Jump to content

Talk:2012 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

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

Proposal to change calendar format

Okay, I know I shouldn't like this idea, but I do. So I'm just going to sandbox a little and maybe get some feedback.

Option A

Round Race Title
(Circuit) 		Grand Prix Date
1 Australia Australian Grand Prix
(Albert Park, Melbourne) 		Australian GP 18 March
2 Malaysia Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix
(Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur) 		Malaysian GP 25 March
3 China UBS Chinese Grand Prix
(Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai) 		Chinese GP 15 April
4 Bahrain Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix
(Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir) 		Bahrain GP 22 April
5 Spain Gran Premio de España Santander
(Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona) 		Spanish GP 13 May
6 Monaco Grand Prix de Monaco
(Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo) 		Monaco GP 27 May
7 Canada Grand Prix du Canada
(Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal) 		Canadian GP 10 June
8 Spain Grand Prix of Europe
(Valencia Street Circuit, Valencia) 		European GP 24 June
9 United Kingdom Santander British Grand Prix
(Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone) 		British GP 8 July
10 Germany Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland
(Hockenheimring, Hockenheim) 		German GP 22 July
11 Hungary Eni Magyar Nagydíj
(Hungaroring, Budapest) 		Hungarian GP 29 July
12 Belgium Shell Belgian Grand Prix
(Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Spa) 		Belgian GP 2 September
13 Italy Gran Premio Santander d'Italia
(Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza) 		Italian GP 9 September
14 Singapore SingTel Singapore Grand Prix
(Marina Bay Street Circuit, Marina Bay) 		Singapore GP 23 September
15 Japan Japanese Grand Prix
(Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka) 		Japanese GP 7 October
16 South Korea Korean Grand Prix
(Korean International Circuit, Yeongam) 		Korean GP 14 October
17 India Airtel Indian Grand Prix
(Buddh International Circuit, Greater Noida) 		Indian GP 28 October
18 United Arab Emirates Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
(Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi) 		Abu Dhabi GP 4 November
19 United States United States Grand Prix
(Circuit of the Americas, Austin) 		United States GP 18 November
20 Brazil Grande Prêmio do Brasil
(Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo) 		Brazilian GP 25 November

Option B

Round Race Title
(Circuit) 		Grand Prix Date Round Race Title
(Circuit) 		Grand Prix Date
1 Australia Australian Grand Prix
(Albert Park, Melbourne) 		Australian GP 18 March 11 Hungary Eni Magyar Nagydíj
(Hungaroring, Budapest) 		Hungarian GP 29 July
2 Malaysia Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix
(Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur) 		Malaysian GP 25 March 12 Belgium Shell Belgian Grand Prix
(Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Spa) 		Belgian GP 2 September
3 China UBS Chinese Grand Prix
(Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai) 		Chinese GP 15 April 13 Italy Gran Premio Santander d'Italia
(Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza) 		Italian GP 9 September
4 Bahrain Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix
(Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir) 		Bahrain GP 22 April 14 Singapore SingTel Singapore Grand Prix
(Marina Bay Street Circuit, Marina Bay) 		Singapore GP 23 September
5 Spain Gran Premio de España Santander
(Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona) 		Spanish GP 13 May 15 Japan Japanese Grand Prix
(Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka) 		Japanese GP 7 October
6 Monaco Grand Prix de Monaco
(Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo) 		Monaco GP 27 May 16 South Korea Korean Grand Prix
(Korean International Circuit, Yeongam) 		Korean GP 14 October
7 Canada Grand Prix du Canada
(Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal) 		Canadian GP 10 June 17 India Airtel Indian Grand Prix
(Buddh International Circuit, Greater Noida) 		Indian GP 28 October
8 Europe Grand Prix of Europe
(Valencia Street Circuit, Valencia) 		European GP 24 June 18 United Arab Emirates Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
(Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi) 		Abu Dhabi GP 4 November
9 United Kingdom Santander British Grand Prix
(Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone) 		British GP 8 July 19 United States United States Grand Prix
(Circuit of the Americas, Austin) 		United States GP 18 November
10 Germany Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland
(Hockenheimring, Hockenheim) 		German GP 22 July 20 Brazil Grande Prêmio do Brasil
(Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo) 		Brazilian GP 25 November

I'm mostly just playing around. Like I said, it's a purely aesthetic thing. But someone might take a shine to it and maybe we'll change it. Maybe we'll keep it as is. Either way, I don't mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to ditch the European Union flag. No Supra-national or sub-national flags please.
I don't hate it. Although it is very much larger, which I'm not a fan of. --Falcadore (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, the European flag. Fixed it. Don't know why I did that.
Anyway, the one thing I tried to do with this was make sure the idea I proposed did not produce a calendar larger than my screen so that I would not have to scroll down to see the full calendar (Option A is; Option B is not). I understand that different screens are different sizes, but when I opened the article page and compared it against Option B, Option B is actually smaller than the existing one. It is wider, to be sure, but it is shorter. I also think it makes things a little bit more readable by introducing a bit of space into the table fields and makes things a little easier to see. Especially in the Grand Prix columns. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't like it. The original calendar is very good, compact and readable. Option A only merges two columns, which is useless. It only makes the table to take more space vertically, and less space horizontally, but the table wasn't wide at all. Option B makes the table wide, but having the table broken in two parts makes it less readable (transparent). The high row height makes that too. What I wanted is to add more info to the table, but I can see Falcadore's point. The table is perfect the way it is now. - Dubfire (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Barrichello

Ok, I know what I put in the article was "vague" but what's there isn't completely true. It is still possible, however highly unlikely, for Barrichello to secure a seat. So instead of writing "After nineteen seasons in Formula One, Rubens Barrichello was unable to secure a seat for 2012.", maybe we should put something more concurrent and true. Any ideas??? --Brody59 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news provider WP:NOTNEWS. We do not and indeed should not make any mention of Barrichello becoming retired from Formula One until all seats are filled. To suggest others is an assumption WP:ASSUME. Any reference to Barrichello being out of Formual One should be removed. --Falcadore (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't even talk about "retirement" from Formula One until Barrichello says so himself, otherwise we'll only have to remove it when he deputises for the first indisposed driver next season. Once the HRT seat is filled (assuming it's not him), all we can say is that he doesn't have a seat for 2012 - we can't crystal ball and say he's finished with F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem was the wording. "All but ending his career" is kind of vague. It exists in the space between "his career will continue" and "his career is over". And while the current wording does commit one way despite the second HRT seat being available, this article quotes HRT's Jacky Eeckelaert on what the team is looking for in their 2012 driver:

According to Belgium's La Libre newspaper, which quotes HRT technical director Jacky Eeckelaert, Liuzzi has not seized the chance to cement his place on the grid for 2012, despite occasionally helping HRT punch above its weight last season.
“He hasn't really confirmed himself after several chances, [and] we are looking more for a young driver with a lot of potential,” Eeckalaert explained, before going on to rule out the likes of Barrichello and a host of Spanish talent, including Jaime Alguersuari and Dani Clos, currently being linked to the soon-to-be Valencia-based squad.
“I don't think it's in the interests of the team to have a second Spanish driver,” he said, "and the same goes for the drivers approaching retirement.”

