Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 21 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Formula One Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 7 June 2013, see discussion. Keep, 29 April 2013, see discussion. Speedy delete (WP:G4), 30 July 2012, see discussion. Delete, 13 November 2010, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Remove Alonso from the list please

Can somebody please remove Alonso from the Table please. it has been unofficially announced that Alonso is leaving the team. Chances of staying in Alonso are very little and this adds up more because Vettel is leaving Red Bull and he is set to drive for Ferrari.90.222.223.74 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You said it yourself. it has been unofficially announced is not enough. We wait until either Alonso or a named Ferrari team member states that he is no longer with the team. JohnMcButts (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed from the table. The table is for drivers who have confirmed seats at those teams for the season in question. Alonso does not. His current contract does not change that situation. Dancraggs (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No the table is for drivers who are signed! Read the title of the section. We cannot remove him until he himself or his team announce that his contract has been disbanded. Patience is the keyword.Tvx1 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alonso is currently under contract, which for the sake of argument, counts as signed and confirmed until otherwise officially announced by himself or Ferrari. Unfortunately, a literal ton of hot air and tee-hee Riddler comments by Alonso, however sensible it may be and sound now, doesn't warrant a change to the table. Trust me, I have made edits in the past regarding future situations that seemed completely obvious, only to have them turn out false at the last minute. Twirlypen (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

For damn's sake, just remove him from the table. DanCraggs is right. Alonso is no longer under consideration. Can't you read the links? I suggest you leave a link on Alonso's slot. This needs to be done ASAP.--80.7.132.5 (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No can do. The thing is, you think he is no longer under consideration due to all the speculation around him. Read the links yourself. None quote Alonso or his team saying his contract has been disbanded. And as long as neither of them have done so we cannot remove. If there is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages it's not to do things ASAP. Check out WP:NOTNEWS. We have the luxury of having time on our side. Be patient and wait and see what happens. Tvx1 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All veritable sources state that Fernando Alonso has a Ferrari contract for 2015. The ex-team president has said that Alonso requested to be released from his contract, something the team has never definitively confirmed or denied that they've allowed Alonso to do. Alonso himself has been dodgy on the issue since rumors began and also has not definitively said one way or the other. Kimi has a significant chance of finishing outside the top 10 for the first time in over 10 years. How can you be entirely sure Kimi won't be Kimi, change his mind and simply retire at the end of this year instead of at the end of next next?? You don't know the Iceman if you legitimately believe that has no chance of happening. Ferrari sure knows this, and Alonso doesn't want to get caught saying something he shouldn't be saying while still currently under contract with Ferrari for 2015. The list will be changed once the proper sources state that it's changed. Twirlypen (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Tvx1. So please think again. It is now the right time for Alonso's name to be removed from the table. His future remains unknown so there is very little chance he will remain with Ferrari next year. If you are American, do check out this link from the BBC. It said that Alonso is closing on a deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29875221

So this should be least enough for Alonso's name to be removed temporarily before you ask any further questions--90.222.223.74 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can mistake my words for me agreeing with you, anonymous. You're missing the point. "On the verge" and "close to being done" does not mean done. If and when it is done, signed and confirmed by either Ferrari or McLaren, then we can change it. Anything less than confirmed information on the future is WP:SPECULATION, which can't be published. See the Manor discussion below. Twirlypen (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It dose not matter, it is enough for him to be removed temporarily. It is "Unknown" and it has never been reconfirmed for him to race for Ferrari for 2015. It dosen't mean people are gonna look into this wikia page and believe that Alonso will be racing for Ferrari for 2015. The whole world would believe it but soon commonsense has said that he is not, even though he is confirmed or not. So, i still vote for Alonso's name to be removed. --90.222.223.74 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You're incorrect in that it does not matter, because it does. Misplaced Pages isn't about what is common sense or what we think will happen. The simple fact is that Alonso is still currently under contract with Ferrari - ergo, he is still currently scheduled to drive for them in 2015. If and/or when Ferrari say that Alonso has been released from his contract, THEN we can remove him... or McLaren (or any other team) say that they have signed him, we can then add him to their respective list. This is why drivers like Button & Magnussen aren't on the list - they do NOT have current contracts for 2015. Reports that deals are imminent or on the verge are purely speculative, and are not to be used as credible sources. I link that because you seem to be ignoring these policies, which are policies of all of Misplaced Pages, not just the Formula One project here. Specifically, point #5 applies in this situation. Twirlypen (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Read the BBC source you presented us with. Nowhere does is quote Alonso saying:"My contract has been terminated.", Ferrari stating:"Alonso's contract has been disbanded." or McLaren (i.e. Ron Dennis) stating:"We have signed Alonso for next season." In fact, it literally states that he hasn't signed with McLaren (yet). The article is nothing but BBC's Andrew Benson speculating what the Spaniard will do. If you come to Misplaced Pages in search of latest developments on Alonso's situation you are patently in the wrong place. Read WP:NOTNEWS. We can only publish facts. Tvx1 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you 2 take that to the person who put down that Alonso will leave Ferrari at the end of the season. Because if you guys are proved right, then that statement will have to be removed on your behalf. Because i've tried everything the best i can to prove Alonso will move to Mclaren when is not confirmed and you guys believe the policy states that anything developing Alonso which have not been confirmed should not be put on the Wiki page. Also, i'm not in the wrong place, i am a right person

http://en.wikipedia.org/Fernando_Alonso#Ferrari_.282010.E2.80.932014.29

Please go to this link to delete the statement about Alonso leaving Ferrari.90.222.223.74 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't put the honus on us to prove speculation to be correct. That's the job of the sources we use to provide the content to Misplaced Pages. I highly suggest you take the time to thoroughly review what the definition of an encyclopedia is and the policies of this website. No one is denying that the rumors are strong and that the chances are likely that Alonso leaving for McLaren will happen. But, like a parent trying to explain to a small child, I repeat myself that we simply don't add or remove previously sourced information based purely on "what we think will happen" or, again in other words, pure WP:SPECULATION. Therefore, rumors about what is likely do not get published. As far as whatever you're saying about his own article, it's been correctly removed because it is unsourced. If someone does put it in the article without a credible source that provides clear information, such as the examples Tvx1 provided, then it too will be reverted (and it has). However, don't tell us to ignore Misplaced Pages policies, give us speculative articles and then tell us that it should be good enough for everybody just because you say you know for sure and you're a right person. That's not how we solve things. Twirlypen (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's one thing to avoid acting as though a rumour (which is open knowledge in this case actually, but anyway) is true before it's been confirmed. That's completely understandable and correct. It's another thing, though, to not even acknowledge the reports at all and to present the article as if nothing has happened and it's clear Alonso will be driving for Ferrari next year (something literally everyone interested in the sport in any capacity knows isn't true and has been discussed endlessly in legitimate sources). Saying things like "but the table says it's drivers who are signed" is just completely missing the point. If that's what the table says then change it. Communicate the information that we all know. Make it clear that there are some explicit comments (Di Montezemolo's announcement) showing Alonso will leave.

