Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship: Difference between revisions

Manor

I feel the need to bring this up. As it stands, there is a zero tolerance policy on the inclusion of Manor until a driver is signed, but that's kind of a pointless argument - if that be the case, remove Haas. Holdenman05 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No not only a driver. Simply something. They haven't even announced a team name. Haas has at the very least announced a power unit supply. We simply can't include Manor Marussia yet, because they haven't signed anything for 2016 yet. Tvx1 15:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120753?source=mostpopular I think this source tells us almost all we need to know (bar drivers). Holdenman05 (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, it tells us hardly anything. Just that they have some rough plans regarding the next car, without actually confirming that its introduction will be pushed back until 2016. Just that that is what will most likely happen (=speculation). Tvx1 13:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The "zero tolerance" policy you refer to allows the inclusion of new team entries, provided there's a source of their confirmation for the season that they enter, such as Haas in 2016. Manor has no such sources. If they'd like to say they want to keep Will Stevens on for another year, then great, we can add them. But please familiarize yourself with the policy before you criticize it. Also, that source has applications for the 2015 season article, in the section where it states that Manor plans to introduce a new car later in the year. This source can now let us state that those plans have been scrapped. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is even further prose underneath the table concerning Haas. We can't have a whole section about a new team being entered (with sources) and then have them excluded on the table they just read. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So what is the cutoff line to include a new team in the chart? Is it signing a driver, picking an engine provider, or having plans for the upcoming year? What counts as confirmation? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

They have to have confirmed something specific. Either signing a driver, either a power unit supplier, either the name of the car or at the very least have appeared on the entry list for the season in question (which has yet to be published for 2016). Other than that, a new constructor can be included back with a source confirming when they will enter. In this case it's very simple. We can't tell our readers anything at all about their 2016 entry, so there really isn't any point in including them yet. There are a number of columns in the table. We have to be able to provide something in at least one column other than entrant and constructor when we want to add a team. In Marussia's case we cant even support the team name.Tvx1 14:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What a daft conclusion. The major teams have been included since the beginning of the article and are every yar despite there being similarly little confirmation of their participation beyond "well of course they will be" speculation. If you must make an issue out of the lack of detail then supply that information as a caveat. Either way the list is more useful to anyone wanting to know about next season if it includes the team. Either that or you must remove the driver listings that are probable (Perez - option for next year but no confirmation, Verstappen - could be at RBR instead of STR until RBR confirm their lineup). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.104.65 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

None of your claims is right. The first time teams were mentioned in this article, they included contracted drivers, a list including a team about which we can't say anything (not even the correct name since they're still in the transition from Marussia to Manor) isn't more useful at all and you still haven't provided any proof of Perez just having an option and Verstappen being considered for Red Bull. Tvx1 14:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Renault F1 participated in some form or another for 34 seasons. Your logic that they will be there "just because they are a major and established team" is flawed on that example alone. Further, Manor Marussia is neither of those things. The team's first version was in 2010 and has switched names 4 times since then and flirting with bankruptcy. Hardly established and very very speculative to claim that they will race without a single source saying so. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand where this sudden change of inclusion for teams has come from. We certainly never used to do things this way. In the past we would generally carry forward all information, excluding drivers, under the assumption that things would be the same the next season, instead of becoming too obsessed over exact dates announced to the media. What we are stating right now to our readers is that Manor are not going to be in F1 for 2016, which is likely incorrect as we know teams are meant to be signed up for the length of a Concorde agreement. Just because their drivers and engine supply are not yet publicly known does not imply they will not be here next season - similarly having driver contracts in place does not state that a team will be. I see no problem with adding Manor to the table, with TBAs where certain information is not yet known. QueenCake (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

QueenCake — I think it was done to prevent the creation of future season articles too far on advance. There was a scenario where we would have a handful of articles that were effectively empty except for the teams. They didn't have any new content to differentiate them from previous season articles. The whole idea of "only add a team when they have confirmed something specific" is a countermeasure to that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a bit of a sledgehammer approach to the problem. At this stage, when we have enough content to fill the article apart from the teams, it doesn't seem necessary to hold to that idea and exclude Manor. We'll be better off trying to find a friendly admin to apply creation protection on the future season pages to combat that problem. QueenCake (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We are assuming Manor will compete because they are racing in 2015? As I argued in the discussion below, they have confirmed nothing for 2016 aside from "intentions to build a car". Even Haas has stronger ties to the season than Manor. While I agree that Manor would be competing, and I'd be a little surprised if they didn't, this is Wikipedia. We write about what can be proved - not what we believe to be true. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015

Manor GP is missing. Please add. 37.33.134.159 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Please see the discussion immediately above for the sorts of citations that are needed. - Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Manor's participation will be confirmed (at the latest) in November when next year's team roster is announced (the deadline for paying the participation fee). There's talk in the news of them switching to Mercedes engines which indicates that they at least intend to continue next year, but it's definitely not a confirmed announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.166.128 (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

