financial. There is enough doubt around that we should not have him on this list. You do not "act by the sources", what you are doing is acting by some sources and flatly ignoring others and the views of a large number of editors on this page.

You think that's a ridiculous idea, do you? It works for a lot of reputable sources. Nobody out there has to add a caveat like "these guys will race unless they break their legs getting out of bed". You have to be realistic about it. Signed drivers are great, but you have no idea what Sirotkin has actually signed up to and Sauber aren't saying! Mercifully, this will be solved soon, and I do hope to see some humility if Sirotkin finds himself on the sidelines. If this were a more long-term problem, the current methods simply could and would not stand. This kind of farce is unacceptable.

PM, you've been around F1 for a while and you're familiar with F1 teams' behind-the-scenes shenanigans. Don't you think it's odd that Sauber hasn't referred to one of their signed 2014 race drivers in three months? With all the question marks over him, would they not have confirmed their intentions at some point, and actually supported him? Like "he will race if gets his superlicence"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, who says Sauber can't confirm a driver without a superlicence? They can do whatever they want: they can have him do all the press and so forth, unveil the car, turn up to the first race and everything. Right up to the point he fails scrutineering. Obviously they wouldn't do it, but there's nothing actually stopping them. You know that Kvyat was confirmed by Toro Rosso before he had a superlicence, right? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's odd. Because in those three months, they have been busy racing, and the 2013 calendar had them going almost non-stop since Singapore. On top of that, they have been busy working on the C33, since it just passed its crash tests, and finding a second driver.

Furthermore, if you look at reference #33, it directly quotes Kaltenborn saying Sirotkin will race if he gets his licence. Why does she need to repeat that three months later? Especially when she has been busy running every other aspect of the team. Given the intense schedule, the only time they would have to put Sirotkin through his paces is in December and January. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally some common sense! I couldn't agree more with you. Tvx1 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why can't you two WAIT until Sauber actually announces their second driver? Isn't it better to be cautious than ambitious? This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA after all where we can't just post whatever we want without proof. Wikipedia is the ONLY site that has any inkling to include Sirotkin on a list of drivers for 2014. Even Sauber won't acknowledge Sirotkin as their driver yet! Why should Wikipedia? Because two people feel like it and will keep changing it because they think they have a consensus? Why are three-month-old sources somehow more reliable than SAUBER THEMSELVES saying Sirotkin has not even been announced yet? This is foolish and embarrassing to Wikipedia. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with GeoJoe1000. PM, Toro Rosso managed it with Kvyat, so why not Sauber? It's exactly the same situation. If you genuinely believe some of the stuff you've written there, I don't know what else to say. TVX1, I do not think you're the arbiter of what is or isn't common sense. For God's sake, I hope Sauber sort this sorry mess out for us soon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I can still decide for myself what I consider to be common sense or not. I can argue in the exact same ridiculous way as you two do. Why can't YOU two wait until they announce him not to be driving for them or someone else to be driving for them instead of him. We have included him and added the proof to that. You're the ones that are removing him without proof. We have two independent sources citing SAUBER THEMSELVES (i.e. Monisha Kaltenborn) that he will drive for them. Unless new reliable and verifiable sources are provided that overturn exactly that and not just "we'll officially announce him on a later date" we cannot not remove him. Tvx1 (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, if this were to be pushed, it would get removed. There's a clear consensus on this page to remove Sirotkin from the table. The two sources you have are three months old. There is a source from this week saying they have not announced the second driver. It doesn't say "we'll announce him (Sirotkin) at a later date", it doesn't mention him at all. You're asking for reliable sources when there is one staring you in the face. "Proof" has been given that no second driver has been announced. I think a trip to ANI is in order. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC) ANI is the wrong place, apparently. It's definitely time to ask outside editors for assistance though.

