Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"(Name) Grand Prix" vs. "Grand Prix of (Name)"

Now that the New Year is here, I feel it's time to bring this up. It's probably going to be one of argument sues that seems like we're all jumping through hoops to achieve something that seems like a purely semantic issue, but I have a feeling that if we ignore it, then it's going to be more complex to deal with later on.

Traditionally, events have been referred to as "(Name) Grand Prix", like the Australian Grand Prix. However, the final calendar released by the WMSC, events are now referred to as "Grand Prix of (Name)", so Australian Grand Prix will become Grand Prix of Australia. The purpose of this discussion is to figure out which name we should contonue to use. Given that the WMSC article is the primary source for the race names, they appear in the calendar table as "Grand Prix of (Name)", and I have applied that throughout the article - even to races that have been referred to as "(Name) Grand Prix" before the change.

The big issue here is WP:COMMONNAME, and it would be easy to bring that up and stop the discussion there. After all, Grands Prix have always been referred to as "(Name) Grand Prix", so why change them if that is the name that is going to be used by everyone?

However, the issue is not as simple as that, and I believe there is a precedent for changing the name.

Right now, the FIA is going through a process of standardising the names by which aspects of the championship are referred to. For example, in the World Touring Car Championship, cars are now classified as belonging to the "TC1" or "TC2" class. In the same way, cars in the World Rally Championship are being reclassified. Where they were once referred to as "P(number)" depending on their eligibility criteria, they are now being referred to as "RC1" and "RC2".

Likewise, they are standardising the names of events for all World-accredited championships. WTCC races are known as "Race of (Name)", like Race of Argentina. Likewise, WRC events are known as "Rally of (Name)", such as Rally de Portugal (though that is in the local language). The point is that the FIA is standardising the names for all of these events, and for this reason, I believe that Grands Prix should be referred to as "Grand Prix of (Name)". This name appears on every single piece of paraphenalia related to Grands Prix.

Now, COMMONNAME. Yes, I am aware of it. It does, for instance, quite clearly state this:

Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.

And yes, "(Name) Grand Prix" is the most commonly used, whilst "Grand Prix of (Name)" most commonly appears in the formal title of the event. However, COMMONNAME also states the following:

We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change.

I believe that, in this case, this is the most relevant part of COMMONNAME. The standardisation of names across multiple aspects of multiple championships shows that the subject of the article has changed, and so we should consider the usage. It's ultimately a bit of a semantic issue, since the only thing that really changes here is the ordering of the words. However, if the issue does not get addressed, then we could be getting into trouble later on.

So here is what I propose: follow through on the name change for a year. Rather than having "2014 Australian Grand Prix" as a page title, go with "2014 Grand Prix of Australia". After one year, we see what the FIA does. If they continue using the title "Grand Prix of (Name)", then so do we. If they revert to "(Name) Grand Prix), then we can go back and move the articles. Because at this point, I think the name changes across the board are too compelling to ignore. If it was just Formula 1, then I wouldn't be raising the issue, but because the FIA is standardising names across all of their World-accreddited championships, it is effectively an attempt at creating a new COMMONNAME (though they're not doing it solely for Wikipedia's benefit). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to wait and see if this new term is adopted before we start using it. If at the end of 2014 (or sooner, if necessary) it is clear that the new label for a Grand Prix is 'Grand Prix of ____', then we can make the changes you propose. Thus far, this new system is not being used in advertisements for races ([1] and [2]), by race promoters [3], or in FIA press releases ([4] and [5]). JohnMcButts (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Those advertisements have existed for months. As for the article from the race promoters, there is no way to tell if that is just the author of the article using the term. And of the two press releases, one is rather obscure and only tangentially related. Most importantly, it will take a while for the name to catch on. The standardisation of names across the World Championships is hard to overlook. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is going to have to be done on a race by race basis. If the Grand Prix of America (the one in New Jersey) takes off then using one or the other will be impossible due to the lack of distinction between the United States/American Grand Prix (the one in Texas). This is going to have to been applied with common sense. The official title of the race Sepang may well have been Malaysia Grand Prix sine 2011 but common usage is Malaysian Grand prix as used pre-2011. This is where a blanket policy is unworkable due to lack of distinction which will be caused if the Second USA race takes off. Also the common usage of races titles which are used in each Race Article title needs to be taken in to consideration. Blanket changing from (country) Grand Prix to Grand Prix of (Country) is a recentism and lacking of common sense as this could mean each and every race article title would need changing. This would be an unnecessary forking which is likely to cause needless and easily avoidable confusion. Finally would any change to Grand Prix of (country) be applied historically? Confusion and impracticality arises when dealing with races such as Detroit Grand Prix or United States Grand Prix West or Caesars Palace Grand Prix. Changing to a uniform Grand Prix of (Country) is just going to be confusing when looking back historically as the titles of races will inevitably be different. The simplest thing is to work on a race by race basis. For example I can never foresee the race held in the Principality of Monaco currently commonly called the Monaco Grand Prix becoming commonly called the Grand Prix of Monaco. Sport and politics (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The individual race articles going back sixty-five years would not need to be changed, and you know it. The change to article titles would only need to be applied from the change in race titles. To suggest otherwise is misleading.