This rules Barrichello out of the second seat at HRT. I'll edit that into the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not our place to rule something out. He does not specifically say that Barrichello cannot and will not drive for the team. What they are looking for and what they will get are two different things. The359 (Talk) 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
But saying "that's what they want, but it might not be what they get" is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It predicts an outcome, and that outcome that is contradicted by a statement from a senior team member. When we were settling the Petrov issue, it was decided that in the absence of a confirmation or a denial that is up-to-date, we go with what we can prove. And we can prove that HRT want a young driver. What they might end up getting a week from now is inconsequential until they actually get it. If their position changes tomorrow, then we will edit it in accordingly. We can verify that HRT want a young driver, and we can't simply disregard it because it might not happen. This is not some anonymous source spreading rumours in a tabloid - this is a senior team member who is directly quoted in an established newspaper publication. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, HRT probably won't take him as they do want a young driver, but while there's a space in the driver table we should't be saying his career is over. Even if he takes a 3rd driver role his career isn't technically over. It should be changed to something like I did but a bit less vague. I agree, what I wrote was vague, but I couldn't think of anything else.--Brody59 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure they may want a young driver but what if they decide the young drivers available aren't up to the job? Unless HRT say the specifically do not want Barrichello you don't have a case. It's still an assumption --Falcadore (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article say Barrichello's career is over. This is what it says: "After nineteen seasons in Formula One, Rubens Barrichello was unable to secure a seat for 2012." Now, maybe that could use some work - but it does not say his carrer is over.

And I disagree that acknowledging Eeckelaert's comments constitutes an assumption. If acknowledging them is an assumption, then so too is disregarding them because you're assuming that Eeckelaert comments are invalid. Right now, we have a senior team member stating that the team intends to take a young driver. Where is your evidence that they do not intend to do this, or that they will not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What he said we can't ignore, but it hasn't happened yet. Until it happens it's pure speculation. What you're saying is that there's 100% chance of HRT finding a suitable young driver and there's 100% chance of Barrichello not getting that seat. We cannot rule that out until it actually happens. What Falcadore says is valid, what if HRT decides young drivers aren't up to it?? Let's not take Eeckelaert's comments so seriously until they actually choose a 2nd driver. But the point still stands, we need to change what the article says about Barrichello.--Brody59 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing is certain until Barrichello says so, or we get to the first race - "X" could fall off his skis tomorrow and break a leg (or a hand like Kubica!), and Rubens may suddenly be back in the frame. He could even appear half way through the season if some driver is unable to drive - it doesn't have to be the reserve driver.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

With Karthikeyan's signing with HRT, this proves that teams can say something and do something else. You just have to wait and see!!!!--Brody59 (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Marc Gené

Marc Gené has been included in team and drivers table as a reserve driver for Ferrari but the provided source is actually void. Has anyone seen an official announcement ? Maimai009 14:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaced with Fisichella by Jules Bianchi in 2010 (from article about Fisichella). The page need update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaldo (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Constructor name changes

The article currently contains the following information:

As a result of the name changes, Team Lotus and Lotus Renault GP declared that their ongoing dispute over the use of the Lotus name was over after they had reached an "amicable conclusion". Although the exact terms of the settlement were kept confidential, the joint statement detailed the transfer of the rights to the Lotus and Team Lotus names to Group Lotus' ownership.

