Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship: Difference between revisions

Red Bull Honda

@Tvx1 — the current status of page protection isn't doing much to fix the Red Bull/Honda problem. Do you think it might be worth requesting pending changes protection so that changes can be reviewed before they are applied? The 2019 MotoGP article is having a lot of success with it. I'd request it myself, but it appears to be a different process to RFP and I don't know how to do it. 1.129.104.63 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ralph1300 — please read your sources. While the source you provided says Red Bull has a contract with Honda, more-recent sources—which are used in the article—have the team confirming that there is no contract, but rather a memorandum of understanding; an agreement to sign a contract in the future if the terms can be negotiated. 1.129.104.242 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have requested PC protection (which one does at WP:RFP as well), but I'm not sure it will help. The editors who are not prevented to edit through Semi-protection are going to have their edits auto-accepted with PC-protection. It's technically a reduction of protection level. I fear that full protection might be the only effective solution.Tvx1 14:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Could just put in the article that Red Bull Racing will be using Honda engines next season, what with the many sources that say they will and all. OZOO (t) (c) 14:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Red Bull Racing themselves admitted the contract isn’t signed yet. We need to wait until it has been.Tvx1 17:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This is moronic. Does anyone really expect Red Bull will publish a statement saying "Hey, you remember that Honda contract we announced three months ago? Well it's still on." The statement that Red Bull will use Honda engines is a lot more reliably sourced that the opposite, which all hinges on an (two month old) article which itself says that the situation is "extremely unlikely to change in the coming months." OZOO (t) (c) 11:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@OZOO — Sauber were in exactly the same situation: they signed a memorandum of understanding to use Honda engines in 2018 and look how that worked out. 1.144.106.163 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I'm sure if/when Red Bull decide to use Honda engines, they'll have a big PR event to confirm it. Which will give us the confirmation sources we need. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How is this not a big PR event to confirm it, giving us the confirmation sources we need? OZOO (t) (c) 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Because subsequent sources reveal that there is only a memorandum of understanding in place. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone should tell Helmut Marko that Red Bull haven't agreed to use Honda engines. He's going to feel a right fool when he finds out. OZOO (t) (c) 09:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@OZOO — Red Bull have not formally announced the Honda deal. All we can prove is that they have a memorandum of understanding and nothing in the multiple sources you have provided actually says that they have signed the contract. You cannot cherry-pick your sources. 1.129.108.92 (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

They have announced it, here. The sources currently linked to the article additionally contain quotes confirming the partnership from Helmut Marko, Red Bull motorsport advisor, Christian Horner, Red Bull team principal & Max Verstappen, Red Bull driver. Saying that the engine partner is To be announced therefore misleads the readers. OZOO (t) (c) 12:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And that article pre-dates the revelation that they only have an MOU. None of the subsequent sources that you provide confirm the existence of a contract—they just have Red Bull intending and expecting to use Honda engines, but fall well short of confirmation. 1.129.108.92 (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thought I might draw @Tvx1's attention to this. 1.129.104.139 (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

How, precisely, is senior Red Bull F1 personnel talking about how they are using Honda engines in 2019 not a confirmation that Red Bull's engine partner is to be Honda. Saying Red Bull power unit is TBA (aka To Be Announced, aka absolutely nothing has been announced) in this article is a flagrant untruth. OZOO (t) (c) 06:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark — the Red Bull-Honda deal has not been confirmed. They can talk about using Honda engines all they want, but they have not signed a contract yet. How many times to @Tvx1 and I need to tell you this? 1.129.110.126 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually it has been confirmed, by multiple people multiple times, both from within Red Bull Racing and from outside, and many of them after the Autosport article that is being used as a supersource. OZOO (t) (c) 14:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Show me a source where Red Bull say words to the effect of "we have signed the contract". 1.129.110.19 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.110.126 - Christian Horner, Helmut Marko, Max Verstappen and many other Red Bull Racing personnel have confirmed that they will be using Honda power units in 2019 and its been covered extensively by Sky Sports, BBC Sport and many other media sources, Renault's Managing Director Cyril Abiteboul has confirmed Red Bull's switch in a interview on Sky Sports. (Red Bull-Honda source: https://redbullracing.redbull.com/article/honda-power-2019) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

How many times do I have to explain this? They have signed a memorandum of understanding, which means that they intend to use Honda engines. It does not mean that they will. None of the sources you have provided confirm that they have signed the contract. 1.129.110.199 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There are loads and loads of reliable sources verifying that Red Bull will use Honda, and as far as I can see one several-month old source vaguely, but not really, opposing it. There is not a single source saying that Red Bull's engine partner is To Be Announced, and saying it is as we do is a clear lie. OZOO (t) (c) 07:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

as far as I can see one several-month old source vaguely, but not really, opposing it

Which just goes to show that you still don't understand how a memorandum of understanding works despite multiple explanations. It's effectively a pre-contract, an agreement to sign a full contract at some point in the future. Teams sign pre-contracts with drivers all the time—Ferrari had one with Robert Kubica—but we don't include them in the table until they have a full contract, so why would we do something different for an engine?

saying it is as we do is a clear lie

Nope. We can prove Red Bull have a memorandum of understanding. You have been unable to prove that they have since signed a full contract. 1.129.110.199 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is getting rather ridiculous now because I'd like to know where this "memorandum of understanding" crap is even coming from because I provided a legit source from the official Red Bull Racing website that says in black and white that they will be using Honda PU's in 2019, I have not yet seen 1 single source saying that they have not signed a official deal with Honda and the source that I have provided surely has authority over whatever source you can provide as my source is from the official RBR website. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

We can't read into the future so if for some reason RBR cancels their Honda contract we remove it from the article like we did with Sauber. (I have just seen the "memorandum of understanding" source provided on the article but I still stand by the inclusion of "Red Bull Racing-Honda" to the article as more sources back it's inclusion compared to leaving it as "TBA".) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"I provided a legit source from the official Red Bull Racing website that says in black and white that they will be using Honda PU's in 2019"

Technically it's a self-published source and there's no third-party confirmation. We know that there's an MOU in place, but we can't expect the RBR website to say "we're going to use Honda power unless we don't".

"We can't read into the future so if for some reason RBR cancels their Honda contract we remove it from the article like we did with Sauber."

Or we just do what we do with everything else and phrase the article in such a way thay it makes clear that we are talking about future events. In the case of Sauber, we weren't aware that they had signed an MOU until after they backed out of the deal.

"I still stand by the inclusion of "Red Bull Racing-Honda" to the article as more sources back it's inclusion"

But they don't. The team is talking about future events, so when they say "we are going to use Honda engines", it's unclear as to whether they have signed the contract or not. 1.144.108.206 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

What we have to go by is that they WILL be using Honda PU's in 2019 as announced by many reliable sources, Everyone under the sun is under the knowledge that RBR will be using Honda power units in 2019, Wikipedia is that special exception apparently. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That's because wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a news site. Just be patient. They're bound to sign a contract sooner or later.Tvx1 09:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not apply in this case. It's not original reporting (I could find 50 sources with no difficulty backing up Red Bull-Honda) and it's not a news report (no more than everything else in the article). The verifiable fact is that Red Bull have announced Honda, and the statement of "To Be Announced" is completely wrong. OZOO (t) (c) 10:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, could this not be added to the article, and then another line being added in to the 'Notes' section explaining that this is an MOU (citing the official Red Bull announcement) and is yet to be officially confirmed, as was done with the US GP. Or even leave it as TBA (or TBC since it's been announced now and just needs confirming officially) and add the note anyway, for clarification? It seems silly to have all information withheld whist we await a confirmation which will likely never come until the car is on the track next year, as it is already widely understood by the paddock that they will be using Honda power. In addition, it's already clear to the readers that this article is referencing future events that are subject to change. If by some bizarre turn of events, Red Bull for whatever reason do not go with Honda, I'm sure the Wiki community would spare no minute in updating the article to reflect the changes. In this particular scenario, there needs to be a slight amount of leeway on the "rules" given the overwhelming amount of sources, both 3rd and 1st party. Maybe worth getting an admin to review this and suggest an outcome if a decision can't be made here, as in this particular case it feels more confusing to leave the information out entirely than to include it and just clarify further? AdamComer (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"Or even leave it as TBA (or TBC since it's been announced now and just needs confirming officially) and add the note anyway, for clarification?"