When (if) that happens in November, then the team can be added. Until then, your statement falls under the very definition of WP:NOTCRYSTAL/WP:RUMOR, specifically this portion of item #5) "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not including Manor when they are an existing F1 team that have made no indication that they intend to leave F1 is confusing. On the other hand, I understand that only officially confirmed information is included. Maybe we should rephrase the sentence above the table to "The following teams have a license to compete in Formula One in 2016, and the following drivers are confirmed." or something similar which would allow for the inclusion of Manor without including speculation. Pontlieue (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Manor have a licence to compete in 2016? I have not seen any sources saying they have paid their entry fee and/or that the FIA has accepted it... Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, participation is always subject to paying the entry fee. You won't find any sources for the other teams either, so it sets quite a double standard if you require it for Manor. But if they hadn't got a license, they'd have to go through an application process like Haas in 2014. If you would apply these standards to all teams, you shouldn't include any teams and drivers section before the official entry list is published. After all, announcing a driver doesn't mean you will take part (see USF1 or Stefan GP). Pontlieue (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The other teams have drivers and various sourced partnerships go work off of. Even Haas has a partnership with Ferrari & Dallara, and it has long been sourced that they are joining the grid in 2016. Manor has nothing. This is Wikipedia - we write about what we can prove, not what we think to be true. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

USF1 and Stefan GP's entries were written about so long as there were sources saying so. When new sources came out that they would be withdrawing their entry, then they were removed. Manor may very well be racing in 2016. In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't. But we can't include them here without sources just because they raced in 2015. That's crystal-balling. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with not adding Manor for 2016- there are no sources saying they'll definitely race next season. They might just go bust like they Caterham- this time last year, I'm sure most people expected Caterham to be on the grid for 2015. Until Manor sign a driver for next season, or have a reliable source saying they're definitely racing, then they shouldn't be included. Assuming they will be racing is just crystal ball speculation. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I still think that Manor should be included in some way, without having to resort to speculation. As the sole purpose of the team is the participation in F1, they'll either go broke or they will race, which is why I think they should be included. The 2017 season page has a section of existing, but unconfirmed races. Maybe we could have a similar section for currently competing, but as of now unconfirmed teams for 2016 and 2017. Pontlieue (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Simply wrong. Manor could easily withdraw from the sport without going broke, just as Red Bull have threatened to do all season long. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And as far as the 2017 page with existing, but unconfirmed races, read the text a little more carefully. It clearly says "The following eighteen Grands Prix are currently under contract to take place in 2017". Under no circumstance does it state that these races are going to happen, just that they are currently under contract to take place - most importantly, and again this emphasizes that this is Wikipedia - WITH SOURCES for each event. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the tracks, I was referring to the part: "Grands Prix under contract for 2016, but not for 2017". You're bringing up Red Bull - so surely, including two teams that have threatened to withdraw are included, while a team that has not done so is not. But if you guys put arbitrary rules above the goal to have an accurate depiction of F1, then I'll no longer annoy you. Red Bull's and Lotus' participation in F1 for next year is just as speculative as Manors. In fact, thing in F1 are changing so fast that anything on this page is to some extent speculation. Pontlieue (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. But for all those teams we can prove that they have nevertheless already signed a contract for something for 2016. For Marussia, we can't. We can't even prove their name for 2016. So why do you keep insisting on including them when we can tell our readers nothing about them. Absolutely NOTHING. Why are you in such a rush to include them? Why can't you just wait some time until more specific information is published in the sources? After all, the next season is still seven months away. Tvx1 11:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's very specious reasoning. We can't prove any other team's name either, we're just copying information from 2015 on the assumption that it will all be the same - which it almost certainly won't be. Your statement Tvx1 that we can't tell readers anything about Manor is patently false. What we can tell them is that Manor Marussia will be competing next year, using the same name in the absence of evidence to the contrary, which we can prove to the same extent as every other team. In the absence of an entry list, Manor announcing they will introduce a new car next year is just as much proof as another team announcing a driver signing.

You may not all have seen it, but by including 10 teams while excluding another one, we are making a firm claim that Manor won't compete in 2016. In this case, the absence of information on Manor is actually information on Manor, rather than a position of being unknown either way. If you're still following me here, to be consistent on this issue, we either include all teams from when the page is created in the table, and fill in the other fields as they become known, or wait and keep the page blank until an actual entry list is first created. QueenCake (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So it is being suggested that we include Manor under the following information in the table:

Entrant: Manor Grand Prix Racing
Constructor: TBA-TBA
Chassis: TBA
Power unit: TBA
Tyre: P
Number: TBA-TBA
Driver: TBA-TBA

And not only that, but to do so for all teams simply because they competed the previous season? Literally the only thing that can be proven, via sources, about Manor is what tyre brand they will use. Nothing else. Even the use of the Marussia name is hardly assumed to continue and to suggest otherwise is a clear violation of CRYSTAL. If this were McLaren or Williams or Ferrari or some other clearly established team, then I could see the case, but this is Manor - a six year old team that's changed hands three times since inception. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

