Talk:2017 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Massa's return

@Ctrlaltdelete11 — please read the sources that you add to the article. We can ONLY add Massa back into the article IF the article confirms it. This means that either Massa OR the team MUST be quoted directly as saying that he will return. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, do we really need to mention that Massa retired, but then didn't retire? It amounts to "this was going to happen, but then something different happened instead". Assuming for the moment that Bottas is indeed off to Mercedes and Massa is staying with Williams, what really changes? The article simply needs to say that Stroll replaced Bottas, not Massa. Details of Massa's retirement and return would be better included in his individual article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that Massa unretires (which is likely but not certain yet, I believe), then no. Right now, Massa is retired and Bottas is at Williams until we know anything official that confirms otherwise. So it is relevant to mention his retirement for now. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 — of course; I'm not disputing that. I'm just thinking ahead to what might be a suitable way of expressing it in the article if/when it happens. I can't remember the last time a driver retired and then returned without missing a single race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If/when Massa returns, I agree it makes sense to just say Stroll replaced Bottas. Although I'm hoping some source will say that. Because Stroll replaced Massa, and then Massa replaced Bottas seems like too much info for the casual reader. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to say at all because it doesn't reflect what happened. Stroll replaced Massa, the fact that Massa then may end up replacing Bottas is a separate development and both are noteworthy.86.11.54.30 (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that we necessarily need a source to say that. In the grand scheme of thing, Stroll fills the vacant Williams seat. It doesn't really matter which seat was vacant and when. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It would make sense to mention that Massa announced his intention to retire, but ultimately didn't go through with it. If he doesn't, that is.Tvx1 12:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

On his page, sure. But I don't see why it's necessary here. Like I said, it amounts to "this was going to happen, but then it didn't". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Also going to ping @Wikipediaeditperson here so they're aware of the standards that the community requires—in order to be considered an acceptable edit, a source MUST contain a direct quote from either party (in this case, Massa or Williams), and the speaker must be named (so "sources within the team" don't count). This is in addition to the usual rules about WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. It doesn't matter what the publication is; it must meet these conditions. Especially given the recent trend of clickbait article titles designed to make it look like the publication has an exclusive story when it doesn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add that what could happen is not good enough. We're interested in fact, not speculation Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This reliable source states that Bottas' move isn't certain at all as well as quoting Massa's manager that there is no deal between the Brazilian and Williams.Tvx1 21:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — it's the trend of clickbait titles at work. Publications like Autosport run headlines suggesting that something has been confirmed to get people reading the articles — at which point it becomes apparent that there is no content worth reading, just rumour and supposition masquerading as fact. It's doubly disappointing that otherwise respectable publications like Autosport and the BBC are doing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Just with regard to what is put if Massa does return, I agree with those saying that mentioning his plans to retire is relevant, as it all plays into the reason behind the driver changes and reflects what (if it happens) actually happened. We do not need to make a big deal, summarising it in a short sentence will do nicely. Don't forget Wikipedia is largely supposed to reflect the noteworthy information people would want to find out, when reading about an event, place, etc. I'm sure this is noteworthy enough to have a mention – after all, it is sort of a big deal. Sr88, talk. 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But think about it in the context of the season as a whole—this is, after all, the season article. The events that it describes are the events that affect the entire season. Massa retiring and returning might be relevant now, but how does it impact the season as a whole? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You said earlier that, would Massa return, "The article simply needs to say that Stroll replaced Bottas, not Massa." My dude, this is straight up a lie, and completely misrepresents the reality of the situation. IF Massa does, in fact, return, we will explain that he chose to retire and then reversed his decision after Bottas moved to Mercedes. Why? Because that's what happened. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

With the speculation now confirmed by the teams in question the dot point on Williams' driver line-up has now been updated to full reflect the facts.Tvx1 17:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And it's a complete waste of space. You spend a lot of time detailing the intricacies of the move, only to reveal that nothing actually changes on Massa's end because of your fixation with documenting everything. Just because something happened, that doesn't automatically make it notable enough for inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me just remind you that this is the season article. It details events that affect the season as a whole. Massa's retirement satisfies this, as it represents a change from 2016. Massa's return satisfies this, as it also represents a change. But considering that he retired and then returned, staying with the same team and without missing so much as a single test session (much less a race), there is no effect on the season as a whole. I agree that details of his retirement and un-retirement are important, but I don't think that the season article is the place to detail them—Felipe Massa is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please be bit more respectful of your colleagues. I have no fixation. Moreover, this discussion features 4 contributors who thinks Massa's retirement should be mentioned, not only me. It's well documented that you think "things that were scheduled to happen but ultimately didn't" should not be mentioned at all on Wikipedia. However this has been discussed in a project-wide discussion a while ago and consensus was against you. Moreover that discussion pointed out that it is actually what is relevant to a season (and not exclusively what has a physical effect on it) which we mention on the season article in question. Massa's retirement plan is relevant. You incorrectly claim it is not notable. It most certainly was noteworthy proven by the substantial coverage it received in the reliable sources. Removing it creates more problems than it solves. This is made obvious in your proposed edit. Without the part on Massa's retiring, you got in difficulties to explain the reason for Stroll's signing. Ultimately you decided to go with stating that Stroll filled the vacancy left after Bottas' departure. That, however, is an untruth. It's factually inaccurate because Stroll had already joined Williams well before Bottas' departure. And that's where Massa's retirement becomes relevant. It's Massa having planned to retire that triggered Stroll being signed. That's how it even has an effect on the season. Bottas later left for Mercedes and was replaced by Massa, not Stroll.

Now altogether we have three sentence on the storyline of Williams' 2017 driver line-up. There's absolutely no detail on the circumstances behind Massa's retirement and return. There's just a mention that Massa planned to retire, triggering the arrival of Stroll, followed by a mention of Bottas leaving triggering Massa's return. All the detail behind it is still in the relevant drivers' articles.