The article already does that. The table lists their engine supplier as "TBA" and the "team changes" section explains the situation. 1.144.110.248 (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, given the situation I don't really see what more should be done then. Leave as is until further notice. AdamComer (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@AdamComer — nothing needs to be done for now. Although you should remove the space between the "TBA" and the reference. Also, we tend to keep the full reference in the body of prose and the markup in the table; those references will be removed from the table once a full entry list is published. 1.144.110.38 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

What more should be done is not saying something which has been clearly and explicitly announced multiple times is "to be announced". OZOO (t) (c) 08:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think "to be confirmed" would be the better terminology in this case, it's already been announced, but a contract has not yet been confirmed. With the note on the end though, anybody not sure will be able to read the clarification. AdamComer (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no note. There is a bit of text saying that Red Bull have announced a Honda partnership, but no direct link to say that that is related to the thing which hasn't been announced; nor any explanation as to why, if it is the thing that has not been announced, it is not considered an announcement. Anyway here's Formula1.com talking about it not once but twice over the past few days; does that suffice as an announcement? OZOO (t) (c) 10:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The note I refer to is the citation alongisde the “TBA” letters, which link to a detailed article about the MOU. Furthermore it is clarified in the Team Changes section that there is an MOU with Honda. Until an actual confirmation that a contract has been signed and the MOU is no longer in effect, it can’t be said that they are confirmed to be using Honda power. However, I do agree that the “To Be Announced” terminology is incorrect in this article and should be updated. AdamComer (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"does that suffice as an announcement?"

No, because they haven't said that they have signed the contract. You have already had this explained to you half a dozen times. What do you not understand about this? 1.144.110.38 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why the official Formula One website saying explicitly Red Bull will switch to Honda power for 2019, can't be used to verify the statement that Red Bull will switch to Honda power for 2019. OZOO (t) (c) 13:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Because they have self-admitted that they haven’t signed a contract (yet).Tvx1 14:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Marko, Horner, Verstappen are all going to be very embarrassed when they find out they've been talking up a Red Bull-Honda deal that doesn't exist. And imagine how Ricciardo will feel when he realizes he didn't have to leave Red Bull to avoid using Honda engines. OZOO (t) (c) 15:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You guys must have been in the room during RBR-Honda discussions. (!) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I dont doubt for a second that Red Bull will be using Honda in 2019. But until it’s an actual fact it simply cannot be stated as such in a Wikipedia article. There is still a chance, albeit a very slim and unlikely chance, but a chance nonetheless that Red Bull could theoretially still pull out of the deal. Once they have signed the legally-binding contract and it had been publically announced by Red Bull and Honda themselves that a deal has been signed; OR the 2019 Red Bull car rolls out on track in pre-season testing being powered by a Honda engine (whichever comes first) then the article will be updated. As @Tvx1 and anon:1.144.110.38 has stated previously, until that point the current format provides all the neccessary information and will stand as is. Even though we ALL KNOW that it’s an almost certainty, the rules are clear. AdamComer (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've given up with this whole thing, it's just getting frustrating. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Then un-frustrate it: provide a source that demonstrates that the contract has been signed. 1.129.104.225 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Marko, Horner, Verstappen are all going to be very embarrassed when they find out they've been talking up a Red Bull-Honda deal that doesn't exist. And imagine how Ricciardo will feel when he realizes he didn't have to leave Red Bull to avoid using Honda engines."

That's not an argument. For one, the deal does exist, it just hasn't been finalised (or if it has been, it hasn't been announced yet). Secondly, Helmut Marko does not work for Red Bull Racing. He was hired by Red Bull to oversee their driver development programme, and part of that involves consulting with Red Bull Racing, but he is not employed by them. And thirdly, Daniel Ricciardo has not publicly said anything about wanting to avoid using Honda engines.

Now, do you have an actual argument to make and/or a source to justify changing the entry to Honda, or are you just going to keep wasting everyone's time?

"Once they have signed the legally-binding contract and it had been publically announced by Red Bull and Honda themselves that a deal has been signed; OR the 2019 Red Bull car rolls out on track in pre-season testing being powered by a Honda engine (whichever comes first) then the article will be updated."

Or option number three, the FIA entry list. Teams need to enter for the upcoming championship which includes details of drivers and suppliers (engines and, in the past, tyres) and the FIA publishes an entry list which usually coincides with the final WMSC meeting of the year in November-December. 1.129.104.209 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Or option three indeed, which probably makes option two redundant. Thanks, I had let that one go over my head ;) AdamComer (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

do you have [...] a source to justify changing the entry to Honda - Certainly I do. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Ten sources, from ten websites, all saying Red Bull will use Honda engines in 2019 – and many of them from well after the Autosport supersource that does not say Red Bull won't use Honda engines. OZOO (t) (c) 11:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.104.225 - I've already provided a valid source, but anyway I'm dropping this discussion here. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved A new header should be added if this gets discussed in the future. AdamComer (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know we could just post a template to end discussion. Gonna use that from now on. OZOO (t) (c) 10:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Only when there's a consensus. Which there clearly is here. 1.129.108.135 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, as above, there is an overwhelming consensus here that the MOU does not constitute a finalised contract. There are only two users here that oppose this, one of which called the MOU “crap”, showing their lack of understanding for the matter anyway but has agreed to drop the discussion in good faith, so I thank you. And the other is just aggresively pursuing their cause, despite countless users explaining over and over the reasons why it cannot be done (yet). There must reach a point where somebody has to say enough is enough and put a stop to this. AdamComer (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You've just got to be careful about how you do it, especially if you do it prematurely (as you did below). I cannot read OZOO' comment:

"Didn't know we could just post a template to end discussion. Gonna use that from now on."

As meaning anything other than "I'm going to use those templates to declare discussions open or closed depending on what I want". Truth is that those templates rarely get used. 1.129.108.34 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@AdamComer - "There are only two users here that oppose this, one of which called the MOU “crap”, showing their lack of understanding for the matter" Ouch... that comment wasn't needed, I was aware of what a MOU was btw. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark - My apologies, I can see why that may have come across as harsh. No offense intended. It just seemed a bit of an explosive and almost ignorant comment but perhaps that was merely my own interpretation so again, apologies. AdamComer (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mark Jhomel — please read this discussion. The consensus among editors is that Red Bull have only announced a memorandum of understanding with Honda, not a contract. If in doubt, ask someone like @Tvx1.