Furthermore, what you forsee is irrelevant. That's crystal balling. All you need to consider is the evidence, which you have made a point of avoiding. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the tone needs ratcheting down a few notches, this is getting unnecessarily heated, personal, and hysterical. This is a fairly minor and technical debate over one part of articles. Suggesting wider implications of any outcomes is not "misleading" as claimed. For example what will the title of the article for the race in Sochi be. Will the title be Russian Grand Prix or Grand Prix of Russia. For consistency with other article titles and for lack of confusion in my opinion it should be Russian Grand Prix This is not crystal balling and nor is discussing historical article titles and nor is discussing if article titles would need changing for existing races. Also claiming "individual race articles going back sixty-five years would not need to be changed" is crystal balling if claiming they could potentially need changing in the future is also crystal balling. All this it is, is a sensible reasoning and logical extending of the affects any blanket name charge will have. Attacking the inserting of an opinion to illustrate a point is wholly unnecessary and does not add to the discussion as as done by stating "Furthermore, what you forsee is irrelevant". This discussion needs to focus on the points of discussion and needs to avoid hysteria which is being demonstrated here for reasons which are passing understanding. The evidence in this case has little bearing on the outcome, that is just a starting point. What has a greater bearing is what is in the best interests of Wikiepida and its users and not a rigid interpretation of any "evidence". Sport and politics (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So your argument is to pick and choose which pieces of evidence we use based on what might be inconvenient for the reader? And then you claim that this argument should focus more on facts than opinions, but that we should not rigidly follow the evidence?

You are clearly trying to make an issue out of something that is not a problem. Since races were "(Name) Grand Prix" in 2013 and "Grand Prix of (Name)" in 2014, the issue of naming articles simply uses that date as a cut-off point. Or, if you would prefer, that date relative to its announcement (so Russia would be the Russian Grand Prix because it was announced before the change). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The trouble for using 2014 as a cut-off point for the name change, is that this same format was used in the WMSC calender for 2013 [6]. Should this format be retroactively used for the 2013 season? Again, I say we wait to see if this naming practice is adopted, beyond the WMSC press releases, before we make this change. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The evidence in a situation like this is just a starting point for discussions. Evidence is available from many places and claiming all must be rigidly interpreted is not in the best interests of an encyclopaedia article. This is not a technical Formula One article for individuals with extensive knowledge of Formula One this has to be an easily accessible to all users not just those "in the know". I would also like to clear up a misinterpretation I stated "to focus on the points of discussion", which is completely different to "facts" points of discussion include the wider implications of any change and the ease of access to those with little or no knowledge of the subject matter. This proposed change has many possible connotations and they all need fathoming out and discussing calmly. Simply ignoring any possible implications of this change is not in the best interests of the discussion, Wikipeida or it users. Using date as a cut of point misses out articles for the overall race as opposed to the race by individual year. Does the article Australian Grand Prix get changed to Grand Prix of Australia or does it stay at Australian Grand Prix. likewise does the article Russian Grand Prix move to Grand Prix of Russia? these are all legitimate points of discussion. 10:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is a simple solution. Apply the changes to the season article and the race articles. Wait and see what happens in 2015. If the name change stays in place, keep the changes. If not, revert them.