Overall I think you're simply being overconcerned. You make it look like we have half of the season article dedicated to Massa, when only have a short summary on the Williams driver line-up formation. If we ever want this article to be promoted to a GA or even a FA, having a storyline on the changes for the 2017 drivers' line-up is a serious positive and giving the discussed content its due mention is very helpful in that respect.Tvx1 23:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I just think that it over-emphasises the situation when in the grand scheme of things, nothing changes. Massa stays with the team, and doesn't miss a round. How does his decision to retire have any bearing on the 2017 season? After all, coverage (much of which was speculation) doesn't automatically guarantee notability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As said in my previous post. His decision is the reason for Stroll being on the 2017 grid.Tvx1 01:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't prove that. For all you know, Williams would have taken Stroll to replace Bottas once Bottas joined Mercedes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, it's a logical fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc—that "X preceded Y; therefore, X caused Y". Besides, I have seen several sources (admittedly unusable in an article) that claim Massa's retirement was the result of Stroll's hiring, and not the other way around as you claim. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly not a logical fallacy since there is no assumption whatsoever, no matter what fancy language you throw at it. It's a factual statement based on what the reliable sources told us. Massa announced his retirement plans the first of September, Stroll was still looking for a seat and very certain to find one (considering two options) in mid-October and was signed by Williams who needed a replacement for Massa in early November. The facts are there. Massa announced his retirement plans and Stroll was signed afterwards as his 2017 replacement. That's why it's relevant to mention it. What would have happened if Massa hadn't and if Bottas had instead etc... are speculations we don't need to make. The real-life fact is that Stroll was hired as a direct result of Massa's retirement plans. A fact we can back with reliable sources.Tvx1 02:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a big difference between this:

"Massa announced his retirement plans and Stroll was signed afterwards as his 2017 replacement."

And this:

"His decision is the reason for Stroll being on the 2017 grid."

The latter in particular reads like your assumption that Stroll is only on the grid because Massa retired. You can't present it that way because it's untrue and because Stroll is on the grid regardless.

"If we ever want this article to be promoted to a GA or even a FA, having a storyline on the changes for the 2017 drivers' line-up is a serious positive and giving the discussed content its due mention is very helpful in that respect."

This just reads like you're so fixated on a GA or FA status that you're just throwing everything vaguely related to the season onto the page and justifying it as "someone printed it, so it's notable".

So I will ask you again, since you haven't bothered to answer: what effect does Massa's retirement and un-retirement have on the 2017 season? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I did answer that before. His retirement prompted Williams to search a replacement and consequently sign Stroll. The effect of his unretirement is obvious: Massa is scheduled to drive again. And please assumed some good faith, will you. My priority is quality and not quantity of the content. I really don't know why you're even going all personal on such a minor issue.Tvx1 04:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"His retirement prompted Williams to search a replacement and consequently sign Stroll."

And as I have pointed out, the consensus within the paddock is that Massa retired because the team intended to hire Stroll.

"My priority is quality and not quantity of the content."

Then focus on the quality—Massa's retirement and un-retirement does not have any bearing on the 2017 season except to establish the narrative behind a seat—and we only do that because the alternative is a series of individual dot points that bounce back and forward between drivers and seats, which is confusing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And as I have pointed out, the consensus within the paddock is that Massa retired because the team intended to hire Stroll.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 05:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't go with what some paddock people think. Most certainly if such claim is not supported by any reliable source. You have pointed that exact thing out during the Sirotkin debate. The information we have from the reliable sources clearly disagree with that stance. Massa announced his plans first and then they started searching a replacement.

Then focus on the quality—Massa's retirement and un-retirement does not have any bearing on the 2017 season except to establish the narrative behind a seat—and we only do that because the alternative is a series of individual dot points that bounce back and forward between drivers and seats, which is confusing.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 05:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out multiple times, it does have a bearing. It triggered the signing of one of the scheduled competitors for the upcoming season. But it doesn't even matter. As pointed out unanimously in the linked wikiproject discussion, relevancy is the key thing and not physical bearing/effect. And these events have more than enough relevancy/noteworthiness to justify inclusion.

Now you appear to think that the inclusion of this information is low-quality, but unfortunately there appears to be little agreement with your stance. Especially since your proposed alternative involves telling untruths. So please stop make such a drama about three short sentences which only provide a short summary of the events.Tvx1 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not treating it as low-quality. I'm treating it as having only a passing relevance to the article that has since been conflated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's exactly the attention we give. It's a short three-sentence summary.Tvx1 18:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

With all absolute due respect to yourself, Prisonermonkeys, I think you're getting overly worried about this matter. This is what happened, and the article has two sentences to reflect that – two. It doesn't dedicate an entire sub-heading to it or anything. Now I'm just glancing over the article, and I can find plenty of sentences that have no direct impact on the season:

"mirroring the arrangement between Ferrari and Scuderia Toro Rosso in 2016"

"The team had previously used Renault power units in 2014 and 2015 before the relationship between Renault and sister team Red Bull Racing broke down, prompting Toro Rosso to seek out an alternative supplier"

"The date of the Baku race was changed to avoid conflicting with the 24 Hours of Le Mans, which had been a source of controversy at the 2016 European Grand Prix"

"The Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari—more commonly known as the Imola circuit—signed an agreement with Bernie Ecclestone to host a Grand Prix from 2017; however, the agreement had to be ratified by the Italian motorsport federation in order for the event to take place, and it was omitted from the calendar. The Imola circuit previously hosted the Italian Grand Prix in 1980 and the San Marino Grand Prix from 1981 to 2006".

Every single example, you could justify having no direct effect on the outcome of the season, so why are they still there? Because they are relevant and notable to some degree – a degree in which some people reading the article would be interested to see that.

"For all you know, Williams would have taken Stroll to replace Bottas once Bottas joined Mercedes". But that's not what happened. Therefore that assumption is exactly that – an assumption. That's probably worse than original research.