Also, an article about Toro Rosso mocking Alonso is hardly an appropriate source. 1.144.106.160 (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Christian Nimmervoll and Dieter Rencken claiming Red Bull and Honda signed the contract. [11] LucasVon (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's going to take more than a journalist making a claim on Twitter to confirm it. We'll need either an entry list from the FIA and/or an official announcement from the team and/or Honda that names and quotes a senior figure (such as Christian Horner). 1.144.109.175 (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Would this be enough? [12] or [13] PD001 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Hi, Please see the RfC from 9th October on this page. If you have any thoughts please comment on there. RhinosF1 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@PD001 — no, because they do not prove the existence of a contract. Both articles have been proposed before. 1.129.109.29 (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The note explaining the TBA in the table is completely unnecessary—the prose under the table already explains it. 1.144.108.87 (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Red Bull Racing-Honda Sotirissot (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 9 October 2018

Please delete the section "calendar expansion". While the proposed expansion was discussed, it never actually happened. It might be worth moving it to a 2020 article, especially since Copenhagen and Miami have said that 2020 is the most feasible start date, and now Hanoi has joined the mix and there is still talk about Zandvoort returning. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

For the next year of formula one 2019 you need to write from Red Bull Racing-TBA will have to convert to Red Bull Racing-Honda! specify the source:https://www.gpfans.com/nl/artikelen/9385/red-bull-racing-en-honda-ondertekenden-contract-pas-in-japan/

Agree but  Second opinion requested Seems fine, but due to being contversial I'm going to check to see if we can establish a consensus. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus that unless there is official confirmation from Red Bull and/or Honda, we cannot update the article because without it we don't know if they're referring to a contract or the existing memorandum of understanding. 1.129.104.132 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Status:     On hold - unable to reach consensus so I have requested an RFC to gain a better view of thoughts. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above source can we now include Honda as Red Bull engine provider? RhinosF1 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Support, the new source can be added to the multitude of other sources we have confirming Red Bull will use Honda engines in 2019. OZOO (t) (c) 16:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment — you were asked time and time again to provide a source showing that Red Bull had signed the contract, and you failed every single time. This source does not adequately demonstrate that they have signed the contract; there is no "multitude of other sources". It is quite clear that you have not read the source provided and that you are just treating this as a battleground because you disagreed with a previous consensus and are looking to settle the score. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The source does say they have signed the contract. #RedBull and #Honda officials sign engine contract for 2019/20 post #JapaneseGP at #Suzuka . Photo via @RacingLines pic.twitter.com/nPFU3aPn91. OZOO (t) (c) 09:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's your source? A single Twitter post? Despite being posted a week ago, the story hasn't been picked up by any of the mainstream motorsport media. Autosport, the BBC, Speedcafe—they're not reporting this story that Red Bull are now committed to using Honda engines. Which is odd, because it's headline news. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, also the article under discussion, is my source. Perhaps the reason why most of the MSMSM are not picking up the story is that they have regarded the Red Bull/Honda agreement as a done deal for several months? They didn't report on any reason why it wouldn't be, after all, and have been and are talking about how Red Bull "will" partner Honda without question marks. OZOO (t) (c) 10:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The picture of a group of people sitting around a table looking at documents. It's by no means definitive. It's impossible to make out what the documents say, the only person I can positively identify is Christian Horner and neither Red Bull nor Honda have made a statement about this alleged contract signing. They're the ones who confirmed the existence of the MOU rather than a full contract. You're nowhere near providing an adequate source. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Support - See my Pre-RFC Comments - it in power unit column.

Note: Please be aware past discussions have voted against as at that point it was a Momendum of Understanding. New source is dated after these discussions.

Addition - Past Consensus seems that Power Until for Red Bull is only stated in that column as they don't use provider in name. RhinosF1 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

YouRhinosF1 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait Red Bull have used the TAG Heuer moniker over the past seasons. There is every possibility that they will still use a different branding. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition I am fine with adding Honda to the Power Unit column though, the switch is sufficently sourced by now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment — it's not a question of sourcing, but of what they actually have. None of the sources provided have demonstrated that Red Bull have actually signed a contract. All we can prove with these sources is that they have a memorandum of understanding, or an agreement to sign a contract at some point in future provided that certain conditions are met. In order for a source to be acceptable, it would have to demonstrate that the contract has been signed. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• question - is the source considered reliable? If so, seems pretty cut and dry that they've denoted that they are using the engines, and the only argument against is that Red Bull may have not signed a contract regarding this.

I understand that the burden of proof is with the suggested, but if an RS has been submitted, it's up for debate whether the source is lacking, or can be proved otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment &mdash @Lee Vilenski, which source are you talking about? 1.129.107.136 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • the one in the original question. Or, for that matter, any source that comments on this. If any RS comments on the subject, it should be commented on in the article. Even, if it's conflicting evidence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski — I wouldn't call that a reliable source. I've followed the sport for twenty years and the first time I had heard of that site was when it was postes here a week ago.

None of the reliable sources do anything to demonstrate that Red Bull have signed a contract. The most we can show is that they have a memorandum of understanding. The team might say that they intend to use Honda power, but that does not mean they will. Last year Sauber signed an MOU with Honda, but backed out without penalty. Naming Red Bull's engine supplier as Honda in the table with anything less than proof of a contract suggests a certainty that we do not have. 1.129.104.55 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018

{{subst:trim|1=

And another official element for Red Bull Racing and Honda. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.red-bull-'hugely-impressed'-by-honda-ahead-of-engine-switch.4O7sUNf8ViMus4sqKagQSg.html

 Question: @Sotirissot: Is this a source that goes with the discussion with the Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018 section Request for Comment (RfC)? Looking at the discussion above and your comment it seems to be the case. If this is the case please keep all discussion about this topic in the same section and refrain from using the {{edit semi-protected}} template until the RfC has closed.

I'm gonna go head and close this for now. If this request is unrelated to the RfC above please reopen it and provide more detail. Also please remember to sign posts with ~~~~ at the end. Thank you. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Images

Why are there so many driver images in the article? Seriously, it's a cluttered mess. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, should be reduced. Preference would be to focus on the bigger stories (don't think Giovinazzi <driver with some experience moving to low-ranked team> or Sainz <mid-table team to mid-table team> should be there). OZOO (t) (c) 09:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In the past, we have only really shown the image(s) related to the most significant driver movement(s). I would say the Leclerc-Räikkönen swap fits the bill this year. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

George Russell

Hi, I've recently had to remove George Russell's driver number from the page a few times as it keeps being added. I've added a comment in the source to remind users not to do this but I want to clarify that it hasn't been announced that he will/won't keep his current number from other FIA series. What's everyone's thoughts? RhinosF1 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that driver number confirmations do not generate much news at all but we should keep it TBA until *somebody reliable* says something about it, then change to "confirmed" number. See, this is what I generally hate about Wikipedia: there's too much gray area. Admanny (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not really newsworthy. Aside from the headline "Driver X to use Number Y", what would a story contain? Besides, the FIA need to approve chosen numbers; Alexander Rossi wanted to use #15 but was told that he could not. There does not appear to be any literature on how numbers are chosen among new drivers. We've got Norris, Giovinazzi and Russell (and Albon?); if it was chosen in order of drivers being signed, Norris or Giovinazzi could theoretically pick #63 and Russell would have to take something else. Jules Bianchi was given #17 because he was a rookie when estsblished drivers got first pick and his first three choices—#7, #27 and #77—were all taken by the time his turn came around. Between his helmet and his Facebook post, Russell has made his preference for #63 pretty clear, so Norris/Giovinazzi(/Albon?) would have to be a bit of a jerk to choose it unless they were really, genuinely attached to it. Best to wait for the entry list, which usually comes mid-December. 1.144.105.160 (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with both points, Sorry for the late reply, I'm having a wikibreak so it's best to ping me. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

Because Red Bull Racing have confirmed their 2019 engine supply partnership with Honda, the table listing teams and power units should be updated as follows: 1) Change "Red Bull Racing-TBA" to "Red Bull Racing-Honda", linking "Honda" to the same link as "Honda" in "Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda" 2) In the "Engine Unit" column and in the same row as the above change, change "TBA" to "Honda"

Sources verifying change:

https://redbullracing.redbull.com/article/honda-power-2019

https://www.redbull.com/us-en/red-bull-racing-honda-anouncement

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/44530950 Chronotides (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the ongoing RfC on 9 October's edit request. Keep the discussion here please. RhinosF1 (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request — driver changes

There are a few changes that are needed to be made to the driver changes section. First, the number of images should be reduced. There should be at most two. I would suggest keeping the Leclerc/Räikkönen pair as they are the most relevant.