Bretonbanquet, there is NOT a clear consensus. Do not try to claim one and make edits without it. It has been stated (many times) why Sirotkin is on the page, and what a source needs to disprove the existing sources. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this sorry page again and see just how many people wanted it taken off. Also, maybe you ought to go back and have a look at the article history before accusing people of making edits they haven't made. Don't think you can tell me what edits I can and can't make OR what consensus I can and can't claim. This project is not some kind of law, you know. A source has been provided to disprove the existing sources and I'm starting to wonder just why three of you are sticking to ancient sources like glue. You say he's announced, Sauber say he isn't. Incontrovertible. The fact is, it wouldn't matter if 100 people came on here and asked for it to be taken off, you'd still revert it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't make the edit yourself but you led other users to belief that there is a consensus to make the edit. You don't have the authority to decide all by yourself wether or not there is consensus. Neither do I. This is not we saying he's announced versus Sauber saying he isn't. We have multiple sources citing Sauber saying that he's announced, you have a source saying Sauber hasn't. The new source doesn't say anything whatsoever regarding Sirotkin and that includes it doesn't say that he's certainly not going to drive for them. That's why it does not disprove the older sources. The "announcement" they are going to make could be anything. You made the conclusion that it will certainly not be that Sirotkin will be driving for them and demand an edit on that basis. Unfortunately things do not work like that around here. Tvx1 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet- You're right. I apologize for my mistake. I should have looked at the edit history more closely. JohnMcButts (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just exactly what are you accusing me of here? Leading other editors to believe... what kind of shit is that? Retract it, please, or I shall assume a violation of WP:AGF. Who's deciding anything "all by himself"? Clarify very clearly what you are accusing me of, please. "The announcement they are going to make could be anything" ?? Have you read the source? What part of this official Sauber statement from 13 December: "The second driver for the 2014 season will be announced at a later date" has slipped by you? I have made no conclusion other than the second driver has not been announced, proved beyond doubt by that source, word for word. You say he's been "signed", but for what exactly, you can't tell us. You have at no stage explained why we need a statement from Sauber retracting Sirotkin's signing or why this new source should be disregarded. And you want to tell me "how things work around here"... Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I will cite from your third-to last reply: " There's a clear consensus on this page to remove Sirotkin from the table. " That's what I was referring to. Now regarding the source I have read it carefully as opposed to what you seem to believe. It can still mean anything. We don't know who they will announce or what they will announce about that person. They could announce another driver for that spot or they could reassert that Sirotkin has the spot. It's no up to us to speculate about that here. The sources we provided state clearly that Sirotkin is signed to drive for them if he obtains his Super License. Tvx1 (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And? So what's your problem with that? Do you think it's against a guideline to claim a consensus? I know "JohnMcButts" thinks it is, how about you, "Tvx1"? How about the "leading other editors" thing? Hmm? You think other people can't think for themselves? So, you don't know what they will announce about that person? Are you being serious? "The second driver for the 2014 season will be announced at a later date" and you're wondering what they're going to announce? I think I'm being trolled here. If this wasn't a temporary situation, I'd get an admin in. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Just like JohnMcButts I should have looked at the edit history more closely. I was wrong about the leading into bit. I retract that. Sorry for that. Having said that, when I'm wondering what's going to be announced I ment which person they are actually going to announce. Tvx1 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the retraction. And indeed, we don't know which person they're going to announce... Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, while the situation may be temporary, the attitudes that are fueling it aren't, and should really be addressed. Involving admins on this one would be appreciated by many, I'd wager. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Sirotkin is on this list through these two references dating from September: [5] [6] I and others believe that the last sentence of this reference from December [7] requires us to remove him from the list until such time as a second Sauber driver is properly announced. It would be useful to achieve a wider consensus to resolve this issue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe he should be removed. It is the decision made at the F1 Wiki (I'll admit that isn't really relevant), and it is what the most recent source appears to imply – Sutil and "TBA". It looks like he will not have the drive. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think he should be removed until Sauber actually announce their second driver. It's better to list nothing than possibly the wrong thing. Edible plywood (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source quoting Sauber boss Kaltenborn as clearly not having made a final decision: [8]. This is from November, later than the two sources currently used. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The new source from friday doesn't say anything whatsoever regarding Sirotkin and that means it doesn't say that he's certainly not going to drive for them. That's why it does not disprove the older sources. The "announcement" they are going to make could be anything. That's why it doesn't disprove the older sources used here. Tvx1 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the source, so here's the last sentence: "The second driver for the 2014 season will be announced at a later date." The suggestion that the announcement "could be anything" is utterly ludicrous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't know who they will announce or what they will announce about that person. They could announce another driver for that spot or they could reassert that Sirotkin has the spot. It's no up to us to speculate about that here. The sources we provided state clearly that Sirotkin is signed to drive for them if he obtains his Super License. Tvx1 (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read this whole thing and I'm still confused how you could possibly take implications you have personally drawn from news posts on other topics (Sauber's signing of Sutil) and use them to override explicit statements in verified sources (the signing of Sirotkin). Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about established, verified, explicit facts, not subjectively invented opinion based on implicit statements? 62.30.90.56 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Tvx1 – "We don't know who they will announce" – you got it in one. So why is Sirotkin there? You don't know what they will announce about that person? Do the words "The second driver for the 2014 season will be announced at a later date" not mean anything to you at all? I can only assume you do not know how sourcing on Wikipedia works.

To the IP who has just made his first post above – An implication I have personally drawn? Subjectively invented opinion? It's a Sauber press release saying they haven't announced a second driver yet. No personal implications need to be drawn. You must think I'm some kind of idiot. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that people are reading things into those explicit statements that aren't necessarily there. When Sauber said that their second driver will be announced later, they are using that to justify removing Sirotkin from the table. The problem is that this implies Sirotkin will not drive at all, which the team clearly did not say. They just said that the second driver will be announced later.

Supporting this is reference #33, where Kaltenborn gives details of the arrangement with Sirotkin. He needs a superlicence to race, and the team has developed a programme to get him one. Most importantly, she points out that this programme will not start until the off-season. The team is clearly waiting to see if Sirotkin gets a superlicence before making a decision. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

PM, you're the one reading things into Sauber's statements: "The team is clearly waiting to see if Sirotkin gets a superlicence before making a decision." Says who? Removing him does not imply he won't drive, it implies (via "TBA") that no decision has been announced. That's what TBA means, it does not mean that Driver X won't drive. Reference #33 has been outdated, it's very clear to see. I've had about enough here. PM, I am a bit surprised. I've seen some shit on these pages but this takes the biscuit. No wonder the project is such a laughing stock. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got to weigh in with Bretonbanque here. It is plain for all to see that Sirotkin has not currently got a drive for Sauber, and his continued inclusion in this article cannot be justified. Until we get an a fresh announcement from Sauber concerning the other race seat, it should be marked as TBA. I refer to one of the core principals of Wikipedia, can we verify that Sirotkin has a race seat? The answer is no. QueenCake (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

What does it take to form a consensus for this? I still don't know how Sirotkin is on the article right now. Why assume anything? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

What it takes is for everyone to reach an agreement that satisfies everyone as best as possible.

For me, the issue is that removing him implies that something within the team has changed when there is no evidence of it having changed. Their statement about announcing the second driver at a later date combined with the statement in reference #33 about Sirotkin going through the licence process post-season make it quite clear the decision has not been taken because Sirotkin has not gone through the licence process.

Changing the entry to TBA also contradicts the quote from Kaltenborn saying that Sirotkin will race if he gets his superlicence. None of the arguments for his removal have adequately addressed - much less refuted - this statement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Let's wait until Sauber confirms Sirotkin. Please tell me why this doesn't work. It's working for every other site on the web. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Again I agree with Prisonermonkeys' opinion here. To directly answer a question recently raised here:

"The team is clearly waiting to see if Sirotkin gets a superlicence before making a decision." Says who? Says Monisha Kaltenborn, Team principal of Sauber F1 Team, as cited in sources #33 and #34 and I quote directly from #34: Owing to his inexperience, there has still been some debate as to whether Sauber will definitely hand him the drive but asked by Sky Sports F1 if Sirotkin would be one of their 2014 drivers provided he obtains the necessary licence, Kaltenborn replied: "Yes he will." and "He will be working with our physio and we have put a programme in place for him to do some testing - that will be later in the year after his season is over, so all is going well there. But the ultimate goal of course is next year and for him to do the mileage to get his Super Licence." and than I cite from #33 The 18-year-old, who is currently competing in Formula Renault 3.5, will race for Sauber next year provided he secures his Super Licence and will be given mileage in a 2011 car ahead of the start of pre-season testing.

