Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Common sense regarding Vergne

CONSENSUS
What's clear from this debate is that there is no firm agreement on the wording of a sentence about Vergne. While stating that someone's contract has not been renewed seems to be in keeping with all sources and non-speculative, there was no strong support behind this idea or any other. The solution that was left was to remove the sentence, which seems to have reasonably broad support, and is a good and safe (BLP!) default choice. I therefore suggest to use this as the interim solution until more definitive information emerges. As a complete aside, the Foxsports source seems to be back online (it's unclear if this was a problem some experienced...) Samsara 08:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It think it's time we start using some common sense regrading Jean-Eric Vergne's situation. We demand that a sentence stating that Vergne will not drive for Toro Rosso in 2015 is kept in the article, even though the source we use to support this merely states that there are no seats left for the Frenchman (a situation which has changed in the meantime) and even though sources like this one(directly quoting Toro Rosso principal Franz Tost) are appearing.(if have tried to retrieve the Foxsports source that has been used as well, but have failed to do so.) Tvx1 (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're to use common sense, which I'm all for after last year's frivolities, then Vergne currently has no place in the drivers table. There is no source stating he has a contract to drive for a Formula One team in 2015. QueenCake (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not the issue. What we are discussing is a note in "Driver Changes" section stating that Vergne will not drive for Toro Rosso for 2015. Tvx1 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the NBC source satisfies WP:RS. They're a lot like Autosport's Grapevine column and motorsport.com - they post a lot of soft news. I find it strange that none of the usual sources we use have made a story of this, so I'd prefer to wait on this one.
Also, Vergne might have lost his seat when Toro Rosso signed Verstappen, but he wasn't automatically back in contention when Kvyat was promoted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
And what about the Foxsports source? Tvx1 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
What about this source? —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I find it odd that only one reliable source is actually commenting on it. Don't you find it strange that Autosport, Sky, the BBC or any of the other sources that we regularly use haven't discussed it?

As for the Toro Rosso source, it does not say Vergne is back in contention for the seat. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok Tvx1, I see your point. I think the easiest way to proceed then would be to simply put nothing for Vergne in the Driver changes section until we know if he either has the Toro Rosso seat or not. QueenCake (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
But he doesn't have the Toro Rosso seat. Even if he gets the seat back, the most accurate way to represent the current situation is to say that he does not. And I don't think that's recentism, either, because we know other drivers are under consideration. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
But this is not about us saying he does not have the seat. This is about us claiming he cannot get the seat back, which is not stated like that in the source we claim it does. Tvx1 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It is my personal belief that drivers leaving Formula One, have already done so when the 2015 season begins. A note stating a driver is *not* competing in the 2015 Formula One season is unneccessary. A list of things not happenning is ridiculous. Alain Prost won't be competing in the series either. Nor will Payton Manning or Vladamir Putin. --Falcadore (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If a movement of a driver into the sport is notable, then surely the movement of a driver out of the sport in the year that they move out is equally notable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
But who says he is leaving the sport? Even if he does not get his Toro Rosso seat back there's no reason to conclude that he cannot move to another team. In fact that is not at all what we are discussing. What I'm trying to point out is that we are claiming he is entirely out of the picture for the Toro Rosso seat based on the following quote from a source:
What we are currently stating in the article is clearly not what is in the source we use to support it. The source merely presents the author's conclusion that there was no seat remaining for the Frenchman. There is no quote from the driver himself or from a team member that the coöperation between the driver and the team has been ended for all eternity, which is what we are claiming. Things have changed in the meantime and the author of this source did not know that Kvyat was to be promoted to Red Bull Racing. The more I think about it, the more our claim looks like original research. And here and here are another two articles from the same source we use to support him being out of the picture. Can we now please answer on what we are actually discussing? That way we might get somewhere.Tvx1 (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If a movement of a driver into the sport is notable, then surely the movement of a driver out of the sport in the year that they move out is equally notable.
Errr, categorically no. Hiring someone is notable. Not hiring is not. How do you establish not doing something as being notable? If a driver retires, then sure - in the year in which he retired. If a driver is not hired because all the seats have been filled, then we are reporting on something that did not happen. A driver retires, than that is something that is actioned.
I fail to see why it is difficult to understand that reporting on something not happenning is not notable. --Falcadore (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you have point. The scope of the section is driver changes. A driver changing teams, a driver leaving the sport (i.e. retiring), a driver entering the sport. Indeed, we should not report on a driver simply not currently being hired. Tvx1 (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The article only says that Vergne lost his seat with the team. It does not say that he is out of the sport. By removing that sentence, we imply that he is still there in some capacity, which contradicts the sources we have. After all, he lost his seat, and then a seat opened up. We need more sources to suggest he is back in contention, since it's odd that only one source is actually talking about it; everyone else is quiet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you ignore the other ones I have provided here? I have given links to two articles from the same source as the article we are using to back our current claim, and they clearly state he's still very much in the picture. What more do you really want? Tvx1 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Something more than an implication. "Mateschitz hints at second chance for Vergne" is not good enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That's why I provided two links. What about the one quoting Tost? Tvx1 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Tost makes it pretty clear that it's not his decision. If Christian Hornet saying "Vettel will go to Ferrari" is not sufficient enough for Vettel to be listed as a Ferrari driver, then surely Tost saying "someone else will pick the drivers" is not enough to be considered acceptable for Vergne.
