Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bahrain

Issue resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Bahrain being dropped for 2018? I haven't heard any reports that it is under threat. 24.22.127.155 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC) The table only lists venues with a contract. We do not have a source to say they have a contract, but nor do we have a source to say that they do not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

semi protection request

Issue resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just undid some rubbish someone put on the page. Can we get auto-confirmed users on again please? Pch187 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Just request it yourself at WP:RPP. An article's talk is not the correct place to request protection.Tvx1 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ferrari drivers

Issue resolved — drivers confirmed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sebastian Vettel PRETTY MUCH will be at ferrari, can i add Vettel to the contracted drivers? Thatbrazilianguy (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC) No, there is no contract between Vettel and Ferrari for next year, in fact they don't even seem close to agreeing one yet, until there is a signature he stays off same as everyone else. 145.8.180.207 (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Alright Thatbrazilianguy (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Block that guy!

No improvement to the article suggested here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Wikipediaeditperson is back a it again, block him from this page forever! Thatbrazilianguy (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC) May I ask why I should be blocked? - If you read the page above, you will realise I have apologised for a few days ago where I did 3 reverts, but since then, I haven't dont anything that deserves a block. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The halo

Agreement reached for the moment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Wikipediaeditperson — you need to read your sources. In order to become a part of the technical regulations, the halo MUST be approved by the WMSC, and they don't meet again until September. As both @Tvx1 and I have pointed out, they are the only body with any power to codify the rules. Just as formula1.com is run by FOM and is thus separate to the FIA, so too is the Strategy Working Group a separate entity; it's run by the teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Also, it helps if you bother to respond to messages on your talk page. How do you expect to get anything done if you don't discuss it with anyone? If you don't respond, we won't have any choice but to assume that you have no interest in working with anyone. You've already violated WP:3RR in addition to ignoring a consensus. The next stop is ANI. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Has the only other item in that section, the shark fin ban, been approved by the WMSC? The linked source only references the Strategy Group, and the most recent WMSC article has no mention of them approving the change to the technical regulations? Seems to me that if we've got so many sources saying that it's been approved, then it should be in the article; even if it is mentioned that approval is still needed. OZOO (t) (c) 13:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC) If approval is still needed, it's not a rule change, and thus should not be in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Indeed the source states that the Strategy Group will put the proposal forward to the WMSC for approval. This means that the ban has not been confirmed yet and this should be removed from the article. The Strategy Group has no authority. That was evident in the case of the abolishment of the elimination qualification system last year. They voted to abandon it after the Australian GP but the FIA refused and it remained in place for the next GP.Tvx1 14:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC) It's doubly frustrating since he doesn't respond to talk page messages and has made no attempt to educate himself on the processes that he's writing about. The quality of the writing that he has produced is pretty poor, making no attempt to explain what the halo is, the need for its introduction or the process that the FIA went through to settle on the final design. Sadly, I expect that we'll be right back where we started in 31 hours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Prionermonkeys, please do not talk about me in a conversation that I have not been involved in. The reason why I did not feel it necessary to use the talk page was because I was merely following the precedent set out in the article, as the shark fin rule was also not confirmed by the WMSC - thankfully this issue has been resolved. Clearly you have all decided that the Technical Regulation changes shall only be allowed to be mentioned on the page if confirmed by the WMSC. However, this new precedent is clearly the opposite to the precedent for the other sections of the article, given that the majority of the page hasn't yet been confirmed - no official calander has been released, no official entry list has been released and so on... I fear that this is what will lead to confusion with regards to this section, as I was certainly of the opinion that the technical regulations, like the rest of the page, didn't have to come from 'official' sources, such as the WMSC when I first carried out my original edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaeditperson (talk • contribs) 2017-07-25T17:26:31 (UTC) I don't