Secondly, the prose need to be re-written:

"The lead up to the 2019 season has seen a high volume [huh?] of driver changes. [compared to what] Only Mercedes and Haas will feature the same line-up as the previous season. [not true—some teams have not confirmed any drivers] Daniel Ricciardo is scheduled to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team, joining Renault. Ricciardo's agreement with the team is that he is to replace Carlos Sainz Jr., who has been on loan to the French manufacturer from Red Bull's driver development programme. [this implies Red Bull traded Ricciardo awsy] Sainz did not have his deal with Red Bull renewed and will to move to McLaren to replace two-time World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso, who had earlier announced that he would not compete in Formula One in 2019. Alonso's 2018 teammate Stoffel Vandoorne did not have his contract renewed. McLaren's test driver and McLaren Young Driver Programme member [his European F3 title seems far more relevant] Lando Norris was promoted to replace Vandoorne. Ricciardo's drive at Red Bull Racing is scheduled to be taken by Pierre Gasly, who has been competing for Scuderia Toro Rosso since making his first Formula One start at the 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix. After much speculation, [there is ALWAYS speculation; this is nothing new] Ferrari announced the signing of current Sauber driver, Ferrari Driver Academy member and Ferrari test-driver [pick one] Charles Leclerc in September Kimi Räikkönen, who has driven for Ferrari for 8 years over two stints, [is Räikkönen's first stint with Ferrari a decade ago relevant?] will return to Sauber, with whom he had started his career in the 2001 season. Räikkönen will be joined at Sauber by Ferrari test-driver Antonio Giovinazzi, who is set to replace Marcus Ericsson. Giovinazzi previously started two Grands Prix at the beginning of the 2017 season, when he replaced an injured Pascal Wehrlein at Sauber. Daniil Kvyat will rejoin Toro Rosso, after last racing for the team in 2017. Current Formula Two championship leader and Mercedes Young Drivers Programme member [you can't mention Mercedes' YDP without discussing its failure] George Russell will drive for Williams, with negotiations having begun as early as June. [relevance is questionable—Russell was promoted so Mercedes could save face after failing Ocon; this over-states his relationship with the team, especially in light of the criticism he took in Monza*]"

The section should read like this:

"The lead up to the 2019 championship has seen several driver changes. Daniel Ricciardo is scheduled to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team and move to Renault. Ricciardo's agreement with the team will see him replace Carlos Sainz Jr. Red Bull promoted Pierre Gasly from sister team Scuderia Toro Rosso.

"Sainz Jr., who was on loan to Renault in 2018, did not have his contract with Red Bull renewed. He is due to move to McLaren, where he will be partnered by 2017 European Formula 3 champion Lando Norris. Sainz Jr. and Norris will replace Stoffel Vandoorne and two-time World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso; Alonso announced his retirement from Formula 1 while Vandoorne did not have his contract with the team renewed.

"Charles Leclerc will leave Sauber after one year with the team. He will join Ferrari, taking the place of Kimi Räikkönen. Räikkönen returned to Sauber, the team he started his career with in 2001. He will be partnered with Antonio Giovinazzi, who made two starts for the team in 2017 when he replaced the injured Pascal Wehrlein.

"Daniil Kvyat will rejoin Scuderia Toro Rosso. Kvyat last raced for the team in 2017 before being dropped by the team for the 2018 championship.

"Current Formula 2 championship leader George Russell signed a contract to join Williams."

That should fix the issues. 1.129.104.55 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

* — this is a bit of a thorny issue because it wasn't widely reported, which makes it an original research problem; a lot of the British media won't touch it because Russell is British, so I think we need to be careful how we address Russell in future. The short version: Russell complained about a move Artem Markelov made in Monza. Markelov slowed just enough to let Russell past, but kept enough speed to stay in DRS range and got him on the straight. Russell complained that it was a dirty, dangerous move, but it was completely legitimate. He was criticised for his racecraft—lacking the foresight to anticipate a clever move from an experienced racer, and apparently expecting that once passed, another driver would not fight back. Perfectly valid criticisms, but under-reported by the British media. Instead, they ran glowing feature articles like Autosport's "A lap of Suzuka with a future F1 star". I think we really need to be careful in how we handle this because I think the British media are anticipating that Hamilton will retire soon (2022?) and are trying to set Russell up as his heir apparent. 1.129.104.55 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is Racing Point Force India missing? It isn't even mentioned...

As far as I know they'll be around in 2019, they took the place of the original Force India. So why are they missing? Dqeswn (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dqeswn: Apparently, they are not currently under contract for 2019 yet. But looking at that, the table needs a source specifying where this information comes from anyway... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It probably isn't even public which teams are under contract. In case of this list, it is assumed that these teams have signed contract based on the fact that they have announced that they have at least one driver under contract for 2019. This should be noted above the table, unless a source could be found (I looked for it and did not).

Racing Point Force India should be added in the table with a note under the table, that it is not yet confirmed under which name the team will be competing.

Force India had Merc engine deal until 2020 (we are contractually obliged to Mercedes ‘til 2020 and we respect our contract).

Stroll has payed all the debts the team had, including Mercedes.

Wolff confirmed Merc's continued interest in cooperation with the team after the takeover (Mercedes to explore closer ties with Force India). Catdogsnail (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not it should not be included because the current team has not confirmed any specifics about competing in 2019. They even announced shortly after the takeover that Racing Point is a temporary name. And just because the original Force India had a signed contract until 2020 in 2015, it doesn't mean that's still valid. The Nürburgring had a contract to host the German Grand Prix biennially up to an including 2017 at one point. However, the circuit changed owners during 2014 voiding the contract an no new one was ever agreed on.Tvx1 13:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Revitalised Force India re-signs Perez for 2019

2. The following teams and drivers are under contract to take part in the 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship:

Can You give any source for this? Were I can find confirmation by these teams that they have signed a contract to take part in the 2019 season?