Besides, I have always had issues with using GP Update as a source—they tend to show a lot of bias towards Dutch drivers, and they never use bylines, so it's impossible to follow up on where the story is coming from. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if the ultimate decision who will drive lies not with Tost, he is the Team principal so he definitely is in a position to know who is in the running for the driver and to speak about it. The difference with Horner is that he is not the team principal of Ferrari. He has a say in Vettel's decisions regarding his drive with Red Bull, yes. He doesn't however have a say in Vettel's signing a contract with another team. I think our standard is crystal clear: the driver in question or a team member that is in a position to speak for that team. As Franz Tost is the Toro Rosso Team principal he is in a position to speak for the team. I don't really know what your obsession is with keeping that sentence. Besides, if you have a problem with GP Update, then why do you use them to support the sentence in the first place? By the way, if have already explained that we are misrepresenting the source in an earlier reply, but unexpectedly that got ignored as well. Tvx1 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
If Vergne is only in contention, then it's speculation and we don't do speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not speculation. It has been literally confirmed by the Toro Rosso team principal. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting adding the drivers they consider to the article, which is speculation. I'm suggesting to remove a clearly incorrect sentence that Vergne will certainly not drive for them next season! Is that really that difficult to understand? Tvx1 (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. It says Vergne lost his drive. It does not say that he lost all hope of racing for the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources say he lost his drive. By saying "The team elected not to retain Jean-Éric Vergne, who lost his drive after three seasons with the team" we are telling the truth. We could add "but is considered a potential option for 2015 by Franz Tost". However, we don't need to. GPUpdate is the only source with this, and I have to agree it does serve as speculation. If we list Vergne's potential, then we also ought to list Carlos Sainz, Jr., Pierre Gasly and Alex Lynn too. But that too is speculation. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
No GP Update are not the only ones. There is NBCsports source provided here that quotes Tost as well. A Foxsports source has been supplied as well. And there are many more sources (including some French-language ones) we I'll be happy to supply. I'm not suggesting adding anything. I'm suggesting that we remove an incorrect sentence and write nothing at all about the second Toro Rosso seat in the driver changes section. Listing the seat as TBA in the table is more than enough to explain the seat hasn't been filled yet. The sentence is wrong as it has not been confirmed that Vergne will not drive for them next season. He is still being considered. Furthermore read the sentence from the source we are basing this on again:
Nowhere in that sentence do I see the driver or team member being quoted: "Vergne/I will certainly not drive for the team next season, even if a vacancy would open up." We are misrepresenting the source, whether you want it or not. It's pure original research. By the way, now there is an Autosport source Tvx1 (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
And nowhere in the article do I see anything to suggest that what you are saying is being implied. It only says that Vergne lost his seat; just as it does not say that he can or will regain the seat, it does not say that he cannot or will not regain it. You are forgetting that any change needs to be supported with evidence—not just additions, but removals as well. We're in the same situation as we were with Sirotkin, whereby removing content that has been a part of the article implies that the situation has changed, when we cannot demonstrate that it has. The only demonstrations so far have been open-ended speculation. I can see why you might construct the current wording to imply that he will not drive at all (which I feel is subjective), but on the other hand, removing it outright is a greater implication. A rewording may be in order, but removing it causes bigger problems.
Also, please be careful with your section headings. You have named this section "common sense regarding Vergne", which is an appeal to reason and a logical fallacy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to accept that STR changed their mind on immediately dismissing Vergne once RBR promoted Kvyat? I have provided a VERY RECENT source quoting the team boss himself. Is suddenly a current team boss not a credible source?? This has plainly become nothing but an issue of veteran editors being stubborn that their months-old reference has been revised. As of OCTOBER 2014, Vergne has not been 100% ruled out. I provided a credible source confirming this. I'm sorry that credible information (yes, it's credible no matter how much you wish the TEAM BOSS didn't say so himself) came out months afterwards. I have proven with a source from October 2014 that Vergne is still an option. By all means, if there's a MORE RECENT source saying otherwise, I'll happily drop it. Twirlypen (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Think back to the title of this section, "COMMENT SENSE," when discussing this. Don't have a hard on for August news as if it's the end-all, be-all, nothing further can ever come of this. Scratching your heads going "hmmm... This isn't being reported on every news outlet, it must be fake," doesn't make the few that do report something as minute as Vergne still having a chance any less credible. To do so would be, well, pure stubbornness. Twirlypen (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussions require consensus. "I think you guys are being stubborn, so I'm just going to do what I want" will not fly around here. Discuss subject matter, not the editors.
Further, you do not edit articles while discussions are ongoing. This is considered edit warring. There is no harm in the article remaining the way it is now while we hash out this subject matter. Having a source does not trump this discussion, since the discussion is itself about the sources. The359 (Talk) 07:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue in all of this is the use of the word "lost" and its implications. On the one hand, it may be interpreted as meaning that Vergne does not currently have a seat for 2015. On the other hand, it may be taken to mean that he is not going to be a part of the team anymore.