The new source does not state that the contract that is explained and confirmed by Monisha Kaltenborn in the older sources has now been terminated. That's why it's no conclusive proof for the removal of Sirotkin. We can't just ignore the "older" sources as if they don't exist.

• Sirotkin has not been confirmed as having a drive yet. He doesn't have a superlicense yet; or if he does, then he didn't publicize it to the press, and nor did Sauber. Things such as [9] further hint at the lack of said license. As such, keeping him in this list is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and is therefore a deliberate inclusion of misinformation. Why on earth does it need a consensus for clearly inaccurate information to be removed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The original consensus was established on the basis that Sauber had tailored a programme specifically to get him a superlicence. They are not asking him to earn one by winning a championship, but rather by giving him enough testing mileage to get one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has changed. Sauber hasn't announced Sirotkin. Why put him on the article? Even Sauber's boss isn't sure if Sirotkin will be ready [10] [11]. He might say he'll give Sirotkin the seat if the Russian's ready, but he hasn't yet. End of story. But the Wikipedia article is sure Sirotkin has the seat. We are posting assumptions and not facts. This isn't a problem on Wikipedia now? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to understand something here. Charles Pic was signed by Caterham. There was a source saying that there was no confirmation he would still race with them in 2014. He was taken off the article. Easy. Now Sirotkin has been signed by Sauber. No argument there. There are sources saying his race seat is still up in the air. He has clearly not been announced yet. He stays on the article. Why? Because two people say so despite everyone else disagreeing. This is how Wikipedia works now? Sad. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see how the Sirotkin situation is any different from the Pic situation. The most recent source states quite clearly that the second seat cannot be assumed to be Sirotkin; just like the Pic source said it cannot be assumed that Pic will drive next year for Caterham. Pic's contract was multi-year and thus, he has a contract for 2014. Sirotkin also has some sort of contract for 2014. Either both should be on the article or both should not. —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe, I suggest you go and read up on what a consensus is. It is not a vote. It is a discussion where all parties try to come to a resolution that satisfies everyone as best it can. You do not simply declare that you have a consensus and use it as a licence to make whatever changes you like - especially when you are yet to so much as address the key point in the debate.

Can somebody please tell me how Kaltenborn's comments are somehow invalidated by a press release that is consistent with parts of her comments? She has said the following:

• Sirotkin will race if he gets a superlicence.
• The team have developed a programme for him to get that licence.
• He will undertake that programme during the off-season.

The press release says that the second driver will be announced at a later date. It does not rule Sirotkin out, but changing the entry to "TBA" implies that he has been ruled out. Furthermore, that later date allows the team time to carry out Sirotkin's programme, which they have already publicly announced will happen.

Also, the Pic situation is little more than a straw man argument. He was originally announced on a multi-year deal, but has since been quoted directly as saying he has no idea if he has a contract anymore. The article changed when the available information changed. In the case of Sirotkin, the available information does not show a change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This has descended into Edit War territory now, with one editor stepping over the line with 3RR. I would suggest no more editting by involved editors until consensus is formed. Although I'm not holding my breath. --Falcadore (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have just had to restore the article again. GeoJoe, you need to wait for a consensus before you make any changes. If you continue to revert the article, you may be referred to the administrators. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Right. There is no consensus. So why is Sirotkin on the article!? We need consensus first! But we a select few who are blocking that consensus. I guess that's perfectly okay. I'm just trying to make things fair. Instead, we're stuck with this stain on the article that makes us look stupid. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We need to bring in somebody else to make a decision on this. Get those administrators. If you disagree, then you must realize you're in the wrong and are simply trying to save face. I can't even use reason anymore because some people won't accept it. This will never go anywhere without help. This article looks ridiculous, and no one is allowed to do anything about it. Does Falcadore have anything to say, or does he just want to hinder this whole discussion further? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Administrators do not make the decisions for you. That is not how it works, consensus is not a process of being forced to abide. Coming to a consensus is something the involved editors are supposed to achieve for themselves, the role of the administrators comes down to poor editing behavior like the 3-revert rule mentioned earlier.

If you find yourself unable to come to any kind of consensus then the steps you (not anyone else) take are here. --Falcadore (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sirotkin should not be removed. The comments of Monisha Kaltenborn are very clear.

Maybe Sirotkin is not contracted for the whole season. Kaltenborn said, that he is going to race next season, but she doesn't say, that the will drive EVERY race. So there is the possibility that Sirotkin drive the second Sauber for one half of the season and another driver for the second half. Maybe he is only going to race in Russia. And Maybe he has only a race contract for the Russian Grand Prix yet.