Furthermore, there is something of a precedent here. Many of the races that have a title in the local language directly translate to "Grand Prix of (Name)". It is already an established practice, and is simply being standardised.

It is the most grammatically correct way of presenting the names, as well. The "(Names) Grand Prix" title is acceptable, but in the cases of "Bahrain Grand Prix" and "Abu Dhabi Grand Prix", it's improper - "Grand Prix of Bahrain/Abu Dhabi" is more accurate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can some sources to back and verify the claims of "grammatically correct way of presenting the names" please be provided. As far as I can see both are equally acceptable grammatically. Use in sentences as an example of the both such as "Welcome the the 1997 Australian Grand Prix." or "Welcome to the 1997 Grand Prix of Australia." Both are acceptable and neither are improper or less accurate. The first version is in my opinion simpler as it uses less words and has the race identifiers at the start and not split at the start and end. With regards to local languages this is the English Wikiepdia and names/phrases etc. have to reflect the names in English and not translations into English of non-Englsih names, when there is a distinct English alternative or equivalent to the non-English phrase or word. Using direct translations from non-English names is only applicable if no English alternative or equivalent exists. The structure of the English language is also significantly different from other languages and places adjectives before nouns as opposed to say French which places the noun first. Take for example "Blue t-shirt" in French that is "Tee-shirt bleu" which directly translates in to English as "T-shirt Blue". So swapping the syntax round is not the common English language Syntax and non-English words and phrases have no bearing or precedent on the English Language or the use of the English language . Finally Wikipedia is not a place for experimentation and experimenting in this manner will create unnecessary confusion and inconsistency. The article titles need basing in what is best for an encyclopaedia article and for ease of access to all readers, not just users with significant prior knowledge of the subject matter. If by 2015 the common names for races in English is Grand Prix of (Name) then by all means go ahead and use the format Grand Prix of (Name). Until then though saying this could become the norm and the FIA want that to be the common names for races (regardless of weather the FIA officially call them Grand Prix of (Name)) is just pure crystal balling and the current format should not be changed from (Name) Grand Prix, until such at time as the format (Name) Grand Prix is no longer the common name in English. Sport and politics (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In the 85 year history of the Australian Grand Prix it's never been known as the Grand Prix of Australia. 85 years. Less than 30 of that has been Formula One world championship. The race has an amazing and rich history which has nothing to do with the World Championship, or the European championship that preceded it. Grand Prix of Australia has nothing to do with the first five and a half decades of the race. That's just one example. Shall I detail more? And that is without knocking holes in the parrallel examples of rallies and touring car races. Rallies have had all kinds of names, some with no geographical component at all.

I think it is incredibly premature to even contemplate moving the race names. New races? Possibly, even probably that would be good. Not for any others. --Falcadore (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if there were a case for moving articles and/or changing the names of them (and I don't believe there is a good case for that), the fallout would make it not worth the effort. I do not believe this project is capable of such an overhaul, and the prospect of endless arguments about the semantics / translation of the name of each race should be a cause for concern to all. I'd also make the point that article titles are simply to describe the contents of the article, and do not need to be carbon copies of any official title, particularly with regard to generic race articles, e.g. British Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with John McButts and Sport and politics: my suggestion/preference would be to stick with the existing naming scheme for now and if, at the end of 2014 (or sooner), it becomes obvious that the COMMONNAME has changed to "Grand Prix of XXX", then we can go back and update the names of the 2014 events. DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sport and politics, could you please take a mmoment to consider the arguments made here before you make changes to the article? So far the arguments presented oppose moving articles, but you have removed content from the page based on over-linking. I invite you to review previous season articles, many of which contain a title for the "race title", and another of the Grand Prix name. The race title name is used to express the full, formal title of the race, which often includes sponsors or local names for the race. In this case, those titles are being supplied by the WMSC, and are the only titles supplied in the references given for the calendar. This is an established practice that I have not seen disputed here, so I think you have misunderstood the arguments being made. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is overwhelming here no other user is in support of changing to Grand Prix of (name) at this point in time and until that consensus changes and only when that consensus changes should the changes be made. As for removing over-linking is in line WP:OVERLINK. What the WMSC council say is NOT A TRUMP CARD OR A LAW. In this case as the consensus is clear to use the format (name) Grand Prix. Sport and politics (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, no other user here is in support of changing article names. The use of a particular title in this article itself has not been discussed. And while that might sound like semantics, I don't think anyone will appreciate you putting words in their mouth.