"So I will ask you again: what effect does Massa's retirement and un-retirement have on the 2017 season?" The answer is simple – the effect is that Massa is now back on the grid for this year. If this hadn't have happened, Massa would have stayed retired.

"You're just throwing everything vaguely related to the season onto the page and justifying it as "someone printed it, so it's notable". Given that, as was mentioned before, it's been covered in great length by basically all of our sources, it's not like that, in the slightest.

I understand your reasoning for the most part, but I disagree and I cannot see why you look at it like that so strongly. You might disagree with it, but really, it's two sentences that are not worth worrying about. Sr88, talk. 18:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Every single example, you could justify having no direct effect on the outcome of the season, so why are they still there?"

They provide context. Take, for example, the statement about Baku—you don't think that the decision to change the date and the reasons for it is significant?

You can't make the argument that Massa's un-retirement offers context. He doesn't change teams or miss rounds; there is no break in the continuity within the team. And the idea that Massa's retirement triggered the team's hiring of Stroll is completely unprovable since the team retained him despite re-hiring Massa. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The mentioning of Massa provides context as well. Context to the signing of Stroll.

And the idea that Massa's retirement triggered the team's hiring of Stroll is completely unprovable since the team retained him despite re-hiring Massa.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 21:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It most certainly is provable. In fact I have proven it in a previous reply in which I explained the timeline backed with reliable sources. Massa announced his retirement and Stroll was subsequently hired as his replacement. All facts which actually happened and are substantiated by reliable sources. Like I said before and Sr88, talk said as well, you're being overconcerned.Tvx1 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've streamlined it into one dot point, moving the emphasis to what happened rather than when. I have retained the note about Massa retiring, but downplayed its importance (it might have been two sentences, but it was dominating two dot points - seriously, Rosberg's actual retirement is of far more significance, but was being overshadowed). I'm marginally more happy with it, but still by no means endorsing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It made it more confusing and I reintroduced a crystal ball statement, which we have already explained you some time ago we are not allowed to do. I really don't see what's wrong with the current version. Domination of dot points is just your personal perception. I don't think it does at all. And we most certainly don't need your personal endorsement.Tvx1 00:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"And we most certainly don't need your personal endorsement."

As you have so often pointed out in the past, consensus is not a vote. The point is to satisfy as many users as possible. I myself have expressed concerns that too much emphasis has been put on Massa's retirement and un-retirement, but in editing the page, have shown a willingness to compromise. Partisanship gets us nowhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that this is a perfectly reasonable statement to make:

"Reigning champion and Mercedes driver Nico Rosberg retired from the sport at the end of the 2016 season. Valtteri Bottas was released by Williams to sign as his replacement. Felipe Massa, who originally intended to retire at the end of the 2016 season, was subsequently retained by Williams. 2016 European Formula 3 Championship winner Lance Stroll will make his Formula One début with the team, completing Williams' line-up."

It condenses two dot points into one, but still retains all of the important notes. If you have concerns about CRYSTAL, that can be fixed through further revisions—but outright restoring an old version of the article is pretty childish. Especially since "will make his Formula One début" can be changed to "is scheduled to make his Formula One début" in a matter of seconds.

Also, you start making a point about context, but the edit summary cuts it off. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have given the merging another try, this time (trying to) avoiding confusion and crystalball statements while at the same time retaining the context on Stroll and his hirement.Tvx1 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit because I think it's worth mentioning that Stroll is a rookie, and one of the sentences was over-long and actually quite complex. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I've also tweaked it to use some wording from your above proposal, further simplifying part of it.Tvx1 00:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — not sure I like the use of "returned to". It implies that Massa went somewhere, but he didn't really go anywhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure he did. He had retired after all. Did you not notice his retirement party in Abu Dhabi? On the other hand, the wording "they retained hem" implies that his spot was never vacant (when it had in reality even been given to Stroll) and that the decision came solely from the team.Tvx1 01:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the timeline, Bottas' name came up as a potential replacement for Rosberg almost as soon as Rosberg announced his retirement; Massa's name as a replacement for Bottas came up almost as soon as Bottas was named as a potential replacement for Rosberg.

The point is that there was no break in continuity within the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. We live in a universe where, objectively, Massa retired and then reneged on his decision. There's no debate here. I don't even understand why we are bothering with this conversation. It is one of the truly rare situations where there literally cannot be disagreement. You are provably wrong. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Manor

@Tvx1: - Manor have ceased trading, the administrators have shut them down, per the source I provided. So why have you reverted my edits? Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The BBC say The Manor team have collapsed after administrators failed to find a buyer for the stricken business. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I partially reverted because of what your source states. It states the entry is still valid until the third race of the season. Think of what happened two years ago. The company which operated the racing team in 2014 collapsed, but Stephen Fitzpatrick bought the Marussia entry and reformed the racing team as Manor Racing. We need an updated entry list to state that MRT is no longer entered for 2017.Tvx1 17:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Stating that Manor has an entry implies that they will compete. After all, why would you have an entry if you weren't going to compete? Everything published about Manor makes it quite clear that they have no intention of using the entry. Therefore, the situation is best addressed by omitting Manor from the table and addressing the situation in prose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is implied. The description of the table and the prose above it makes it very clear what the sole intention and meaning of the table and its information is.Tvx1 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

All of the sources indicate that they won't be competing, and that there is absolutely no intention to compete. Having the TBA there for the team and everything else, does imply that there will be an entry. There really is no reason to have this in the table at all.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it does. There is an entry after all.Tvx1 00:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The table is merely a visual representation of the prose. The prose makes it quite clear that while the entry is still valid, the team has closed down. Therefore, I think that we need a reference to support Manor's continued inclusion in the table rather than a reference to justify removing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We have such a reference. The official entry list.Tvx1 03:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That does not support Manor's continued inclusion. We have an entire line of TBA in a table...  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that sources can become out of date. The entry list may be official, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be superseded by more recent sources that address changes that happen in the time since the original source's publication.