We have to wait for an official announcement of Sauber, but at the moment Sirotkin should stay at the article, because of the team principles comments, that he will race if he gets a superlicence. --Gamma127 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Rubbish. Sauber have announced that they want him to drive, not that he is driving; as he still doesn't appear to hold a superlicense, then there is no way that he can drive, and to have him in the list is tantamount to deliberately including factually inaccurate information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, at this stage I think you're starting to synthesise Kaltenborn's comments to the press to justify Sirotkin's continued inclusion in this article. She has stated Sauber want him to drive in 2014. She has stated Sirotkin will try to receive a superlicence from the FIA. But nowhere is there a reliable source stating that Sirotkin is in possession of the required licence and will drive in 2014. Without that, I refer to my earlier comment that we cannot verify that he has a drive for the 2014 season, and keeping him in this article is in direct violation of Wikipedia's policies. QueenCake (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to cite from source #34 to answer your question: Owing to his inexperience, there has still been some debate as to whether Sauber will definitely hand him the drive but asked by Sky Sports F1 if Sirotkin would be one of their 2014 drivers provided he obtains the necessary licence, Kaltenborn replied: " Yes he will." Regarding the verifiability issue you raised I will cite directly from the page you linked to: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Well, we use two completely independent reliable sources here. That should be enough. Tvx1 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Again, he does not have the superlicense yet, therefore he cannot drive. Why is it impossible for you people to see that obvious fact? IF he was confirmed as having a superlicense, then sure, this constant insistence on keeping him in the article would be justified - but it has never been confirmed anywhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the regulations that says he cannot join the team without a superlicence. He simply cannot leave pit lane at a Grand Prix meeting without one. And while this would normally be an issue, we have a reference that directly quotes the team principal as saying that the team have tailored a programme for him to get the licence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• If he cannot race, then he cannot be listed as Sauber's number two driver. To suggest otherwise is bafflingly nonsensical. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not as straightforward as you say. Theoretically, a team can officially enter a driver without Super License as one of their race drivers. Like Prisonermonkeys already explained that driver cannot actually leave pit lane at a Grand Prix meeting. If they really want to they can retain him and in effect race only one car until the driver has obtained his Super License. As a side note, we have already established a consensus when the sources were originally published that Sirotkin not obtaining his Super License is to be considered as a de facto case of "Force Majeure". Tvx1 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The old consensus only lasts until the consensus is to change it. Burgring (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet we do not have a consensus. We have a majority in favour of one course of action, but no-one seems to be able to explain why he should be removed when we have sources that say "if he gets a licence, he will race" and "we have a plan to get him that licence". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We cannot assume that he will get the necessary licence - he may simply not be good enough. Or what's to stop us similarly unjustifiably assuming the results of other future events, and stating that he will become 2014 drivers' champion (he only needs to win more points than any other driver, and the team have plans in place to try to achieve that)? Burgring (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the ways a driver can earn a superlicence is to complete 300km of testing. Pretty much every driver who took part in a Young Driver Test qualified for one. And the FIA reserves the right to award a superlicence to any driver they feel is suitable for Formula 1, even if they don't meet the requirements. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's not speculate, but wait and see if any of those occurs. If one does, and he gets the licence, and the team confirm him, only then should we add him. Burgring (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Might I alert to the fact that the list we have on this page is not by any means the final entry list for the 2014 Formula One season. It's exactly the same list that it was when the sources regarding Sirotkin were first published. It's a list of drivers currently contracted to drive in the 2014 season. As the sources explain Sirotkin is contracted. It's a bit strange that only the removal of Sirotkin is requested because all the teams and the drivers currently on the list still have to sign a new concorde agreement and they do not have signed one yet, therefore they cannot drive. The list of teams and drivers works in the exact same manner as the list of contracted races. Until the final calendar was published it contained the races that were contracted to be held next season. If you visited the page a while ago, you will have noticed that there were three races on it that will never actually take place. That was because, at that point, they were contracted to be held. The list of teams and drivers works in the exact same manner. Tvx1 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, but it's accurate compared to all reliably sourced lists on the web. Except for Sirotkin. As said before, we don't know what Sirotkin is contracted to do, only that three months ago, Sauber said they'd like him to drive. Nobody's asked for all the drivers to be removed because nobody is bloody stupid enough to think that a new Concorde Agreement won't be signed. If it's not signed, there's no sport. It's a damn sight more of a formality that someone being issued with a superlicence. FYI, drivers do not sign the CA, so their participation is technically not dependent on it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that there was no CA in 2013, but rather individual agreements. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying we don't know what Sirotkin Is contracted for? How many times do I have to cite from the provided sources? Again from 34:

Owing to his inexperience, there has still been some debate as to whether Sauber will definitely hand him the drive but asked by Sky Sports F1 if Sirotkin would be one of their 2014 drivers provided he obtains the necessary licence, Kaltenborn replied: " Yes he will What else could that mean to you?

Additionally the provided sources make it clear that Sauber considers it more a case of when he will obtain his Super License rather than if he will obtain it. That's why agreed to the consensus when we did. Tvx1 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

He is contracted to drive with Sauber "Period". Whether it be for this year or next year. Stating a drive in 2014 was simply a formality. When/if he got the license, the final deal would be inked however he has much limited time to do so. There is actually no solid statement saying that the contract HAS been signed FOR 2014, only that it's the closest date to signing the final deal. regarding his situation with the Russian Partnership; Sky Sports did an article (http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12478/9000251/) headlining a statement by Kaltenborn with the following "still convinced that teenager Sergey Sirotkin will still be ready to graduate to F1 next year, but insists the Russian's participation in 2014 is not a pre-requisite of their partnership with a consortium of companies from his country". The deal with the Russian's seems to be part of, but not the staple of the contract. They were under no obligation to sign him, only that if he proves himself and obtains the license then he gets the seat unlike Toro Rosso who signed and finalized the deal there and then. Kaltenborn; as well as all of us, are well aware of the current financial struggle the are in (http://grandprix247.com/2013/08/12/sauber-owe-money-to-hulkenberg-gutierrez-kobayashi-ferrari-pirelli-and-more/), they would probably keep their options open in the case of Gutierrez whom sponsored by Telemex and Petrov with his 25M (http://www.autoweek.com/article/20131001/f1/131009988). Joetri10 (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Basing the 2014 driver table on announcements makes much more sense. If some continue to disagree with that, it seems a highly sensible compromise to have a clean way of indicating which drivers are announced, and which are presumed to be signed but remain unannounced (in and of itself an interesting thing). Every time I ask why we aren't doing that, nobody even attempts to give a reason why that wouldn't be a reasonable compromise. Given that most members of the F1 press are reporting the seat as open, it might interest those especially interested in Sirotkin that she made that comment three months ago, however undefined it was, and few people repotted it. Anyone have a problem with that? It clears up the ambiguity between being signed vs. announced, and keeps the Sirotkin supporters happy, but also works for those who see the running commentary that Sirotkin's signing is most likely to be for something other than a race seat in 2014 (there's no way they'd run him for half the season; they're much more likely to give him a FP role for the year), and helps mitigate the misleading elements of the table. Thoughts? 76.90.20.73 (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that going by announcements sets a much lower threshhold for what is considered acceptable. Look at Quantum Motorsports, which announced that they were buying into Lotus. If we went by announcements, that would be an acceptable inclusion - but the problem is that nothing has come of it. If we went by announcements, the article would be misleading. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lower threshold? If a F1 team announces a driver, how can anyone refute that? It's from the actual team. If they change their mind, we can do the same. Simple as that. The only misleading going on is this Wikipedia article saying Sirotkin will definitely race in 2014. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this discussion will probably continue until Sauber actually announces what's going to happen to Sirotkin. His fate is still up in the air [12]. Saying otherwise is simply ignorant. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, they can't make a decision until he gets a superlicence. They have developed a programme for him to get that licence. Not just including him in scheduled work, but specifically developing it for him. And Kaltenborn clearly states that he will race when he gets that licence.