There are countless ways that can be done within Misplaced Pages's rules - e.g. have a small bit of text saying "although Alonso is signed for 2015, recently departed Ferrari President Luca Di Montezemolo has said that Alonso is leaving, noting that 'he wants another environment' and 'he is at an age when he cannot wait to win again'". That doesn't break any Misplaced Pages rules and immediately transforms the article from something that looks hopelessly out of date to something that's useful and presents the relevant information people need to understand the situation. It isn't unsourced (there are countless sources for Di Montezemolo's comment) it isn't speculation (reporting the comment isn't saying he will definitely leave, even though that's abundantly clear). You can even keep him in the table for all it matters, but please, update the article to reflect the latest developments rather than intentionally making it misleading just to "win" a debate. 158.143.82.199 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 158.143.82.199's point of view. I realise the table is labelled as signed teams and drivers, but I suspect most casual readers won't pick up on that subtlety and will interpret it that Misplaced Pages is saying that Alonso will definitely drive for Ferrari next year (perhaps evidenced by the number of people who have come to this talk page asking for his name to be removed). I would not object to Alonso's name being left in the table, with a (reliably-sourced) footnote describing the speculation. WP:SPECULATION does say "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". DH85868993 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The table is for signed teams and drivers. Whether you want it or not. If random users don't bother to read the titles then, sadly enough, it's their problem. So removing him is out of the question as long as he or his team don't simply state his contract has been disbanded. He must have got a damn good reason not to have announced this. I would not object to add a footnote with some further explanation though. However it is fundamental that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and NOT a news site. We DON'T have to be up to date to the last second. We have the luxury to wait until clear, unambiguous sources appear and the situation has become crystal clear. If our articles are not entirely up to date, than so be it. There are even templates to warn users that an article documents and upcoming event and that things might change rapidly. Tvx1 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not in favour of Alonso's name being removed from the table. I am in favour of a footnote being added. (My previous comment possibly doesn't make that clear). DH85868993 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am oppose to a footnote. Speculation is speculation, regardless of whether it appears in the body of the article or the footnotes. We know Alonso is still under contract at Ferrari, and no amount of speculation about the current status of that contract will prove otherwise. Including a footnote is essentially WP:WEASEL. We still need to apply the same standard as we have in the past - Alonso or Mattiaci (or Dennis or whoever a new team principal might be) confirming it themselves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I have been on the wrong end of putting highly probable speculation into an article, only to have it turn out to be not true at the last second. We went on and on over the JEV thing because a reliable source came out months later contradicting the original source used to say something definite about him. This hasn't happened with Alonso. Nothing definitive has come out, despite all the rumors and gossip. IMO, even the ex-principal's statements shouldn't be used because A) he made them after he left the team, and B) even he said it wasn't definite - just that Alonso requested to be released.

There's also the case of making sure Räikkönen remains on board after his horrid season. If anyone has the ability to throw a wrench into this, it's Kimi. I have no doubt that if Alonso or Ferrari's mind is made up about this, it won't be long before the end of the season that they announce it. They gave Massa a decent farewell even after he openly announced that Ferrari can go f--- themselves and he is driving for himself midway through his final season. It's not a stretch to think that Alonso deserves at least an equally decent and public farewell from Ferrari. Twirlypen (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we're going into somewhat dangerous territory if we start justifying this, as TvX1 does above, by saying its the users' fault if they misunderstand the information in the table. There's no merit in making something more difficult to interpret than it needs to be. For instance another (somewhat more mundane) solution to this issue could be to simply insert a small amount of text in the paragraph above the table making it clear that just because someone is signed it doesn't mean they will definitely be driving and that the lineup could change before the start of the season. I don't see what the problem would be in pointing that out - it's the sort of thing that's self-evident to people who follow the sport, but not at all self-evident (I imagine) to someone who knows nothing about it. If we think people are going to read that and go "oh, but it just says they're signed so maybe that means it's not going to happen" I think we're assuming an awful lot on the part of readers (and it's completely unnecessary because we can just point it out to them explicitly). 158.143.82.199 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it all comes down to what you can and what you cannot prove. And you cannot prove that Alonso will leave Ferrari. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It plainly states in the first sentence "The following teams and drivers are currently signed to take part in the 2015 Formula One World Championship." There is absolutely nothing deceptive about this. They are the teams currently entered for the 2015 season and these are the drivers that the teams currently have signed to drive for them. The sources account for the information provided in the article. If someone cannot figure out that the future isn't set in stone, then yes, I have to agree that it is their problem. What if, heaven forbid, a signed 2015 driver is killed at the race in Brazil? Should we omit everyone on the grounds that "there's a chance..." "but what if..." "the rumors highly suggest..." No, that's why the policies of Misplaced Pages are in place. Misplaced Pages isn't a rumor mill. Twirlypen (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It should be very obvious that when a reader visits the page of the 2015 season of a sport, that the year in question still has to start and this is something that will happen in the future. Likewise, everybody knows that the future is not set in stone. You really ought to have a bit higher estimate of our readers. Frankly, I think you are trying to fix a problem that (a) doesn't really exist and (b) affects very few readers if it does exist. Tvx1 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Food for thought: Axis of Oversteer—which is not a reliable source, but bear with me; I have a point—have published an article on the Alonso situation, as reported by the Italian and Spanish media (blog post contains links to relevant articles), in which Alonso says he will stay at Ferrari if he feels Ferrari present the best option for him. They are comments that the English-speaking media (specifically the British press) have not picked up on, fir whatever reason. So we can't prove that Alonso is leaving Ferrari. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I honestly, truly believe that the reason Alonso and/or Ferrari haven't announced anything is that they are waiting on what Kimi will do after the season. I know he's said that he will race in 2015 and finish out his contract, but I don't know... it's purely a hunch on my part, but I think he's the X-factor in this whole situation. Twirlypen (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Twirlypen: the reasons don't really matter. The delay in announcing a decision doesn't actually affect the decision itself. Trying to figure out why isn't our job; it's speculation, and verges on WP:NOTFORUM. If you do wish to debate that, I suggest you join a forum, like Autosport, F1 Fanatic, GTPlanet or F1 Rejects. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I guess I should follow my own advice and go over more policies here. Twirlypen (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't apologise; you haven't done anything wrong. You're a fairly new editor, and a lot of this stuff is learnt as you go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

To Tvx1: is it really so ridiculous to suggest some people might read this table and be confused as to whether it's an official confirmation of what's going to happen in 2015 or not? You do realise, for instance, that many people reading it might have zero knowledge of how the sport works and may not even speak English as their first language? Does it really break Misplaced Pages's rules to add a simple clarification somewhere in the article - as I suggested, something simply pointing out that the 2015 lineup is subject to change and can't be taken as a final confirmation? What specifically is your objection here beyond questioning the intelligence of anyone who might misunderstand it - which, incidentally, is just about the single worst attitude anyone can take in this sort of situation (i.e. failing to correct potential ambiguities because any misunderstandings can be blamed on the reader). This particular attitude is something I encounter on Misplaced Pages over and over again - the idea that there's some merit in making things more ambiguous/complicated than they need to be simply because "anyone who doesn't get it is an idiot". 158.143.82.199 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you fixating me? This is not my decision. Read WP:Consensus. Multiple users discuss and decide together what's the best way forward. If you can convince the others in to a consensus to include some extra prose to repeat that the future is not set, than be my guest. I won't object it, in fact I can't even do that. By the way, I'm not the one questioning the cognitive skills of our readers, you are. The word signed is included three times in the article (in the contents box, in the prose of above this table and in the title for the section in question). I give our readers the basic courtesy of respect that they can understand this. Oh, and just that you know, I don't speak English as a first language either. Tvx1 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't presented any argument in that response as to why we shouldn't add a section of text clarifying that the table is subject to change. If you have no objection to that at all then fine. Does anyone else object to this? I'm happy to add such a note, but I will give it some time before I do in case anyone else has a problem with it. 158.143.82.199 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to explain that things are subject to change. You are assuming that Alonso will move because the media are saying that he will move, but Alonso himself has said nothing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a general "things are subject to change" note would be particularly useful. The speculation is specifically about Alonso, so the note should reflect that. As I see it, the point of the note is to inform the reader that although Alonso has signed a contract with Ferrari for 2015 (which is why his name is and should remain in the table), there has been widespread and well-reported speculation that he will not actually drive for Ferrari next year. (As opposed to, say, Ricciardo, who has also signed a contract for 2015, but about whom there is no such speculation). DH85868993 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

But doing that would imply that the speculation is to be taken as confirmation. Look at the Axis of Oveesteer blog I linked to - it contains links to reputable Spanish and Italian media outlets who have stories where Alonso himself says he will stay at Ferrari if it is the best place for him to be.