This section specifically refers to changes in the constructor name - not the trading name. So, Virgin Racing is Virgin, not Marussia Virgin; likewise, Renault F1 is Renault, not Lotus Renault GP. Marussia might have had a controlling stake in the team, but the team itself was recognised by the FIA as "Virgin". Therefore, this is the name that we should keep in this section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is it explained that "This section specifically refers to changes in the constructor name" then? The sub-section is titled "Team changes" and this bullet-point starts: "... several teams were given permission to change their names..." That implicitly means "team names". I clarified the prose to include "team names" (and certainly not "trading names"). If we are now saying it was actually "constructor name", we need 2 things:
  1. A reliable source stating that.
  2. To reword the bullet-points consistently and to reflect that. Currently we have bullet #1 referring to the former and new team names of Caterham F1 Team (but no mention of its constructor names), bullet #2 now refers to the former constructor name and new team name of Lotus F1 Team (so a mixture) and bullet #3 refers to the team name before last and the new team name of Marussia F1 Team (again, no constructor names mentioned). In short, it is now all over the place. Also, it is the team, not the nebulous "constructor" whose name, whether it is "contructor name" or "team name", is changed and who change the names. So we need something like one of the following to remove the current confusion.
Either (if we are writing about "team name" changes):
Or (if we are writing about teams changing their "constructor name"):
Currently we have a completely inconsistent mish-mash that clarifies nothing.
-- de Facto (talk). 07:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
What about something like this:
--August90 (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Or to be even more explicit:
-- de Facto (talk). 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the article. The bullet point now makes it quite clear that constructor names were changed. It is no longer confusing, given that there is a column to the driver table that is clearly marked "constructor". In fact, I strongly feel that the only "confusing" thing about it was the recent edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I know you think it's fixed, but to be honest it's no better. If you were talking constructors, you would use the constructor names from the 2011 page (ie: "Renault", "Lotus" and "Virgin"), not "Team Lotus" and "Virgin Racing". I feel the only way for it to be less confusing it to use the last suggestion from DeFacto (above), which specifically states what the teams have done to their team names/constructor names. It needs to be consistant!--Brody59 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, you had left the inconsistencies in the bullet-point text. I've updated it to the text above which, as Brody59 writes, details exactly what has changed. -- de Facto (talk). 07:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a simple fix for this - explain what a constrctor name is. No italic text, no repeated "change their constructor name" phraseology; nothing like that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we need a review of terminology and whether we are using it consistently in this article. From the table immediately above the sub-section we are discussing here and from the equivalent table in the 2011 article, in combination with the bulleted summary of the changes we have:
Team Constructor Summary of change to constructor name
2011 2012 2011 2012
Team Lotus Caterham F1 Team Lotus Caterham Team Lotus became known as Caterham F1 Team
Lotus Renault GP Lotus F1 Team Renault Lotus Renault changed its name to Lotus F1 Team
Marussia Virgin Racing Marussia F1 Team Virgin Marussia Virgin Racing became Marussia F1 Team
Is that clear and consistent? I think not. -- de Facto (talk). 13:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Only because you insist on complicating the matter, just as you did at WP:F1 when you said we should have pages for the parent companies of teams in the sport, like Daimler. The section that we are discussing clearly relates to changes in the constructor names. I don't know what you're proposing as a viable alternative, but so far all I've seen from you on this is the improper use of italicised font, repeated phrases that make the article difficult to read, and "we need reliable sources!". The current version of the article address all of these issues, spelling out the changes in the simplest fashion and referencing the sporting regulations for the definition of a constructor. All you have done since you have arrived is make everything murkier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys,
  1. I never said we should have pages for parent companies - whatever lead you to that conclusion??? It looks as though you are misrepresenting my point about the proposed car manufacturer F1 article article for the car manufacturer represented by Mercedes-branded cars.
  2. Do yo think that the summaries in the table above reflect accurately the changes itemised in that table? I don't, I think it's a confusing and inconsistent mess. You have refused, so far, to discuss it, and have summarily reverted all my attempts so far to improve it.
  3. The terminology on that page is a mish-mash too. Why didn't you comment on that?
  4. I've reworded the content to reflect the terminology and content of an FIA press release. No italics this time.
-- de Facto (talk). 22:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't even know what you're discussing! You seem to be confusing the issue here. You're putting undue weight on changes to the sponsor names, but we don't list sponsor changes because sponsor changes are not notable. What, exactly, is unclear here? This section talks about changes to the constructor names. That is all. Some detail on how those changes came about helps, but do I need to remind you that you were the one who removed all of that detail - particularly to the Lotus name change - in the first place?
As for your "attempts to so far improve it", all you managed to do was make things worse. All that your changes involved was repeating the words "constructor name" a few times and listing sponsor changes. To be honest, I've never seen you make an edit to a page that actually made the page better. All you seem to be able to do is make things unclear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits. Again. And why? Because you're ignoring the issue here. What do you not understand about these changes to the names? We are specifically talking about constructor names. Not team names. Talking about the team names just confuses the issue. For some reason, you do not understand this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My latest edit reflects exactly what the FIA say in their press release. What's wrong with that? Which is the sponsor change that they have reported? If you still don't like it explained clearly please offer an alternative here to discuss, and don't just keep reverting back to your original, unacceptably inconsistent, wording. -- de Facto (talk). 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting the page and put the emphasis on changes to the team name? Article 6.3 of the sporting regulations makes it quite clear: a team can have a team name and a constructor name that are totally different; the results will be credited to the constructor name. For some reason, you seem to think that the team name anc constructor name are one and the same - but this contradicts the team and driver table, which has separate columns for team names and constructor names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not describe all the changes as the FIA press release does? If the other tables are wrong, change them. -- de Facto (talk). 23:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
But the other tables are not wrong - and the sporting regulations trump a press release in terms of notability. Let me give you an example of how you are complicating things. We have the concept of the team name, and the constructor name. The team name is the formal name used by the team and contains qualifiers like sponsor names or "F1 Team"; you'll see in post-race reports that McLaren always refer to themselves as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes". Then we have the constructor name, which is the name the FIA recognises, and to which all results are credited.
You made this edit, in which you claim it is in line with the newly cited FIA press release. You removed the reference to the sporting regulations, and you introduced the concept of "chassis names", without any explanation as to what a chassis name is, and without the term appearing anywhere else in the article. So do you see what I mean when I say you are complicating things? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
We need clarity, not obfuscation. We need to discuss our inconsistent use of the inconsistent terminology in this article (but in another section). -- de Facto (talk). 07:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Leaving aside the to-and-fro occuring elsewhere in this debate, I find I prefer the... "non-De Facto" version of the text. Because it uses the advantage of sentences to examine some of the background surrounding the name changes rather than simply adding just enough words to turn a row from a table into a sentence. Wikipedia is not simply a regugitation if facts. Adding a line about Tony Fernandez acquisition about Caterham Cars is far superior that list both team name and constructor name. --Falcadore (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
To that end, I've added some detail on Lotus' arrangement with the team that now carries their name. I don't know why the detail was removed in the first place, but I've updated it to mention all of Lotus' title sponsorships in F1, GP2 and GP3, which I think is notable enough for inclusion (I don't think anyone has ever actually done it before). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't like Prisonermonkeys' version because it mixes constructor name (Renault), complete team name (Team Lotus, all the new names), and "non-sponsored" team name (Virgin Racing). In general, the only permanent part in a team's name is the constructor name. For example, Renault's name was usually (Sponsor) Renault F1 Team, but it became (Sponsor) Renault GP last year. And Mercedes GP (Sponsor) became Mercedes AMG (Sponsor). Maybe the only teams that have another permanent word in their team name are Scuderia Ferrari and independent Team Lotus, as Team Lotus was the only way they were allowed to have Lotus as consructor name. And usually the constructor name is the common name, people usually talked about Virgin, not Virgin Racing. And, this year people will talk mainly about Caterham, Lotus, and Marussia, not about those "F1 Teams".
So, I would usually tell the constructor name chages by using only constructor names in style Lotus became Caterham, Renault became Lotus, and Virgin became Marussia. Another problem in Prisonermonkeys' version is that it doesn't explicitly tell what are the current and the former constructor names. Yet, a problem in using only constuctor names is that because of two Lotuses, it may be confusing, and that's why I added links to the constructor names, so that people notice they are different Lotuses. But, because of two Lotuses, me preferred option is what I proposed earlier and what De Facto edited. You can't tell that situation any more precicely. OK, sponsored names may not be preferred, but in this particular case I don't think it's too bad. Marussia and Lotus were effectively sponsors for the same reasons as they are now constructor names, they just couldn't become constructors last year. I think the use of full team names shows that Marussia and Group Lotus were already in the team's name, effectively as sponsor. If the use of full team names isn't OK, then use only bare constructor names, but not a mixture of constructor names, full team names, and "non-sponsored" team names. --August90 (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Falcadore, leaving aside the added context/OR, which could be added to any version, don't you think the factual part was inaccurate and inconsistent in the "original" text? -- de Facto (talk). 07:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
How is it at all innaccurate? How is it original research? For example: Tony Fernandes owned Lotus. Tony Fernandes bought Caterham. Tony Fernandes renamed his team "Caterham". What is innaccurate about that? How is that original research? Do you even know what these terms mean? It seem that as soon as you see changes you don't like, you dub them innaccurate and OR, when they're not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, your interpretation of the allowed name changes was inaccurate and inconsistent. Your acceptance of Brody59's accuracy and consistency improvements suggest you now recognise that. The context/OR I was referring to was the unsupported "reflecting team principal Tony Fernandes' purchase of Caterham Cars" and "following increased ownership of the team by Russian sports car manufacturer Marussia Motors". Terms used in a context where more than one meaning could apply, especially when used inconsistently (as in your text) need to be disambiguated. -- de Facto (talk). 09:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of arguing and not a lot of getting this problem fixed!! Prisonermonkeys, if you want to talk constructors, only refer to constructors in the 3 bullet points (ie: change "Team Lotus" to "Lotus" and "Virgin Racing" to "Virgin"). DeFacto, I understand where you're coming from, but this part of the page does refer to constructors, not team names. Therefore, I propose, and I change, the page to say this:

  • At the November 2011 meeting of the Formula One Commission in Geneva, several teams were given permission to change their constructor names — the name recognised by the FIA as the entity that effectively owns the team, to which all results for that team are credited[65] — pending final approval from the World Motorsports Council in December of that year:[66][67]
  • Lotus became known as Caterham, reflecting team principal Tony Fernandes' purchase of Caterham Cars.
  • Renault changed its constructor name to Lotus after Lotus Cars expanded its title sponsorship program to include teams in Formula One, GP2 and GP3.[68]
  • Virgin became Marussia, following increased ownership of the team by Russian sports car manufacturer Marussia Motors

--Brody59 (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes you have made. Although we may need a slight re-word since approval has been granted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Brody59, your wording gives a vast improvement on consistency over Prisonermonkeys's. The team names were also changed, why not mention those changes too? -- de Facto (talk). 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Because that just needlessly complicates the matter. The changes to the constructor name are the most important things here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Intermission

DeFacto, you have already indicated that you do not understand the wording of the sporting regulations - I believe you called it "incomprehensible" - which is the reference currently given for the definition of a constructor. With this in mind, please tell me how you are in any position to pass judgement on what is best for the article in this situation. I do not understand William Parker Hudson's contirbution to Canadian politics in the late nineteenth Century. You will notice that I do not go editing that page. I can tell you now that I don't edit it because I don't understand it. So please, I think everyone here deserves an explanation as to how you are in any position to judge the article when, by your own admission, you do not understand the sources given.