It is ironic that people still refuse to accept the validity of these sources, given that this entire issue arose from people using unreliable sources to remove him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could put a note in next to Sirotkin, stating that his seat has not (yet?) been officially confirmed by Sauber and that he requires a successful application of a Superlicense to drive? It is a compromise, that allows Sirotkin to be in the table but also effectively states that his drive is not definite? —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article already does that in the "Driver changes" section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Again, they can't make a decision until he gets a superlicence." But we sure can. Why? Because Sirotkin must be on the article for no reason ever explained. Your sources are simply OUTDATED. To say the situation has not changed from September to December is ludicrous. Even Kaltenborn has made statements saying that there is still doubt. "I think we will know pretty soon if we think he can make sense [for a 2014 race seat] or not" [13]. Sirotkin may or may not race in 2014. Why does Wikipedia say HE WILL? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What will it take for you to understand how this list works? We do not claim that anyone will absolutely, certainly will race. Take Lotus for instance. Their engine supplier is listed as TBA. Now, they can't race without an engine can they? So why are they still in the list then? Because they have contract with FOM to race in the upcoming season. Sirotkin is on the list for the exact same reason. Because he is contracted to race and it hasn't been proven yet that his contract has been terminated. Tvx1 (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. If Sauber are yet to decide on Sirotkin, it is because he has not had the chance to earn a superlicence, which the references make clear is a condition of his getting the drive, and which the team is doing for him. In order to remove Sirotkin, you will need to prove that references 33 and 34 are no longer true. Comments saying they are yet to decide do not make this untrue because Sirotkin has not had the chance to earn his licence, so you would have to demonstrate that he tried and failed, or that the team are no longer running that test.

A source being old does not automatically make it outdated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tvx1, what will it take for you to understand how this list works? You claim Sirotkin is signed to race for 2014, but he legally can't race. Moreover, Sauber claims they do not know whether he will be ready in time. Remember, Pic is signed for 2014 too, but there's doubt, and that's enough to keep him off the list. At this point in time, Sirotkin will not race in 2014. Not just because he can't, but because Sauber hasn't said he will. This is why he should not be on the list. And yet, this is all gibberish to you, not logical because it doesn't fit with your agenda. Please tell me why you cannot wait until Sauber actually announces their second driver. Is there something wrong with that? Can you really not compromise on this? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, seems like we will be having an end to this nonsense war: "Esteban Gutierrez looks set to be confirmed shortly for the second Sauber seat after an apparent change of heart by the team management." StandNThrow (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which side of the Sirotkin debate you fall on - I think we can all agree that that is a specious and speculative source. "Looks set to be" is nowhere near good enough for inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Still, goes to show that Sirotkin is nowhere near at the level necessary for inclusion on this Wikipedia article... and you know it. He likely never will be either. There's still speculation over his supposedly confirmed seat. How can you still be arguing that Siroktin will race in 2014? Let's just take him off before you get humiliated. If you won't, then again, it must simply be your pride keeping him on. It's getting pathetic. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe, while you are probably correct that Sirotkin does not have the drive, I am going to go against my previous statements and my personal views on the matter and say that no-one has said in a reliable source that we can use that he doesn't have a contract that allows him to race. So wait a bit. The article will change instantly once the second seat is confirmed to be Gutiérrez or whoever, and if the source (clickable link) you provided is correct, then that announcement should be very soon. But until either that announcement or an announcement stating that Sirotkin won't drive, as quoted by someone at Sauber, we have to keep him there. I know it sucks, but using your brain isn't Wikipedia policy. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We need a source that say he WILL DRIVE! There aren't any. Why doesn't this make sense? There's enough doubt that he has no right to be on the article. There are numerous sources now (I used Autoweek for the edit) saying that Gutierrez has the seat. I'll wait for the announcement to add his name.

We've finally reached an end to this nightmare, and to no one's surprise, Sirotkin never had the seat. The only reason this argument even happened in the first place was the ignorance and tyranny of a select few editors. I hope this will not happen again, but I won't hold my breath. Wikipedia deserves better. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to change anything on the article itself, as I believe there is now a valid source in place, but to answer your "will drive" request, the second Sirotkin source said this: "Sauber team principal Monisha Kaltenborn has confirmed Russian teenager Sergey Sirotkin will drive for the team next year provided he obtains his mandatory Super Licence." Note the words "will drive" in the middle. Anyway, it looks like you have a good source for the apparent to be confirmedness of the seat, and "TBA" looks like the best option for now. I'll let Prisonermonkeys be the judge of it though. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot the words "provided he..." Who are we to predict the future? Some people tried, and they failed. Maybe they'll learn. If Sirotkin can't legally drive right now, why would anyone ever assume he'll be able to in time? It's ludicrous. But it's done. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys No worries. I did not said that Guiterrez will get the drive, but at least we know for sure that Sauber is finally coming to a conclusion on who's getting the seat for 2014. The most we want is to have a healthy community here. StandNThrow (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000, the source you provided can't be used as proof that Sirotkin's contract has been terminated because it does not refer to him by any means. Secondly it does not qualify as an acceptable source for Guitierrez as in order to do so, it would need to name and quote someone in the team who is in a position to speak for the team (i.e. Monisha Kaltenborn, Peter Sauber,...) or the driver himself. As it doesn't do that it doesn't even proof that Sauber is even considering Gutierrez. It's nothing but speculation by the author of the source. On side note. This whole argument has nothing to do with the pride of any user here. Regardless who Sauber are eventually going to finally confirm as their driver nobody is going to get humiliated. We always made it clear that if a reliable and verifiable source is provided that his contract has been terminated or that another has been confirmed by Sauber, Sirotkin will be removed from the page. We have tried to explain time and time again to you that the list on this page is a PROVISIONAL entry list, yet you keep completely unwilling to understand that and you keep insisting that we claim that Sirotkin will absolutely, certainly, without any sort of doubt will drive next season, which we have never done. If there's anyone trying to make this personal it is you. Tvx1 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to prolong this as long as possible, go ahead. It just makes you look silly. Do you still believe Sirotkin's contract means anything? Just like Pic's right? It's completely conditional; the idea that Sirotkin will race is all based in false assumptions. Eventually you'll have to stop ignoring the truth. Hopefully that time comes sooner rather than later. If you don't think Sirotkin will race, keep him off the list. Practice what you preach, or continue to lie. The choice is yours. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What I personally think does not matter by any means. What matters is what can be proven by the sources. Your source doesn't prove anything. Tvx1 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