We're not debating the validity of the entry list here—we're just pointing out that the article should reflect the most accurate and up-to-date information available. And right now, we have dozens of reliable and verifiable sources that clearly show that Manor has closed down. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

+1  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We had the exact same myriad of sources two years ago. In fact back then they even started to auction-off some of the team's stuff. We made the mistake of removing them from the table to soon and rescinded that removal following a discussion which you initiated. We also decided that once an appeared on FIA entry list we should keep it in our table until such time the FIA releases a new entry list without said entry.Tvx1 01:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

What encyclopedic value does having a line of "TBA" in a table have? The information is in the prose.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It has value if the entry is going to be used.

"We made the mistake of removing them from the table to soon"

Please show me some evidence from a reliable source that the same thing is happening here.

"[we] rescinded that removal following a discussion which you initiated."

Do you honestly think that people can't change their minds after two years? Or that people cannot weigh up the merits of an individual situation and make a decision based on those merits? If you think that people are expected to unwaveringly observe an opinion for years, and any change in opinion is treated as grounds to dismiss their opinion outright, then if I were you, I would honestly be reconsidering what I am doing in a discussion to achieve consensus because that just sounds counter-productive to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's the definition of consensus. I doesn't get overthrown just because one of the participants changes their mind several months later. This is really not a issue worth making such a fuss about. The FIA is bound to release a new entry list sooner rather than later. Just wait and the situation will resolve itself.Tvx1 14:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid to be seen as contradicting the FIA sources, even in the face of dozens of reliable and verifiable third-party sources that do not contradict the FIA, but merely provide additional, relevant information that the outdated FIA sources do not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Renault powering STR

STR is confirmed to have a Renault engine: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/headlines/2017/2/toro-rosso-to-launch-on-eve-of-testing.html Nt1192 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nt1192: That is not why they are not listed there. The reason is that Renault and STR agreed last year that just like Red Bull, Toro Rosso would use a different name for the power units, and not Renault. Which means that we need to wait until that official name is confirmed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request: New Ferrari Chassis name

The name of the new ferrari chassis is called JB-17 Juliocesar44 (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It was revealed by Santader in Twitter, but it was quickly deleted and they instead told the release date of the car Juliocesar44 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait for source. We are WP:NOTNEWS.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Renault Is R.S. 17

Their Facebook cover photo names chassis R.S. 17 so no need to wait. BlackSti00 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/RenaultSportFormulaOneTeam/photos/a.414927648534248.116950.178371828856499/1644348138925520/?type=1&theater BlackSti00 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source.Tvx1 17:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 It's their own page.. BlackSti00 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Facebook still fails WP:RS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 and Prisonermonkeys: note that the WP:SELFSOURCE section of WP:RS allows Facebook as a source for stuff about themselves (the publishers), so could be considered a reliable source for info about their own car. -- de Facto (talk). 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

A Facebook photo is not a reliable source. Wait for something proper and official, like the FIA official list like we normally do. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Where in Wikipedia policy does it say a facebook photo from a WP:SELFSOURCE is not a reliable source?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

That photo just has a picture of a wing with R.S. 17 written on it. It doesn't explicitly say beyond reasonable doubt that "The Renault chassis name for 2017 will be R.S. 17. Deducing that R.S. 17 is the chassis name based on that picture is clear synthesis of the source. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:That is in no way synthesis of a source or extrapolation in any way. That photo meets every single requirement of WP:SELFSOURCE, which makes it an WP:RS. This is the same as this image being released, and everyone knows the title of that movie now. There is no difference.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle — Wikipedia is not a battleground. Enough people have highlighted issues with the "source" that it should be immediately clear that the wisest course of action is to wait for something more official before we include. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; there is no need to add something to the article simply because it was posted on Facebook. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Prisonermonkeys: WP:AGF. Also, Comment on content, not on the contributor. I am doing nothing more than contributing to this project, as I am free to do, as no one owns this page, or this project.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with waiting for a different source, as I have made this argument in the past, multiple times. I am only inquiring about why I was reverted, and why this is not considered a reliable source, when it clearly meets WP:SELFSOURCE. Especially consider that this same medium meets these requirements in other projects. Just curious why this is different. I will again ask you to WP:AGF and stop attacking me every time I make an edit on this project. Thank you.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"WP:AGF"

You have a history of aggressive editing tactics and of trying to settle scores. Now, you can keep saying "AGF, AGF, AGF" until you're blue in the face, but it's all for nothing if you don't learn from your mistakes. The first thing you need to do is lose the argumentative tone and realise that we all want the same thing here: to improve the article. We might have different ideas about the best way to do that, but that doesn't make us the enemy.

"I am doing nothing more than contributing to this project"

No, what you're doing is creating more work for the rest of us. You rushed to include details based on a questionable source despite the conversation here, and you made no attempt to demonstrate that it is an appropriate source. If you want to include it, but people are concerned about it, then the burden rests with you to demonstrate its acceptability.

"I am free to do, as no one owns this page, or this project."