Personally, I think the first interpretation is best. Look at the sources quoting Tost—he names other drivers as potential candidates for the seat. Therefore, even if he is still in contention, he does not currently have a seat for 2015. Ergo, he has lost his seat. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that, yes, what drivers move out of the sport may be relevant to point out in the driver changes summary, but Vergne's case is clearly something that is not as definitive as other driver changes may be. It would not hurt us to not list him as having lost his seat, even if all signs may point to it. Saying that Vergne has lost his seat would appear to a common reader to be crystal balling as we do not know definitively if he is actually no longer able to get a seat at Toro Rosso.
Further, we don't really need a source stating that Vergne is in contention within the article if we are not going to actually mention Vergne. The source serves no purpose as it currently is used. The359 (Talk) 08:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Look, I did mean to start a war. Maybe I'm the stubborn one, but it seems silly to me that the sentence "STR has elected to not retain JEV" is permitted to be published in light of recent weeks events that turn that statement completely upside down, especially as the team boss himself has stated that he is being reconsidered, albeit along with others, for the second seat. Yes, as it stands, he doesn't have a seat in 2015 with STR. But today, in October, the statement that STR has definitively chosen NOT to retain JEV is false. I'm simply pleading common sense. Twirlypen (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Except that's not what the article says. It doesn't emphatically rule Vergne out of the seat. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all, Twirlypen,The359 and Prisonermonkeys stop reverting each other. No matter what is, or what is not in the article after the last edit, DON't revert. Continue the discussion on the talk page and make and edit, if necessary, once consensus has been achieved. PM, with al due respect but I cannot see how a sane person can claim that "They have elected not to retain Vergne" can mean anything else than that he won't drive for them in 2015, which clearly is not certain. We cannot by any means predetermine how our reader will interpret this sentence. The magnitude of editors who have tried to remove this sentence clearly shows that your interpretation isn't that straightforward at all. Furthermore your claim, in the scope of this article, that he has lost the drive is wrong. At no point in history Vergne has been signed for 2015. He was signed from 2012 until 2014, which is of low relevance to this season. A 2015 renewal has never been made as of yet, so he can't have lost anything he never had. What we report in the driver changes section are drivers confirmed to change teams or confirmed to leave the sport, neither of which has happened in the case of Vergne. We now have five editors (myself, Twirlypen, The359, Falcadore and QueenCake) stating that we shouldn't write anything at all regarding Vergne, all bringing in their own arguments. How many more do you want before you are going to consider this a consensus? Tvx1 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

New sentence idea: "This meant that Jean-Éric Vergne was dropped from the team, though with Daniil Kvyat's promotion to the senior team, a seat is open." This sentence states that JEV was dropped (which he was) but doesn't say that it is a permanent and unchangeable thing. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think that the sentence should be dropped altogether. It's very much like sentence saying Fernando Alonso is 28 years old. "But wait, Fernando Alonso is clearly 33 years old, and I have various sources cornfirming this," you might ask yourself, dumbfounded. "Sorry, my 5 year old source says he is 28, so I will indefinitely question your future sources and refuse to accept that Fernando Alonso ages." Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? Well this "discussion" about whether or not to include a now untrue statement that STR has definitively elected not to retain Vergne is not unlike this line of absurditiy. Twirlypen (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, Prisonermonkeys, this is a direct copy & paste quote from your most recent response to this discussion:
... If this is your opinion, why do you vehemently insist that the sentence stating STR has emphatically ruled Vergne out of the seat remain in the article? Twirlypen (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't say that. It says "Vergne lost his seat". How has that emphatically ruled him out? He had a contract, and it wasn't renewed. In order to take Verstappen and Kvyat, Toro Rossi would have had to have released Vergne from his contract first. Having Kvyat promoted to Red Bull didn't automatically restore Vergne's position. He lost his seat with the team, and while he can regain it, the article does not say that he will absolutely be unable to do so, so please stop trying to make out that it does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Your argument for retaining the sentence covers every reason why it should be removed. "The article does not say that he will absolutely be unable to do so" (regain his seat). In other words, Toro Rosso has not absolutely decided he will not drive for them in 2015. "...it didn't automatically restore Vergne's position." Nor did it absolutely eliminate him as your sentence suggests. Yes, the sentence was true in August. No, not anymore in October. At this point in time, stating that STR has or will eliminate Vergne or any other combination of words that can be thought of that make it seem like or suggest that they have definitively ruled him out from their 2015 seat, when the current facts, sources, and evidence say otherwise is WP:SPECULATION. Twirlypen (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel like you think we are trying to argue that Vergne is definitely KEEPING his seat. Not true. We are simply arguing that the statement that STR has elected not to retain JEV be removed, because they clearly have not decided one way or the other. Again, this is not only legitimately sourced, it's common sense. Twirlypen (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
What you don't seem to grasp is that any change has implications. If a line saying that he does not have a seat is removed, that implies that he does have a seat, even if it doesn't say it outright. It's a Catch-22 because we cannot consider the sources saying he is still in contention since they are themselves speculative. And Franz Tost has made it pretty clear that even if he is team principal, he doesn't have the final say in the driver choice. How, then, can he be an accurate source of Vergne's current position?