Please also tell me how it is "not even verifiable" when it come from the same source as the press release you championed. Both come from the FIA website. If one is verifiable, so too is the other. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you are at it again. It was your interpretation of the changes that was incomprehensible, mainly because of its inconsistencies, not the rule book (although that may be too - I haven't read it all). Wiki invites contributions from all-comers, no qualifications are necessary, hence we all in a "position to pass judgement". Whether I understand all of the FIA rules (does anyone?), or not, I can recognise inconsistencies in interpretations of information. If you were interested enough to be reading about WPH's contributions in an article, and in one paragraph he was referred to as Hudson, and in another as Parker, you might realise something was amiss though - right?
Your edit wasn't verifiable because of its inconsistencies and you did not challenge Brody59's changes (a subset of mine). We just need to add the simultaneous team name changes now to complete the picture for our readers. -- de Facto (talk). 10:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
But this isn't about the team name changes. The section of the article in question specifically refers to the name changes requested of the WMSC - the changes to constructor names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Are the team name changes just coincidental and unrelated then? Anyway, why not complete the picture for the readers? You didn't mind adding the other background and context information, why are you so stubbornly averse to adding this? -- de Facto (talk). 11:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please, this isn't the place for an argument. DeFacto, team names aren't important as changes to constructor names explain name changes as well. It's self-explanatory and unnecessary. Readers will make the connection that if Lotus changed their constructor name to Caterham, their team name also changed. Prisonermonkeys, if he still doesn't understand it, let it be. If he changes the article the moderators will deal with him promptly. The point is that it's fixed, so now move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody59 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Brody59, you managed to get one of my changes past Prisonermonkeys, thanks for that. But:
  1. Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. Wiki articles are dynamic and can be changed by anyone, anytime.
  2. Explain why you think it might be obvious to readers that a constructor name change from "Renault" to "Lotus" implies a team name change from "Lotus Renault GP" to "Lotus F1 Team".
-- de Facto (talk). 12:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
1: Well whatever Wikipedia has in place to stop vandalism.
2: I have changed the page to include this sentence below the dot points: All three teams chose to change their team names as well, with Team Lotus becoming Caterham F1 Team, Lotus Renault GP becoming Lotus F1 Team and Virgin Racing becoming Marussia F1 Team. It may need a bit of working as I'm not completely happy with the wording.
I also suggest, DeFacto, that you have a look at WP:DR. --Brody59 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Brody59:
2: Thank you.
1: That would imply vandalism took place. Adding relevant, factual, reliably sourced information to an article isn't vandalism.
3: Is there a dispute?
-- de Facto (talk). 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but he did not "get chnges past me". You know perfectly well that I am Australian. And secondly, when do we make changes simply to satisfy one user because he complained the most about it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Prisonermonkeys, I didn't know you were Australian. And secondly, when you realise, with hindsight perhaps, that it wasn't such a bad idea after all? -- de Facto (talk). 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Brody's idea was a good way of doing it. Yours, on the other hand, was terrible. The difference? Brody actually added the information in a manner and a place that did not confuse and complicate. And he also understands the issue. You don't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, how does it matter that your Australian?? So am I! It's the final thing that I'm failing to understand why it's relevant... --Brody59 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Because we're eleven hours ahead of DeFacto (who I tihnk is English). His comments about "getting the edits past me" suggested that he thought I somehow missed those edits, or that I was satisfied by them. The truth was that I was probably asleep when they were made. It's a problem, because DeFacto is treating edits that are in his favour as a victory, which is the wrong way to edit Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I want clear, accurate and consistent content, of course. When such content is removed it a loss for Wikipedia; when such content is successfully added you could say it is a victory for Wikipedia, yes. The key is good faith, I believe. -- de Facto (talk). 07:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, you like it, the information is all there again and consistent, so I like it. Win-win, I think. -- de Facto (talk). 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Brody59's addition was good, but could we change it yet a bit? As there's Lotus Renault GP, I think there should be Marussia Virgin Racing, instead of Virgin Racing, too. I ask that here, because I don't want to start an edit war, which seem to have been quite usual around this topic. --August90 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's what it's supposed to be. My bad... --Brody59 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive

I've just archived a lot of old topics from this page. To see them, click here. --Brody59 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bahrian GP (according to F1 web site)

Why has the F1 web site removed the Bahrain Grand Prix from their banner with the GPs on it? It is still in the plan for the season? Editadam 20:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's quite clearly last year's calendar - note inclusion of Turkey and no USGP. You nearly had me fooled for a moment there. Not sure why they've got last year's calendar up there though! - mspete93 20:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, foolish mistake, you are right it is clearly last years calendar. I didn't expect them to put last year's calendar back up there, after they already put up the new one! Thanks for responding, though. 69.34.147.132 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That was me, I was just logged out. Editadam 11:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Pre-season testing