And yours does prove something? Clearly not. But yet you hold onto it as your only means of keeping Sirotkin on the Wikipedia article. Why do I need undeniable proof but you don't? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to alert you to the fact that the original news concerning Guitierrez on which your source is based comes from Bild which is a German tabloid and which is not considered to be reliable by any means. Tvx1 (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess we will find out. It still works better than the nothing you've provided showing Sirotkin is in any position to race for 2014. Just because Sauber said something in September doesn't mean it is still true now. And clearly you cannot prove it is still true now. And of course, even contracts aren't guarantees for a race seat either (Pic, for example). GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I urge you to share something directly from Sauber's site that says Sirotkin will be their driver for 2014. I guarantee you can do this for every other driver currently on the list. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We do not need to prove something from septmeber is still true unless the opposite has been proven, which hasn't happened yet. The source used for Alonso is 1,5 years old, while the one for Vettel is even 2,5 Years old. Why don't you consider those "outdated" as well. We have provided something. There are two reliable and verifiable sources that qualify as acceptable because they cite and quote someone in the team that is in a position to speak for the team, i.e. Monisha Kaltenborn. Yours don't!!! Tvx1 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Easy with the punctuation; it makes your argument look like it's more rooted in emotion than in reason. Anyway, sources confirming multi-year contracts will, by definition, be notable for a much longer of period time than sources only indicating highly conditional pending contracts. This whole thing wasn't nearly the debate you two have made it out to be (with great success, I must admit). 76.90.20.73 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Another break

We just want the article to reflect what the available sources say. And in it's current form, it does. No-one has been able to prove that it will not happen and refute the comments made by senior team members. This was only ever an issue because people tried to remove Sirotkin on the basis of "common knowledge" that would not race, but since then, no-one has been able to provide and reliable, verifiable evidence of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an unfair characterization of some who disagreed with you. Your source was, in practical terms, as insufficient for the position you held as it is for anyone wanting to use it to list Gutierrez (which I don't agree with, either). Anyway, this could all be avoided if a more sensible arrangement for that table could be found. The internal inconsistency between "signed" and "TBA" is just fundamentally unsustainable in a silly-season environment. While a "TBA" citing the latest speculation is better than the previous debacle, we can all do much better than that, and the numerous warnings you've received for edit-waring (see your talk: page) indicate that something will have to change around here for it to be possible to reach a sensible consensus. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Using "TBA" and citing that speculation is in no way acceptable under and circumstances. We have no idea where that speculation is coming from, or how accurate it is. It certainly does not trump the comments from the most senior team member.

Also, a message for GeoJoe: I noticed that in your last edit summary in the article, you described your actions as reverting vandalism. This is unacceptable. The edits you reverted were quite valid, and as evidenced by the ongoing discussion, no real consensus has been formed. Please do not try and character edits you disagree with as vandalism when they clearly are not. If you continue to do thus to try and force through your preferred edits, you can and will be referred to the administrators. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My edit was 100% correct, as announced recently by Sauber. The reversion was simply not constructive and done out of spite. If you believe reverting correct edits is somehow a good and useful act, then maybe you need to be reported. It's sad that I would even have to think about resorting to something like this just to make sure this article was truthful for the first time in months. Tyranny shouldn't be used on Wikipedia to get your way, and I simply wanted everyone to know that. Thank goodness I won't have to do this again, or at least not in the near future depending on the work of a few rogue editors. I am sorry for what I did, but it was for good intentions. This discussion leading absolutely nowhere needed to end. And it has. Again, thank goodness. What a train wreck.

You don't need to come after me anymore. I fixed your many-month-long mistake. I won't need to resort to any more nonsense now that everyone has come to their senses. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Have a great holiday season, everyone. Hopefully the rest of the F1 pages on Wikipedia will be treated better in the future. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was premature, based on an article that speculated that an announcement was due within a week, and which did not refute the references given in support of Sirotkin.

And you have a funny of showing that "tyranny should not be used" given that you declared a consensus was formed before it been, arbitrarily ruled on the value of references given, and tried to force your preferred edits through by implying any alternative was vandalism. That is tyranny. All I ever did was ask that you proved your case before you made any edits, which you never did. I am still at a loss to explain how you think a speculative reference based on anonymous sources and published today somehow trumps the word of a team principal simply because she said something three months ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk)\