Also, don't claim that your argument is common sense. It's an appeal to reason, a logical fallacy that tries to position your argument above all others regardless of its content and before opposing points of view have a chance to be considered. If it really was such common sense, why is it so in debate? Hence, it is a fallacy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point. I honestly get it that you feel your interpretation of sources is best and therefore final and any logical rebuttals with counter-sources will be simply dismissed as unreliable. However, it is coming off that Vergne specifically has been 100% eliminated from his team's seat, which is simply a false statement any way you twist it. Franz Tost may not have the final say on the decision, which I again reiterate has NOT been made yet by whoever does have the final decision, but to suggest a current team boss/principal is not a reliable source and unable to speak on behalf of the team is just plain bonkers. This whole issue is WP:SPECULATION. To say that Vergne has, with absolute finality, lost his 2015 Toro Rosso seat is WP:SPECULATION. Twirlypen (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out here that we cannot say what is truth, just what is verifiable. Right now, what is verifiable is that Vergne has been dropped. And while it is verifiable to say that Vergne is being considered for a seat, to say so in the article is considered speculation, because it is a report of what could happen. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's why we are suggesting to REMOVE a sentence and not to add anything at all. And the point is it is not certain they will not retain Vergne. They didn't have to release him from his contract because he never had one for 2015 in the first place.

If a line saying that he does not have a seat is removed, that implies that he does have a seat, even if it doesn't say it outright.
— User:Prisonermonkeys

This is probably the biggest nonsense I have read in this discussion. This claim is utterly unfounded and untrue. The fact that there is a TBA in the table for the seat in question undisputedly proves that nobobdy has the seat. We have 10 other 2014 drivers who don't have a seat for next season (yet), and about whom we don't write in the 2015 article. Does that imply they have their seats as well?
Now, could both of you please stop ignoring that the majority in this discussion has stated that the sentence should be removed. Tvx1 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just don't see the point in even mentioning it other than to incite controversy/drawn out discussions. I get that we cannot say that he is under consideration - no one is trying to get that included in the article. However, Tost's statements in October (which are reliable despite some absurd opinions that a current team principal has no authority to speak on behalf of the team he is in charge of) have backtracked the once-verified statement in August that Vergne has absolutely been dropped. It is my understanding that, while mentioning in the Wiki article that Vergne is still consideration is indeed speculation, the fact that these statements were made absolutely negates the validitiy of the team's position back in August, and are not speculative in this manner, since he has actually said this and it reflects the team's current position. Twirlypen (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, Tost is not at the peak of the decision-making process. He may be consulted on drivers, but he does not have the final say. Now, I get your above point about the reliability of team principles as sources, but bear in mind that Toro Rosso is owned by Red Bull. They are funded by Red Bull. They answer to Red Bull. Hence, it is Red Bull—and more specifically, Helmut Marko—who has the final say in driver selection. Tost, as team principal, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the team. So given the unique structure of the team, I don't think that we can use him as a source. Because as much as he is team principal, how much input does he actually have in the driver selection process? If it's not as much as, say, Monisha Kaltenborn, why are you giving Tost as much authority as her? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Because as a team principale he is in a position to know. Who makes the final decision doesn't matter, Tost is in a position to know who's being considered. Tvx1 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
So he knows, day to day, hour to hour and minute to minute, does he?
That's the problem with your argument—you assume he knows, but you can't demonstrate that he does because your assumption is based on his position in the team being the same as the team principal position in other teams, even though I just demonstrated that it isn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not giving him the peak, decision-making authority. But he does have enough to do with the team that if he says Vergne is still under consideration and he has definitely not been ruled out, that it's worth believing that it represents the standing of the team. If it was the jack-man saying this, you'd have a point. But it's the team principal. You'd think that if your team principal is going around making rogue comments, one of the many, many people you give greater authority to would have refuted his "baseless claims" by now. But right now, you're the only one refuting his claims. You've essentially given yourself greater authority within the STR Formula One team than the Team Principal. Twirlypen (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
So he knows, day to day, hour to hour and minute to minute, does he? What kind of grasping at straws nonsense is this?? You're making this guy out to be a desk jockey who knows absolutely nothing. NOBODY on the team knows everything minute-to-minute. He certainly knows enough though to make a statement to the media based on the standing of the team he is Principal of, and certainly knows more than Wikipedia editors. Twirlypen (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Prove it. Arguable assertions need to be supported with evidence. I have demonstrated that because if the relationship to Red Bull, Toro Rosso is structured differently, as evidenced by Tost's quotes in which he makes it clear the the ultimate authority lies outside the immediate team. You are claiming that despite this, Tost is on equal footing compared to other team principals. Now you need to prove it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Challenge accepted. There are plenty of references in the Toro Rosso article citing Tost's quotes regarding drivers, their capacity with the team, and reasons for previous drivers not being with the team; specifically Sébastien Buemi and Jaime Alguersuari. So don't go around saying just because STR is a junior team, that the Team Principal is unqualified to make statements regarding their drivers. You are simply challenging it in this one particular instance because it will make your edit no longer valid and it really just seems like you want the page to have your content and nobody else's without your own personal say-so first. If you legitimately believe that Tost has no authority whatsoever on any level regarding drivers, then every instance of using Tost's quotes as a reliable source must be challenged and discussed, not just this one. Twirlypen (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Those previous, historical events are supported by actual events. This one is not. And you still haven't addressed the implications of removing the statement about Vergne. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have. I have made it clear that your claim of implications is utter nonsense by the fact that there are 10 drivers in the 2014 season that have not been renewed yet we don't write about in this article. But apparently this is only problem for Vergne. There are already five users disagreeing with you. How many more do you need to realise your assumptions are wrong? Tvx1 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Tost saying this makes the inclusion of Vergne speculative. It also makes the statement that STR elected not to retain Vergne completely void and untrue. I have provided a Tost quote confirming this, and removing the sentence would not be speculative, as the team backtracking on their earlier statement that Vergne had lost his seat is not speculation. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever for you to say his quotes on current drivers is all of the sudden invalid due to the structure of the team and relationship with RBR, while at the same time saying his quotes on the status of previous drivers is valid when he had the exact same title and authority within the team back then as he does now and the team was structured and had the exact same relationship with RBR then as it does now.