At a minimum, yes. I would prefer to use Manor-Marussia and Marussia as the constructor, but I'd be happy enough with just keeping Manor Grand Prix if that's what can be agreed upon (I don't really want to start an aggravated debate on this). Please keep in mind that if it's WP:CRYSTAL to use the Marussia name, then it's equally crystal balling to use Scuderia Ferrari, or Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team, or Lotus F1 - particularly Lotus as it's future is under active discussion - as we have no proof that those teams will use those names next year. Now personally I'm fine with using them, even if we may be technically breaking some policy, under good old fashioned common sense, but I do want us to be consistent here and not apply different standards to different teams. QueenCake (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The reasoning that we are claiming that Marussia won't compete is outright ridiculous. At no point is there something in this article that hints it is a table of teams and drivers that will compete. It literally states that it is a list of who and what has currently been contracted for 2016. Concerning Marussia, we don't have evidence that anything has been contracted at all. So we simply cannot list them. I will remind you that both Caterham and Marussia were already developing a 2015 car this time last year. While Marussia narrowly made it into 2015, Caterham didn't. In september 2008 Honda was making good progress on their 2009 car, yet there was no Honda that season. Similarly Toyota and BMW were developing cars for the following season in september 2009, yet neither of them competed in 2010. HRT was up and running in september 2012 without any imminent signs of doom, yet little over two months later the team folded. Tvx1 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No it's really not. The table states it is a list of teams and drivers currently signed to take part in 2016 - ergo those teams and drivers in the table, and only those teams and drivers, are taking part for 2016. So Caterham and Marussia built cars last year before going under? Yes, and every team are building cars this year, but the possibility all of them might withdraw is not a reason not to include them. If you're insisting on exact fidelity to sources, could you find a source that proves any of the teams have an entry for 2016? I'll give you Haas, who do have a separate 2015/16 entry, but how do we know Ferrari will compete next season, or that Mercedes will enter under the "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team" name? Show me the sources.

Ultimately there is already plenty of speculation in this table, which is included under the same reasoning to exclude Manor/Marussia. All that can be proven is some teams have signed drivers or engines, and every team entered must use Pirelli tyres, but none of that proves that the teams are entered for 2016 - and until the FIA release an entry list you'll probably struggle to do so. Now as I said before I'm fine with ignoring the lack of a source in the interests of common sense, but if we're going to say "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team" are competing on this principle, we must also say Manor Grand Prix Ltd. have an entry (we could use the company name if that's any easier?). QueenCake (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

But we are not by any means claiming that anyone has been entered for 2016. Just where does it say that? If you genuinely believe we list teams on the principle that we assume e.g. "Infiniti Red Bull Racing" has been entered for 2016, I'm really at loss here. All this table currently aims to do is to give is an overview of who has a contract today, on the 24th of September, for the 2016 Formula One season. If those team names are such a problem, we can easily hide them until an entry list has been published. There is certainly no speculation whatsoever. We can prove with a source that Lewis Hamilton has a contract to drive for Mercedes in the 2016 season, we can prove with a source that McLaren has a contract to use Honda power units if they compete in the 2016 season. There is no claim whatsoever that these contracts will be honoured and that the competitors will compete in the setup presented in the list, only that these are the contracts that exist today. Concerning Marussia, we have no proof of any contract. How much clearer can I make this to you? Tvx1 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If we're not making that claim, why are we listing anything then? We can prove Hamilton has a contract with Mercedes, but it doesn't matter in the slightest for this page (about the 2016 F1 season, not Mercedes driver contracts) as until Mercedes gains an entry for the 2016 season, and it has to be proof of Mercedes as only the teams are entered to the series, there's no proof Hamilton will have any part in the 2016 F1 season. I think this is ridiculous myself, but this is the logic of your argument - you're speculating that Mercedes will be part of the 2016 F1 season because they have signed Lewis Hamilton, but excluding Manor-Marussia (and you should say Manor-Marussia, if you're being so insistent on sourcing) because they have no driver or engine signed, despite the fact that the existence, or lack of, these contracts has no bearing on the subject of this article (the 2016 F1 season) until it is confirmed the team will actually play any part in the season. Your logic dictates we have to include all the teams including Manor based upon common sense that all will continue in the absence of evidence to the contrary, or none of them on the basis that including any team will be speculation without an entry.

Furthermore, this criteria of inclusion has never been used for previous seasons, and has never been the subject of any kind of consensus from the wider community, and on that basis if any editor would to add Manor, neither you Tvx1 nor Twirlypen can start reverting the edits without violating WP:OWN. I don't want to start edit warring here, but at the moment my point based upon previous unspoken convention, and yours based upon this new criteria of a driver or engine contract, are both equally valid. QueenCake (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If it comes to that, I'll revert it solely for being unsourced, as we do for just about all content that is added without a source. OWN?? Okay, you can go to the admins on that one if you really feel that way. By the way, IGNORE says it's okay in certain situations but definitately not to solely edit by it. In this case, you're simply just failing to achieve a concensus on a disputed matter but are declaring that you'll go ahead and re-add it anyway. That's more a sign of OWN that anything the rest of us are doing. Anyone can say they want to build a car for next season. I really want to, so might as well add Twirlypen GP to the table based on that. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Twirlypen GP is not an established racing team, has not been granted an entry by the FIA, and is not negotiating about an engine deal with Mercedes. The point about being granted an entry by the FIA is the most important one, and why I insist on including Manor in this page. Pontlieue (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We can all drop it now. Marussia has been added through an announcement of their power unit suppliers. And it's Marussia, not Manor. Tvx1 10:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pontlieue:

"The point about being granted an entry by the FIA is the most important one, and why I insist on including Manor in this page."

And on Wikipedia, we insist on only including content if it is supported by a reliable and verifiable source. The team has only been added now because we have such a source.