Right now this is just a list of teams that have confirmed their interest to participate. As such Racing Point Force India can't be excluded from the list before there is any news that that they will not participate next year.Catdogsnail (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Added as Perez is now confirmed. AdamComer (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@OZOO: - If we left Force India off the entire table simply because we did not know the status of their 2019 entry, then we just as equally do not know what their constructor name, or even team name, will be. "Racing Point Force India" still exists in 2018 as the season is ongoing, and they as a team have signed a contract with Perez, but none of this is any indication of what their 2019 name or constructor will be. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Previously, the status was unknown. Now, however, the status is known. Do you have a source that Force India is not a correct name for the team in the 2019 season? I have several that say it is. Until a reliable source can be found that contradicts the many, many sources calling the 2019 team "Force India", we should not hide this information from the reader behind an unrelated phrase. OZOO (t) (c) 16:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are misreading the source. Perez has signed with Racing Point Force India, because that is the company that currently exists. None of those article discuss the team or constructor name for 2019. This is no different from when Spyker bought MF1, changed the team name to Spyker MF1 for the rest of the season, then changed the entrant and constructor for Spyker for the following season. The team is not going to reveal their potential 2019 name in a driver signing press release. If the problem is with the linking to Racing Point Force India, then remove the link, but the constructor is still "To Be Announced". You equally have zero sources saying that the 2019 constructor name will be Force India, meaning it should be left as TBA. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Force India have confirmed one half of their driver line-up for next year, with news that Sergio Perez is to stay on with the team for 2019
The Mexican has been with Force India since 2014, having made his F1 debut with Sauber in 2011, and will contest his sixth full season with the Silverstone-based squad.
“I’m pleased that Sergio will continue his journey with us in 2019,” said Force India Team Principal Otmar Szafnauer.
“Force India has been my home since 2014 and has allowed me to grow as a driver and show my skills on track.
And that's just one of the many WP:RSs we can use to source the statement that Force India is currently the correct name to refer to the team that Sergio Perez will drive for in the 2019 Formula One World Championship. If the name changes, we can change it, but before that we shouldn't without a source. OZOO (t) (c) 16:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Because the team, as of right now, is still Force India. None of your sources state the constructor name, period. They aren't going to magically use the name of their 2019 entry if they plan to change it just for a driver signing. This does not confirm 2019's constructor or team name. We don't even have a column for team names at the moment because we don't know what anyone is going to use. You are using WP:SYNTH to presume the name of the 2019 constructor. We also have not "changed the name", we are listing it as unknown because the fact that the team has been sold means they can freely change their constructor name when they register an entry for 2019. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Every team could change their name between two seasons – so all teams should be listed as TBA?

Racing Point Force India is delighted to announce that Sergio Perez has agreed an extension to his contract and will race for the team in 2019.

Currently the team calls themselves Racing Point Force India. Media calls them Force India or Racing Point Force India. That is the name under which they are currently operating. They may change their name but maybe they won't? Catdogsnail (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As I asked already above. Where is the list of teams under contract? The list of teams here are just list of teams that have confirmed their interest to take part of the 2019 season. Catdogsnail (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@The359 — Perhaps a footnote is in order? Something stating that Perez signed a contract with Racing Point UK, but that at the time of the announcement, Racing Point had not publicly revealed and details of their plans for the team. 1.144.108.233 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Force India was sold is what specifically makes the constructor name for 2019 questionable compared to other teams. We went through this exact same thing when Racing Point bought the team initially, on whether or not the constructor was Force India or Racing Point. The fact is we don't know what Racing Point's plan is for 2019 other than they have signed Perez and Mercedes engines. Everyone is going to refer to the team as Racing Point Force India because the 2018 season hasn't ended yet, so what else could they possibly call them at this time? Per a reference regarding Spyker's purchase of MF1:

One potential problem is that FIA rules mean that a team cannot change its name mid-season. In September 2006, when Spyker bought the Midland F1 Racing team, it used the Spyker name as a headline sponsor: "Spyker MF1 Racing". This year it was allowed to change the team's name to "Spyker Formula 1" but it may have to retain the Spyker name.

I presume your proposal is to add a footnote to listing "TBA-Mercedes" in the constructor column, which is fine by me, but I think listing the constructor as "Force India-Mercedes" is questionable. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

First You made WP:PIPELINK WP:EASTEREGG there. This has to be replaced with a normal link! (Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on.) You are crystalballing. We are not in the 2019. we try not to tell the future. This is the list of teams expected to participate as of today's knowledge. You are crystalballing that they will change their name. Who can tell, maybe they won't change their name. Right now there is entry under Racing Point Force India name. The article should not predict the future but state things as they are now. Wikipedia must follow the sources. Media did not write TBA have announced Sergio Perez..., You said The fact is we don't know what Racing Point's plan is for 2019 exactly that's why we won't predict the future that they will change their name even if we know it is highly likely. Catdogsnail (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The source provided does not say that Force India will change their name. Saying "Force India have changed ownership therefore they will change their name" is OR. OZOO (t) (c) 09:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, sources about Perez say nothing for or against the naming of Force India for 2019. The press release is a driver signing, not a Formula One World Championship entry. You are using WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting the statements made by the 2018 team. Of course the media sources aren't going to say "TBA signed Perez", because that's dumb. Of course they're not going to say that. The table as of right now also doesn't list entrants, it lists constructor, and there is zero obligation or proof that the team will retain the Force India title for their cars. Post a reliable source that lists the constructor as Force India-Mercedes. If you can't, then it's TBA. If I can't prove they're changing their name, you equally can't prove they're keeping their name. Hence, their name is TO BE ANNOUNCED. How simple can it be? The³5₉ (Talk) 15:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, none of the constructor names are sourced and all should be set as TBA. OZOO (t) (c) 15:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Except we have sources from teams discussing their 2019 cars, with names, as we always have near the end of the season. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Where?

For the umpteenth time, the teams name is not TO BE ANNOUNCED at the moment it is Racing Point Force India. It is WP:SYNTH that You imply that they will change their name in the future and make Your conclusions based on that prediction. What does matter is how the team is called now. Every source right now calls them Force India or Racing Point Force India. Your arguments are clear case of CRYSTALBALL – Wikipedia does not predict the future. They may or may not change their name (as every other team). All Your conclusions are based on your prediction that they will change their name. Cite ' The table as of right now also doesn't list entrants, it lists constructor ' You are splitting the hair. Catdogsnail (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, we are discussing the constructor, not the team name, they are separate things. It is not being implied that they will change the constructor name, it is being implied that we don't know the constructor name. No different than the TBA for drivers or TBA for Red Bull's engine supplier. Even, further on that we didn't even list the Renault power plant for Red Bull prior to 2018 because we didn't know their naming rights for the motor at the time. The odds of Red Bull picking anyone other than Honda are preposterious at this point, but we still err on the side of caution and listen them as TBA because it's not yet confirmed. We don't know the name, therefore it should be listed as TBA. Presuming the constructor name is Force India is just as much WP:CRYSTALBALL as saying the name will change. We don't know if the name is changing or staying, therefore it is undetermined and should be TBA. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll also point out that Racing Point already changed the name of the team they purchased in 2018, as well as their licensed nationality. The only reason they couldn't change the constructor, assuming they wanted to, is that they couldn't because the cars were already built by Force India. So given that the team has already made changes to their entry, it is not beyond reason to presume they are potentially changing their constructor when it is legally allowed, which would be 2019. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And an apple isn't a fruit. Your arguments that constructor and team aren't the same etc are just a red herring. You are still crysrtalballing. It's a speculation that they will change the name. You are predicting the future. It is different than if driver or engine supplier isn't known, because we know that Racing Point Force India will take part of the next season (based on same method as other teams in the list they have contracted drivers). TBA means, that there will be a team next year taking part, but which team it is isn't known. It is known that Racing Point Force India (maybe under some other name) will take part of 2019 season if we take away SYNTH and CRYSTALBALL arguments. Again Red Bull engine branding is another red herring. Your We don't know the name argument is SYNTH. They are called Racing Point Force India at the moment. That they will change their name is to predict the future. You say Presuming the constructor name is Force India is just as much WP:CRYSTALBALL as saying the name will change. same is true to every team. They all could change their name – then You should list them all as TBAs. And Your second post is all WP:SYNTH You predict something based on something that has happened before. Catdogsnail (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The team have already said that they plan to apply for a name change in time for 2019. 1.144.106.27 (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 19 October

Lets try this again—I forgot to put the template in last time. There are a few changes that are needed to be made to the driver changes section. First, the number of images should be reduced. There should be at most two. I would suggest keeping the Leclerc/Räikkönen pair as they are the most relevant.