As for the WMSC, you are correct in saying that they are not a trump card or law. They are, however, the authority on the subject - if anyone can give a formal title to a race, it is them. And, as has been explained to you, the practice of including race titles in season articles is commonplace. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikiepdia simply does not work the way are you are arguing it does Prisonermonkeys. It works on consensus and in this case consensus is clear and the format which has clear consensus is (Name) Grand Prix and NOT Grand Prix of (Name). Sport and politics (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And that has only been discussed within the context of article titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You are far, far to quick to bring up WP:OWN to justify removing edits that you disagree with. I would like to remind you of WP:AGF and suggest that you refrain from accusing other editors of breaking a policy as serious as OWN unless you can show actual cause. In this case, the content you are claiming is only in the article because of OWN has actually been there for months, and is supported by references like the WMSC calendar. Other parts have been included for the sake of standardising the names in the article to avoid confusion. None of this was being debated until the issue was brought up, and nobody accused anyone of breaking OWN until somebody disagreed with you.

If you look at my edit history, you will notice that I edit a lot. This is in part because I tinker, editing bits and pieces as they occur to me. But it is also because I do most of my editing from a mobile device, which has its limitations. For example, if I want to copy and paste a URL into a large article, I cannot do it directly as my browser may inadvertently overwrite data (especially if the auto-correct picked up a spelling mistake). I am forced to make three or four edits just to get that URL into the article. That does not mean I think I OWN it. It just means I have to do the best that I can with what I have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome I have replied to the comments left on my talk page there. This is not a war of attrition and is not a one man show to attempt to drown out others. I have stopped reading what you are writing Prisonermonkeys as it is too long to read and it is more of the same as before. The principle of the format as a whole has been discussed not as is being claimed on what the format should be for article titles. The consensus is very clear and the outcome is very clear the clear outcome and consensus is (name) Grand Prix. Sport and politics (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you did not respond at all. Your first response was to try and shut the conversation down. It was only after I reposted it here that I got any response. And at least I did the courtesy of reading everything you wrote. You, on the other hand, have ignored AGF, accused me of breaking OWN when I disagreed with you (which you have done before), went out of your way to avoid the issue, and when I took the time to try and soothe your doubts about OWN, you come back with "tl;dr". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Refocusing

The discussion was straying off topic, and I would like to see us refocus on the issue at hand. The consensus seems to be that using this new naming system for the individual pages for 2014 races is is not supported.

That being said, Prisonermonkeys has brought up two issues that I would like to see addressed. With regards to the race titles within the article, we have both the the Calender table and individual races, such as "Sebastian Vettel [...] after securing his fourth consecutive title at the 2013 Indian Grand Prix."