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You might know a few policies here and there, but that doesn't make you an expert. Work with us rather than trying to force edits through. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not have a history of this, nor am I doing it now, and again, comment on the content. I did not rush to include something based on a questionable source, as it meets WP:SELFSOURCE, and I also used that to demonstrate that it is an appropriate source, despite your claim that I made no attempt at such. I never claimed to be an expert in Wikipedia policy. And, after being reverted, I did not revert back, and instead came to the talk page to reach a consensus and engage in conversation, again, despite your claim that I did otherwise. So again, I respectfully request that you stop your attacks on me, and comment on the content. Thank you.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Facebook is, MordeKyle, that we have no means to verify a Facebook account is actually owned by the company which claims it does. Twitter, on the other hand does have a built-in feature which allow us to identify official accounts.Tvx1 02:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually the Facebook page is verified as belonging to Renault Sport. That's what the big blue check mark is for. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Interesting, fair point. I am not as social media savvy here, but isn't Tumblr typically pictures? Just out of curiosity, and unrelated to this topic, but Tumblr is listed specifically in WP:SELFSOURCE.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to further clarify, I am fine to wait for another source, though, given the authenticity of the facebook account, the image meeting WP:SELFSOURCE and therefore WP:RS, what is the actual reason for not using this image as a source? This is not an extrapolation of a source, as demonstrated with the star wars reference(I know, OSE) and Renault is obviously revealing the name of their car and giving us a glimpse of it.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark — please stop changing the name of the car to "RS17". All of the reliable sources that we have refer to the car as the "R.S.17". Removing the full stops might seem like a more convenient way to name the car or have an aesthetic appeal to it or make the naming consistent with other articles, but we cannot go around inventing names for articles because it suits us. If Renault say that the car is the R S.17, then the car is the R.S.17 – end of story. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case then I've changed Renault's 2016 car from RS16 to R.S.16 considering there is just as much sources to back it up being called that like the R.S.17. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Question Mark — how long have you been editing Wikipedia for? You know that it doesn't work that way. The sheer volume of sources in this case is irrelevant; what matters is what Renault call the car. You could have a thousand sources calling it the "R.S.16", but if Renault call it the "RS16", then the name of the car is the RS16, and you're just going to have to live with it. So stop editing based on what is aesthetically pleasing or internally consistent, and start editing based on what the sources say. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, when someone leaves a message on your talk page, can you PLEASE acknowledge that you have received it? You have a terrible habit of ignoring messages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to some messages, I'm really busy usually so I don't have that much time and could you please tell me the difference between the "R.S.16" case and "R.S.17" case because your saying we should go by what the team calls the chassis which is "R.S.17" correct? But even though Renault themselves call the 2016 car "R.S.16" (on the teams website) its not the same somehow? (Source: https://www.renaultsport.com/formula-1-team-rs16.html) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark —

'Sorry for not replying to some messages, I'm really busy usually so I don't have that much time"

And yet, you still find the time to perform mass edits. That's really not good enough. If someone leaves you a message, at least acknowledge that you have read it. Not only is it common courtesy, but Wikipedia is founded on the principle of collaboration. How can you effectively edit if you're not communicating with other editors? This is one of the first things that any editor learns, and yet you have been an editor for years and still haven't figured it out. To be blunt, "I'm really busy" is a pretty pathetic excuse. If you're too busy to work with other editors, then you're probably too busy to be an editor in the first place.

"could you please tell me the difference between the "R.S.16" case and "R.S.17""

You go by what the sources say. In this case, you use the name that Renault uses. But more importantly, you must include those sources in the article, especially if you are making a change. Once again, this is a basic editing practice. I shouldn't have to be telling you this because you should have learned it the day you became an editor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You are changing topic for zero reason and targeting how I edit when this isn't even the relevant place to do so. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the topic because it creates more work for the rest of us. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

All you are doing is complaining about other users rather then talking about the actual topic at hand, it has nothing to do with Renault's 2017 chassis name, if you have a problem with how I edit lets talk about it on my talk page rather then on articles because it rather comes across like your really possessive over these articles and you get rather rash like you have in the past which isn't appreciated at all. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"if you have a problem with how I edit lets talk about it on my talk page"

Why? You have never responded to anything that has been posted there.

"Renault's 2017 chassis name"''

It has been explained to you half a dozen times in the past three days and you're apparently still unclear about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unclear? I know it should be "R.S.17" so how do you think I'm still unclear about it? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

Mercedes F1 W08 Hybrid should be changed to Mercedes AMG w08 EQ Power+ as that was the name confirmed by the team on the car's launch QUantum bUrst (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, the edit will appear shortly. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ferrari power unit

The Ferrari power unit is confirmed to be Ferrari 062 this season: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/headlines/2017/2/ferrari-launch-the-sf70h.html under section 'power unit'. Nt1192 (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017