In the end, it comes down to what we can prove. We can prove Alonso has a Ferrari contract. We cannot prove that he will break it, no matter how much speculation might suggest it. We have always maintained the standard that confirmation must come from a named and quoted member of the team considered senior enough to announce it. It is a rule that was introduced in 2009 surrounding all of the speculation regarding Alonso. We have never made changes to articles on the back of anything less since then, and I for one feel that it is one of the most important standards that the WikiProject observes. We should not make any exceptions to that rule, least of all because there is a lot of media attention to the possibility of change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that leaving Alonso's name in the table but with a footnote implies that the speculation is to be taken as confirmation. You keep saying "it comes down to what we can prove" - we can prove that there is widespread speculation that Alonso will not drive for Ferrari in 2015. And regarding the standard that confirmation must come from a named and quoted member of the team considered senior enough to announce it - that is the standard we apply for adding a name to/removing a name from a table. I don't recall that standard ever being used to prevent the addition of a footnote. DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We have never used a footnote for this purpose before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well there's a first time for everything, isn't there? I should also say that I'm not opposed to the note making it perfectly clear that there has been no official statement from Alonso or anyone else that he will not be driving for Ferrari in 2015 - maybe something like this: "Fernando Alonso has a contract with Ferrari for 2015 (ref). There has been speculation that he will not drive for Ferrari next year(RS)(RS)(RS) but this has not been confirmed by Alonso or Ferrari and Alonso has said he will stay at Ferrari if it is the best place for him to be.(ref)" DH85868993 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right. There is a first time for everything. Now, however, is not that time. Its inclusion still hangs on speculation, and speculation is speculation, no matter how much there is. Even if we give equal weight to both outcomes, it still amounts to "this might happen, but then again it might not". Misplaced Pages is not a news service, and it is neither our job nor our responsibility to make sure readers know the exact state of affairs from day to day. If Alonso leaves, then we remove him. Not beforehand. To do so would be speculating, introducing original research, and effectively using weasel words. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We clearly have differing views on this. I think/hope I've made my view fairly clear, so I probably won't add anything further for a little while, to allow others to have their say. DH85868993 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but please allow me to make one final argument: if we start using footnotes to point out these situations, where does it stop? Should we also include a footnote for the second Toro Rosso seat listing the drivers under consideration? The two McLaren seats to outline their prospects? A note speculating about Hamilton breaking contract at Mercedes? Eventually we would reach a critical mass of speculative footnotes with the only apparent check and balance being that if it gets reported in the media, it can be included. That sets a poor standard and undermines the point of an encyclopedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with PM. I wouldn't object to adding to the prose to make clear that things are subject to change (like every provisional list in the RS actually does). But adding a specific footnote for every driver who's future is speculated on is really a bridge to far. That's really a can of worms. Misplaced Pages is not a news site. Read the policy WP:NOTNEWS. It's perfectly acceptable for us to be a few days out of date. Tvx1 (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads-up—there's a click-baity article on Autosport with a headline that suggests Alonso has announced a move to McLaren, but the text of the article makes it clear that it's a non-story, and certainly not confirmation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Tvx1 (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So I sort of switched off from this debate, but I can guess what has been going on, and frankly it's getting a bit ridiculous. While I agree that it would go against Misplaced Pages's guidelines to remove Alonso, it's totally absurd for him still to be there. Anyone with even the faintest knowledge of F1 at present knows that there is zero chance of him driving for Ferrari next year, so honestly it's just misleading to leave his name there. The core principle of an encyclopedia is to inform, and right now this article is not doing that. WilliamF1two (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, the truth is what you can prove with sources. For the most part, articles are representative of reality because of the 24-hour news cycle, but sometimes we end up in a situation where something that is "common knowledge" does not have any sources to back it up. The article can only reflect the sources—to change it based on anything else is both speculative and original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No it is not totally absurd by any means. You think that there's zero change he will drive for them because clearly you take all the speculation for truth and because you still don't understand the scope of the table despite it being explained thrice in the article. On this day the only thing we can prove through the sources is that he currently has a contract with Ferrari. Whether you want it or not, that's what we are bound with. Just what is it that you don't understand about the word patience. There is no rush to remove him. The man himself has said there is no deadline to make his decision. Tvx1 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

PM I see your point, absolutely I do, but that doesn't change the fact that we are essentially peddling misinformation at the present time. Blindly sticking to policy in the face of all the facts is shockingly closed-minded. I think you're misinterpreting me Tvx1, I understand the table perfectly, but only because I'm very familiar with F1 and know that just because a driver is "signed" doesn't at all mean he will be racing, and while that's sort of alluded to in the text (only once though, in a totally non-confrontational way where are the other two times you speak of?), a casual reader with no background knowledge would be absolutely justified in getting the wrong idea from the table. Perhaps, rather than breaking our policies to remove Alonso, we should add a caveat in the paragraph above the table noting that it is common in Formula One for the "confirmed" line-up to change?

''Blindly sticking to policy in the face of all the facts is shockingly closed-minded."

I ask you—what is a 'fact'? It is something that we can prove to be true. How do we prove it to be true? With reliable, verifiable sources. And what do those reliable, verifiable sources say? That Alonso has an existing contract with Ferrari and that he is considering his options for 2015.

You want to remove Alonso from the table so that the article is representative of reality. If so, that change will need to be supported by a reliable, verifiable source in which Alonso himself says that he will leave Ferrari; alternatively, you can find a source from a senior Ferrari figure—be it Marco Mattiachi or Sergio Marchionne—saying the same thing. To change it prematurely suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of key Misplaced Pages policies, including no crystal balling, no original research and the need for sources that are reliable and verifiable.

If you want to change the article, you need to prove it first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. On what basis do you claim that we are peddling misinformation? On the basis that you think a lot of the speculation to be true fact. Well sorry, that's not how wikipedia works. Even your casual reader can easily find out why Alonso is included in the table, by clicking on the reference that is used to justify his inclusion. Do you really not think Alonso and Ferrari might have a bloody good reason no to have announced his contract having been terminated? Why do you think he has said there is no deadline to make up his mind? Why is so difficult for you to have patience? Misplaced Pages is not a news site. We don't provide minute by minute accurate information. It's perfectly okay for us to be temporarily outdated whilst we verify facts through reliable sources. And yes the word signed is present thrice in the article. Once in the contents box, once in bold in the title of the teams and drivers section and a final time in the prose above the teams and drivers table. Tvx1 (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I reject your accusation that I do not understand Misplaced Pages policies, as I clearly stated "While I agree that it would go against Misplaced Pages's guidelines..." (poor choice of word, I meant policies). I merely think that the policies, in the really very unusual scenario, do not serve to help the encyclopedia as they usually do.