I think there should be a few words about the winter testing in the pre-season section. Who was the fastest, who struggled, who didn't participate. Just to have a picture of what went on before the first GP. There could also be a few words about the test in May, when that happens. - Dubfire (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's of very low importance to the topic. We shouln't add content simply because we can or because it's a slow period for real content. Remembering that news belongs in wikinews not wikipedia. Wikipedia shoul not be confused for a periodical. --Falcadore (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The only time details of pre-season testing should be added is when something significant happens during pre-season test. For example, in the 2011 page, we included a section on the Pirelli tests because it was an extraordinary testing session, and because the introduction of the Pirelli tyres represented a significant change to the sport for the 2011 season.
The thing about winter testing is that it ultimately means nothing. I know a lot of people put a lot of stock in times - I know of people who were announcing that Kimi Raikkonen would be the 2012 World Champion based on his early times on the first morning at Jerez - but the fact of the matter is that we can't read too much into testing. Teams have their own testing programmes, and without knowing the details of those programmes, anything we added to the section would be speculative. Even knowing those details, and using them to compare teams, anything we included would be original research.
Looking at the pre-season section as it is now, I think we could actually do away with it. The details of the Young Driver Tests are insignificant - the teams are simply running younger drivers in 2011-spec cars, and only a handful of drivers who actually ran got promoted to Formula 1 (and even then, Vergne tested with Red Bull, but was placed at Toro Rosso). The changes to the Pirelli tyres could be moved to a dot point under the "Rule changes" section, and the details of teams using the pre-season tests for testing exhaust configurations could also be moved to the relevant dot point under the same section. In fact, the more I list this stuff, the more I like the idea of moving is, so I'm going to go and make those changes now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Young Driver Test is insignificant compared to the winter testing and the season itself. If the winters tests are not included then the young driver test shouldn't be either. But still, I think that the winter testing is an important build-up for the season, so it's the part of its history. If you wrote a few lines about the young driver test, then there's certainly some space for the winter tests. If someone doesn't find it important when reading, he just skips it. The reason why I think it's interesting is because in the future we can look back, who was successful at that time and who wasn't. Like on the 2009 page. That's perfect. We could even make it shorter. Falcadore, don't come again with the news nonsense, you know that if something is in the past, it's not news. That's history. And you said something about adding things because I'm bored? I certainly wouldn't want that. - Dubfire (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
You are right, the Young driver test should not be there either.
So you are advocating that articles on Liverpool FCs season we should include details on how the team performed in their training runs in between games? If someone does not find that important they could just skip past that too. We don't just include something simple because we can and someone might just skip past it if they are not interested (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Being notable isn't enough in an of itself. It has to be notable to the topic. The topic is the 2012 Formula One season. What makes up the season? The World Championship. There are 20 races that make up and decide the championship. Pre-season testing is not part of any of those races. --Falcadore (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Nothing should be written of the young driver test, however a few sentences (no more, no less)should be made of winter testing, because it is notable, as a build-up to the season. Editadam 12:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you suggest we write, then? Like I said, we cannot read anything into testing times from Jerez or Barcelona because we do not know the team testing programmes. Anything that we included would be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR. About the most significant thing that we could include is the Lotus chassis failure, but that is covered on the Lotus E20 page because it only affects the car and not the season, and so the car page is the best place for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, if you find it so hard and such a violation, then delete the whole pre-season section. In my opinion the season starts in January and ends in December, just like a drivers' contracts. So events before the first race and events after the last race are part of the season. Falcadore, if we would only include the 20 races, then all of the background information should be deleted, like the team changes and the rule changes. Formula 1 is not just about the races. 'Team changes' is the same kind of pre-season background information like the winter testing. And what about the 'broadcasting deal between Sky Sports and the BBC' thing? I don't see how that kind of information is more important than what the teams were actually doing. - Dubfire (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And you've yet to offer even the most token justification as to why testing should be included outside of your opinion. Sebeastien Vettel himself was only just in the press explaining that winter test times are meaningless and that nothing really matters till you get to the first race. --Falcadore (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
You are protesting so hard, I'm not gonna argue anymore. No testing then. But let's go back to the BBC-Sky Sports change. Why is this in the main article? Shouldn't it be on the List of Formula One broadcasters page? And why just the UK? There are broadcasting changes in other countries too. - Dubfire (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, perhaps because it represents a major shift in the way the sport is presented - it is, after all, the first time the sport is going to be on pay-per-view in the UK. It's also been a very controversial move, with plenty of debate in the press and among fans. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I still don't think it relates to the 2012 season. Anyway, I don't understand why Wikipedia is thought to be free to edit by everyone. It's not. You guys determine what other peaple can add. We have to ask for your permission. How ridiculous. I don't violate the rules, I wanna add logical information, but there is only one way: your way. I lost the will to edit. Congratulations for the monopolization. - Dubfire (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a little disappointing that it is your belief that none of anything we've said appears to have any validity with you and that the only possible reason we object is because we don't want you to contribute. I would ask you to assume good faith in the same way we have with you. Sometimes disagreeing with someone isn't personal. --Falcadore (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree that the change in British broadcasting is less relevant to the 2012 season than pre-season testing. Although by no means do I imply that pre-season testing deserves a full drawn out story, I just feel that on a scale of importance testing ranks above something new for British broadcasting. The359 (Talk) 07:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the Sky-BBC section is given a little too much emphasis. It appears to have been written with the expectation that more would come of the controversy that it generated. Some of the little details could go, but I think the overwhelmingly-negative reactions to the arrangement justify its inclusion in the article.
And Dubfire, if you feel so strongly about the inclusion of pre-season testing in the article, please tell me what you think needs to be covered. Like I said, we have no information except for the lap times, and multiple sources saying "you can't read anything into lap times". So what is the article supposed to include? A line about pre-season testing having taken place? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course we should include information on pre-season testing. This year it seems everyone including Ferrari acknowledge that Ferrari's car is not as fast as they might have expected at this stage. This is important background information to the start of the season.Look at 2009. We had this paragraph:

The first multi-team testing session took place at Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona in November 2008, two weeks after the end of previous season. All teams, except Toyota, took part in the testing session where some teams tested their new aerodynamics package and slick tyres. The new look cars did not suit everyone's taste, with BMW Sauber's test driver, Christian Klien, labelling the car the ugliest car he'd ever seen. On 9 March, testing at Barcelona featured for the first time Brawn GP, who made an immediate impact by leading the times early in the day. The test, the first in which all teams used their 2009 cars, had BMW Sauber leading the times while Brawn GP finished fourth. On day three, Brawn GP's Jenson Button was fastest by just over one second to Ferrari's Felipe Massa, while Button's teammate Rubens Barrichello went even faster the next day. At the other end of the timing sheets, reigning Champion Lewis Hamilton's McLaren team were struggling to adapt to the new regulations, often 1.5 seconds off the pace. Massa stated he had never seen McLaren so far behind.