Issue resolved itself. Entry was withdrawn by the owner.
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
JandroAP (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Manor is confirmed to be out this season, pleas retired the Manor's line Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC) https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-formula-one-team-manor-racing-calls-it-quits-1485529297 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JandroAP (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC) It's possible (albeit unlikely) that someone could buy the team. Happened when Marussia became Manor. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC) We shouldn't go by what's possible, we should go by what's known. We have plenty of sources to show that the team has closed, but MRT are still in the article because one particular user refuses to accept anything except a statement from the FIA as a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC) He's not the only user who feels that way, he's just the only one willing to waste his time arguing with you about something that is absolutely indisputable. The list is now, and always has been, "contracted teams and drivers," based on the most recent FIA entry list. MRT's entry is still on the entry list. This isn't up for debate, my dude. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "He's not the only user who feels that way" As far as the conversation is concerned, he is. If you don't offer your thoughts, how can you contribute to a discussion? He can't claim to have the silent majority on his side as a means of ignoring an consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Which consensus? The one on your authority? I have explained the situation to you very clearly. We decided to stick to the official entry list after the previous Manor case. Back then Marussia closed down and when some auctions were announced we removed them from the table entirely. This decision was reversed through consensus to stick to the entry list and sure enough the Marussia entry was used by a team to enter. THAT is the consensus.Tvx1 19:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) So we should add a TBA entry back to Template:Formula One constructors then? This is ridiculous.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC) No, MRT should never have been removed. The MRT entry still exists. The constructors template isn't concerned with team names.Tvx1 22:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "We decided to stick to the official entry list after the previous Manor case." No, you decided to stick to it despite multiple editors pointing out that the team had closed down. Furthermore, you were reminded that the table is not a substitute for prose, and that Manor could reasonably be omitted from the table provided their situation is detailed in the prose of the article (which it is). You insisted that because the FIA has not issued a statement or a new entry list, we could not make any changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Multiple? Your the only one making a drama about this. See the discussion I linked to the last time this was brought up and see the above comment by the other editor.Tvx1 22:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "If you don't offer your thoughts, how can you contribute to a discussion?" How can I contribute if you don't listen? Table includes all the teams listed in the most recent FIA entry list, which includes Manor, therefore Manor is included in the table. What is confusing about this? The fact that the team closed down is immaterial. They are still contracted to participate in the season and it is a list of CONTRACTED TEAMS AND DRIVERS. Hell, just TODAY there are new reports suggesting their entry will be bought up and might still participate in this season. You can't predict the future, dude. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC) "Table includes all the teams listed in the most recent FIA entry list, which includes Manor, therefore Manor is included in the table." Tables supplement prose. They are a visual representation of the content of an article—they don't replace prose. Their primary function is to organise complex information into a streamlined form that is easy for the reader to interpret. So long as Manor are included in the prose (and they are, with adequate detail describing their situation), they don't explicitly need to be in the table. "Hell, just TODAY there are new reports suggesting their entry will be bought up and might still participate in this season." And yet there is no coverage from the mainstream motorsports media in the middle of the launch season—the week where the sport has received the most attention since Abu Dhabi. I'm not saying I don't believe you, only that it's a pretty thin justification, least of all for the use of the word "might". I don't care. Your position is indefensible and flies in the face of every rule and every guideline we use to edit this article. Please, for the love of god, just stop. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC) My position is indefensible? My position is that MRT should not be included in the table, not that MRT should not be included in the article. From WP:MOSTABLE: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Tables which are mainly links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated." Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? "Tables supplement prose. They are a visual representation of the content of an article—they don't replace prose. Their primary function is to organise complex information into a streamlined form that is easy for the reader to interpret. So long as Manor are included in the prose (and they are, with adequate detail describing their situation), they don't explicitly need to be in the table." How exactly does removing MRT from the table violate any rule or guideline? Their situation is addressed in the prose, which provides far more detail and context than a few blank lines in the table ever can. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC) And the table supplements the prose perfectly right now. The prose states there still is a valid MRT entry and that table reflects that. Removing them actually creates a contradiction.Tvx1 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC) CONTRACTED TEAMS AND DRIVERS. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Look at 2018 Formula One season. The general rule for in the inclusion in the table is "one extra detail"—that is, in order to be included in the table, we have to have the constructor plus one extra detail; a driver, chassis name or engine supply. Granted, it's a way of preventing articles from being created months in advance and being full of empty tables, but it's an effective way of dealing with future seasons. What, exactly, does the inclusion of two blank rows in the table add? It is literally devoid of any context; in this case, prose is a far more appropriate way of including it. "Contracted teams and drivers" does not mean that we are obligated to include them in the table, only the section. In the end, Manor's fate is neither here nor there, but I think that there is far too much reliance on tables to perform functions that should be fulfilled by prose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC) This has literally nothing to do with tables vs prose and I have no idea why you think it does. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC) It's actually more specifically "something specific about their plans for the season in question being announced by the team". Hence why Ferrari and Williams are present in the 2018 table, despite not having announced "one extra detail". However once the FIA publishes an entry list, that condition expires. Because, you know, they tells specifically which entries have been lodged and accepted. So as long as a constructor appears on the entry list they are obviously listed in our version of the entry list. As said before, that way it actually complements the prose.Tvx1 15:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

The 2017 Formula One season will be the 68th to be held. Please change 'to be 71st season' to 'to be 68th season' because the inaugural Formula One season was 1950. Check List of Formula One seasons Wikipedia page 2A02:C7D:1FD0:1D00:6964:40D6:3AC6:14EF (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Formula One existed before the championship was first held in 1950. Therefore this is the 71st season of Formula One racing, even if it is only the 68th season of the World Championship. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a small problem with that statement–Formula One rules were only adopted part way through the 1946 Grand Prix seaaon. In fact, most of the 1946 season was run without Formula One rules. To say that it's the 71st season is an oversimplification. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is why my argument that "season" is not the correct term to be using in this instance to describe races outside of the championship. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is why 1947 is counted as the first full season of Formula One races. And starting from there 2017 is the 71st season.Tvx1 11:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Toro Rosso power unit

The Toro Rosso power unit for 2017 will be provided by renault: http://www.scuderiatororosso.com/en_INT/car/str12 138.251.222.232 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but they might give it a weird name, like Red Bull do. So we're waiting to see what it's officially named. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 — I would argue that the engine nane should still be listed as "Renault R.E.17", even if it is ultimately rebadged (and that the Red Bull engine should be listed as "Renault R.E.17"). Renault built the engine and supplied it to the teams. TAG Heuer simply bought the right to put a new badge on it. With or without the TAG Heuer badge, it's still an R.E.17 underneath. So while the Constructor column should list the teams as "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer" and "Toro Rosso-TAG Heuer", the engine column should list the actual engine the team uses. To list it as a TAG Heuer implies that TAG Heuer had something to do with the development, construction and/or supply of the engine, and they didn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not how the record books are kept however. I do agree though that there should be a note behind TAG Heuer and whatever Toro Rosso calls it, explaining that they are in fact Renault power units. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the way it is now works with me as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to ask:

"That is not how the record books are kept however."