As Prisonermonkeys pointed out, in previous years the table has had two columns; 'Race Title' (changes year-to-year, due to sponsors, and also uses the local term such as "Gran Premio de España") and 'Grand Prix' (linking to the page of said Grand Prix). I have no problem using this new format in the Race Title column if that is the official race title, but I feel that we should continue to use the current format in the Grand Prix column. As for how we refer to individual races, I think it would be best to continue to use '___ Grand Prix' with the possible exception of the 'Grand Prix of America' as that is/was the common name for it. JohnMcButts (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there really is a name change, its take up is clearly not universal by this official reference. --Falcadore (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Prisonermonkeys was referring to the way that the calender was presented in the WMSC press releases [7] and [8]. This is, to me, not enough to warrant the changes that have been listed in the above discussion. It is also worth pointing out (again) that this same format was used for the 2013 calender. [9]. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the 2013 calendar, you will notice that there are two columns that essentially contain the same information. One is the "Race title", which includes the full formal name of the race, including sponsors and/or local names. The other is the "Grand Prix" column, which contains wlinks to the articles for those races. All I did was effectively merge these two columns together, since without sponsors or local names on the WMSC calendar, having two columns seemed redundant. But I also felt it was important to acknowledge the formal names given by the WMSC, especially since the only references for the calendar give the races as "Grand Prix of (Name)". The wlinks outside the calendar were piped in the same format for the sake of consistency throughout the article. Seeing as we have "United States Grand Prix" and "Grand Prix of the United States", it is not inconceivable that readers may mistake links to the "Australian Grand Prix" and "Grand Prix of Australia" as referring to two separate races, particularly if they have no prior knowledge of the sport. I have always felt that someone should be able to click the "random article" link, land on this article, read it, and fully understand it without having to read other articles to gain that understanding.

Parallel to this, I am left questioning the need for the "Race title" column in its full form. After all, we do not actually link anything in that title, and we have always taken the stance that the only thing that should be included in the article are things that affect the season as a whole. For example, not so long ago it was an established practice to give the start times for the race in both the local time and UTC. However, these had no bearing on the season as a whole, and since we are an encyclopaedia and not a television guide, the start times were removed. I am applying similar logic here: how necessary is it that we acknoweldge the title sponsor of a race? And how important is it to include the local name of that race? If the answer is "not very" (or similar), then why do we have a whole column devoted to it? After all, what effect does the change from "Qantas Australian Grand Prix" to "Rolex Australian Grand Prix" really have?

Of course, there should still be some way of acknowledging the way the FIA refers to races in the article. But it is redundant to have one column reading "Grand Prix of Australia", and the next colum reading "Australian GP". Surely the two can be merged, thereby performing the same functions as before, but in less space. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Local name of the race? There is only one name, really. Put simply, the opening race of the calendar is not known as the Grand Prix of Australia, and should not be referred to as such. --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Falcadore the use of Grand Prix of (name) anywhere is just a total nonsense unless the name of the race is intentionally done like that for a new race such as Grand Prix of America. Currently that is the only exception all other races in all parts of Wikipeida being referred to as Grand Prix of (Name), such as Grand Prix of Monaco is fanciful lunacy and sheer confusion to users with little or no knowledge or the subject.. Sport and politics (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Weren't you cautioning against "hysterical reactions" a few days ago? Because I think attempting to characterise an edit you disagree with as "fanciful lunacy" is a rather hysterical reaction. Between this and the way you accuse editors of breaking WP:OWN when they make edits you dislike, you are really making things difficult. Everyone here has made well-reasoned arguments. You just go straight to unreasonable aggression to try and force your preferred edits through. Maybe it would be in the best interests of the article if you backed off. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

-Edit- deleted the already proven facts, my mistake--

I think the reason behind this entire misunderstanding is likely due to the translation which causes it to be written in a more formal way when written in English (seeing as it's originally written in French and/or because they (FIA) are French). They also cannot confirm sponsorship so that is why that is not present as of yet (Like every year).