Tvx1, As far as I'm aware (and I agree this is not fact, but fairly solid speculation), Ferrari are not announcing his departure due to an agreement with Alonso that they won't do so until he has confirmed his own plans, which at present he hasn't - as far as we know, no deal exists with McLaren, or indeed anyone else. I would argue that Alonso making up his mind is not choosing between staying at Ferrari or not, but choosing what do know that he's left. And I apologise vis-a-vis it appearing three times - it does indeed, my mistake.

The thing is that a casual reader would have no reason to click the reference for Alonso - it would be a perfectly logical thing to think that he has signed, therefore he will drive - no need to investigate further for them.

All that is somewhat by-the-by though. I'm prepared to concede this point, as there is a clear majority against me. Democracy and all that. On the other hand, is there any objection to my suggestion that we add a small note in the text above the table to mention that "signed" is not at all synonymous with "will drive" in F1 circles? That would make the whole table a lot less confusing to a casual observer. WilliamF1two (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"I merely think that the policies, in the really very unusual scenario, do not serve to help the encyclopedia as they usually do."

You say you reject claims that you don't understand policies, but then you go ahead and say this. WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL are three of the most important policies on Misplaced Pages. Where some policies, like those in the Manual of Style, can be observed at the discretion of editors, these three cannot. This may be considered an unusual situation, but that is not grounds to ignore those policies because it is convenient to do so—and certainly not to break WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WEASEL in order to do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Technicalities and policies aside, I have said I concede the point. I would appreciate your opinions on my suggestion. WilliamF1two (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes—it's a weasel word. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it is. It's a fact. You could provide many, many examples if you wanted to. WilliamF1two (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples don't apply here. You're essentially phrasing things in such away that gives you a chance to maintain the position if it gets refuted. It's a weasel word. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It goes back to the general understanding that while we can prove with verifiable sources that Alonso has a Ferrari contract for 2015 (and 2016 as well), the future is not set in stone for anyone. This should be assumed by everyone, casual reader or not. I bring up the same point I brought up earlier - any one of the currently signed drivers could have something completely unforeseen happen to them that would cause them to be unable to drive. To point out that "these drivers are signed but that doesn't mean they 100% will drive" removes any credibility the table has and the references used to fill them, and essentially makes the entire thing WP:SPECULATION. Twirlypen (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well OK, I can see I'm going to get nowhere with this, I'll let it go. But it seems like a very odd situation to me. I would argue the table looses its credibility by including Alonso... Although if Autosport are right, this debate will all be null and void very soon anyway, when he's confirmed at McLaren. Thank you folks. WilliamF1two (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If they are right. Tvx1 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

By the argument being presented, there's only going to be 3 teams competing in the 2016 season using only 2 drivers, because that's what the table says. Also, there's strong talks that Formula One might go back to V8s by then, so we should include a note that it might happen. Twirlypen (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, valid points. Out of curiosity, what is the differentiating factor that means Ferrari and Merc get to be in that table, but not the other teams? WilliamF1two (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ferrari and Merc have a driver signed for that season, proven by sources. The others don't. And the preference is not to have a table with dozens of TBAs. Furthermore, as Marussia and Caterha have shown, it's not because a team is competing in the current season, that they automatically will be competing in two years time as well. Tvx1 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks WilliamF1two (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, what we all knew for weeks has finally been confirmed so this is no longer an issue for Alonso. However I would say that in future it might be an idea to go for maximum clarity rather than making the article more ambiguous and difficult to understand than it needs to be. The opposition to a simple clarification that the status of drivers is subject to change was somewhat mystifying. It would be a contribution that would clear up any potential ambiguities without detracting from the rest of the article in any meaningful sense.

The justification for this by Twirlypen above that "it would make the whole table speculation" is entirely spurious. We're not talking about speculation, we're talking about two statements of fact: 1. That the drivers in the table are currently signed to take part for their respective teams in 2015, and 2. That despite being signed drivers can (and in many cases will) move before the season starts - which is precisely what happened with Alonso. Indeed the argument is that the second statement is apparently so widely understood by everyone reading the article that it doesn't even need to be stated - so why would stating something everybody supposedly already knows change the status of the table to speculation? That's completely illogical - if everyone already knows the fact in question, as Twirlypen asserts, then stating it explicitly changes nothing; whereas if it's not the case that everyone already knows the second fact, it simply clears the issue up for anyone who *doesn't* know it already. In other words, despite the best efforts of the argument above to establish some kind of downside to adding a clarification there isn't any tangible cost to doing so.

So we're really making a call based on little more than blind assertions. Some people in this discussion think 100% of people will read the table and assume that it's still subject to change so there's no point in stating it explicitly (an odd argument in my view given clarification would cost nothing in terms of readability, but if people want to argue that then fine). Other people (like myself) assert that it's possible someone would read the article and conflate the word "signed" with "confirmed" and therefore think it's an official confirmation of who will actually drive in 2015 when there are in practice still negotiations ongoing that could see drivers move (as happened with Alonso). There's no hard evidence for either perspective, they're both just as legitimate as each other, but faced with a situation in which there are potential ambiguities and no agreement from editors over which side is correct you have to side with caution and give the reader all of the information needed to understand the situation. Is there a serious objection in that case to altering the first sentence to: "The following teams and drivers are currently signed to take part in the 2015 Formula One World Championship, although this lineup is still subject to change." Eight words that ensure 100% of people will read the table and understand it rather than getting the wrong end of the stick (at virtually no cost to the readability of the article). Lewdswap (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no fundamental problem with that and I never had. Tvx1 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Manor

Manor has been entered in the team and drivers table recently. Their inclusion being supported by this source. I have the impression that it might be a bit speculative. After all it's merely Ted Kravitz presenting his view. An although it appears to be quite certain Manor lodged an entry, that normally doesn't mean that it has been accepted by the FIA yet. Prisonermonkeys, who is currently blocked from editing for edit-warring, has raised there concerns about this on their talk page, the only page they can edit while being blocked. And I think PM's concerns do make sense. It contemplated removing them again from the article, but decided to initiate a discussion about it first to see what others think about it first. Tvx1 (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is definitely speculative. It may well be in the works, but we deal only in established fact. Until we have an entry from the FIA, we should be keeping them out of the table. QueenCake (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's what I thought as well. Anyways it has been removed again.Tvx1 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I was brought to this attention as well. I read the article, and it doesn't have any concrete quotes or sources from anyone at Marussia/Manor or the FIA. As I said on PM's talk page, it just looks like this reporter wanted to be the first to break the news, even though the reporter's understanding is completely unsourced. Twirlypen (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/marussia-listed-as-manor-f1-team-on-provisional-2015-team-list/ Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Both Caterham and Manor have been included on an entry list released by the FIA today. It should be noted the list is provisional, and it is quite likely there will be a different team name come next season, especially for Caterham as they've now changed ownership and location. For now though, "Manor F1 Team" and "CF1 Caterham F1 Team" are entrants for 2015. QueenCake (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And Forza Rossa hasn't been included interestingly enough. Tvx1 (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought Forza Rossa were aiming for a 2016 entry along with Haas. I could be mistaken though. However, like it's been mentioned, the list is provisional. The Grand Prix of America was on a provisional list during the 2012 season, but later removed (much to my own person dismay since I live an hour from the venue, I might add). This is as official as official gets right now though, so I agree that those teams should now be listed. Twirlypen (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Kolles has said they want a 2015 entry, and there is a provision for late entries.