What, exactly, is the power unit column doing, then? If it's just there for the sake of the name, then it's a completely redundant column; the constructor column takes care of that. But if it's there to show the actual engine used, then it should be the Renault R.E.17 because that's the engine they're using. If you have concerns about the history books, the constructor column takes care of that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I must say, thinking about it that way, that actually makes sense. The name the records are counted for can be in the constructors' column and the actual engine/power unit in the second one. This topic should probably be raised on the WikiProject's talk page, considering that we have multiple instances where this applies (like 1998 for instance). Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

F1 has a long history of branding and rename engines, and we have a long history of honoring that in the articles. Why should we change it? PM, please stop unilaterally making these changes. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the version now makes much less sense. Nowhere does it note that the Red Bull is actually driven by a Renault power unit and also the N1 note does not make sense anymore. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the note to clarify that they are Renault engines branded as Tag Heuer. Every time the FOM broadcast shows a Red Bull car this year the on-screen graphics will say "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer," just like they did last year. Really, genuinely bizarre to change that in our table. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's be fair: It never said "Red Bull-Renault", it always said "Red Bull-TAG Heuer", it was simply changed in the column indicating the actual name of the power unit. The constructor's name remained untouched and - as it should be - reflected the name that will be displayed by FOM. That is exactly the point Prisonermonkeys made. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

But the actual name of the power unit is Tag Heuer. It's not called a Renault, ever. If Red Bull Racing were to win the championship Renault would not receive any credit for it in the record books. Renaming engines or power units down to the type is nothing new to the sport. Look at the many season articles for the late 90's and 2000's.Tvx1 16:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well then PM's point comes into place that having a column for power unit names is pretty beside the point. I cannot see that Red Bull has really given the engine a real name. Their website states the name of the engine is "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer RB13 - 2017". Seems quite pointless to include that information. It would be a lot more insightful to the reader if the name of the engine would be given as "Renault R.E.17" with a note explaining the rebadging and that those results will not count for Renault. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the Red Bull site they do seem to name the power units in relation to their cars. They list the 2016 power unit as the "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer RB12" and the 2017 one the "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer RB13". The year is obviously not part of the name. Just take a look a the pre-Tag Heuer names they also list. They thus have a clear naming pattern. Listing the name as "Renault R.E 17" is utterly wrong and misleading as their power unit does not cary that name in any way. Listing its actual name with a footnote explaining it was assembled by Renault gives our readers the most accurate name. Use prose to provide insight, not the table.Tvx1 16:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Your edit changing the power unit to "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer RB13" was absolutely childish and uncalled for. We should not have to involve the admins in a seemingly straightforward discussion. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I am really sincerely running out of patience with some of your folks. The things you are choosing to argue about CANNOT be disputed. The engine is branded as TAG Heuer, and it is INDEFENSIBLE to suggest that we include any other name. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: I am sorry, now you make absolutely no sense. The column gives the NAME of the power units for all of the engine suppliers, and for Red Bull we are supposed not to give the name of the power unit but simply what company it is badged as? I added a source (!!!!!!) for what the NAME of the power unit is for crying out loud! So yes, go ahead, involve the admins, and I would love to see how they punish me for making a sourced edit. God damn. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

'it is INDEFENSIBLE"

Oh, everything is with you these days. How about you tone down the inflammatory rhetoric?

What is the purpose of the power unit column? Is it to name the brand of engine used, or is it to name the actual, physical power unit? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The FIA entry list referenced in the table lists the Red Bull power unit as Tag Heuer and Torro Rosso's as TBC. This should be what is in the table as this is the ultimate collated official source. If a new entry list is released changing this, only then should the article be changed. Nt1192 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The note more than suffices to give sufficient information to the reader as well as an explanation in prose. Nt1192 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"This should be what is in the table as this is the ultimate collated official source."

It is—in the constructor column. That's how results are credited. But we're interested in the power unit column here.

"If a new entry list is released changing this, only then should the article be changed."

No, the article should be updated when reliable sources become available. The FIA might be the final authority on the subject, but they don't keep up with the flow of information. Using your logic, Toro Rosso could announce the official engine supplier, but we'd be forced to wait three months to update the article while we wait for the FIA to publish another entry list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — it's not about the power unit name. If it was, the column would be completely redundant. It's about the actual power unit being used, and listing it as TAG Heuer implies that TAG Heuer had a hand in building or developing it, which they didn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nt1192: If we follow that logic, we'd also have to leave out the chassis names for another 2 weeks, because they are not on the entry list... Jesus... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, that implication is lifted by the footnote and the prose. There is no scope for misunderstanding it. There's no need to worry about problems which don't actually exist. The column has always been about engine/power unit brand names. Look at the previous decades worth of season articles. We have always been able to deal with engine rebranding. The site has been coping with them for more than ten years, which is longer than either of us have been on wikipedia. The Tag Heuer naming isn't new either. They did it last year and we managed it with little complaint.Tvx1 22:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"The column has always been about engine/power unit brand names."

Then it's a completely redundant column because the engine/power unit brand names are included in the constructor column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. I also includes power unit type/specification. Even with Tag Heuer in it, that means it tells the reader that Ferrari en Sauber actually use different Ferrari power units among other things.Tvx1 23:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

TAG Heuer don't give the engines a specification. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Yes, apparently they do, see the discussion above. And I cannot understand why you and Wicka Wicka have now twice reverted the sourced edit I made to that respect. Unlike what you claimed in your edit summary, the source from Red Bull clearly says that the power unit name is the same as the chassis name. And yes, that is weird and stupid. And yes, I agree with you that it should be Renault R.E.17 in that column. But as long as the standing consensus of the WikiProject is that the rebranded names are given there, we have to go by that. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Yes, apparently they do, see the discussion above."

If they do, why isn't it in the article?

"the source from Red Bull clearly says that the power unit name is the same as the chassis name. And yes, that is weird and stupid."

I'm pretty sure the regulations say that it's not possible—that the chassis and power unit must have separate names.

"But as long as the standing consensus of the WikiProject is that the rebranded names are given there, we have to go by that."