-Edit- In-fact after reading through the hefty pointless babble a second time, it appears that JohnMcButts found what I was looking for earlier on which actually makes this entire post rather meaningless. But it begs the question, why the heck had this blown up for no reason?. This should have been ended way before John had to go and find previous publishes. Does no research anything on here? I would have thought people had learnt from the Sirotkin situation. Though cant say I'm shocked personally. Joetri10 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your snide remarks are unnecessary. The fact that you are willing to judge the merits of an argument based on your opinion of the person making them rather than the contents of said argument speaks volumes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My snide remarks? My attitude in my own personal opinion too is horrible but you seem to cause an immense amount of problems for no reason. You stick SO hard to how Wikipedia works that it makes you oblivious to what you're actually talking about. Joetri10 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are unlikely to discover this for yourself, but Wikipedia only works when we can provide readers with reliable, trustworthy sources to support content in the articles so that those readers may be confident that that the content is truthful, rather than something we have made up. Unfortunately, by its very nature, the truth is what we can prove with those sources, which means it does not necessarily reflect reality as well as it could.

If you would rather trust to undefined "common knowledge"; to rumours, speculation an hearsay; or to the questionable and unproveable claim tbat an editor as a personal source that gives them access to knowledge that is not in the public sphere, then you have no business editing Wikipedia. We deal in what is reliable, what is verifiable, and what can be proven. We do not deal in rumour-mongering or the thinnest threads of speculation. If we relaxed out stance the way you feel we should, then we would immediately have a problem: Robin Frijns would be listed as a Marussia driver because someone in Malaysia put a cartoon picture of him in Marussia overalls on Instagram, and he would also be listed as a McLaren driver because a Dutch blogger claimed Honda "owed" Jos Verstappen a drive, and because he retired, Frijns inherited the debt as the best-placed Dutch driver. I have seen both of these (and more) ridiculous stories presented as proof positive that Frijns would join both teams.

That is what you are opening the door to, so you will forgive me if I am unwilling to budge on WP:RELIABLE or WP:VERIFIABLE. You will find few long-teen editors who are. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? That was the topic on Sirotkin? I'm talking about how this specific topic was handled. I mean for starters the topic was started (By yourself ironically enough) on the basis that one published article titled the races differently because "Blank?" (And if you tell me because they have titled other motorsport races in the same manner then boy help me). Not only did you Not do any other research to support the actual change but you misinterpreted the source material; Again!. I mean for goodness sake Prison, do you not understand what common sense even is! because you seem to lack a lot of it. So many things brought question to my mind the second I even glimpsed upon this discussion. Was this of difference to recent years? = No. Did they ever have talks about it? = No. Was it formula 1 headlines news? = No. You jumped the gun so fast that you didn't even think of tradition; they wouldn't change something like that. I hadn't even seen it mentioned once in the forum(s) I'm in either and all the major and minor headline news gets mentioned there. Prisonermonkey, I ask of you and for you actually think: What are you doing!?

I think its great what you're doing, it really is. You want this page to be as accurate as it can be whilst sticking to the script but please stop rubbishing common sense and logic. I know I couldn't bring the sources your wanted on Sirotkin, but most of them were "Unreliable" anyway in your manipulating fashion of loop-holing the rules but if you followed any form of F1 news, whether it be forums or twitter, you would know more than any news outlet could tell you, and it would be right! Including what's going to happen this week with Caterham (Though that may go un-published till later)

So seriously, stop clinging onto clauses, rules and your own personal opinion of published news that's vague at best because sometimes, you simply have to read between the lines. Joetri10 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting all the personal bickering aside, I have to say I largely agree with Joetri10 here. We have no proof that it's FIA's intent to introduce a uniform naming of the races across all the motorsports they govern. Additionally the manner in which the formula one races were titled on the official calendar was no different than in previous years. So, at this time, there is no case to change the way formula races are named on Wikipedia. Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Need to add driver numbers which have already being confirmed. Thats what I was looking for.

Ricciardo - 2 Rosberg - 6 Räikkönen - 7 Grosjean - 8 Pérez - 11 Alonso - 14 Massa - 19 Magnussen - 20 Button - 22 Vergne - 25 Bianchi - 27 Bottas - 77

All others remain TBA

Phmoutinho (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Ricciardo's apparently chosen #3 as his preferred number according to Planet F1: (http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9108608/Button-bags-22-) and Ricciardo's Twitter: (@danielricciardo)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.34.190 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus thus far has been to wait for the FIA to publish a full entry list before adding any numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: - None of these numbers are actually confirmed. They are the drivers preferred choices and wether they will actually get them depends on the numbers that still have to be chosen by other drivers (including those who have yet to been signed) as a result of the priority system formulated by the FIA. Tvx1 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Done - In the meantime an entry list has been published and the numbers have been added. Tvx1 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of FIA entry list for things other than car numbers

At the risk of starting another convoluted discussion, I have a question based on an issue in the current editing history of the page: how reliable is the FIA entry list for things other than numbers?