The inclusion of Caterham and Manor doesn't need a consensus - the provisional entry list has come from the FIA, the highest authority on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Manor's constructor title shows up on the provisional entry list as "MNR" so what do we add? "Manor" or "MNR" the reason I'm asking this is because we've always listed Scuderia Toro Rosso as just "Toro Rosso" not "STR" as listed? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not the first time the FIA (or even FOM for that matter) have listed Toro Rosso as STR. They even used to list the Red Bulls are RBR. We've always stuck with Toro Rosso. The5₉ (Talk) 20:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So should we revert it to "Manor"? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I would like to point out that what's listed as MNR is not the Constructor, but the "name of the chassis".Tvx1 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Marussia has now folded]. Although I'm not sure how that affects Manor. Tvx1 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Manor

I see that, with the announcement that Marussia F1 is gone, that Manor has been removed from the 2015 table. However I think this is premature, as far as we are aware the entry still exists and is still held by the administrators, and could still be sold off to another team as has happened in the past. We don't know the status of this 2015 entry and our only concrete sourcing is that Manor has one, as of yesterday. The5₉ (Talk) 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's safer to err on the side of caution here. We don't know how Manor and Marussia are intertwined, only that they are. Knowing that, I think it would be wrong to include Manor until such time as their presence is formally confirmed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This article lists Manor as the parent of Marussia, and this article posted two hours later lists Manor as still functioning and looking into 2015 programs following the shut down of their GP3 team. This seems to point to Manor still existing and thus having their hands on the 2015 F1 entry. The5₉ (Talk) 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree, the fact is that Manor Grand Prix Limited appear on the only official entry list for next season that exists, so I would suggest they should be on ours too until the FIA issue one without them. Duds 2k (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"This seems to point to Manor still existing"

I think I would prefer something a little more concrete than that. Adam Cooper is reporting that the Manor entry was only put forward as a way to try and salvage the team for Abu Dhabi. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This article (sorry it's mobile) suggests that something remains, but it does rely on a bit if speculation and the whole situation remains unclear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think these additional articles point to the entry still existing. It's akin to Forza Rossa, they have an entry, it's merely a question of whether or not they will show up. The5₉ (Talk) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, before we get ahead of ourselves, I think we need to answer the question of whether or not they can show up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, as far as I know Forza Rossa don't have an entry, hence there absence on the 2015 entry list. All they have is a letter of intent. Regarding the various sources about Manor that have been supplied here, the autosport source doesn't mention anything about F1 in 2015, only Formula 3, and Adam Cooper indeed claims that the entry application was a last grasp. This leaves us with only the BBC source as evidence that "elements of Marussia management" still hope to return to F1 next season and have applied for entry to next year's world championship under the name of Manor F1, the team's original guise.Tvx1 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

On a somewhat tangentially-related note, I have issues with the Forza Rossa article existing in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I was implying *when* Forza Rossa had an entry for 2015 as far as we knew. The point is, an entry has been granted for Manor F1, and even if the team collapses, that entry is still usable by some entity. Surely Caterham's 2015 entry is no different, a "hope to return" in 2015? The5₉ (Talk) 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment, if Caterham doesn't have a buyer either, they have no realistic chance of racing in 2015. So either Caterham needs to be removed as was done with Manor or both should be kept in the constructors' table since both are on the official entry list.

Read the entry list again. Manor is conditional; Caterham is not.

Secondly, we have no evidence to say that Caterham does not have a buyer. Hence, we cannot say whether or not they have a "realistic chance" of making the grid, since that would be original research and speculation. We can only go by what sources say. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the idea of omitting them on the notion of a "realistic chance of making the grid" is absurd. If the FIA puts out a list, whether provisional or not, that Caterham and Manor are entered to race in 2015, then they should be on the list here. We do it with races on the provisional list. Second, we lose all credibility if we admonish others to "stick to the sources" on the Alonso issue but then turn right around and legitimately consider ignoring a source as credible as the FIA itself just because "we know better." Which is it? Twirlypen (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Not including them is saying they definitely won't make the grid. The entries still exist. I think we need to wait for confirmation that either Manor or Caterham won't appear before removing them. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I see it the other way around. On the one hand, we have Marussia. The team as we know it no longer exists. We can support this with reliable sources that include statements from the team and media reports, and would extend as far as legal documents filed as part of the cessation process. On the other hand, we have the entry itself, which was included—conditionally—on a provisional entry list. All we can demonstrate is that this entry is currently in the hands of Marussia's parent company, and that is about it. We have no idea (and no evidence) of how all of this fits together. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

PM, no offense, but it seems really simple to me that Manor and Caterham should be on the list until the FIA, Manor, and/or Caterham say otherwise. The most recent sources say that they have a provisional entry. Interpretation of outside talk about Marussia, which isn't even on the entry list anyway, shouldn't be left to us as editors of an encyclopedia. Our job is to cite the sources and leave our own personal opinions aside, a la "it seems unlikely that they will follow through with the entry so we should just omit it to begin with." Twirlypen (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Center-align

How it can be "practice for years", if 2009 Formula One season and previous articles are right-aligned, while 1974-1995 articles are left-aligned? What the reason to increase the volume of the article? It seems ridiculous, when we can just use | instead of | align="center" | Cybervoron (talk)

Six years is still "years". Apparently it wasn't applied retroactively like it should have. Center-alignment is the best readable, especially with the non-sequential driver numbers that are currently applied. Tvx1 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It never was a "practice" anyway, because all motorsport articles (not only F1) shows that now there is no consensus for center-alignment, so the best decision is standardise all numbers to left-align, like in the most of the articles. Cybervoron (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1, the center-alignment looks better in this situation as it is easier to read. We don't need some broad overarching policy that all tables must use one alignment or another. Just use whatever works best for that specific table. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, too. Also, in some mobile browsers (mostly the older ones) the column becomes extremely wide when the sortable function is applied—as many as five or six characters. Centre-aligning doesn't solve the problem, but it at least makes the table look sensible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Honda Racecar Engineering article

I removed this article and its associated sentence from the Team Changes section. The suggestion that Honda continued work on F1 tech until the present day is unfounded nonsense. The only thing the Racecar Engineering article proves is that Honda built an RA109 chassis in Japan that differed from the BGP 001 chassis developed in Brackley, meaning that they worked on the former independently for a couple of months. That's it. Why Racecar Engineering felt the need to state that a "secret" project was maintained for five years is absolutely beyond me, but if you read the entire article you'll note that they don't even attempt to support that sentence. Furthermore, they are the ONLY source making such claims, and I think these claims are outlandish enough that they most certainly warrant secondary sources.

Lastly, I am only making this post because I felt it would be rude to remove a sentence without explanation. I have been around Misplaced Pages for awhile and I know chances are high that someone is going to show up, revert my change and argue with me here. If/when that happens, I am absolutely going to lose it. No reasonable person could possibly disagree with what I have written above. If there are other sources proving me wrong, by all means, I'd love to hear them. Barring that, I will never stop fighting to keep this lie out of this article. Eightball (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, the statement in question is this: "The project stems from the continued development of the Honda RA109 chassis—the successor to the Honda RA108 and sister chassis to the Brawn BGP 001—after the team was sold to Brawn GP in 2009" and the referencing article is this from Racecar Engineering.