It seems entirely appropriate to include such a paragraph in this article. We don't need to "read anything into pre-season testing times", we don't offer our opinion, we simply report some of the trends and use reliable third-party source to report how notable people and organisations in the sport perceived them. That could be Team Principal X saying "It seems Team Y are fast but we can't read anything into it" or Driver Z saying "Team X are clearly way ahead of us, their car looks so stable through the corners". This would not be "meaningless", or "WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR". --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly think the problems Lotus encountered would earn some mention, as it might have some affect on their season. The359 (Talk) 10:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there any other sports in Wikipedia where training performances are given coverage? --Falcadore (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there any other sports where performance each season is primarily based on technological innovation? Formula 1 is different from other sports. We wouldn't be covering the driver's performances in pre-season testing, but the performance of the technological upgrades since the previous season.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Cycling and Swimming (those swimsuits dominated the sport) just to name two. Motorsport is not even vaguely unique in technology development. You think track and field athletes don't spend any time working on new shoe development? --Falcadore (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The E20 chassis problems are already covered on the E20 page. That's the most appropriate place for them, since they affect the individual car more than the season as a whole. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is meant to cover the story of the season. Although pre-season testing is not a major element of that story, it is still a good place to begin. The359 (Talk) 18:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Only in the context of how the season evolves which we of course can't know until the season actually evolves. Fast test times by Lotus only become significant if Lotus shows surprising early season pace in the first few races. Ferrari's lack of pace and their subsequent moaning about how slow they are will be just gaming the system and not worthy coverage if they win races early. --Falcadore (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit presumptive to game the system. They could just as easily have a slow car now that they fix prior to the first race. The359 (Talk) 20:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Which is my point. How can we include testing without knowing if it meant anything. Including it is presumptive. Additionally, if the car is slow and testing and they fix it, then the testing has had no bearing as the car in testing is substantially different from that which appeared in the races. --Falcadore (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
If a team were slow in Australia and then won in Malaysia, I think we'd mention that the team made a turn around and corrected it. Who did well and who did not do well in testing is just as relevant as who is doing well and who is not doing well in the middle of the season. The359 (Talk) 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I do think that we should be including some pre-season testing information. As The 359 says, it as a part of the season, even if a relatively unimportant part compared to the actual racing. What we have for the 2009 season works nicely, we don't go into excessive detail or pay much attention to times (which are of course rather useless by themselves), but simply state which cars are reckoned, by reliable sources of course, to be fast and slow, and what teams have had problems. Last year for example the problems McLaren encountered was the major story before the racing started, and this year Lotus' chassis rebuild, and the lack of testing by Virgin and HRT is all going to directly affect their performance. It would help the reader understand the season better, in my opinion, if they had an idea about pre-season form and worries. QueenCake (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But what do we include? I keep hearing all this talk that testing is important to the page, but I haven't seen a single suggestion as to what should be included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What teams amd/or drivers may have led on certain days, what teams had reliability issues or missed tests due to car issues. Just the basics. The359 (Talk) 08:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Something similar to what we said in the 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007 season articles. I don't understand the objections to this.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
But you've got drivers saying that testing times don't really mean anything in the long haul. It doesn't matter who set the fastest time at which circuit and when - the drivers themselves believe that you cannot read anything into those times. And those times don't affect anything in the season at all.
As for what is covered on the 2007-10 pages, the natural question is this: is it really necessary on those pages? I can understand significant events that affect the entire season - like the extra Pirelli tests - but I can't see any significant events in the 2012 testing season. Like I said, the Lotus E20 chassis failure was perhaps the biggest event that took place during testing, but because it only affected Lotus, then the best place for it to go is the E20 page (where it is already covered). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Pre-season testing events only become significant when the season is underway and that significance is demonstrated. Look at 2009. The Brawn was clearly fast in testing contrary many people's expectations. If that happened now and you had your way we wouldn't mention it, but of course Brawn went on to win the season. However by only mentioning testing outcomes that are significant in hindsight, we skew our coverage. If what you say is true and testing is mostly meaningless, then by covering it in every season's article we will enable our readers to look back through the years and draw their own conclusions. The fact Ferrari are talking about not getting a podium based on their pre-season testing results will be significant both if they do indeed fail to get a podium in the first few races, or if they win the first few races. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no absolute rule that says speed in testing always equals speed in the season. Sure, Brawn were quick in testing in 2009, and that translated into speed in the races. But other teams have been quick in testing, and nowhere when it comes time to race. I seem to recall last year's Williams being one of the front-runners in testing, and by the end of 2011, they had had their worst season ever. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You totally missed my point. We should include pre-season testing information so that our readers can work out for themselves what you just said.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't miss your point. We know that testing times mean nothing. We have drivers saying that testing times mean nothing. So why is it so vital that we include a section on testing simply so that readers can come to the same conclusion? Surely that would make that particular section rather pointless? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to include just testing times - we have of course discussed in the past that's completely useless - but what we can include is (to quote The 359) what teams or drivers may have led on certain days, what teams had reliability issues or what teams missed tests due to car issues. We write about practice on the race reports, even though the times and form may be relatively unimportant, and that is essentially testing for the race. I don't see how this is different? QueenCake (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course the drivers are going to say that testing means nothing, because no driver is going to go out and say "Yes, we were at our limits, that was the fastest our car can go." Nor are they going to say "Our car is not as fast as we'd like, we can't seem to figure out why." They're just going to say that testing means nothing to help cover themselves. The359 (Talk) 03:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the fact that without knowing the testing programs of various teams, the testing times mean nothing. Say Red Bull finishes one day with the fastest time of the test, and McLaren finishes with the slowest time. Now, we could easily point this out - but we have no idea of the circumstances surrounding those times. Maybe Red Bull have a fantastic car, and maybe McLaren have a terrible one. But it is equally-likely that Red Bull spent the day doing qualifying simulations on super-soft tyres, and McLaren wanted to spend the day doing fuel-heavy runs on the hardest compound available. Without knowing exactly what each and every team had planned at the time those laptimes were set, it's impossible to account for any difference between lap times. Simply stating who was fastest in the test implies that that driver/car will always be fast. And while you are correct in saying that no driver will admit their car is horrible, that doesn't completely discredit their comments about testing times mening nothing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It implies nothing. It is explicitly stated that it is a test session. I think it would not be beyond the realm of possibility that the common reader would be able to stand that it is not a qualifying session, therefore the fastest does not necessarily mean everything. It is however one of the few viable statements to make from a test session. This doesn't have to be complicated. "A test session was held, these people set the fastest times on the charts, while problems hampered these teams." End. I fail to see the problem with it as something relevant to the season as a whole, even if something may or may not be able to be read from it. The359 (Talk) 06:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I still don't think it's important enough to justify an entire subsection of the article. Maybe a short paragraph at the beginning of the report subsection, but not a subsection of its own. Even then, I still have serious questions about how necessary testing is to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk)
I never suggested a subsection, just that it be integrated into the season summary. The359 (Talk) 08:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Like in 2009 Formula One season. It only has to occupy a paragraph of the background section (or whatever else it's called). Which is where all the driver/team/etc information should be as well. QueenCake (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The Teams and Drivers section is the most appropriate place for information on teams and drivers to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why is the pre-season testing (which gets reported sometimes) more important than any other mid-year testing (which does not)? Why aren't all tests given this level of attention and discussion? --Falcadore (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
What mid-season testing? The359 (Talk) 05:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't have such detailed season reports on years with in-season testing for this to really come up, and actually testing is reported on some of race reports. And as far as I remember pre-season tests were always given more attention and coverage in the media than in-season ones ever were - they are arguably more important. QueenCake (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

About 2012 races

Someone should make an article for some of the races.Like,the Australian GP is only in 2 weeks so someone should make an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.223.39 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It was made several days ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
2012 Bahrain should have an article already, and for months now, considering the international political brouhaha about it. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Then get into it! Go! Don't hold yourself back. --Falcadore (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

USGP dispute

Has the dispute between organisers of the USGP and Formula One Management been resolved? If so, let's clarify that on the content page. Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The dispute has been resolved. It is briefly mentioned in the calendar changes section of the article, and detailed on the CotA page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Opener suggestions

Shouldn't the opener say something about the Turkish Grand Prix being removed from the calendar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See 2012 Formula One season#Calendar changes --MSalmon (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How to write the report

Now that the season has begun, I'm starting to wonder how the report should be written, so I thought I'd bring it up here because there might be some ideas.

Right now, I'm thinking the best way to do it is to break it up on a race-by-race basis with a heading (but not a dedicated sub-sub-section) to make it a little more readable. That way, content for individual races is easy to find because the headings will be there. At the end of the season, we might add in an executive summary at the start, and move the bulk of it down to an in-detail report.