The honus is on you to prove that STR Team Principal Franz Tost no longer has authority to comment on anything regarding current drivers when he did so in the past, and unfortunately breaking down the relationship between RBR and STR and listing members with other titles doesn't qualify as proof and neither does stating that since Tost is a junior team Prinicipal, that his authority within the team is diminished. Provide a legitimate, sourced reference stating that Tost has no authority regarding drivers, their status with the team, as well as the removal of authority to speak on behalf of the team. Please cite. Twirlypen (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You have already done that for me - with the source you provided where Tost says the final choice rests with someone else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You're dodging the issue, again. Not having the final say has absolutely NOTHING to do with the stance of the team currently weighing their options or Tost's authority to report on the team's stance regarding the issue. Find a source that says Tost does not have authority to report on the stance of its driver considerations for the team he is a current principal of. I've bolded that part because you keep dancing around justifying this. Twirlypen (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not because he does not make the final choice that he doesn't know what the options are an cannot relay this information to the press. Lost of companies even use a spokeperson who has no involvement whatsoever in the running of the company to adress the press. Does that make them unreliable as well? Tvx1 (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not whether to include Vergne's consideration in the Wiki article or Tost's ability to make the decision, but rather Tost's authority to report on the issue. Not having a final say does not remove his authority to state the stance of his team, which again, is complete WP:SPECULATION on your part since you've failed to find anything that states Tost is not permitted to comment on the issue of whether Vergne has been ruled out for STR in 2015. This is really not difficult for someone that claims to have been in MENSA to understand. Twirlypen (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If he doesn't have the authority to make a decision, it's no stretch to imagine that he doesn't have the authority to do other things. Prove to me that he is allowed to comment without having to get prior approval from Red Bull. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is very much a stretch to imagine that. They have nothing to do with each other. Think of my example of the spokesperson who has no authority in the running of the company. Tvx1 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright. It's become obviously clear that you are refusing to budge on the issue, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "It's no stretch to imagine that he doesn't have the authority to do other things" ... First, that is just as ridiculous as it sounds. Second, he is Team Principal. He has made comments to the media regarding drivers, the team's direction, near every aspect of the team you can think of, since the inception of STR in 2006. Again, the proof is on you to prove that he CAN NO LONGER discuss the stance of the team, since he has been documented on doing so for the past 8 years. Further, if he were no longer allowed to comment on the stance of the team regarding drivers, a superior would have issued a follow-up statement clarifying not only STR's position regarding Vergne, but Tost's authority to discuss team matters. Twirlypen (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is it that the minority opinion always claims to have overwhelming evidence in support of their position? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Bringing it back on a KISS principle:
Does Jean Eric Vergne have a seat next year:
If yes - reference and add.
Maybe - remove and wait for clarification.
No - remove.
So where does he sit?
Wait an hour and see how many types of maybe folks think there is --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Very obviously maybe. PM, I really don't know where you get it that those that want to remove the sentence are in the minority. There are five (me, Twirlypen, Falcadore, QueenCake and The359) users who have stated that it should be removed, whereas there are only two (yourself and Gyaro–Maguus). Please stop ignoring that you are in the clear minority. How many more users have to disagree with you before you will admit to yourself that your assumptions regarding this matter are wrong. This reminds me a lot of the little Forza Rossa were it took 6 users and an edit war that your interpretation of one sentence from one source (completely ignoring overwhelming evidence from other sources) was wrong. Tvx1 (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I personally just want a compromise, and hence, that is why I suggest altering the sentence rather than either (a) removing it or (b) keeping it unchanged. How about: "The team have so far elected not to retain Jean-Éric Vergne, though after Daniil Kvyat's promotion to the senior team, the Frenchman has not conclusively been ruled out of a 2015 seat alongside Verstappen". I admit now that we have the sources to back up this sentence. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I was differentiating between people who wanted a compromise and people who wanted to remove it outright. And I was basing that distinction on the actions of people in the article, not their arguments on the talk page. It's one thing to say you want a compromise; it's another thing to actually reword the article.