think that confusion actually exists in the other sections. The teams and drivers' section clearly states that it contains contracted teams and driver and each of the entries is suitably sourced. There is no claim that it's an official entry list. Your concerns regarding the calendar were more justified and I have tweaked the caption to make it clear the calendar is provisional (like we used to have in previous years). The problem with the regulation changes was that the content was presented as if they were official, when in reality they are merely proposals. Everything should have been addressed now.Tvx1 17:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Also Tvx1, would it be advisable that once the Technical Regulation changes are confirmed by the WMSC, it is mentioned at the start of the section something similar to, 'Below are a list of the Technical Regulation changes approved by the World Motor Sport Council for the 2018 Formula One Season.', which would therefore leave no area of confusion, just like the other sections of the article which also have a sentence outlining the contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaeditperson (talk • contribs) 2017-07-25T18:53:05 (UTC) Personally, I think the information should be included, maybe with a note that it still needs formal approval but that it is planned. If we have reliable sources backing up the proposals, it seems to be to be more CRYSTAL balling to say they won't be included than that they will. Note that, judging by the FIA statement, the halo has been pushed through by the FIA themselves, rather than the Strategy Group. OZOO (t) (c) 18:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC) I agree with OZOO - especially given that approval from the WMSC is usually merely a formality, likely explaining why phrases such as, 'subject to approval from the WMSC' are rarely mentioned in news articles discussing the halo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaeditperson (talk • contribs) 2017-07-25T19:38:15 (UTC) Nevertheless, ths WMSC has the power to reject proposed rule changes, and their approval is required and is the only way to formalise rule changes. Without WMSC approval, those proposals are merely proposals and have no place in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC) I agree with OZOO and Wikipediaeditperson, these proposals are valid content for this article, so long as it is made clear that they are just proposals at this stage, and are reliably sourced. When a final decision is made about them by the FIA it can be added, even if they are rejected. It informs the user of the politics within the sport - which is part of the big picture, and thus of encyclopaedic value. -- de Facto (talk). 09:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Except that they're just proposals. They have no bearing on the 2018 season until they're ratified by the WMSC. In the meantime, they have about as much bearing on the 2018 season as the proposed race in Denmark. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC) WMSC approval is not a formality. There are countless examples of Strategy Group proposals which never resulted in rules being changed.Tvx1 10:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Please stop arguing in the edit section about the Halo,please Thatbrazilianguy (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Don't worry, the disruptive user has been blocked.Tvx1 14:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC) @Wikipediaeditperson — I suggest you read this and this before you continue editing. Please acknowledge that you have read and understood this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Wikipediaeditperson: "Prionermonkeys, please do not talk about me in a conversation that I have not been involved in." I have tried multiple times to get your attention. I have left several messages on your talk page and repeatedly tagged you in this conversation. You became a stakeholder in this conversation from the moment you made that first edit. Until now, you have responded to none of them and you have shown no attempt to learn from your previous mistakes. Wikipedia is built on collaboration between editors, but until now you have shown no desire to be a part of any constructive discussion. Even then your first comment was complaining that your name was mentioned in a discussion that you had repeatedly been invited into. Your editing has not been productive; indeed, it has been very disruptive, and your block was well-deserved. If you think that refusing to participate in discussions, ignoring consensus and established practices, and trying to force edits through are appropriate ways of conducting yourself, you will not last long. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys May I suggest that the 'I am always right' attitude you appear to have is rather contradictory of your comments regarding me. For example, it seems double standards that you feel you may revert changes to the Season Calendar, when these changes were brought about by a consensus being reached on this talk page, yet you are immediately hostile towards me when I do a similar thing - even though I was just following the precedent set by the shark fin regulation, which was in the article at the time and also wasn't approved by the WMSC. I will therefore revert your edit on the Season Calendar, as per the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaeditperson (talk • contribs) 2017-07-25T22:39:48 (UTC) First of all, there is no consensus. You only just started talking about it a few hours ago, and you haven't given every editor involved in the discussion a chance to participate in talking about the specific