Any thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the way its been done for the past few years. If you want anything more detailed than that, go and read the actual race article. QueenCake (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, this idea is largely just to continue the way things have been going. The only major changes are a) introducing an executive summary before going into detail (the kind of detail in previous years; nothing more), and b) using sub-headings in the report to isolate individual races, because the way things are going now, we'll have forty-two paragraphs by December (two for each race, plus one for pre-season testing and one for the Mugello test). Sub-headings would make it easier to find information about each event, instead of having to read through 3000 words to find the individual race recaps. I'm not proposing any more detail than we have used in the past - just a variant on the style used on pages like 1992 that uses sub-headings (but NOT sub-sections). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a need for a summary - there will eventually be one in the article lead and another one is redundant. If we have a problem of a very long section then cut down the text; two paragraphs per race is excessive, the 2009 season makes do with 3 races a paragraph! Last years really looks too long as well - in my opinion we reached the ideal length between 2009/2010. Also, I find using sub-headings useless on here to be honest - if you are going to separate content then use a sub-header so it at least shows up on the contents.
I suggest removing the separate section for qualifying and just making a note of the pole - qualifying really isn't relevant in the context of the entire season. QueenCake (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

6 World Champions

Surelly it should be mentioned that there are 6 world champions competing in the same season? Marco Alfarrobinha (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it used to but having just read everything except the technical changes it appears to have been removed. If adding back in be careful with the wording to specify Formula One World champions out of respect for the half-dozen or so Sportscar World Champions who raced F1 in the 70s, 80s and 90s in Brundle's case. --Falcadore (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I know it's in the caption attached to the Raikkonen photo, but I could have sworn it was somewhere else, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe it has been edited out. I'll try and edit it back in, but I'm concerned that it will be too much like trivia, or will have too much weight placed on it. It got mentioned on the AGP race page, and some of the early edits to the race reports had a real focus on Raikkonen, following his progress through the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I put it in. I didn't think it was necessary to state that the six champions are F1 champions, for two reasons: 1) it's a Formula 1 season page, so it's implied that the drivers will be F1 champions before anything else, and 2) the wlink takes the reader to the list of WDC winners. Also (and to a lesser extent), 3) naming them as F1 champions made for some really awkward wording. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
What on earth is awkward about Formula One World Champions as a phrase? --Falcadore (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't just that phrase. It was the whole sentence. I went through several rewrites until I found one that I thought was suitable.
I still don't think it's necesasary to be that accurate. The wlink takes readers straight to the list of drivers champions, and since this is a season article page, it is reaonable to assume that "World Champions" refers to Formula 1 champions before any other. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bullet points

Anyone object if I convert some of the bullet points to paragraphs?--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Which ones did you have in mind? Pretty much all of the bullet points work best as bullet points rather than prose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia, prose is generally better than bullet points. I seem to recall this being discussed before. The359 (Talk) 18:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
E/C Why, it works fine on the 2009 article. No need for bullet points there, although I did write that myself so I would say it works better... I say go for it Pontificalibus QueenCake (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The background section of the 2009 article works as prose because it always should have been written that way. If you look at the 2012 page, we have the team changes, driver changes, calendar changes in general changes in bullet point format. The format works for the team and driver changes, because each team or driver has their own individual entry. The calendar and general changes sections each contain lengthy entries, so condensing them into prose won't work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Anything can "work" in bullet format. However to claim that they wont work in prose is a bit silly. 2011_FIA_GT1_World_Championship_season#Teams is an example of a team changes section integrated entirely into prose, even if it a relatively short section. The359 (Talk) 06:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If that were applied to this page, then the prose section would just be an individual sentence or paragraph detailing each team change. It's really just bullet points, but without the actual bullet points. Aside from the Marussia/Caterham/Lotus name changes, each team change happened in isolation of one another. Take, for example, Williams adopting Renault engines and Force India getting funding from the Sahara Group - neither of these changes was born of or influenced by the other. So how can they be put into a paragraph together when they have nothing to do with one another aside from being changes that teams made? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
So then if the prose will say the same thing, where exactly is the problem with putting the information in proper prose rather than bullet points? As you mention, the Caterham/Marussia/Lotus name changes can be mixed together, and really I think that the Sahara investment and AMG integration into Mercedes are similar enough to be grouped together. Marussia's dropping Wirth can be equally mixed with HRT's changing administrative roles. A few straggling points that cannot be integrated does not negate the necessity for prose in an encyclopedia. The359 (Talk) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Car launch table

I think the dates of car launches in a table is useful. Why is it always deleted? This info is obviously for fans, and should be deleted once the season starts. I would put this table on the page. What do you think? - Dubfire (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus not to include car launches schedules in F1 season articles. You can find the discussion thread here. Personally, my opinion on the matter remains the same: dates of car launches have no weight on the season thus doesn't present a sufficient notability to be included in the article. Plus, Wikipedia is not a fan site. Maimai009 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I know it doesn't have weight on the whole season, but on the 2010 or 2011 page (don't remember) this table existed (before the season) and it was good that all the launches were in a comprehensive table (as long as they were relevant). Any chance this could be on a seperate page? Or does sombedy know a site which has a table like this? - Dubfire (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If it fails notability on the season page it would definately fail notability as a stand-alone article. --Falcadore (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You people are the worst, honestly. Car launch dates are a useful piece of information, period, and should be included in the article. Nothing else matters other than that. Ask yourself: are there people out there who might want that information? If the answer is "yes," it belongs in the article. Wikipedia is going downhill fast. All you people do these days is create arbitrary standards of what is and isn't "notable" when in reality you should just include everything, because it's a fucking website and not a physical book. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, they're a "useful piece of information", but what effect does the car release schedule have on the overall season? If Caterham launch their car on January 26th, how does that affect the season any differently than if they launched on February 26th? The answer is that it doesn't. So while car releases might be useful, they're not relevant to this page. They're better-suited to the individual car pages. If people want that information, that's where they will find it: in the most-appropriate place for that information, because Wikipedia is not a fan site and it is not a news site.
PS - your attitude isn't going to win you any goodwill. Accusing people of "arbitrary standards" on "a fucking website and not a book" isn't particularly pleasant. If you think you have an actual case for including car release dates on the season page, then by all means, we're willing to discuss it. We used to include launch dates before a user convinced us all that they had no value, and so we stopped adding them to season pages. If you can convince us that they do have value, we'll be more than willing to add them in. But you'll find the carrot works better than the stick. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"Ask yourself: are there people out there who might want that information? If the answer is "yes," it belongs in the article." - Is this some genius new notability requirement? Didn't think so. How about considering whether or not this information might be better suited to a different article or group of articles. What day a car is (virtually) launched has sod all to do with the season - take it to the car articles. Obviously. Maybe some people think Wikipedia is going downhill fast because they have no effective grasp of what Wikipedia is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, you say that you are willing to discuss a launch table, but as I can see, you are insisting that it has no value for the whole season. If you are willing to discuss, then here's my opinion: I liked it when you used to include this table, I don't know who convinced you to stop adding it. I think that this table is useless DURING the season, but it is useful BEFORE the season starts. I would like to include it until the last car is launched (end of February). I understand that this information is on the individual car pages, but there you cannot see all of them at once and in chronological order. Does anyone else agree with me? - Dubfire (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
And here is the core of the problem. You are confusing Wikipedia for a news magazine. We write article for how they will look at season's end. If something is of possible important now, but completely unimportant at seasons end then we don't include it at all.
Just to repeat, Wikipedia is NOT a news magazine. --Falcadore (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
And there are plenty of news sites who do carry this information. Try Autosport.com. Ever heard of it? - mspete93 12:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Still, you included the table in previous seasons. There are two possible reasons: 1. you didn't realize back then that Wiki wasn't a news magazine, or 2. the WP:NOTNEWS rule didn't exist. Be consistent. - Dubfire (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
We included it previously because it had not yet been discussed. When it was discussed and policies were brought up, it was decided that it was against policy and removed. There is quite a difference between being inconsistent and having a group discussion that changes consensus. The359 (Talk) 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
If something is to be included, it has to be permanently notable (not just for a while), and re-assessment of notability can take place at any time, per WP:NTEMP. The order in which the cars are released is meaningless, so seeing all the launch dates together is unimportant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"You used to include it, so you should include it again" isn't a very good argument. Yes, we used to include it. But then someone raised the issue of its notability, it was discussed, and we all agreed that the car release schedule had no place in the season article, at which point the tables were removed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, I see your point. - Dubfire (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
For me it's a very important part of the season... Ridiculous decision... (217.136.32.69 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC))
So it's more important than the 20 races that make up the actual championship? --Falcadore (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to put my 2 cents, I believe that the launch date has both a major and minor bearing on the season proper, similar to testing. The fact some teams launched late had a significant effect on their performance in Australia. I would say this is a major bearing on the season albeit for the minor teams. When teams like mercedes launch late on purpose for strategic purposes (perhaps) it can also change the R&D development in the early season. For those reasons I would include it in the wiki(am new to this so tell me if i did this wrong???) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offfspring227 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Some teams launched their car late because they were late in their development. For example, HRT and Marussia had trouble passing crash tests thus had to take more time to work on the car. Late launches are the consequence of trouble during car development, not the cause. Most of the time, car launches are events made up for the media, in order to fulfil sponsorship obligations, thus have absolutely no bearing on the season. Maimai009 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Friday driver table