Secondly, the note in the table explaining Red Bull's engine situation is completely unnecessary. It is already explained in the prose, so the note should be removed.

Finally, the prose need to be re-written:

"The lead up to the 2019 season has seen a high volume [huh?] of driver changes. [compared to what?] Only Mercedes and Haas will feature the same line-up as the previous season. [not true—some teams have not confirmed their final driver line-ups] Daniel Ricciardo is scheduled to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team, joining Renault. Ricciardo's agreement with the team is that he is to replace Carlos Sainz Jr., who has been on loan to the French manufacturer from Red Bull's driver development programme. [this implies Red Bull traded Ricciardo away when he left of his own volition] Sainz did not have his deal with Red Bull renewed and will to move to McLaren to replace two-time World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso, who had earlier announced that he would not compete in Formula One in 2019. Alonso's 2018 teammate Stoffel Vandoorne did not have his contract renewed. McLaren's test driver and McLaren Young Driver Programme member [his European F3 title seems far more relevant] Lando Norris was promoted to replace Vandoorne. Ricciardo's drive at Red Bull Racing is scheduled to be taken by Pierre Gasly, who has been competing for Scuderia Toro Rosso since making his first Formula One start at the 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix. After much speculation, [there is ALWAYS speculation; this is nothing new] Ferrari announced the signing of current Sauber driver, Ferrari Driver Academy member and Ferrari test-driver [pick one] Charles Leclerc in September Kimi Räikkönen, who has driven for Ferrari for 8 years over two stints, [is Räikkönen's first stint with Ferrari a decade ago relevant?] will return to Sauber, with whom he had started his career in the 2001 season. Räikkönen will be joined at Sauber by Ferrari test-driver Antonio Giovinazzi, who is set to replace Marcus Ericsson. Giovinazzi previously started two Grands Prix at the beginning of the 2017 season, when he replaced an injured Pascal Wehrlein at Sauber. Daniil Kvyat will rejoin Toro Rosso, after last racing for the team in 2017. Current Formula Two championship leader and Mercedes Young Drivers Programme member [you can't mention Mercedes' YDP without discussing its failure] George Russell will drive for Williams, with negotiations having begun as early as June. [relevance is questionable—Russell was promoted so Mercedes could save face after failing Ocon; this over-states his relationship with the team, especially in light of the criticism he took in Monza]"

The section should read like this:

"The lead up to the 2019 championship has seen several driver changes. Daniel Ricciardo is scheduled to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team and move to Renault. Ricciardo's agreement with the team will see him replace Carlos Sainz Jr. Red Bull promoted Pierre Gasly from sister team Scuderia Toro Rosso.

"Sainz Jr., who was on loan to Renault in 2018, did not have his contract with Red Bull renewed. He is due to move to McLaren, where he will be partnered by 2017 European Formula 3 champion Lando Norris. Sainz Jr. and Norris will replace Stoffel Vandoorne and two-time World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso; Alonso announced his retirement from Formula 1 while Vandoorne did not have his contract with the team renewed.

"Charles Leclerc will leave Sauber after one year with the team. He will join Ferrari, taking the place of Kimi Räikkönen. Räikkönen returned to Sauber, the team he started his career with in 2001. He will be partnered with Antonio Giovinazzi, who made two starts for the team in 2017 when he replaced the injured Pascal Wehrlein.

"Daniil Kvyat will rejoin Scuderia Toro Rosso. Kvyat last raced for the team in 2017 before being dropped by the team for the 2018 championship.

"Current Formula 2 championship leader George Russell signed a contract to join Williams."

That should fix the issues. 1.144.108.87 (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. First of all apologies for the extend time it took to action this. I have changed to reflect the requested text as much as possible. I also agree that there were excessive images but I feel more discussion is needed to find out what should be retained and how.Tvx1 16:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1, @MetalDylan — the article currently says "Lewis Hamilton is scheduled to defend his World Drivers' Champion title", but that's a bit awkward. Hamilton is champion whatever happens—whether he retires, breaks his leg an misses half the championship, or history itself ends. A better way of putting it would be "Lewis Hamilton will be the reigning World Drivers' Champion". If someone is defending their title, they are actively trying to win it again; if they are the reigning champion, they hold the title whatever they do with it (like Massa being the reigning winner of the French Grand Prix). 1.129.110.36 (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.110.36 Not sure why you've decided to bring this up in an unrelated talk section, but ok..

This is pretty much the wording that is used every year. The fact that Hamilton is contracted to drive in 2019 and is the 2018 champion means he is defending it. There are cases where the champion would defend it, such as Rosberg in 2017. This kind of seems like a moot point. MetalDylan (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It means that he is expected to defend if he starts the 2019 championship. Don't forget that Rosberg made a quite abrupt and unexpected announcement that he would retire. That is a clear example of a reigning champion not defending his title. Hamilton is not defending his 2018 title yet. If remember well PM made the exact same complaint last year. That being said I'm not opposed to using "the reigning world champion". He is both the 2017 and 2018 champion, so he is the reigning champion either way.Tvx1 16:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@MetalDylan, @Tvx1 — my issue is (as usual) that in the interests of not talking about things as if they are certain, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. "Reigning World Champion" leaves open the possibility that, for whatever reason, Hamilton will not return. But "scheduled to be the reigning World Champion" injects too much uncertainty as both "scheduled" and "reigning" are used the same way. "Reigning World Champion" can be read as "Hamilton won the championship, but there is uncertainty as to whether he will race", but "scheduled to be the reigning World Champion" can be read as "there is uncertainty as to how certain Hamilton is that he will race", and I don't think that's what we're trying to say at all. 1.129.105.246 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I really believe you are overthinking this.Tvx1 23:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — not at all. One of the idiosyncracies of the English language is that it's cobbled together from half a dozen different languages and compared to other languages, it has very inconsistent rules related to grammar and syntax. Hamilton is the reigning champion whatever happens—it's not something that begins at some pre-determined point in the future. 1.144.111.202 (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of images

As per @Tvx1's comment above, a wider discussion on the use of images in the article is called for.

The article currently has seven images in the "entries" section, which illustrate every driver move. I think that's excessive. Where is the need for so many images? In the past, we have only used the one or two most relevant pictures. 1.129.111.165 (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Driver changes table

I was recently flicking through previous F1 season wikipages and thought about the driver changes table that is on the F1 2001 page. I think this could be a neat and well organized way of presenting the silliness of the 2019 season in terms of seat swapping. I have made a draft in my sandbox which I think looks good. I'm sure the majority of you will disagree but thought id get some feedback in case people like it.