This is over Prison. You were wrong, learn to accept it. I(we) never tried to make you get rid of it "Because of Common Knowledge" I tried to get him TBA'd WITH" common Knowledge. I showed you a few sites and you ignored them. I told you clean straight up that I KNEW what was going to happen and why and you disregarded it. The source you was using was very vague and outdated and I explained in a nutshell how that was so and you ignored it too thinking it said more than it did. we tried to change it simply to TBA because of the dry nature of the news coming out from Sauber, the vague generic nature of the statements in the original article and the other news that had come out in recent weeks. It's your own opinion on what you feel is right that led this to months and months of argument. All of this really should not have happened. Many thanks to GeoJoe for trying as hard as you did bro. This is over. Joetri10 (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I disregarded your comments because you are not a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You have an unusually unequivocal communication style, and a fairly incautious view of things. Which explains your hardliner interpretation of Kaltenborn's short comment, however vague everyone argued that it was, and has proven to be in retrospect. We didn't even know how the question was asked, because it wasn't quoted, and it's quite obvious that she wasn't asked if he was going to be their *race* driver for 2014, but rather just an unspecified driver. Her answer was basically without content relative to the issue at hand, something numerous people tried to explain, but you seem either unwilling or unable to be open to the idea that your views may not withstand a more nuanced look, and continued to use it to prop up your agenda until there was no avoiding it. Did it ever occur to you, at any point in this process, that your view was, perhaps, not 100% unassailable? Because I'd bet all the money in my pockets that had someone stepped in to clean this up, your arguments would have been deemed inappropriate in tone and unworkable in practice. I have nothing against you, personally, but I'm looking at some of your other edit situations and I'm baffled that your approach, one of forceful rhetoric combined with an absolute unwillingness to deviate from your goal, finds as much success as it does. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You ignore me PM because of your unwillingness to listen to others who may know more than you do. Wikipedia does not host all the answers and you clearly are not devoted enough within the F1 talk, community and the understanding of how business works within the F1 infrastructure of contracts, time management and finance negotiations. Instead of trying to debate how Wikipedia works you should work on looking for yourself the facts because although I claimed time and time again I cannot find you the sources (even though I knew of them), it is simply because time washes them away. If you kept an eye on stuff as much as I do you would be much more qualified and in the know to correctly keep up this (these) pages. I also think Wikipedia needs to change it's policy on what can be considered reliable because how it is now; one could control how a page works on opinion and "Who got their first" and have that page wrong. The guy above pretty much covers the rest of it. Joetri10 (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This whole episode has been embarrassing to be a part of. The arguments used to keep Sirotkin in the list were very, very poor, and simply repeated ad infinitum by two or three editors. Those editors need to look very carefully at the way they use sources and at how they perceive other people's arguments. Simply repeating a request for proof of the cancellation of Sirotkin's contract when we didn't even have proof of what was in it, was incredibly obstructive. A compromise could easily have been achieved but was not even entertained – that was particularly inauspicious. Describing TBA as speculation when it was stated word-for-word in a Sauber press release three months newer than the older sources... I don't really have words for that. Unfortunately this is a symptom of the way this WikiProject has deteriorated over the past couple of years. Let's hope for no repeat. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. Everyone who was so desperate to keep Sirotkin's name in the list has a rather large amount of egg on their faces now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Only if you assume we thought of this as a competition. I know I certainly didn't. In its current form, the article is as it should be: reflecting the information provided by the best available sources. Gutierrez being confirmed today does not make Sirotkin's presence in the article wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• You keep telling yourself that, and one day you might make yourself believe it... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• You need to compromise on what you consider "Best Available Sources" are because that seriously is a matter of opinion, including how it is perceived. Even the regulation supporting this on Wikipedia can be abused with opinion in some areas. Joetri10 (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Geojoe1000, Joetri10 and Lukeno94, your comments prove that you have always treated this a competition. We never claimed that there was no possibility that Sauber would sign someone else for the race drive (it's their full right to do that), only that the provided sources were insufficient as proof for that. Wikipedia works on what can be PROVEN. Now that an acceptable source has finally been provided to overturn the earlier ones, we have no problem whatsoever with the page having changed. I don't know what is really interpretative about the guideline for an acceptable source.To qualify as an acceptable source, it would need to name and quote someone in the team who is in a position to speak for the team (e.g. Monisha Kaltenborn, Martin Whitmarsh, Stefano Domenicali…). It think that is pretty clear. Bretonbanquet, a compromise was proposed by StandNThrow and was agreed upon. Tvx1 (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yey, more absolute crap from someone desperate to save face. The evidence that Sirotkin was far from a confirmed shoe-in was obvious from the get-go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You must be new to this sport. Just because a team principal manipulated you into thinking something, doesn't mean it'll come true. Just means you stepped in it. 72.253.133.194 (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to throw in with Bretonbanquet here. This was one of the poorest discussions since the debacle with a couple of unmentioned editors. I was holding off really getting involved as I was presuming (correctly as it happened) that Sauber were going to reveal their second driver within the week and render this whole thing moot. It was surprising that for a project that has generally been very good at insisting on absolute proof and rejecting information that is just as poorly supported, there were editors arguing to keep Sirotkin when that clearly no longer existed. QueenCake (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem QC. There was never any absolute proof that Sirotkin was not going to drive. A lot of people insisted that was the case, but they never supplied anything in support of it. Despite being asked a dozen times, no-one was able to refute the word of the most senior team member. They claimed it was common knowledge that Sirotkin would not race, but then insisted that nobody was going to report on it in the media, so it was obviously true. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

There was never absolute proof he was going to either. In the existence of doubt over the reliability of information, the onus is on the editors who wish to include to support it, not those who argue against to disprove it. I never had a problem with Sirotkin until the Sauber press release mentioned the second driver was not yet confirmed, which is when we should of took the safe option of TBA and awaited a new communique from the team. Be that as it may, this is redundant now, and I hope future issues can be discussed with a little more decorum than demonstrated by certain editors above our posts. QueenCake (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Lurker, here, chiming in. It seems to me, Prisonermonkeys, it was said to you repeatedly that the source you used was insufficient, but you never seemed interested in acknowledging that. Her answer was wide open to interpretation, probably intentional on her part, and we don't even know how the question was asked. That's where your argument falls apart. It has little to do with her position in the team, little to do with how old the quote was, but how the quote was insufficient confirmation, even on the day the story ran. I can't remember the last talk page I've seen as full of ego and FUD tactics as this one. 72.253.133.194 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to revive this discussion a week after the fact in order to comment on the character of another editor? Personally, I fail to see how "he will race if he gets a superlicence" and "we will get him a superlicence" are insufficient, especially when the alternative is anonymous sources, editors claiming unverified personal contacts within the sport, "common knowledge" within the fan community and vaguely worded press releases that don't explicitly rule out the content people want to use them to explicitly rule out. Just as additions to an article must be referenced, so too must subtractions. By changing Sirotkin to TBA, the article implied that he had the drive and then lost it, but the press release accompanying Sutil's announcement did not state that Sirotkin had lost the drive, and thus could not be used to change Sirotkin to TBA. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When you seem dead-set on handling the next issue like this the exact same way, yes, it was necessary to revive this, though I'm not commenting on your character, so please settle down. You based your entire war on a blind question, which is a bad practice. The rest about "common knowledge" and all sorts of other things I didn't bring up, is irrelevant. 72.253.133.194 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are insinuating that, in future, we will keep reverting additions and subtractions to the articles, which are based on unreliable sources, than yes, you are correct. Tvx1 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems like as good a place as any to leave it be