Please let's not have one of these. Friday drivers do not participate in the season. They do not qulaify for races, they do not actually race. For something that is argued over as to whether they should be included in the individual race articles, they certainly should not be tabulated in the season summary. --Falcadore (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It deserves a mention in the relevant driver articles, a passing mention in the race articles, but not here. Goddamn tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it just seems to be information for the sake of it. I'll remove it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I italicised Bottas' name and made a notce that drivers in italics completed Friday running. If it has to be included in the article, then this is probably the best way to do it since it clearly marks the drivers in question without being intrusive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive Bot

Do you guys have any Archive Bot preference cause I've gone ahead and set up a Mizabot archiving system for this talk page?--Daytona 500 22:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

An idea from Indycar pages

I was looking at the 2012 IndyCar Series season page, and I noticed that they include race summaries using a small chart, and I was wondering if we should consider doing the same. For example, this is what they are using for St Petersburg:

Honda Grand Prix of St. Petersburg
Pos Grid No. Driver Team Laps Time
1 '
2 '
3 '
Race average speed: 0.000
Official Box Score:

And this is how it could be adapted for Formula 1:

Australian Grand Prix
Pos Grid No. Driver Team Laps Time
1 2 3 United Kingdom Jenson Button McLaren-Mercedes 58 1:34:09.565
2 6 1 Germany Sebastian Vettel Red Bull-Renault 58 +2.139
3 1 4 United Kingdom Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 58 +4.075
Race average speed: 0.000
Official Box Score: 2012 Australian Grand Prix

We've already got sub-headings in the report section. If we could make a similar template that is collapsible, we could incorporate them into the report as the sub-heading for each race.

It's just an idea. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

20 more charts cluttering up the article? And with redundant information that already exists elsewhere in this article, as well as all the individual grand prix articles? No thanks. The359 (Talk) 02:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I said it was an idea. I saw it over at the Indycar pages, and I thought that maybe it would have some merit if it was adapted to the Formula 1 pages. So I reposted it here, believing that hey, maybe someone else will see the value in it, and consider giving the article an overhaul with some new content. I see you've chosen the "shoot it down straight away because it has a table" option. Your objections are noted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a goog idea. --Gamma127 (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea, but it needs be condensed some. For example, the television section should be completely removed, but I see how it could work. Editadam 13:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
No thank you. The sole reason the Indycar pages seem to use those tables is because no one appears to want to actually write anything, at least in prose like our season articles. We do have infoboxes on the season report articles to say all of that information - it's really quite redundant. Nothing wrong with bringing it up however :) QueenCake (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a reflection of the American tradition of the "Box Score" a tradition that has never really existed in Formula One. So, no not a good fit for F1. --Falcadore (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

See, this is what I was hoping for: actual discussion, rather than jsut shooting it down and moving it on.

Like I said, if this were included in the article, then I imagine it would be a shorter version (so no television stuff). And it would probably be collapsible, used to break up the report section the way the subheadings currently do. It would just be a quick recap of the race, with all the data in the one place, a short summary of the event followed by the existing recounts. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The article summarising the Formula One season should do just that, summarise the season as a whole, rather than break it down race-by-race. It's against good journalism style to timeline a season summary. If it is in addition to a season summary than in combination with the tables its a duplication of existing data already on the page. --Falcadore (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Romain Grosjean position (as of Malaysia Grand Prix)

Me and a few other wikipedians are debating what Romain Grosjean's position is, personally I think it should be 24, since he is the only car that is left with no position, the Official F1 site supports this ([[1]]) however others think he shouldn't have a position, which the FIA site shows ([[2]]). Any one else show their views? Dontforgetthisone (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The FIA is the boss, no doubt about it. It's been a long-standing situation that drivers or constructors with no classified finishes are not classified in the relevant championship. F1.com is guilty of a lot of mistakes, and this is one of them, however minor. Good work for starting this discussion rather than reverting again though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The long standing situation is you have to have a race finish to gain a championship position. Have a look at more recent years articles, like for example 2007 Formula One season. Manfred Winkelhock did not finish a race during the season so was not given a championship position. We should not change this purely because a few edittors think Grosjean should have a champ position. --Falcadore (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You mean Markus Winkelhock, and that's a different case, he isn't a proper driver, although I still think he should have a last place position rather than a "-". Dontforgetthisone (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Not a proper driver? He'd box you on the nose for a line like that. It makes no difference how many races you race during the season you're treated the same.
It's not a different case at all. It's exactly the same. --Falcadore (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sam Bird

Does anyone know of a reliable English-language source for Sam Bird being Mercedes' test driver? The current source is in German. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Google translation. The359 (Talk) 03:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Prose v Points

I know that there was a discussion on this a few months ago, but I want to start it again. The use of prose on the page is not great. It doesn't match all the previous F1 season pages and I think we should make it easier and quicker to find information. Therefore, I believe that points are much better for this page. We're not writing a non-fiction book, we're writing a quick-reference encyclopedia entry. I do agree, prose is better for an encyclopedia, but not for this page. Thoughts??? --Brody59 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

On what do you base your belief that this is a quick reference entry and hence should not be written in an encyclopedia manner? The359 (Talk) 01:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts are that it is Wikipedia's style preference to use prose over bulle points. Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be a "quick-reference encyclopedia entry". So perhaps you need to refresh on Wikipeida aims? --Falcadore (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_2&oldid=1142434926"