The lead up to the 2019 championship has seen several driver changes, as follow in the table:

Driver	2018		2019
	Team	Position	Team	Position
Daniel Ricciardo	Red Bull	Full-time driver	Renault	Full-time driver
Carlos Sainz Jr	Renault	Full-time driver	McLaren	Full-time driver
Kimi Raikonnen	Ferrari	Full-time driver	Sauber	Full-time driver
Charles Leclerc	Sauber	Full-time driver	Ferrari	Full-time driver
Pierre Gasly	Toro Rosso	Full-time driver	Red Bull	Full-time driver
Lando Norris	McLaren	Test/reserve driver	McLaren	Full-time driver
George Russell	Mercedes	Test/reserve driver	Williams	Full-time driver
Antonio Giovinazzi	Ferrari	Test/reserve driver	Sauber	Full-time driver
Daniil Kvyat	Ferrari	Test/reserve driver	Toro Rosso	Full-time driver
Marcus Ericsson	Sauber	Full-time driver	Sauber	Reserve/Test driver
Fernando Alonso	McLaren	Full-time driver	N/A	Retired
Stoffel Vandoorne	McLaren	Full-time driver	N/A	Released

Happy to discuss, but I think it shows what has happened in a nice round about way without the need for loads of photos as had previously been attempted. MetalDylan (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. The prose of the article is a far more appropriate way of presenting the content. 1.129.105.107 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent Idea, looks a lot cleaner and easier to read. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC) (ping me when replying)

Seems like this one might split opinions... MetalDylan (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose since list serves it better. Not everything has to be in tables. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agree, it looks neat. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia standards are to use prose over tables. Table for it is not needed, as we have a list of the 2019 drivers anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Some important (or detail) imformation will be lost. --Unnamelessness (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Prose is far better than tables, we have enough tables in the article so as it is. The photos are also not a proper substitute for prose, and should be used to illustrate, not just to list faces. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Prose works better for this kind of information. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino @Joseph2302 @Unnamelessness @The359 @Corvus tristis Apologies, I probably wasn't clear, this would be in addition to prose, as in F1 2001, although I appreciate this probably doesn't change your opinions. MetalDylan (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I will be glad if the table will be dropped as well from 2001 article and any other possible articles. It adds nothing to the article. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Corvus tristis, this table adds nothing to the 2001 article and won't add anything to the 2019 one. Also all the team names on the proposed version don't match the constructor names earlier in the article, which will just create confusion instead of helping. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If the team names correlated would you then agree that the benefits of the table adds to, rather than detracts from, the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Which benefits? That it takes up space? That it doesn't convey anything not already in the prose.Tvx1 13:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion - you'll see the benefits are mentioned there? Increased use of space is not a benefit per-se, but if the space is occupied by something which gives benefit, as I believe this table does, then it is a worthwhile addition. For me, it gives quick answers by being an easily scannable summary, as opposed to trying to digest the dense prose. If more detail and context is required then one can take the time to try and follow the prose. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I rather think you are the one who has not been following the discussion. No-one but you sees any benefits here.Tvx1 21:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You definitely need to read it again. As I read it, there are four contributors who are complimentary towards the idea (including the proposer), and seven (including yourself) who apparently misunderstood the proposal (incorrectly assuming the idea was to replace the prose with the table). After their mistake was pointed out, two confirmed their opposition regardless, reasoning unconvincingly that it will add nothing (when it clearly adds clarity). So four broadly in favour, two against it in principle and five who have opposed something that hadn't been proposed. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not suitable to replace prose as that would remove the ability tp provide context and it's not practical as addition to the prose since that would just be excessive.Tvx1 18:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support as it compliments the prose perfectly - the prose for the context and finer detail with the table as a useful (especially when sortable as below) summary. It is good application for a table.

Driver	2018		2019
	Team	Position	Team	Position
Daniel Ricciardo	Red Bull	Full-time driver	Renault	Full-time driver
Carlos Sainz Jr	Renault	Full-time driver	McLaren	Full-time driver
Kimi Raikonnen	Ferrari	Full-time driver	Sauber	Full-time driver
Charles Leclerc	Sauber	Full-time driver	Ferrari	Full-time driver
Pierre Gasly	Toro Rosso	Full-time driver	Red Bull	Full-time driver
Lando Norris	McLaren	Test/reserve driver	McLaren	Full-time driver
George Russell	Mercedes	Test/reserve driver	Williams	Full-time driver
Antonio Giovinazzi	Ferrari	Test/reserve driver	Sauber	Full-time driver
Daniil Kvyat	Ferrari	Test/reserve driver	Toro Rosso	Full-time driver
Marcus Ericsson	Sauber	Full-time driver	Sauber	Reserve/Test driver
Fernando Alonso	McLaren	Full-time driver	N/A	Retired
Stoffel Vandoorne	McLaren	Full-time driver	N/A	Released

-- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's completely useless. There is simply no need for another table; we should be finding ways of removing tables, not adding them. More to the point, it's full of misrepresentstions. For example, it states that Lando Norris and Daniil Kvyat were both test drivers. While that was their official title, they had very different roles. For instance, Norris drove in FP1 sessions, but Kvyat only ever did simulator work for Ferrari. Referring to both of them as "test/reserve drivers" is misleading. Then you've got George Russell, who was a Mercedes test driver, but did something else entirely; he drove in test sessions outside Grand Prix weekends.

But that's all moot. Some of these drivers have done things in 2018 that are arguably more important or notable than being test and reserve drivers. Russell is currently leading the Formula 2 standings; if he wins, that's a major title and definitely more significant than a reserve role. All you've done is dumb the article down. 1.129.107.9 (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That some of the drivers in the table have done other things too is not an argument for not including the table. And that I support the proposal to include this useful table in the article in no way implies that all I've "done is dumb the article down", as I haven't changed the article in any way - for better or for worse - by supporting what I think is an excellent proposal. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You haven't actually refuted any of my points. All you have done is say "no, I don't need to address that". 1.129.105.202 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't addressed your points because I do not think they are not relevant to the inclusion of this table - errors in the current sample can be corrected. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I took the time to outline my concerns. The least you can do is take the time to address them instead of dismissing them as "not relevant". All your table does is duplicate article content and over-simplify it. It doesn't add anything of value to the article, which makes your proposal "not relevant". 1.129.105.238 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not my table, I'm merely supporting the proposer's initiative. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: A table does not explain the reasons. A sacking is vastly different from a driver choosing to leave. Plus it gives attention to people who will take no part in the championship.

There are too many tables as it is and Wikipedia's preference is to use prose. Tables are primarily for complex data of which this is not. --Falcadore (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, the table isn't to replace the prose, it is to complement it. The table gives an easily digested overview of this data that lends itself to being presented in rows and columns (see MOS:TABLE), so adds value. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So it is taking data from an existing table and comparing it with events not covered by this article? --Falcadore (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, eh? No, it is summarising the prose in the 'Driver changes' section of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So it is not data from the drivers table further up the page and comparing it to the 2018 season? It can quite easily be both but despite your denial my previous statement is still correct. --Falcadore (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, read the prose and you'll see the table mirrors it (and in a more easily digestable way) almost exactly, and we've been clear that is complements rather than replaces prose. Given that further clarification, do you still oppose? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So it duplicates information already presented? --Falcadore (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly, it summarises the salient points in an easily read form. The prose above it in the same section gives the detail and context and explains the subtleties. Do you still oppose? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

And we do not need to spoon feed people information simply because we can. Any user can just as easily read the information in prose. The chart is redundant. We're an encyclopedia, not a picture book.