My only issue with a compromise is that it puts undue weight on Vergne's current situation. Looking back on previous season articles, the driver change sections tend to map out the thread of the driver movement; for example, Webber leaves Red Bull for Porsche, Ricciardo takes his place, and Kvyat steps in at Toro Rosso. Recounting the sequence of events surrounding Vergne losing his seat and then potentially regaining it because of other driver movements is an over-emphasis with an insane level if detail, and based on a speculative outcome. It's just not worth it. So I would suggest that any compromise only changes what already exists, and should not add to it if it can be avoided; if it cannot be avoided, then what ever additions are made should be kept to a minimum. And everyone should agree on the wording first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, dodging the issue. Why does Vergne need to be mentioned at all?? Where is your holy source that Tost's statements to the press is suddenly unjust and irrelevant despite his authority in past years?? Until you can prove that STR Team Principal Franz Tost, the only Team Principal in STR history, is unauthorized to mention the standing of the team, then the sentence must be removed. This is very clearly a case of you refusing to admit a consensus against your favor. Even the only other person remotely on your side agrees that it should at least be changed. Please, for everyone's sake, wake up already. Twirlypen (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
And for literally the fourteenth time, no one is trying to get content added to the article. Stop arguing as if we are. Twirlypen (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I say Vergne needs to be mentioned because we have sources saying he was dropped and in the same way we mentioned Luiz Razia's brief time as a Marussia driver on the 2013 Formula One season article we should mention that he was dropped. I also say we need to alter the sentence because what is written there does not accurately represent what the available sources are saying. I will also add that if the sentence gets removed, I will not add it back (I actually understand the concept of a consensus). —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Except for the fact that Luiz Razia had a contract to drive in 2013 at one point. Vergne never had a contract to drive in 2015 in the first place. How could he be dropped from one then? That's the fundamental difference. Tvx1 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that was a poor example. Anyway, I say we mention it because Vergne has been dropped/released from the team. Alguersuari and Buemi were mentioned in 2012, as was D'Ambrosio. You know, in a "driver changes" section, you report... driver changes! (shock and horror). This represents a driver change, though in a way it is currently incomplete.
Let me go deeper. Let us say that Sainz (or someone who is not Vergne) gets the seat. We'll say that Vergne lost his drive.
What if Vergne retained his seat? We'll say Vergne initially lost his drive, but was given a new contract and will drive in 2015.
So, surprisingly enough, as long as Toro Rosso actually choose a second driver, it will be mentioned.
And anyway, let me look into my latest sentence idea:
The team have so far elected not to retain Jean-Éric Vergne: Verifiable and true as Vergne did have a seat with the team in 2014 and now does not for 2015 (hence a change has been made). though after Daniil Kvyat's promotion to the senior team: Verifiable and true, though mainly mentioned in the next bullet point. the Frenchman has not conclusively been ruled out of a 2015 seat alongside Verstappen: Verifiable and true as Vergne has been stated to be in the running for the now vacant second seat, alongside Max Verstappen, a change brought about because of Kvyat's promotion. What is wrong with my suggestion. Everything in it can be sourced, and as an added bonus, it actually represents the current situation in truthful and accurate manner. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I will not deny that this proposed sentence would be a clear improvement. However the driver changes section is meant for inter-season changes that have been confirmed to certainly happen. And at the end of the day Vergne's departure is not confirmed to be certain. That's the fundamental point of this debate. This particular driver change is not certain.Tvx1 (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
And why is that so? In 2013 it states that Bruno Senna sought a drive with Force India, which didn't happen, and in 2012 it says Sutil sought a drive with Williams, which didn't happen. Neither of these were changes that certainly happened, yet are included. (these may be bad examples) So why does the change have to certain to be included, especially when reliable sources are running about? We are in a damned-if-we-do or damned-if-we-don't situation in which we will not be reporting the verifiable truth if we removed the sentence and we are currently not reporting the verifiable truth and won't be if the hold the current text. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Both Senna and Sutil had a drive in the season preceding the year you mention. So a confirmed change happened (out of the sport as it happens). That's why mentioning those drivers in those articles in that particular section is justified. That they tried to get a drive for another team should not really be mentioned in those articles if you ask me. That's better suited for the drivers' articles. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That those events are (unjustifiably) mentioned in other articles does not mean it's automatically correct practice and that it should spill over to other articles. The fundamental difference with them is still that Vergne's departure has not been confirmed. Tvx1 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, radical idea time: we rewrite the entire subsection. Start with Vettel's move away from the team. Cover Kvyat's promotion, then Verstappen. Mention where he came from, and his record (the controversy, IMO is a non-issue). Then mention Vergne at the end of that string. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Or remove him from the list and not say anything. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blog. We don't have to say anything on the subject. Unlike those trying to sell copy with speculation and analysis, Wikipedia is in the position that we as editors can afford to wait until situations clarify.
Sometimes, saying nothing and waiting is the best tactic. --Falcadore (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Falcadore that saying nothing regarding Vergne is the most sensible solution. It was discussed earlier with the Vettel situation that the Team Principal does in fact have the authority to report on the stance of the team regarding their own drivers. Therefore, since STR's Team Principal is recently on record of neither confirming nor denying Vergne a seat, but that he is still being considered, the statement that "STR has elected not to retain JEV" is simply a false statement. If we cannot indicate that he is under consideration for the seat due to WP:SPECULATION, then it makes sense to just not say anything at all until STR makes its final decision. Just say that Vettel has quit RBR, Kvyat has filled his vacancy, and Verstappen is taking one of the two open seats at STR. Twirlypen (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should remove the sentence on Jean-Éric Vergne has the source mentions comments about the time of Verstappen getting a drive, which was before Vettel left and got replaced by Kvyat. Unless there is a source presently stating that Vergne will not drive for Toro Rosso after the depature of Vettel, then this sentence should be removed. Pch172 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


If anyone is wondering, I've given in to the obvious consensus that exists to remove the sentence from the article. —Gyaro–Maguus— 10:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
So, I had an interesting experience: one of my students asked me if Vergne was now staying at Toro Rosso because the Wikipedia article for 2015 had omitted the line. As predicted, casual readers now think something has changed because the omission of that line implies that it has.