On Wikipedia, the truth is what we can prove with sources. And sometimes you will find that what we know to be true and what we can prove to be true are two completely different things. We have known for some time that the team would compete; we could even say that we could reasonably assume that they would. But it is only now that we can prove it, which is why it was only added to the article today. If you're going to continue to edit, then I suggest that you get used to this idea very quickly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys, I have never argued against this principle. I fully agree that rumours have no place in Wikipedia. I have just argued that a confirmed entry granted by the FIA should be enough to justify an inclusion, instead of needing a confirmed driver or engine supplier. As for continuing to edit, I don't think I will continue contributing to these pages for future Formula 1 seasons, because the way we are working here, it makes little sense to create them so far in advance (just look at the ridiculous four-team table on the 2017 page).Pontlieue (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from Manor Marussia having a power unit supplier and no longer need to be witheld from the table, where is their confirmed 2016 entry that you keep claiming exists? You can't just say it exists and everyone is supposed to take your word for it. You have to cite your sources, and they have to be reliable. Meaning, from the FIA stating "Manor Marussia has entered for the 2016 season" or from Marussia stating "We have entered our team for the 2016 season". An article stating that they want to build a car doesn't suffice, because as I said, anyone can state they want to build a car, but that means very little as far as encyclopedia standards go that it will race. My Twirlypen GP example is proof of that. You wanted to include Manor Marussia simply because they said they wanted to build a car. Whether or not Manor is an established team (debatable in itself, though not here) vs Twirlypen GP not being one is cutting straws and frankly original research.

And as far as 2017 is concerned, that has it's own talk page if you wish to voice concerns regarding that article, but the size of the table doesn't dictate article validity. The 2017 season has enough reliably sourced information pertaining to it that it can support it's own article. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

To add on to what Prisonermonkeys said, Wikipedia is not about what we know to be true. This is explicitly why we include New Jersey's Grand Prix of America in future articles, because as far as what can be proven, the 15-year contract is still active, albeit being breached. Because the sources exist, they have a place in the article until the FIA releases a calendar for a particular year that doesn't have them on it. Content and information can only be added once reliable sources say so. Of course, anyone following Formula One in the slightest knows that the event will likely never happen but, again, the third sentence of verifiability, "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors", it doesn't matter one bit what we think or believe. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to add a bit to the confusion... If you read the full article that is provided as a source for Manor's Mercedes engines deal, you'll find the following sentence there: "The class-leading Mercedes engines would be a significant boast for minnows Manor, who are currently running Ferrari's 2014 power unit. However, unlike Lauda, Wolff said a deal hasn't been done yet." So what is the truth if two leading guys seem to disagree on wheher the deal exists? Can we include Manor in this table yet? 176.93.45.57 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Toto Wolff is executive director of Mercedes Formula One team and is a shareholder in Williams F1. I don't believe he has any standing on engine supply deals. Then again, I don't believe Niki Lauda does either, unless I am totally mistaken and power units are in fact supplied by the team, rather than Mercedes-AMG GmbH. Interesting twist nonetheless. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Grosjean to Haas

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns31962.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.27.125 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read that source, it clearly says that Grosjean to Haas is a rumour. Until it's actually properly confirmed, then he shouldn't be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. The usual standard that we expect is a direct quote from someone who is named (so no inside sources) and represents either the driver or the team; in this case, Grosjean, Gene Haas or Gunther Steiner. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

First word of title and article: "Rumours" Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sergio Perez is not (NOT) confirmed, at Force India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.27.125 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Source? Tvx1 16:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

He's not actually confirmed, but this source (which is more specific than the one in the article) says he has contract for 2016, so we don't have much choice but to include him. It's a problem we have here with multi-year contracts being far more ambiguous than we would like. QueenCake (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sergio Perez in silly season 2015 is a prime example of what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia. Articles are written according to what can be proven by outside sources, not necessarily what we know to be true. Of course, anyone following Formula One knows that Sergio Perez isn't 100% confirmed for 2016, but as long as sources continue to state that he has a contract for 2016, then he gets put into the article in the table marked drivers signed under contract for 2016. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And shortly afterwards... he is confirmed. When will people finally learn to be patient? Tvx1 21:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the source for Perez with the one Tvx1 has provided so hopefully we can put a close to this chapter of silly season. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Grojohn has signed for hass: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120977 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.162.213 (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lotus driver Romain Grosjean has signed to race for Formula 1 newcomer Haas next season, AUTOSPORT understands. Key word highlighted in bold. Nothing is confirmed. Be patient. And learn how to spell. Holdenman05 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lotus have confirmed that Grosjean is leaving the team. http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news/2015/09/lotus-von-grosjean-abgang-kalt-erwischt-steigt-palmer-auf-15092520.html Pontlieue (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's sufficient. I've removed him. Tvx1 15:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Holdenman05 learn how not to be a dick. Striking comment by IP 206.72.192.145. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Consistency in wlink titles