Okay, how about we just leave the debate right there? The issue is resolved to everyone's satisfaction with Gutierrez being confirmed, so there is nothing more to be sorted out there. And it should be obvious to all involved regardless of whichever side they argued in favour of that the people arguing in favour of the opposing view are of the belief that their reasoning was sound, and there is little - if anything - that can be done to change their minds. if there was, chances are it would have been brought up by now.

More importantly, it is the fact that we can disagree on methods of editing and the reasons behind them that makes these articles so strong. We can look at things with a new pair of eyes and pick up on things that we might have missed. Just yesterday I was going through and standardising some of the technical abbreviations in the article when someone pointed out to me that the old name should be kept for the sake of clarity. The Sirotkin case has been an extreme example of this in action, but it's better than the alternative.

So, we should let sleeping dogs lie and bear in mind the lessons learned from this episode. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New Regulation Changes as of 12/9/13

Get editing. http://www.fia.com/formula-one-regulation-changes

Key points

• Budget cap starting 2015
• Pirelli Tyre test – Bahrain, 17-19 December, 2013
• Personal Driver numbers
• 5 second time penalty
• Double points the last race

99.121.201.174 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Budget cap doesn't come into effect until 2015, so it doesn't need mentioning here.
• Pirelli tests are being run this year, so there is no need to mention it in 2014 article.
• Everything else is already covered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sporting regulations limit amount of fuel consumed during race to 100kg: FIA Sporting Regs 29.5

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/file/1-2014%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%202013-12-09.pdf

• Driver penalty points system 4.2: any driver who earns 12 penalty points during a 12-month period will be given a one race ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.76.46 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And all of it is already covered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2013

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to you today to ask wether i could be one of the users that update the Formula1 2014 Season page, i would love to, and if you could, that would be brilliant. Yours Faithfully, Picko Supercoolf1fan (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the article for a couple of days to allow the discussion above to finish. If it finishes before the protection expires please use {{edit protected}} or request that the protection be removed at WP:RFUP (admins I'm happy for you to make any changes at your discretion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 December 2013

Please remove Sergey Sirotkin as he is not confirmed and the deal has pretty much fallen through. 121.217.241.34 (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done: - That is the issue currently being discussed on this talk page. No edits will be made without first establishing a consensus, and a valid reference provided. As you have not provided any evidence that "the deal has pretty much fallen through", your request cannot be fulfilled. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2013

{{edit semi-protected|

On the drivers list please change on Sauber Team "Kevin Magnussen" to "TBA" because it seems it is going to be Esteban Gutierrez the one that is going to be selected as their second drover according to the following pages:

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20131219/F1/131219860 http://www.planet-f1.com/driver/18227/9081041/Gutierrez-set-to-stay-at-Sauber http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-news/f1-esteban-gutierrez-should-secure-the-second-sauber-seat?artid=162967

Raulgar1 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly, I think you mean Sergey Sirotkin, not Kevin Magnussen; Magnussen is driving for McLaren, and there is no dispute there. Secondly, we are attempting to establish a consensus on what to do about Sirotkin. And thirdly (and most importantly), the references you have provided are not good enough to justify including Gutierrez. There is a lot of difference between "it seems Gutierrez is staying" and "Gutierrez is staying". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Esteban was just confirmed by Sauber. http://www.sauberf1team.com/en/season/news/detail-view/-/esteban-gutierrez-vervollstaendigt-die-fahrerpaarung-des-sauber-f1-teams-fuer-2014/ Sergey Sirotkin will be test driver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.166.105 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And that is the very definition of an acceptable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's the definition of an acceptable source–and I agree that it is–then it's hard to see how your previous source was worth anywhere near as much as you claimed. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Because, as has been explained several times, those references quoted Monisha Kaltenborn. And Monisha Kaltenborn is the Sauber team principal. And the team principal is the most senior team member. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that anything the team principal says is representative of the team.

It is the same standard we have used to judge sources in the past. We have added countless driver movements based on the statements of team principals in the past. And yet for some inexplicable reason, people decided to put more faith in vaguely-worded media releases, unverifiable speculation from anonymous sources, the general opinions of thousands of fans who have no connection with the team or any access to its internal workings, and their own alleged contacts within the sport before they were willing to trust the word of the one person in a position to confirm or deny it. And all because she didn't regularly talk about Sirotkin - an expectation no-one has made of Stefano Domenicali regarding Raikkonen, of Christian Horner regarding Ricciardo, of Eric Boullier regarding Maldonado, of Martin Whitmarsh regarding Magnussen, of Vijay Mallya regarding Hulkenberg or Perez, of Franz Todt regarding Kvyat, or of Claire Williams regarding Massa. WP:RS and WP:VERIFY were blatantly ignored by a group of editors based on their own personal opinions. Not once did any of them even attempt to prove that the situation in Sauber had changed,

instead insisting that it had to be true based on a series of increasingly-ridiculous arguments including "they haven't said anything in three months", "no-one believes it is going to happen", "we can reference the latest speculation", and my personal favourite, "I have contacts in the sport, so you can totally take my word for it". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. I have nothing more to add. Tvx1 (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2013 (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 ([14] and [15]), by race promoters [16], or in FIA press releases ([17] and [18]). 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 [19]. 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 [20] and [21]. 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. [22]. 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)

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?