But Tvx1 got his way, so who cares about the integrity of the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
My way? There are now seven editors who have stated it should be removed. Even your sole supporter has conceded what the clear consensus was. I ignited a discussion because I saw a lot of editing and reverting and I started to wonder myself whether the included sentence was really supported by the sources like we claimed it was. It just wan't to seek the opinion of my fellow editors on the matter, and the community discussed for weeks and made up their mind based on the presented evidence. Make no mistake, if there had been a clear near unanimity consensus to keep it from the start, if wouldn't have hesitated to accept it. But there never was such a near majority opinion for that side. If you want an answer for your student: yes things have changed. Kvyat left Toro Rosso. And what's going to happen with the second TR seat is currently unknown. You should explain your student as well that Wikipedia is not the place to search for news. Show the student the way to the many sites where news can be found. We use them as well. By the way, your so coveted Autosport published two articles on the matter today: One on Vergne himself commenting on his prospects to stay with the team next season, and another one quoting Verstappen that he wishes the Frenchman to stay on as his teammate. Show those articles to your student. Tvx1 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Today you seem to be concentrating on the tertiary details of arguments and pointing to "sources" that are completely inappropriate.

Firstly, the point is not that my student pointed it out—it's that outsiders can misread it. You have removed the line with no thought for the implications of doing so. It's because you're editing as a fan of the sport, not as the editor of an encyclopedia. You're assuming that anyone reading this is following the sport as closely as you are. We had a line saying that Vergne lost his seat. Now we have removed that line. That implies that something has changed, which, as predicted, has been picked up by someone outside this discussion. And if he can do it, anyone can.

Secondly, why are you pointing to the opinions of Vergne and Verstappen? You have placed significance on the opinions of people in a position to know something on a subject. What does Verstappen have to do with that? He doesn't get any say, but you're pointing to his opinion as if it is proof of what you are arguing. You have clearly lost sight of the fact that this is an encyclopedia first, selectively apply your own arguments depending on what you want, and you consistently claim that you have successfully demonstrated your argument even when people plainly disagree with you. Meanwhile, the only actual edits you are making are ones that restore your preferred version. When was the last time you actually made a substantial contribution to an article and added something? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I haven't removed anything at all. In fact I haven't made an edit at all regarding this matter. Read an article's history before you throw out accusations.
Secondly, of course something has changed. A vacancy opened up and as a result of that Vergne is being considered again. We have provided clear-cut evidence of that.
Thirdly, I mentioned those article for your student, not for this article. I know very well that this is an encyclopedia. That's why nothing should be written as long as nothing has been confirmed. How can you claim that the justification for this hasn't been proven here, when the only one that still disagrees with me is you. Everybody else has come to the some conclusion based on the evidence. Consensus is not unanimity. And regarding my contributions, I have expanded the 2014 Formula One season's article's season report to include information on the two teams' financial difficulties.
Fourthly, you really need to learn to respect that at times other users will disagree with you. That's life. You can't always have things your way. It's no even what Wikipedia's about at all. With each reply you make here in frustration of having "lost" the argument you're really only increasingly destroying your own credibility. Tvx1 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't demand that I always have my way. I just ask that you consider the possibility of doing things a different way. But ever since the debacle with the new numbering system, I'm left with the distinct impression that you decide early on what you want the article to look like, and then proceed to try and get your way through sheer brute force. Why do you think most people lose interest in discussions early on? It's because they know that once you dig your heels in, there is no budging you. How else do you explain the way you have pointedly refused to so much as acknowledge that sources you have provided don't support the claims you make? Ever since the Sirotkin farce, changes that should have been obvious for the benefit of the page have required editors to move heaven and earth just to get some kind of approval. Sirotkin, the numbers, race titles, FP1 drivers and now this—they all have a common denominator: you. What should be a constructive debate and consensus-building degenerates into factions taking up opposing points of view and just hammering each other with the same points over and over again to see who gets tired first, and the article ultimately reflects the will of whoever lasted the longest. Compromises are brought up not because it's the best solution for the article, but because factions drag the debate out long enough to try and force NOCONSENSUS and no progress is being made on actual issues. And then there's the disturbing habit of arbitrarily declaring yourself the victor based on the fact that you think you are right regardless of the strengths of other arguments. And I'm not just talking about the debates I get involved in—I have seen you go it elsewhere.