I have recently noted that the Suzuka Circuit is actually known as the "Suzuka International Racing Course", with "Suzuka Circuit" as its common name. This has created a discrepancy in the table where we refer to it as the Suzuka Circuit. Compare this to Sao Paulo: its common name is "Interlagos", but we give its actual name, "Autodromo Jose Carlos Pace". Similarly, we name the German circuit "Hockenheimring", not "Hockenheim"; the Italian circuit as "Autodromo Nazionale Monza", not "Monza"; and the Spanish circuit "Circuit de Barcelona-Catalyuna", not "Barcelona". Therefore, we should either give the actual names of the circuits, or the common names of the circuits. Not a mixture of both. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Having read COMMON more closely, this is actually something that I now agree with. However, it opens the can of worms we had discussed earlier regarding entry names. Yes, Merhi's wiki title is Roberto Merhi, but his entry name is Roberto Merhi Muntan. Same with Felipe Nasr (Luiz Felipe de Oliveira Nasr). Do these full names get included in the tables as well? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen — in those cases, I think that we can accept the driver's preferred names. Sure, the FIA is the highest authority, but if Nasr wants to be known as "Felipe" rather than "Luiz", I don't think that it is unreasonable to oblige that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we should just apply WP:COMMONNAME to all the names- Monza, Suzuka, Interlagos, Merhi. Note that Merhi has 2 surnames because of Spanish naming custom, but the Spanish naming custom also says they commonly just use 1 of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

But then you're going to wind up in a ridiculous scenario where we have "Hockenheim, Hockenheim" and "Monza, Monza" and "Interlagos, Interlagos" since we give the circuit and the location. As an encyclopedia, we should use a more formal tone given out purposes, and applying the common name is simply too colloquial. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the full names of the circuits. The reason we have always done this is because some location actually have more than one circuit. Using full names allows us to tell which one the Formula 1 race actually uses. A few examples I can think of are Valencia, Detroit and for 2016 Baku. On the other hand, the Suzuka Circuit refers to itself as Suzuka Circuit. Tvx1 08:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Prisonermonkeys, do you actually have a source for your naming of the Suzuka Circuit or at the very least that it is being used presently? Tvx1 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I do. Oddly enough, the FIA doesn't really name the circuits, but I have Sky Sports F1 referring to it as Suzuka International Race Course: [1] Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I went through the FIA calendar in the source used for this article and the list of circuits on their website, which didn't reveal the use of Suzuka's full name. The PDF file of circuit grades didn't reveal anything either. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Formula1.com refers to the course by their full name. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the F1 source is certainly sufficient to go by. Tvx1 09:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Lotus

I removed the British flag from the Lotus team, as there's no reliable sources saying they'll be a British team next season- they might well be a French team if Renault rebuys them. I think listing any flag on here is speculative. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I had always assumed that the flags represented the current nationality of the registration, not necessarily what it is going to be. Other than that, I agree with the removal. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would even go so far as to question whether Lotus should be in the table at all. They might have announced Maldonado, but their financial predicament is well-documented, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that their participation in 2016 is about as certain as Manor's. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

They have a contract with a driver. That is sufficient. That is the current state of affairs. Whether or not it will be honored is beyond or concern. We don't predict the future. Tvx1 12:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Lotus flag should remain British as the team is registered with British racing license. Until further notice I advise to not change the flag - change may occur if and only if the buyout agreement is acheived. But until the Lotus will be considered as British team under the Union Jack. Ivaneurope (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(Update) Now if Renault buys Lotus the nationality may change, but any nationality changes are subject to approval by the FIA, who publishes the list of participating teams and drivers in the FIA Formula One World Championship. As of this update I suggest that if and when the purchase is finalised even though Renault is French manufacturer the team should be still listed as British until the FIA publishes the list. In footnote it'll be described as "Nationality subject to change by the FIA" or similar. Ivaneurope (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The FIA does not need to authorise nationality changes. They accept the entry paperwork through national sporting bodies, which dictates the nationality. The team is only registered with a British licence for 2015. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the financial situation should be acknowledged—I have included a footnote for this purpose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Manor?