issue. Secondly, you clearly haven't bothered to do your reading on the subject. The calendar is decided by FOM, who reach an agreement with individual circuits for their event dates. You're over-stating the power of the WMSC in this case since they're mostly concerned with ratifying regulation changes. Finally, my attitude is not "I'm always right". My attitude is "I know what I'm talking about". It is clear from your edits that you know very little about the governance of the sport and you have made very little attempt to inform yourself about them. Likewise, you clearly know very little about Wikipedia guidelines given your sweeping declaration of a consensus being formed. Stop being so combative and start working with others. And stop editing articles that you don't know anything about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Leave the comments alone, please. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Both of you need to stop complaining about each other, this doesn't lead anywhere here. This article is to discuss improvements to the article, so please discuss the content here. If you want to diss out personal problems use your personal talk pages for that. While the FOM makes the contracts, it is nevertheless the FIA which makes the actual calendar through its WMSC. While the actual content of the calendar is rarely changed by the FIA the order of the content and the dates are finalized by them. There are however cases where the content does change. The provisional calendar for the ongoing season featured a German Grand whereas the final calendar didn't. Regardless, no-one is discussing removing the calendar, only to change the wording to to make it state it's a provisional calendar. That's the exact same style of wording to the one used in previous years. I really don't see how that is pushing things to far.Tvx1 10:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC) "no-one is discussing removing the calendar, only to change the wording to to make it state it's a provisional calendar" Except that that's no different to including proposed rule changes. The difference between the calendar and the rulebook is that the WMSC have direct power over the rules, but no power over the calendar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys The calendar is still subject to FIA approval - not the WMSC, but it still needs approval. Tell that to the event promoters who have to start preparing for an event before the calendar is approved. Case in point, the Russians—they knew that they had six months to prepare between the 2016 and 2017 races. Again, do some reading. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC) How does that argue your point? - the halo has been in development since 2016, but that isn't allowed to be mentioned on the page. Also, Prisonermonkeys please could you stop being so confrontational in your comments - it seems that you are not willing to allow others to express their opinions. I'm quite happy to let others express their opinions. But it would help your case immensely if you actually knew what you were talking about. It's obvious that you have next to no idea, given that you couldn't tell the difference between the SWG and WMSC. Even now you're not reading my comments, seeing as how I have already pointed out that the WMSC only has direct power over the rule changes. FOM has the power over the calendar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC) No FIA has the power of the calendar. If th FIA disapprove a proposed race, for instance because the circuit does not comply to the requested safety standards, they disapprove of it. Period. Contract or not. Case in point the 1997 Portuguese Grand Prix. Also the FIA defines the order of the races and the dates. The FIA can easily still move a race from an early season slot on the provisional calendar to a late season slot on the final one.Tvx1 11:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I'm not clear on why the proposed calendar and the proposed entry list are permitted, but proposed regulation changes – particularly changes which are being published in reliable sources – cannot be added until final approval. Indeed, given the controversy over the halo, it may still be encyclopedic to mention even if the WMSC rejects it, particularly if we can verify that the rejection is the result of the criticism. OZOO (t) (c) 11:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Once again, Prisonermonkeys you still decide to be confrontational in your comments towards me, and I do know the difference between the FIA, Strategy Group, WMSC, FOM/Liberty. I was merely pointing out that given the FIA has approved the halo, it is likely to be a mere formality with regards to the WMSC. Likewise, I never said the WMSC has power over the calendar - the FIA does still need to ratify the calendar however, and also has the power to stop a race from going ahead if they downgrade a circuit from its grade 1 status, thus making it a provisional calendar.Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC) "I do know the difference between the FIA, Strategy Group, WMSC, FOM/Liberty" And yet, some of your recent edits in the article claimed that a decision by the SWG justified the inclusion of the halo in the article when you were told that WMSC needed to approve it first. It's prettt clear that you have no idea. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC) The strategy group and the FIA made this decision, and therefore it is merely a formality with regards to the WMSC - it is extremely unlikely that the WMSC, which is a part of the FIA, would overrule the FIA and the strategy group - just because they have got the power to, doesn't mean they will automatically invoke that power.Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) But you can't make the assumption that they won't reject the proposal on the grounds that they've been hesitant to reject other proposals in the past. That's a mix of crystal-balling and original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I totally agree, and I hold my hands up for making this mistake when discussing the halo in the article a few days ago. However, I was just pointing out that it is a similar situation with regards to the calendar - assuming the FIA wont change the calendar, as they have been hesitant to do so in the past (even though this has happened quite a lot in the past, even without FIA intervention, whereby FOM have fallen out of agreement with the organisers, or due to civil unrest for example). Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I just think that we're so paranoid about making sure articles do not predict the future that we're engineering the encyclopaedic value right out of them. We're writing about a future event and it's not unreasonable to assume that that event will take place; the only way that it will not happen is through force majeure, and if that were to happen, then no-one would think the less of us for failing to anticipate it; and while it would render the article redundant, it would not strip old versions of their encyclopaedic value. But as it is, some people are so on edge about not giving the impression of predicting so much as a second into the future that the article is loaded with empty diction and meaningless phrases designed to protect the article in the event that something does not come to pass. It won't be long before the article is written in Newspeak. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I really have no idea what you are trying to say here. There is no paranoia. No one is discussing predicting the future. There two actual points of discussion here. There first point is to not tell our readers rule changes have been confirmed when they haven't actually been confirmed. That seems pretty logical to me. I don't see the point in have a section of "Strategy Group proposals". They don't have any authority and they don't need to propose rule changes for them to happen. Rule changes can be executed entirely without their involvement. The second point in the discussion is naming the provisional calendar "the provisional calendar". I don't see the problem with that either. So I really can't see why all of you are making such a ruckus when the article is perfectly fine right now. Our readers can understand everything and aren't being misled in any way.Tvx1 23:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I think the confusion with regards to the halo, is that it wasn't just the strategy group - the FIA also agreed to introduce it. Therefore, all that is left is for it to be signed off by the WMSC, who are virtually guaranteed to agree it - perhaps the opening line of the section could say 'FIA approved regulation changes for 2018', and then in italics could be regulations subject to WMSC approval. Surely such a big rule change as the halo has to be on the page somewhere, given the impact and controversy it has already had on the fans. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC) It feels like you're trying to account for every future possibility except for the season actually going ahead. The article is so full of empty phrases that someone with no knowledge of the sport reading the article for the first time could be forgiven for thinking that the championship will not be going ahead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Where does it mention or even suggest the championship will not go ahead - even the FIA, and anyone involved in F1 calls the calendar the provisional calendar. Likewise, it could be argued that someone with knowledge of the sport knows, that beyond reasonable doubt, the halo will be introduced, but it cannot be mentioned on the webpage. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC) I don't think you can make that assumption at all. When it comes to driver safety, the FIA and WMSC tend to listen to the GDPA since drivers are the ones directly affected by it. And the response from the GDPA has been mixed, so I would not take the halo for granted. As for the article suggesting that the season will not go ahead, it does not say it directly—only by omission. It sets up a series of precise circumstances under which the season will take place; if any of those circumstances are not met, the season will not happen. The article is so preoccupied with the state of the 2018 season right now that it is engineering the encyclopaedic value out of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, I agree the FIA and WMSC may consider the GPDA, but given that the announcement came directly from the FIA themselves, it is likely that they had already taken this into account and it is now just a case of waiting for the WMSC to sign it off. I struggle to see the areas of the article that you refer to as suggesting the championship may not go ahead - the calendar states it is provisional, and that is also what the FIA deem the calendar to be, as there is likely to be slight changes to dates, or even venues in extreme cases. Likewise, the teams and drivers say that these teams are currently contracted for 2018, and in situations like with Manor, we know that things can change with the teams. Other than that, I struggle to find these areas that you mention, and I feel the article is a valid representation of the current agreements set in place for 2018. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