Take your ego out of the fucking equation, and start remembering what you are here for. Nobody gives a damn who came up with which idea, or who influences the direction of a page. Your edits should be made for the benefit of the article—and of course, you'll say they are, but I can point to half a dozen disputes you gave been involved in that suggest otherwise—and if you're not willing to contribute in an article, then please stop getting in its way. Just this week, I saw you make changes to the team and driver section about grid numbers that contradicted your argument about FP1 drivers when you changed the line about the number of entries at Imola in 82 to Indy in 05 despite your assertion that the rules define a Grand Prix as being a whole weekend and more than 18 cars took part in the weekend at Indy in 05. It's this kind of nonsense that is counter-productive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
As I did in fact say we are not fully representing the situation by removing the sentence, nor are we doing so were we to hold it as it is. That is why I put forward the idea of a new sentence which (a) stated that Vergne was dropped and (b) that he is contention for the seat because (c) that follows the sources we have that are available to us. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
No Prisonermonkeys, the common denominator in the discussions you cite is you and your ego. You're the one that consistently feds up other users, proven by dozens of talk page discussions about your attitude. Your the one that consistently trolls around other users turning debaters in circles. The biggest farce in your accusations is that in the Sirotkin debate I was actually on your side, and in two of others you mention I wasn't even involved. You were involved in all of them, however. Your the one with a fundamental attitude problem. You're the one that has been blocked for disruptive editing, not me. I don't know why you have to be so frustrated about the removal of one sentence. Each reply you make just makes a laughing stock out yourself. You're just destroying any credibility you have left. If you don't change your attitude you're going to find yourself in more difficult debaters in the future. And regarding my edits in this article. I changed it to US because the sentence claimed smallest starting grid, and you know that because I literally stated it in my edit summary. Once you changed it to Grand Prix entry list I never changed it to US again. Stop making untrue accusations.Tvx1 (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Felipe Nasr to drive for Sauber

Sauber just announced that Felipe Nasr will drive for them in 2015 alongside a partnership with Banco do Brasil https://twitter.com/SauberF1Team/status/530139716784365568 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.201.242.189 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I found an NBCSports article which doesn't meet RS standards, but I did find this: http://www.pitpass.com/52889/Official-Nasr-to-partner-Ericsson-at-Sauber-in-2015
I don't know how reputable this source is, but everything else I found wasn't in English. Twirlypen (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Surely this is enough? —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's definitely enough. Tvx1 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Twirlypen: just so you know, "Pitpass" is sometimes referred to as "Pitpiss" or "Shitpass" by fans. That should tell you something about the quality of their work. Generally speaking, Autosport, F1 Fanatic, the BBC, Sky Sports F1 and the James Allen and Adam Cooper blogs are our go-to sources. In order to be considered a valid story, the rule has been that someone we know to be in a position to speak for the driver or the team is good enough for confirmation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that while the teams website is an acceptable source for a driver announcement, the link does tend to go dead very quickly. Most reputable news organisations will properly archive old stories and ensure the old URLs still go to the correct page after a site redesign, and for that reason it is preferable to source from a news report. QueenCake (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We should also be aware that just because Sauber say a driver will drive for them, or is "confirmed", it doesn't mean it might not change completely somewhere down the line, e.g. Mr Sirotkin. Sutil might yet have something to say about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, the BBC has a report (which is both reputable and won't get deleted). Regarding Breton's comment, I think the best thing to do is list Ericsson and Nasr in the table, note their movements in the changes section, state that Gutiérrez and Sutil have been dropped, and add that Sutil claims he has a contract. We should also look for a source stating that Van der Garde has a seat as well because Adam Cooper tweeted that he apparently does so. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@GyaroMaguus: I wouldn't bother with mentioning VDG. There have been so many rumours about him joining a team, both this year and in previous ones, that you can practically set you watch by them. I strongly suspect that VDG himself is the source of those rumours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Sutil did publicly question whether these new drivers will actually drive for Sauber next year, and Kaltenborn very quickly rebutted him, saying that there is nothing to clarify and the team has made it's decision and she will deal with Sutil's comments "behind closed doors" ... sounds like someone is in for a stern talking to! Twirlypen (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, if Sutil really does have a contract in place, Sauber have a big bill coming to pay him off... Lawyer time. I agree that the best plan for now is to list Nasr and Ericsson and play it by ear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure any driver's contract has some kind of opt-out option for the driver and a buyout option for the team factored into it. Nobody wants to drive for a team that doesn't want them, and no team wants a driver that doesn't want to drive for them. Sauber isn't a big team compared to teams like Ferrari, Red Bull, and Mercedes, and thus Sauber drivers probably don't get nearly as much as the marquee names. IF Sutil gets a buyout, I imagine it will be for something like 60-70% of what his salary would have been next season. Twirlypen (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's ask - how does this affect the 2015 season? Right now, it doesn't. It might, but until such time as it does, I don't think it needs to be covered. Sauber could just buy Sutil and/or VDG out of any existing contracts, which will have no effect the way a legal challenge would. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 6 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. The359 (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. The359 (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. The359 (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. The359 (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? The359 (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 Wikipedia 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? The359 (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. The359 (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? The359 (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. The359 (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 Wikipedia, 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. The359 (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. The359 (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. The359 (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? The359 (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 Wikipedia, 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? The359 (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. The359 (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". The359 (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 Wikipedia because the article is a "lie", so how the bloody hell can I move it there? The359 (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? The359 (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. The359 (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. The359 (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." The359 (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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_2&oldid=1136313646"