Shouldn't the constructor name be Manor in 2016? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source stating that the constructor name will change (e.g. this)? We don't just assume these things. Tvx1 13:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't have any source that it is going to stay Marussia either and Manor is the far more likely option, I'd say... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't go by likelihoods. As long as no change has been announced we have to consider it stays the same. Tvx1 14:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to do that. Both version have no sources yet. Writing TBA for a constructor name would be the cleanest version. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Because at the present, they are Marussia. And as long as they haven't announced a change, they remain Marussia. I'll remind you that this table isn't meant to predict the future. We report on how it stands today. And on this day, the active constructor is Marussia. So we obey that. Tvx1 14:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree and say that Marussia is not an active constructor. There is an almost 2 year old car built by Marussia raced by a team named Manor. I repeat: There is as little indication that the car's name will be Marussia MR04 than for any other name. It will probably not change is pure speculation and a pretty bad one, considering the team name has already changed. I still opt for writing TBA for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but Marussia is an active constructor. There was a constructor called Marussia, with an entrant called Manor Marussia, on the entry list for the recent-most Grand Prix. And while the original car on which the current one is based is nearly two years old, it has been heavily modified since and its current guise isn't that old. I never said "it probably won't change". I said that as of today it hasn't been changed and as we cannot go beyond established facts of the day we have to obey that. To put it simple, the constructor that has made a deal with Mercedes is Marussia, not Manor. Tvx1 15:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The deal with Mercedes was done by a team called Manor who race in a car built by a constructor formerly known as Marussia. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, look at the source I provided. The constructor is still known as Marussia and the team is Manor Marussia. Tvx1 19:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase — I think you're confusing the team name with the constructor name. The team name is what the team call themselves. The constructor name is what the FIA calls them. More importantly, the constructor name is what the FIA credits results to. While I agree that it is likely that the constructor name will change to Manor in 2016, they need to formally lodge paperwork with the FIA to make that change, and we do mot have a source to say that they have done so yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But that still means that the agreement was between Mercedes and Manor and not between Mercedes and Marussia, because the deal was made with the team and not the theoretical entity that is the constructor named by the FIA. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And you now wikilinking the constructor to the former Marussia team is completely the icing on the absurdity cake. So the 2016 Manor car is supposed to be built by a team/constructor whose article we end in 2014?? That makes no sense whatsoever! I still say: Please let us write TBA. That is the cleanest way to do it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The team known as Manor is operating as Marussia. It's an awkward situation to be sure, but that's the name that the FIA recognises. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Until otherwise stated, it would be counterproductive to refer to teams in prose as "the team currently known as Manor Marussia will switch from Ferrari to Mercedes." and "The teams currently known as Red Bull and STR will no longer use Renault power units." ... and the like. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We should probably go ahead and merge the Marussia and Manor Marussia articles, which I believe makes sense, but I would say it should be merged into the Manor Marussia article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Manor Marussia" is not and never was a constructor. While there is some scope for interpretation in the regulations, we cannot go making up constructors because it is convenient. The articles should be merged, and they should be merged into Marussia F1 because that is the constructor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the 2015 entry list, the column assumed to be constructors is referred to as "name of the chassis". Seeing as Manor quite literally are using the 2014 Marussia chassis for 2015, then it makes sense that Marussia would be the constructor for 2015 (even if it's a 2014 car). However, if Manor is indeed making a new chassis for 2016, I don't think we should be going around claiming that it will be called a Marussia - especially when there's sources that state Manor kept the Marussia name solely for their prize money from 2014. Given that, I propose that Manor Marussia F1 Team be kept, as they do have engines for 2016 and that is the current name of the F1 team, but that the chassis be TBA-Mercedes. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We just use the term "Manor Marussia" in prose to differentiate between the 2014 team known as Marussia F1 Team and the 2015 team known as Manor Marussia F1 Team. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would just wait until we know for certain what they intend to do. Sure, it might take a few months, but there's no hurry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that means you think we should leave it as Marussia or change it to TBA and then add the name later. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Twirlypen — leave it as Marussia. That's the name they are known by now, even if they intend to change it in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out at the project talk page, that is incorrect. The car is known as Marussia. The team, Manor Grand Prix Racing, Ltd., is entered as Manor Marussia F1 Team. The only thing that should be refered to as Marussia are the constructor results and the car. The team is Manor/Manor Marussia. Marussia folded in 2014. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And are you looking to change the team name or the constructor name? The team name is okay (but "TBA" is probably better), but you can't change the constructor name. That's just making up a constructor that never existed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it say TBA-Mercedes in the context that the constructor will literally be called TBA. Really? Anyway, seeing as the sources exist that state Manor Grand Prix Racing (the actual name of the team) only kept the Marussia name for the 2014 prize money (which doesn't unreasonably suggest that Manor fully intends to drop it as soon as it's no longer profitable), it's a stretch that they will use it again in 2016 unless they miraculously score points by the end of 2015. I actually think the team name should be changed to just that (Entrant: Manor Grand Prix Racing/Constructor: TBA-Mercedes). Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the entrant be "TBA" with a footnote explaining the situation (succinctly) and the constructor name being Marussia-Mercedes because that's what we know them to be for now. You are correct in saying that it is a stretch that they will use Marussia as a constructor name, but we cannot prove that they will not—and any change needs to be supported by a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of everyone's sanity, I suggest not changing anything until others weigh in on these specific proposals. Also, again, we don't know them to be Marussia. Marussia is the car. They are known as Manor Marussia, or even just Manor. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"They are known as Manor Marussia, or even just Manor."

Not according to the FIA. The FIA currently recognise them as Marussia, and will continue to recognise them as Marussia until such time as they apply to change the name. In the absence of any source stating that they have changed their name or intend to change the name, calling them anything else is speculation and original research—it is creating a constructor that never existed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What's OR is the insistance that the FIA doesn't recognize the team name at all in favor of the constructor name for the chassis. The only thing credited to Marussia are results. The FIA blatantly recognizes the team as "Manor Marussia F1 Team" entering a chassis known as "Marussia". It's right there on the entry list. It's even where we got the team name from to begin with. I don't know how much more plainly I can say it:

Marussia = car
Manor Marussia F1 Team = team
Marussia ≠ team

Cars are not teams, nor are team names dictated by the name of their chassis. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

But constructor names are. The sporting regulations specifically state that the name of the chassis must be derived directly from the constructor name. The team currently use the Marussia MR03B, which means that the constructor name must be Marussia.