I don't think it was ever really discussed. It was just one of those things that emerged through common practice. We haven't had rebadged engines since Sauber used Ferrari engines badged as Petronas and that was prior to Wikipedia's foundation, so using the rebadged name was a trend that just emerged when everything was first created. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: "...why isn't it in the article?" Because you undid my edit!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the regulations say that it's not possible—that the chassis and power unit must have separate names.
— User:Prisonermonkeys 10:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you make claims you need to back them up with evidence. And as has been explained to you when we had a discussion about the WRC rally entry list recently, by two users independently of one another as reply to a third opinion request from you, we don't not go by what the rules say that should be happening (and certainly not by what one users thinks the rules say should be happening) but by what the reliable sources say that is happening. If Red Bull Racing say that the aforementioned name is the name of their power unit, than quite frankly that is the name of their power unit. That is not up for debate. And by the way, Wikipedia was founded in 2001, four years before Sauber last used a Petronas engine.Tvx1 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The name of Red Bull's engine is NOT "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer RB13". That is the name of the car. The header on Red Bull's site is simply saying "this is the engine for this car." To be more clear, you seem to think it's saying "ENGINE: engine name." It is in fact saying "ENGINE for car name." Does that make sense? They have a pretty crappy website tbh. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wicka wicka about the engine name - and about the quality of the info on RB's website! -- de Facto (talk). 20:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, would you care to explain then why their pages on the RB9, RB10, RB11 do follow the "Engine: engine name" scheme in the relevant field? RS27, Energy F1-2014, Energy F1-2015. So what's the difference for the RB12 and RB13. Why does it suddenly no longer contain the power unit name then?Tvx1 22:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

But is this just about the name of the power unit, or the power unit itself? It doesn't matter what Red Bull call it, it's still a Renault R.E.17 under the badge. To call it a TAG Heuer implies that TAG Heuer had something to do with the development or manufacturing of the engine when we know that they didn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

As explained before, that implication is lifted by the footnote and the prose. The problem you speak of does not exist.Tvx1 14:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"we don't not go by what the rules say that should be happening"

That didn't stop you from going by the rule book when another user suggested it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: no, the column isn't redundant, it gives the full engine name, which in most cases includes (though not in the case of TAG Heuer) more than simply the name of the engine constructor. -- de Facto (talk). 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, what's more important: the name or the thing? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 – the FP1 reference you just deleted was being used to support the inclusion of of Toro Rosso's constructor name as "Toro Rosso" (instead of "Toro Rosso-TBA"). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, the already present entry list for the Australian Grand Prix did that as well. This name makes me wonder though. Does it mean that their power unit is named Toro Rosso as well?Tvx1 02:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I didn't see the entry list. As for the name, that's the implication. It might be best to wait until the official race results ti be published before we commit to one definite name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Scuderia Toro Rosso

http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/2017-f1-entry-list

The official FIA entry list says the official chassis name of the Toro Rosso is "Scuderia Toro Rosso". It still has an engine, so we should also use TBC as the engine name. JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an old entry list. The one published for Melbourne takes priority. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well where's the new one published for Melbourne? JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's source #18 in the table. When a source is used for things apply to the whole table—in this case, participating in the round—we put them in the bar at the bottom of the table to keep the table free of clutter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, they have been listed as simply Toro Rosso on every official document during the entire Australian GP weekend. They are listed as such on F1.com as well.Tvx1 08:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Rosberg/Bottas image

Does someone mind taking a look at the image of Rosberg and Bottas? I set them up horizontally to save space, but the caption is crammed under Bottas' image and I can figure out how to fix it so that it's under both of them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You put the text in the caption for the second image only, instead of creating a single caption for both images. It's fixed now. You can find the explanation of the functions of this template here

Details

Hello, putting after first GP lap record italics and pole position bold on number of World Constructors' Championship standings.--82.49.125.168 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Vettel's picture

The start of the article should include an image of the current championship leader; as of right now, it's Vettel. This allows the reader to put a face to a name, and is a common practice not only in Formula 1 season articles, but in other motorsport season articles, too. Removing it on the grounds of aesthetics because it pushes the driver table down the article is not a valid article as it does not affect the reader's ability to read the article, because editing decisions should not be made on the grounds of aesthetics and because the inclusion of Vettel's image adds more to the article than "tidiness" does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, there is no RULE that the picture should be on this page. It could be on this page, but should never "disturb" the "aesthetics" by pushing the driver table down the article! Saschaporsche (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If all you have is aesthetics, you don't have a case. Every season article for the past fifteen years has included a driver image in the lead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added the picture on a different place. Now it's not disrupting the "pagebuilding" can you live with that? Saschaporsche (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, because it's an inappropriate place to put it. The lead of the article discusses the championship leader. Therefore, the leader's picture should go in the lead. If that disrupts the aesthetics of the article for you, tgen you have to live with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

World Rally Championship, MotoGP, V8 Supercars, Indycar and NASCAR season articles all include images of championship leaders in their leads, as do Formula 1 articles from 2001 to 2016. I'm quite sure that more series, such as Formula E and the BTCC do so, too. What you are proposing is a major change with the potential to affect dozens of articles across multiple WikiProjects, and all because you don't like the look of one article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Formula E definitely do it. The BTCC, WTCC and WEC all do it, but somewhat inconsistently; it depends on the availability of images. DTM and World RX are the only major series I can find that don't do it, and I suspect that's because there are no images available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Your edits at 2017 World Rally Championship have nothing to do with improving that article and everything to do with trying to make a case here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is No such rule (on wikipedia) that the picture of the championship leader SHOULD be in the header of the article. I'm trying to find a reasonable solution, but it seems to me that you are not open to such a thing. Instead you are offending me. I disapprove of this, you are not cooperative. Saschaporsche (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to change what has worked for years for the benefit of one user who thinks that it's ugly. You have not made any argument beyond aesthetics and have ignored the point I made on your talk page that although you can now read it, you have changed the appearance for other readers. By moving the image to the results section, you haved forced the results table below the image. You haven't "fixed" anything; you have just moved the ugly white space that you're protesting further down the article.

To make matters worse, you've already broken the three-revert rule, and you then deliberately disrupted other articles to try and prove a point here. Now you're threatening admin sanctions against people who "offend" you, which is to say people who disagree with you.

There is no solution to be found because there was never a problem in the first place. And if you're so thin-skinned that someone disagreeing with you offends you, you really have no business being here because disagreements over content are commom, so most of your time here will be spent being offended. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)