Where exactly did our sentence, or Racecar Engineering, state that the RA109 continued to be developed to this day? Our article correctly stated that Honda continued to work on the RA109 even after they announced their withdraw from Formula One. I think you confuse the fact that the car was a secret for five years to somehow mean that they were still working on it for five years.

If your gripe is with the notion of Honda continuing to develop a chassis to the present day (which neither we nor Racecar Engineering state), why remove the entire sentence and the relation of the Honda Turbo V6 being born from the end of development of the RA109? The5₉ (Talk) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the Honda Turbo V6 was announced in May 2013, and certainly Honda isn't going to announce their engine without at least some background development in place at the time. It would then make sense to say that the RA109 was tested into 2009, and the Turbo V6 began development somewhere around the tail end of 2012. The5₉ (Talk) 23:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's just your personal guesswork. The problem Eightball raised concerns the first part of the sentence you quotes. The continued development of the RA109 chassis... That literally claims they're still developping it. Furthermore Eightball has quite correctly pointed out that the quoted source does nothing to back their claim that the 2015 engine strems from that development. For all I know these could perfectly separate projects. Tvx1 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And how is "this article must be a lie and removed" not guesswork? The RA109 was continued *after Honda withdrew*, which is backed by the article. It does not mean that the development of the RA109 has not ended.

The RA109 and Turbo V6 were both developed by the same R&D team for Honda. How exactly are the two not related? That's like saying the Red Bull RB10 and Toro Rosso STR9 aren't related, despite coming from the exact same Red Bull Technology. The article even covers Honda's development of a new KERS system, how would that not be related to the new power unit?

I'm sorry, but an article by engineers covering the engineering development of a car and engine published by a reliable source trumps any of this. Why would the article need to provide more indepth coverage of the linkage between the two projects just to prove to you what they say? The5₉ (Talk) 23:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This article made several days later by Racecar Engineering discusses Honda's KERS systems and their developments for the RA1089 hackjob and RA109K development cars. The last section mentions a theory that the KERS system developed for the RA109 will be scaled up in the 2014 car, but it is not definitive. It does however say that the Tochigi R&D center is the home to the test benches for the KERS systems, so clearly Tochigi was involved in both the RA109 and the new Honda Turbo V6 in some fashion. The5₉ (Talk) 23:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So they were made in the same building? So what? That still doesn't prove the 2015 engine to be a direct consequence of the RA109 development. Many of Honda's preceding chassis were made there too. Does that mean the 2015 engine is a result of them as well? Tvx1 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not partake in any discussion about this unless someone brings in additional sources. Until then, the facts speak for themselves, and the sentence will stay removed from the article. Eightball (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the sentence as it was written CLEARLY implied that Honda had been developing F1 technology, in some form, since 2009, without interruption. How you could disagree with that interpretation is beyond me, but then again, this is Misplaced Pages, and I've seen "editors" go to much greater lengths to make pages worse. Eightball (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You are overthinking the sentence I think. At no point is there an implication of "without interruption". R&D centers are always working on projects that never get off the drawing board. If a reliable source says that Honda has continued to work on projects in secret in the background, why exactly are we distrusting of them? Is there a direct lineage from the RA109 to the Honda Turbo V6? Unknown. Did Honda R&D work on F1 projects in the background between the creation of the RA109 and the announcement of the Honda Turbo V6? This article says there was. Simply change the sentence so that it states that the Honda Turbo V6 has evolved from developments Honda undertook between 2009 and 2013. Removing it entirely is just silly. The5₉ (Talk) 00:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As for WP:OWN, kindly leave that nonsense at the door. The only facts we have so far are a source makes statements about secret Honda projects, and you not believing the source. If you have any actual facts to provide, please do not hesitate to bring them forward. The5₉ (Talk) 00:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of these two comments are. Bring more sources or we will not re-add the lie. I was very clear. Eightball (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not the way it works and you damn well know it. You cannot simply brush off a source as a lie because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, what you're saying is very clear. And very wrong. The5₉ (Talk) 00:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? Are you kidding me right now? Should we just start an ANI now and get it over with? The5₉ (Talk) 00:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it is that you can't find a second source supporting that statement? Eightball (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking myself how this is even relevant to the 2015 season and it's outcome in the first place? Surely this sort of information belongs in Honda's article and NOT here.Tvx1 (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I love when editors threaten to get administrators involved. It's basically an admission that their POV doesn't stand up to objective scrutiny and their only hope is that the lumbering mass of bureaucracy will find some inane rule that supports their side. They'd probably also get to keep their lie in the article while the admin process plays out. Love Misplaced Pages, really do. Eightball (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see some reasoning for stating that the Honda engine project has had a long development being relevant to this article, but I agree it is more relevant to Honda's own article. However my main address here is Eightball's silly claim that this article is a lie. There is absolutely no foundation for such a claim, and absolutely no reason to demand outside referencing, especially for an exclusive story about a secret project. How can there even be other sources for a secret project if Honda only agreed to give it to one person? The5₉ (Talk) 00:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to prove that the sentence that was previously in the article was a lie. YOU have to prove that it is true, and the source you cited - and this is OBJECTIVELY TRUE, you cannot argue with this point - does not prove the very statement it makes. Therefore, the sentence does not belong in this article. Eightball (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would it need to proved? If I link to an article that states that water is H2O, would it need to prove it? That's the entire point of referencing, we are taking something from a *reliable* (as in, people who check their facts and don't lie) source to back the statement in our article. You have absolutely no foundation for proclaiming this article is a lie. None. Zero. All you have is a hunch of "There's no way Honda's been working on F1 stuff for all these years!" The statement that Honda's been working on F1 projects in the interim is reliably sourced. Live with it. Your belief that they need to prove absolutely everything they write to you personally is completely off base. The5₉ (Talk) 00:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And yes, if you are going to proclaim that a reliable source is no longer reliable, you need to provide some sort of proof for us to question them on. This is an article written by the deputy editor of a major published magazine, you're going to need something more than "I don't believe it". The5₉ (Talk) 00:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What user Eightball has correctly pointed out is that the article used did NOT support our claim that the 2015 engine is a direct consequence of the RA109 chassis development. All this article discusses is what Honda were planning to do in 2009 (and that includes the KERS you referred to, a system that was introduced for that season). Nevertheless, there too many "it is thought", "it may be"s and so on in that article. Anyways I still don't see how Honda doing some chassis development since their withdrawal is relevant to the 2015 season. That's for the Honda article. Discuss it on that article's talk page and not here. Tvx1 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the point of the RA109 and the Honda Turbo V6 being connected. As I said before, the sentence should have been *changed*, not *removed*. Yes, there are "may be" statements, but the article does not state that Honda worked on secret projects in the interim in some capacity as a "may be" statement. Keep in mind Eightball's rationale explained here, that "The suggestion that Honda continued work on F1 tech until the present day is unfounded nonsense." This is a completely unsupported claim and not a valid reason for removing the reference from the article.