There seems to be an overwhelming amount of people opposed to this. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The359, this time yesterday I think there were four in favour of and two against the actual proposal, all the others were against something that hadn't been proposed. I haven't examined how that has changed today, have you? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not correct. Lots of people are opposed to it, but you seem to be ignoring people's opinions because they voted before you explicitly said the table was in addition to the text. And I have made it clear that I oppose, yet you seem to be ignoring this. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Joseph2302, it was the proposer, not me, who clarified it was in addition. I didn't ignore you, I counted you amongst those who I thought had opposed what was proposed. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"it summarises the salient points in an easily read form"

But as I pointed out (and which you felt you did not need to address), there are multiple definitions of the same role. Kvyat, Russell and Norris are all listed as "test/reserve driver", but Kvyat only did simulator work, Russell drove in the mid-season tests, and Norris drove in FP1. Calling them all "test/reserve driver" implies they had the same role when they clearly did not.

As for it being "an easily read form", why are people going to bother to read the prose when they can just read your table? As I just demonstrated, the table is misleading. If someone only reads your table, they will come to the wrong conclusion, hence the dumbing-down of the article. If this was the Simple English Wikipedia, your proposal might have some relevance. 1.129.105.238 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You are overlooking the fact that this is a proposal with an example, not a dictat requiring this table exactly. It can be modified, clarified and honed to cover your points. You could, perhaps, try to offer constructive compromises to move the discussion forward? The prose will always be the "master", and be available to those who want to know the "whys" and "wheres" as well as the "whats" and "whens". -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a vote, and your count is poorly thought out. You seem to be confusing people's opposition for misunderstanding. Everyone knows we are not getting rid of prose. They are simply saying that prose trumps charts. And we already have the prose, making the chart redundant. People oppose this, that's just a fact. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The359, it's clearly not a vote, it's a discussion trying to establish a consensus. The difference is that for consensus purposes, weight is given per quality of argument wrt Wiki policies and guidelines. If there is no meaningful argument given, or one which is against something that clearly isn't being proposed is given, then obviously little weight should be given to that argument. Some reasons explicitly assumed the prose was being replaced. As I read it now, there are 3 or 4 with a principled argument against its inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"The difference is that for consensus purposes, weight is given per quality of argument wrt Wiki policies and guidelines."

And that becomes a problem when one person is trying to give weight to the quality of arguments from the opposing point of view. It's too easy to misrepresent things to make the opposing argument seem weak by comparison.

"You could, perhaps, try to offer constructive compromises to move the discussion forward?"

You want constructive? Try this: forget the proposal. It adds nothing of value to the article, encourages readers to skim rather than read the article, and in the format you have provided, misrepresents things. When you ask me to provide a compromise, that presumes the table will wind up in the article in some format and that it's just a question of what that format will be. The problem is that it's pretty clear from the discussion that people are opposed to its inclusion in any form. The fact that you apparently cannot accept the idea that some people can be completely opposed to your proposal just demonstrates my point about you misrepresenting the "weight" of arguments. 1.129.105.217 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please concentrate on what's being said - it is not my proposal and I did not provide the proposed format. Hence your argument predicated on that is again moot. I do however, support the proposal as I think it adds clarity and complements the prose in a way that makes good use of a table. The weight of should be arguments be based on their quality wrt Wiki policy and guidelines and not solely on how many "oppose" votes there are, regardless of their quality (see WP:CONLEVEL). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"The weight of should be arguments be based on their quality wrt Wiki policy and guidelines and not solely on how many "oppose" votes there are, regardless of their quality"

And all of the "oppose" arguments are of very high quality. 1.129.105.65 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(taking up from where I left of) Don't give me any guff about a table being easier to read. It IS duplicating existing information. If the prose is not easy to read on its own it needs to be re-written, NOT supplemented with a table!

With wikipedia you present information once and you do it right. You don't turn it into a table and pepper it with flags to make it look pretty. --Falcadore (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

With the table you can instantly see which teams have driver changes and what the movement of the driver was. OTOH, the prose would require a bit of effort to extract that info from, even if it was well written. The "guff" is well-founded I think, Wikipedia should provide clear access to quality information, and that may well mean summarising the essential elements of it in an easy-to-digest form for added convenience. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"that may well mean summarising the essential elements of it in an easy-to-digest form for added convenience"

Where is the demand for that? Please, show us all a diff where someone is complaining that the prose is too difficult to read, thus demonstrating the need for change. 1.129.105.65 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If tables are so good, why are you using prose in this debate?

A line has to be drawn somewhere with regards to the laziness of a reader.

And thirdly, the article is the 2019 Formula One championship. With the title of the subject in mind, what everyone was doing last year is not important enough to be written twice. Why is it so important to have a table of what drivers were doing last year? We don't have any tables listing what drivers are doing in the following year, why have them for the preceeding year? --Falcadore (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All good points Falcadore (except the first one maybe, but it made me laugh!), I'll save my energy for something a little more worthwhile. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"I'll save my energy for something a little more worthwhile."

What could be more worthwhile than refuting the argument put to you? So far all you have done is alternate between claiming arguments lack substance or avoided addressing them. Why should this circus be allowed to go on for any longer? 1.144.106.201 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that when a discussion reaches the point where entrenchment precludes acceptance of logical reasoning (on either side, of course) it is time to weigh up the costs versus the potential benefits of continuing. I think that point has been passed here (as is quite often the case, it seems, in these F1 related discussions) and I've decided the costs of continuing outweigh any potential benefits here. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Can't you just say "at this point, I'm not going to get a consensus" and concede defeat? 1.144.106.10 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the notion of victory or defeat in a discussion about content is misguided, the point is to achieve consensus (not to win a battle of 'consensus' versus 'no consensus'). It's not my argument to concede anyway, I'm just one of the supporters of someone else's proposal. I've tried to persuade those who oppose the addition of it's worth - and concede that I have apparently failed. Whoever closes this discussion will have to decide if the "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" is sufficient to declare a consensus, one way or the other, or whether the process has failed and a "no consensus" verdict is appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You just can't admit that you're wrong, can you? You made a suggestion, it was rejected and now you're coming up with this convoluted explanation as to how you weren't really wrong all along. All you have successfully done is waste a week of everyone's time. 1.144.106.223 (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What exactly do you think I was wrong about? Bear in mind that it was not my suggestion, all I did was add my name as another supporter of the idea and tried (with no apparent success as I said) to convince others to support it too. I thought that's how consensus building is supposed to work. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In an ideal world. But one can also exaggerate and then you arrive in the territory of WP:BLUDGEON.Tvx1 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As frequent contributors know, I am in favour of consistency between articles of the same type, meaning that I think that all season articles should follow the same "formula" so to speak. Which means that a driver changes table would - in case it is added here - need to be added to all season articles. And that would be a huge pain in the ass for all seasons up until the late 80s, when mid-season driver changes were A LOT more common than they are today. This would completely clutter up the articles... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:CON, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." So which Wikipedia policy would you be relying on to support that argument? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think you're going to achieve a consensus by denying that everyone opposed to you has made a quality argument?

It's time to acknowledge that you're not going to get a consensus here. You've been trying for days and you haven't persuaded anyone to change their minds. 1.144.106.201 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:USEPROSE. --Falcadore (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You have to be completely and totally clueless to not realize the inherent advantages of a table over prose; namely, the ability to summarize information in a way that is quickly and easily digested. This isn't debatable, frankly, it's an objectively true fact. It's the reason anyone anywhere uses tables. Stop blindly quoting wiki policy and use your brains. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)