The entry list is being used to reference Lotus as using Renault engines, and normally this would be fine, but the list has errors is in - most notably, it names McLaren as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes", even though we have a source that disprove this; that sponsorship ended last year.

In the past, the general attitude has been that the entry list was really only good for car numbers, and that discrepancies should be taken on a case-by-case basis. For example, Sauber announced Esteban Gutierrez for the 2013 season, but Gutierrez was not listed on the entry list.

So, I think there is a case to answer here: can the entry list be used as a reference for anything other than car numbers, given that there is a documented history of it using outdated information? How can we prove that Lotus will actually use Renault engines and that the entry list used the 2013 information because it was what the FIA had on file? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just found the answer to my question: Lotus is officially listed as "TBC".

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112089

Don't know why I missed that first time around. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

McLaren is NOT listed as Vodafone McLaren Mercedes. The name of the TEAM is clearly listed as simply McLaren Mercedes, as stated in the Team Name column. The name of the LEGAL ENTITY THAT OWNS MCLAREN MERCEDES is still Vodafone McLaren Mercedes Ltd because they have not re-registered the company yet. The FIA entry list is completely reliable. Eightball (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you are genuinely confused by the way the entry list works but regardless I think it's clear that you're not very good at supporting your opinions. Eightball (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The legal entity that is the McLaren F1 team, is officially registered as 'McLaren Racing Limited' (it has been this since 2003 when the changed from 'McLaren International Limited'), their company number is 01517478. You can search for yourself here [10]. This is the UK government's registrar of companies and has information on all companies that are registered in the UK. JohnMcButts (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually ...

The FIA list puts Chilton in the second Marussia seat - but every other source lists that seat as TBA. So I guess the questio is still valid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, while I had my questions too on why there were no other sources confirming Lotus having an engine deal, I think that it is not up to us to question the reliability of the FIA. After all they know much more than we do. What proof do we have that they are wrong and not us? Maybe Mclaren didn't apply for a name change yet? Sauber continued an additional season under the BMW Sauber name after BMW left and there was no longer any BMW involvement at all. Given the fact that the publication comes directly from the FIA we can use it as a source as that is enough verification.

You should read the Autosport and FIA source carefully again as they list the entire Lotus entry (as well as the Marussia entry) as subject to confirmation and not only the engine. In fact the Autosport source list them as Lotus-Renault. Regarding Chilton, publication by Autsport and SkySportsF1 (to name a few) list him as a Marussia driver as well. Tvx1 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

When we have so many contradictory sources, reason to believe one of those sources might be outdated, and no way of demonstrating which is the most accurate, then perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave those contested fields as TBA for the time being, and do what we usually do and wait for the teams to confirm or deny. For example, the FIA list has Chilton at Marussia, but the Autosport article suggests a deal has been done, but not announced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia policy what we have to do when reliable sources disagree, is to present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. Tvx1 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I know what the policy says. I also know that there is a difference between sources disagreeing with one another, and sources contradicting one another. For example, how do you present what both sources say when the FIA publishes an entry list with Vodafone sponsoring McLaren, but McLaren say (and have said for nearly a year now) that they are no longer involved with Vodafone? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The team name of McLaren is McLaren Mercedes. No Vodafone in there. The Company Name is still VODAFONE MCLAREN RACING LTD. But that is not the team name. --Gamma127 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I was using that as an example to try and show what I meant by it. I had to simplify it a little to make the point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it seems they were completely right about Chilton. Anything else you want to put in doubt? Tvx1 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)