I'm also all for mentioning this on the Honda article. However, Eightball here seems to be of the notion that he is somehow in control of this and will remove it from Misplaced Pages because the article is a "lie", so how the bloody hell can I move it there? The5₉ (Talk) 01:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see Eightball has only objected to include it in this article but has stated no such objections regarding the Honda article. Tvx1 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat. "The suggestion that Honda continued work on F1 tech until the present day is unfounded nonsense." Followed by "Furthermore, they are the ONLY source making such claims, and I think these claims are outlandish enough that they most certainly warrant secondary sources." Finally, "Barring that, I will never stop fighting to keep this lie out of this article." Eightball seems to believe that this Racecar Engineering article is wrong and that Honda did not work on any F1-related projects between 2009 and 2013.

Do you honestly believe his feelings will be any different to including mention of F1 development between 2009 and 2013 in the Honda article? The5₉ (Talk) 01:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

All that their quotes seem to relate to is including that exact sentence in this article. Eightball correctly believes our sentence is wrong and not the source. And no, the source does not mention anything about 2010-2013 except from "it is thought that they have developed a blowen diffuser in 2011".Tvx1 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ultimately this secret R&D project lead to the firm creating a 2014 specification hybrid power unit which will be used by McLaren in 2015 but in between some fascinating work was conducted." In other words, some work was done between the RA109 and the Honda Turbo V6. What specific work we don't know, but we know that they were working on something F1-related. This seems to be the crutch of Eightball's argument, that he doesn't believe that F1-related projects were carried out until the present day. The RE article doesn't state that there was continuous work or that the work was directly related to the RA109 or the Honda Turbo V6, just that work was carried out. As I said before, the sentence in our article was incorrect but the sourced used for it is not a "lie" and that the sentence should have been corrected, not simply deleted. The5₉ (Talk) 02:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you quote the section of the article where they actually support they statement? Spoiler alert: they don't. It's simply asserted in the lede and never referenced again. Eightball (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It's nothing but the opinion of the author that there is a direct lineage, but, apart from they are thought to have developed a blown diffuser in 2011, there is nothing whatsoever in the main body of that article on Honda's post RA109 activity. If you want to write something on the RA109 development in the Honda article, go ahead but just make sure that what you write is actually supported by your source.Tvx1 (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is it an opinion? The author was given information on a secret Honda project. Surely if they knew of this one secret project, they'd know of others. Do you think Honda just randomly gave this information out, or that the author asked for it? It's an article on the RA109, not an article on every other project. And then there's a second article on the secret KERS development at the same time. That's two projects alone. It's not like there isn't a precedent for Honda developing other F1 projects in secret. This is not some random blogger throwing out ideas, this is an engineer involved in the sport who knows about Honda's projects and is revealing some of them he's been given permission on. The5₉ (Talk) 19:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Read it again, it's full of "it is thought" and "it may be this" or "it may be that". That is the exact definition of opinion. But that's no the point in the first place. You said it yourself it's an article on the RA109. And thus not on the 2015 engine. The KERS article is dealing with their development on a KERS system for the 2009 season, when this system was originally introduced to the sport. None of this is acceptable as a source about 2015. If you want to write about the RA109 en the KERS development, be bold and do so in the Honda in F1 article. Tvx1 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not pointing it out for the 2015 article, I'm pointing out that the reference has merit in general. Better to finish the discussion here than branch it off somewhere else. Some things are stated as "maybes" but the mention of secret projects is not stated as a maybe. Eightball's statement that just because something in the lead of the article is not referenced elsewhere somehow makes the lead inappropriate for use is just wrong. All the lead is saying is that "Honda has some secret projects related to F1. Here is the one I'm allowed to tell you." The5₉ (Talk) 20:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well as stated before and as I will reiterate, I have no problem with mentioning this in the Honda article. Tvx1 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

German Flag for German GP

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

Prove it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Eightball (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. The flag corresponds with the physical location of the venue. Look at the European Grand Prix as a prime example - we used the flag of Spain rather than the flag of Europe because the circuit was in Spain. There is currently no venue for the German Grand Prix, so how can you claim that the race will be in Germany? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it's the GERMAN Grand Prix. Do you want me to prove that Germany is Germany? The European Grand Prix is not a relevant comparison as it has no fixed host country. The German Grand Prix is, by definition, in Germany. This is not up for debate. If you're going to sit here and disagree with objective facts then I will be reporting you to the admins for vandalism. Eightball (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been 75 German GPs, the first one being in 1926. EVERY SINGLE ONE has been held in German territory. This discussion right here is why Misplaced Pages is awful. Truly, truly awful. Why is there any disagreement? HOW is there any disagreement? There should be a German flag there. Duh. End of discussion. No discussion needed. No thought should even cross your mind. There is not a second side. Eightball (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been a Swiss GP in France and there have been Luxembourg GPs in Germany and so on... I know as well that is very unlikely it will take part outside of Germany, but the fact is this an encyclopedia and we can only publish facts proven by sources. Since the location has yet to be announced we cannot publish where it's going to be, not even the flag. We are in no rush whatsoever to include information. We can easily wait until more information on this is published and we find out what the correct situation is. This is similar to a an article about a football tournament. Take for instance the 2016 European Football Championship Qualification. Even when, ahead of the last game day, say Slovenia can only be eliminated by virtue of losing their final match to San Marino, something which is next to impossible given the fact that San Marino has never won a qualification match, we still can't list them as qualified for the tournament, because mathematically they aren't certain yet. Next to impossible or overwhelmingly certain are not enough. We need actual certainty. We're not arguing that the race will take place outside of Germany, we're arguing that the status is unknown which IS a fact.Tvx1 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The race will be in Germany, and THAT is a fact. The status is NOT unknown. Publishing anything else would be a farce and a lie and is nothing short of intentionally misleading readers. Eightball (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Then prove it with a source!Tvx1 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a tautology. Eightball (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the fact that we're agreeing above and arguing here is kind of beautiful. Eightball (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, stop edit-warring. Repeatedly undoing other users contributions is not going to win you a dispute. I'll put it pure and simple: if you want your edit to stick you need to add a source confirming it will take place within Germany. Pretty certain is NOT enough. We write based on sources and NOT like you based on personal opinion. Read WP:Verifiable and WP:OR. The fact that we agree in the above discussion and disagree here is only proof the fact that me and you choose to (dis)agree based on the presented arguments and not on the contributor, nothing else.Tvx1 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, I'm removing a lie. If you have a source suggesting that the race may not take place in Germany, by all means, provide that source. But guess what? YOU CAN'T. BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. Eightball (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I'll stoop to your level. Reference 41 on the article itself. Until 2018, the German GP alternates between Hockenheim and Nurburgring. Care to guess which country those two tracks are in? Eightball (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is FIVE years old and is quite obviously trumped by the current calendar stating the venue is TBA. It's UNKNOWN. You know things change over the years. In 2010 both Korea had a contract that including this season. Do we still include them. No? Why? Their contract for this season where later disbanded. If the official calendar lists the venue as TBA than something has changed since the agreement in 2009. We don't assume where it is going to be. And yes you are edit-warring. You repeatedly undid other users contributions. You know, Prisonermonkeys has just been blocked three times in just over a month for displaying such an attitude towards edit-warring. That can happen to you just as well. Edit-warring is forbidden by policy. Tvx1 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It says TBA because it hasn't been decided which of those two tracks will host the race. Both are in Germany. The race will be in Germany. THIS IS AN OBJECTIVELY TRUE FACT. YOU CANNOT DISAGREE. DISAGREEMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Why are you so dedicated to posting lies? What do you think is a more important Wiki policy: edit warring or not publishing lies? Eightball (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Finally, I'm not assuming anything. It WILL be in Germany. YOU are assuming that it might not, and that assumption is objectively incorrect. It will be in Germany. We are done here. Eightball (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Enormously missing the point Eightball. Edit-warring. Don't do it. You have a reason? To use your own somewhat patronising manner guess what? It does not make a difference, don't do it. Still want to talk about your reason for the revert? Ummmmmm, no you are still edit-warring and your reason for doing it still does not matter.