As for the team name changing, please show me a source where the team's 2016 name is officially recognised as anything other than "Manor Marussia F1 Team". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A consensus appears to develop to use TBA-Mercedes for the time being, which I strongly support. I still don't understand why many here claim that we should continue writing Marussia as a constructor just because they are the constructor of the current car. We have no source indicating that the car will bear that name and it is also a very unlikely option, considering that there is no Marussia anymore who could build a chassis. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is why the team for 2015 is known as Manor Marussia F1 Team instead of what they actually are, Manor Grand Prix Racing, because they only had the car built under the Marussia name. That is the team's functioning name beyond the carousel of names they have used since 2010, and that can be sourced. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 11:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone even bother checking the sources that are provided in these discussions? Right from the start I provided the entry list for last weekend's Grand Prix. So here it is again: The entry list for the 2015 Japanese Grand Prix. It literally states Marussia Ferrari under constructor and Manor Marussia F1 Team under team. What more do you want? Tvx1 11:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not too hard to understand. Of course they give Marussia for the 2015 Japanese Grand Prix, because the MR03 was built by Marussia. But the 2016 car will not be built by Marussia. This is very simple. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"I still don't understand why many here claim that we should continue writing Marussia as a constructor just because they are the constructor of the current car."

Because we need to show continuity—we need to show that the team that competed in 2015 is competing in 2016, and since we don't have a team name, we have to keep the constructor name. Because we're talking about future events. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, that's what you think. But we don't know that for sure. The facts are that Marussia has already talked about the plans for their next car with the press. Tvx1 11:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, we're not talking about what the name will be, we're talking about what we can source and prove right now. Currently, there is no source saying the name will be changed, so we're forced to continue with their current name: Manor Marussia. We're all F1 fans, we all know how this works, and I highly doubt anyone here expects "Marussia" to be part of the team name in 2016. We're not arguing against you on that point. But that's still technically speculative, and this isn't a place for speculation. Eightball (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, no one seriously believes the car will be named Marussia, and there is no source indicating that it will be. So why should we write Marussia there? I don't get it. PM writes Because we need to show continuity. If that were the case, then the table should look like this:

Entrant	Constructor	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Drivers
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	Ferrari	P	5	Sebastian Vettel
				7	Kimi Räikkönen
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Jordan-TBA	TBA	P	11	Sergio Pérez
				27	Nico Hülkenberg
Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	Ferrari	P	TBA	TBA
				TBA	TBA
Lotus F1 Team	Toleman-TBA	TBA	P	13	Pastor Maldonado
				TBA	TBA
Manor Marussia F1 Team	Virgin-Mercedes	Mercedes	P	TBA	TBA
				TBA	TBA
McLaren Honda	McLaren-Honda	Honda	P	14	Fernando Alonso
				22	Jenson Button
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Matra International-Mercedes	Mercedes	P	6	Nico Rosberg
				44	Lewis Hamilton
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Stewart-TBA	TBA	P	3	Daniel Ricciardo
				TBA	TBA
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-TBA	TBA	P	9	Marcus Ericsson
				12	Felipe Nasr
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Minardi-TBA	TBA	P	33	Max Verstappen
				TBA	TBA
Williams Martini Racing	Williams-TBA	TBA	P	19	Felipe Massa
				77	Valtteri Bottas

Now you're just being petty.

It doesn't help that we have the Manor Marussia F1 article, which to be blunt, probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. Hopefully we can collapse it into Marussia F1 soon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What anyone believes doesn't matter at all. Wikipedia operates on what we can prove. And you simply can't prove that it will change. You're just assuming it will because it happened in the past in similar events. Tvx1 11:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

When PM says "continuity," he means sticking with the current name until proven otherwise. Eventually an updated 2016 entry list will be released and it will settle this once and for all. Until then, we can't do anything but stick with the current name - Marussia. Would it help to put in some kind of note clarifying this? "Team name TBA pending 2016 entry list" or something? Just spitballing here. Eightball (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::As far as I can see, Prisonermonkeys has already taken care of that. Tvx1 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol, is that new or am I blind? Anyway, I think that helps a lot. Prisonermonkeys, IF Marussia is indeed renamed to Manor next year, would it not makes sense to just rename the "Manor Marussia F1" article to "Manor F1 Team," or whatever their new name is? Despite the name, as of this season they are a distinct entity from Marussia F1, as they're under new ownership. Eightball (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It would, if the 2015 activities are moved to the Marussia article. That would be similar to how we dealt with Lotus/Renault in 2011. Tvx1 11:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I give it one more try before I give up: The point to stick with the current constructor name until it is proven that it will change is nonsense, because: 1) You cannot prove that it will stay the same, just as little as you can prove that it will change. 2) Since both option cannot be proven, we should write TBA. 3) If we don't write TBA, we do we choose the less likely option?? It just makes no sense! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't "pick the less likely option". We report the current status. And currently they are Marussia. Writing TBA is telling our readers it might change. And we have no proof that there even is a remote intent for it to be changed. Tvx1 11:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, once more: No, they are not. They just race a car built by Marussia. There is a difference there! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball — no. The FIA will recognise Marussia and "Manor" (or whatever name they use) as two separate constructors. It's like this: Marussia originally started out as Virgin, but they are similarly separate. Likewise Jaguar becoming Red Bull, or Honda becoming Brawn becoming Mercedes. The FIA recognises all of them separately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Was Marussia always considered an entrant of "Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd?" If so, I'd agree with you. But if they changed the company name for 2015 then I'd think we'd consider 2015 Manor Marussia a separate entity from 2014 Marussia. Love these FOM rules about names/prize money. We cannot win. Eightball (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't. There was never a constructor called "Manor Marussia". We cannot invent a constructor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Or else we'd have to consider Marussia Virgin a separate entity from Virgin as well. Tvx1 12:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I checked, Virgin/Marussia/Manor has always entered as Manor whatever, etc. Ltd, so the point I was going to make is irrelevant anyway. Eightball (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know why we are picking fights where there is none. I have read this discussion over and over and I just cannot find anyone suggesting that the constructor be changed from Marussia-Mercedes to Manor Marussia-Mercedes or Manor-Mercedes, except PM emphatically stating that it cannot be done because those constructor names don't exist. Nobody is suggesting that the constructor be changed from Marussia-Mercedes to anything except the few of us that suggested TBA-Mercedes. The only column being affected by this Manor/Manor Marussia talk is the Entrant column. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you explicitly state which column you want to change instead of just proposing a name change? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should be spearheading any further discussions if you didn't know that my references to Manor Grand Prix Racing meant the entrant team name and TBA-Mercedes meant the constructor, especially when I explicitly stated the difference several times in this discussion alone; here's one:

"What's OR is the insistance that the FIA doesn't recognize the team name at all in favor of the constructor name for the chassis. The only thing credited to Marussia are results. The FIA blatantly recognizes the team as "Manor Marussia F1 Team" entering a chassis known as "Marussia". It's right there on the entry list. It's even where we got the team name from to begin with. I don't know how much more plainly I can say it:

Marussia = car

Manor Marussia F1 Team = team

Marussia ≠ team

Cars are not teams, nor are team names dictated by the name of their chassis."

Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's where things get complicated—teams have as many as four names:

1. The team name, or the name they use to refer to themselves (like "Infiniti Red Bull Racing").
2. The constructor name, or the name that the FIA uses and to which all results are credited.
3. The trading name, or the name that the team uses when conducting business like dealing with suppliers.
4. The holding company nane, or the name of the entity that owns the entry if that entity is separate to the team.

So given the complexity of it, do you honestly think that it's unreasonable to ask that editors are clear in which name(s) they are suggesting that we change? Especially considering that Wikipedia also uses entrant name in the article, and we have editors who have different levels of understanding. While it might be clear to you as to which name you are talking about, that doesn't mean that it's clear to anyone—much less everyone—else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that I and at least a couple others have made clear in our arguments that the constructor (as in, the constructor column) should be TBA-Mercedes, no actually. I think just about anyone, familiar with F1 or not, would pick up in this discussion that we are referring to the constructor's column, where everything is listed "Constructor-Supplier", and not the entrant column, where absolutely nothing is listed in that fashion. Stop using the "casual readers could be really really really dumb" argument. We are not arguing with casual readers, we are arguing (as always) with you. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And as has been pointed out, this is not an article being writtem for the future. This is an article about the future based on information available in the present. Given the rigmarole involved in changing a constructor name—Marussia being a perfect example of this—changing the constructor name to "TBA-Mercedes" implies that the name will be changed. And because it is so significant, you need a source to support the idea that the constructor name will change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it implies that the name is not known. This is further sourced with RS stating that Manor Grand Prix Racing kept the Marussia name for 2015 because A) Marussia built the car they were using for 2015, and B) to access the prize money won by Marussia in 2014. This piece of information is more than suitable to indicate to our readers NOT that the constructor name will surely change, but rather that it is simply not known. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And if they were keeping Ferrari engines, maybe I would agree with you. But given that they are changing to Mercedes power and because they may keep the name should they score points this year, "Marussia-Mercedes" best represents the situation. Because once again, we have to use the constructor names that the FIA uses, and they are currently known as "Marussia". So, you want to make the change? Prove it with a reliable, verifiable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And if they had scored points, your argument would hold water. However, they currently have not, and there is nothing that suggests they will either unless 2005 USGP happens or miraculously half the field retires. Their power unit is outdated and so is the car. You can't say "we have to go by what they are currently known as" and then go completely against that by saying "well they might score points in the future". If you want to use the "current" argument, then they are currently known as Marussia, currently are using the name due to the 2014 points, and currently have not scored anything in 2015. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And they are currently known as Marussia, and have not currently given any indication that they intend to change. The deal with Mercedes was carried out by Manor Grand Prix Ltd., the parent company that also owns Marussia. So once again, we're back at square one: where is your proof that they intend to change? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring previous comments doesn't mean they don't exist. I already posted proof in this discussion. You can go find it. They have given plenty of indication that they intend to drop the Marussia name as soon as it's not profitable for them - IE: once they stop using Marussia's MR03B and Marussia's prize money. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I find it very strange that the current version of the table pretends that we know the constructor name will be Marussia (for which we have no proof and what is very unlikely), but that we pretend not to know what the team name will be (in this case I would absolutely agree that we have to assume that it will remain the same until proven otherwise!). Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're assuming that we are writing for the future when we are writing about the future for the present.

"They have given plenty of indication that they intend to drop the Marussia name as soon as it's not profitable for them. "

Prove that it will not be profitable in 2016. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Umm, prove that it will. They have ZERO POINTS and Marussia Motors (a defunct Russian automobile company) is currently contributing exactly ZERO MONEY. Zwerg, that is what I have been saying the entire time, but apparantly we are back to PM's way and everyone else has to provide the burden of proof (which has already been done - but if you do, they will ignore it anyway or just challenge it as an RS), or else the discussion gets dragged out to the point of ridiculousness and the article/project grinds to a halt until they are satisfied (read: gets their way). It's one damn thing after another, the only breaks or periods of calmness we have around here are when they're blocked. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)