Don't edit-war.

Was my response patronising? Yes it was, but maybe it needs to be. Demonstrate that you understand that you do not edit-war. --Falcadore (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not care about any of your rules more than I care about removing lies and vandalism from articles. If there were not editors apparently dedicated to lying then I would have no reason to edit war. Eightball (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki policy quite clearly states: "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring." I am reverting vandalism, ergo I have broken no rule. Eightball (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. I actually agree with you that the flag should be there, but I think however being a super-aggressive pedant is just going to get you banned in short-order.

Claiming vandalism will not wash in the slightest. The presence of the little splash of colour in the flag or its absence does not even slightly constitute vandalism, because the little flagicon, on its own, makes no claim the race will not be in Germany. But I'm sure you won't listen to me. --Falcadore (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I quite honestly don't care if you ban me or block me or what, so long as lies are removed from this article. If the Honda/Racing Engineering article is gone and the German flag is in then ban away, my job is done. Eightball (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I can't ban you and would never claim otherwise. The absense of a flag is not even slightly a lie. If another flag was placed there, you would have a case, however it's just absent. Claims of lies and vandalism are entirely in your own head.

A flag's absence is not in anyway shape or form is not a lie. Lieing involves a statement. A flags absense is not a statement, it's not anything, because nothing is there.

This sort of editorial behavior just gives everyone else in the F1 group a bad name. --Falcadore (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing the flag pretty obviously implies that the race may not take place in Germany. That alone is a blatant lie. Eightball (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I can think of a few reasons that have nothing to do with content. You should not draw a conclusion from the lack of a statement. --Falcadore (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not me I'm worried about, it's the people who aren't as informed as I. I am aware that Misplaced Pages is a nightmarish hellscape of Byzantine rules and poorly-thought-out policies, so when I see something like the flagicon missing I naturally chalk it up to incompetence and move on. The average reader doesn't know that, though. They view Misplaced Pages as an authority and will thus draw the conclusion that the flagicon is missing for a reason, e.g. that the race might not take place in Germany. We all know that this isn't the case, and why so many editors seem hell-bent on maintaining a lie in this article is beyond me. I've always said that Misplaced Pages needs one policy that overrides all policies: be the best encyclopedia possible. Instead, the #1 goal of most editors seem to be enforcing the rules, rather than trying to be the most accurate and helpful encyclopedia we can possibly make. Eightball (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I see someone arguing over the presence or absence of a flagicon (not the substitution of another flagicon), with no other content changing at all, and I assume the editors have lost their perspective of what the actual goal is.

Tables are the addendum to articles. The actual important bit is the text. Does the text state anywhere the Grand Prix will not be held in Germany? --Falcadore (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is another thing that Misplaced Pages has gotten totally wrong. Tables are not an addendum. Tables are where the eye is drawn. Tables are much, much easier to parse information from than prose. So the fact that the table indicates the race won't be in Germany overrides anything that is written in the text of the article, because most readers are going to check the table first, and may not even read the body of the article. Regardless, none of that matters. The fact that we are even discussing this is comical. The race will be in Germany. That's not up for debate. The flag should be a German flag. That's not up for debate. What are we even talking about? Eightball (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the subject at hand instead of your own behavior, I'd love that. --Falcadore (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? What's the point? There is no debate over the content. The race will be in Germany and we have to indicate at such. This is a simple fact. Eightball (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure the words German Grand Prix have that covered with or without the flag. Why is the flag so important that you have to edit war it into place? --Falcadore (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you got it totally wrong. We are not indicating that the race will not take place in Germany by any means. We are indicating that situation is unsure. And that is the only truth. This all boils down to you believing that when Nurburgring (the expected host for 2015) is unable to host, the Hockenheimring will be perfectly able to lay Bernie's hosting fee on the table just like that, despite normally being only expected to raise that amount of money once every two years. Do you even have a remote idea of what sort of money one needs to pay to be allowed to host a Grand Prix? You are just continuously make personal conclusions. What you are doing is pure ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This why we, at wikipedia, have decided to take the safe option when we are no certain of something. We are an encyclopedia, not a news site. WE ARE IN NO RUSH TO PUBLISH THINGS. We wait and see. There is no rush whatsoever to include that German flag. Take a dictionary and look up the word ”Patience". It's something you really need to learn to have. It's been our general practice that no venue=no flag. Tvx1 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You are objectively wrong and I'm not discussing this with you any further. If you want to take this to dispute resolution or whatever so an admin can tell you you're objectively wrong, be my guess, but please don't continue to vandalize the article in the meantime. Eightball (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying the words German Grand Prix is somehow inadequate? That they are meaningless unless the flag is there? --Falcadore (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an amazing amount of discussion for something so trivial. It took me ten seconds to find a reliable source (published today) that gives the location of the German Grand Prix without any ambiguity -- Daily Telegraph, 2015 F1 race calendar (official). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry but there is nothing more official than FOM and FIA. We currently have an FOM source stating the venue to be TBA. They must have a very good reason to do that. That's why we take the save option and write TBA as well until we have more information on the matter. Tvx1 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is likely going by the typical scheme of alternating races between the Nurburgring and Hockenheim. However, the Nurburgring has been in recent dire financial trouble and was recently sold, so this is likely the reason for the FIA listing it as TBA, their contracts may be under renegotiation.'

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

If you're going to plug your ears and ignore discussion, proclaim that you're only going to follow the rules that you want to follow, then your opinion is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The5₉ (Talk) 20:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. For the sake of clarity, we have always left out the flag of the nation when a venue was unknown. This is how we dealt with an exact same situation two years ago. Tvx1 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't care how you feel about that source or any source. I don't care how you dealt with this previously. This matter is not up for debate. The race will be held in Germany. This is an undeniable, objective fact, and stating anything even slightly to the contrary is a lie. I will revert any lies as vandalism. This is not a content debate as the content is impossible to question. Eightball (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Eightball, where is your source to say that the race will be held in Germany? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

For 75 races and nearly 90 years the German GP has never once been held off German soil. If you wish to imply otherwise, YOU need a source. Furthermore, I have provided one source showing that Hockenheim and the Nurgburgring have contracts through 2018, and another source showing that The Telegraph (a reliable newspaper) expects the race to be held at the Nurburgring. If you'd like to ignore both of these sources in favor of lying then you are simply proving yourself as a vandal and I will ask that you be blocked from editing and hopefully banned outright. Eightball (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and to clear up one more thing: when the FIA says "TBA," they mean either Hockenheim or the Nurburgring. They do not mean they have absolutely no idea where the race will take place. That is not a source that suggests what you three vandals are suggesting, which is that the race may not be held in Germany. Again, that latter point is objectively untrue, AND AGAIN, none of this should even require a source. Eightball (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Start-Class Formula One articles
• Low-importance Formula One articles