consistency of season naming

Are we sure we will be using 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship instead of 2018 FIA Formula One season?

You can weigh in here.Tvx1 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Since that's a lengthy discussion, I'll post the rationale here. The reasoning for it is two-fold:

1. The justification for using "2018 Formula One season" was that it covers all Formula 1 racing in a calendar year. However, the World Championship is the only Formula 1 racing in a calendar year, so the name "2018 FIA Formula One World Championship" is more representative.
2. In 1980, the FIA published a Yellow Book—outlining the sporting regulations for the upcoming year—that formalised the name "FIA Formula One World Championship", and which has been used ever since.

There are a few ongoing issues up for discussion, such as what to do with the pre-1981 articles, and how to re-word article leads. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Could an adminstrator please change the following section from the teams and drivers' table

Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	Mercedes	44	Lewis Hamilton
			TBA	TBA

To

Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	Mercedes	44	Lewis Hamilton
			77	Valtteri Bottas

References

The second Mercedes driver has been confirmed. Reliable source has been provided.Tvx1 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But you're only using Autosport.com and other similar sites that simply share rumors like Sainz going to Renault. Why the double standard? GeoJoe10000 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No double standard. The provided source quotes Mercedes directly, the Sainz-Renault source does not quote anyone at all.Tvx1 12:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Then why not use an actual official source? https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/mercedes-amg-f1/silver-arrows-and-valtteri-bottas-together-in-2018/ <-- This. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes no difference. It's the combination of the content and the publisher we care about, not solely the publisher.Tvx1 13:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are going to reject the source I provided simply because it wasn't the one you chose? You can't run this page like a dictatorship. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, you said it didn't matter. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your nonsense. Your request is nothing but for a change of URL for the sake it. It does not make any difference at all.Tvx1 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter, then you'll leave it be. I'm simply trying to prove you only care about power. This is simply more evidence. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Leave what be? You're the one making a stink, thereby blocking an ontherwise uncontroversial addition of Bottas.Tvx1 13:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't see I changed the source for your suggested edit. Since you're not the one making a stink, you'll be happy to have someone include Mercedes' official announcement as the source since it's the best one for this kind of change. Or... you actually care about having YOUR source used. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making this personal. I have never made a demand that my source is used. Both mine and yours are equally viable. They both are reliable and their claims are verifiable.Tvx1 14:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not this time, at least. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 September 2017

Already requested above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport Lewis Hamilton Valterie Bottas Renault Sport Formula One Team[15] Carlos Sainz Jbright26590 (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of motorsport.com as a source

Given this edit (not the first bit, the lower down bit) and the associated edit comment ("The reliability of the latter source is questionable. Get consensus first"), shouldn't we also be questioning the accuracy of the Force India/Ocon entry in the same table, as it also relies on motorsport.com as its source? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that you're trying to get people opposed to the other source to say one source is okay and the other is not. But how about we judge it based on the criteria we have been calling for: does the source quote anyone with the authority to confirm it? That would be Ocon, Bob Fernley, Otmar Szafnauer or Vijay Mallya for a start. If yes, we have no issue with it. But if it does not quote anyone, it should be removed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Motorsport.com isn't a source, Motorsport.com with direct quotes from the team is a source. The Force India articles have that, the Sainz,Honda, Renault, Alonso saga ones don't. Duds 2k (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Duds 2k: generally, per the Wikipedia policy WP:RS, a reliable source is one where the publisher has an effective editorial policy and a reputation for accuracy. It does not generally distinguish between specific articles from a particular publisher based on whether the journalist has decided to protect their sources of information, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: no, I am just looking for consistency and compliance with the standard WP policies. The source is the publication. Each Autosport article is a potential source, each BBC News article is a potential source. Whether a specific source is reliable is more about the editorial practices of the publisher than it is about specific content in specific articles. We can no more say that this Autosport article is unreliable because the writer has protected the name of their informant than we can say that, say, a BBC news article about abuse in a care home is unreliable because the journalist protected the name of their inside informant. That two editors have apparently misunderstand WP:VER and WP:RS does not mean that the rest of us have to comply with your (misinterpreted) version and your demands. OTOH, if you can raise a consensus at WP:F1 to support your added mlevel of "reliability" and your demands, then that could change matters. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Just saying, I have looked up and down this page. If something happens that Prisonermonkeys does not agree with, it wont happen. Lets just leave it at Auto Sport is a reliable source, cause it tends to be correct, and Prisonermonkeys is just being a dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.119.26 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

From my recollection, motorsport.com has been viewed as a questionable source by WikiProject Formula One for some time. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@The359: can you recall what the general reason for that was, or refer us to any discussions about them - could it be because they have a track record of asserting as facts things which later turn out to be untrue? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I recall there being some question of their journalistic integrity at some point, but they also like to copy (verbatim) many of their statistics or write ups on history from Wikipedia itself, making them no longer eligible for WP:RS. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@The359: thanks for that, it is interesting, but it is static data and (as far as I can tell) correctly attributed to Wikipedia. We certainly can't use anything they source from Wikipedia as a source. Can you recall whether there have been problems with the factual content of news items they carry and which are attributed to journalists? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I swear that there were issues with motorsport.com before in regards to their news, but I don't recall where it is in the archive of WP:F1. But yes, it had to do with them stating things as facts when they were not yet actually true. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely recall there being issues with motorsport.com in the past, but I do think that was with the old site (probably a copy-paste outlet), not the current site, which was relaunched under new ownership as a proper motorsport news operation. As far as I can see, Motorsport.com should be regarded as a reliable source. DeFacto FYI, at that time the site was failing to properly attribute Wikipedia, an issue which was eventually addressed. QueenCake (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@QueenCake: thanks for your recollections, perhaps they've got their act together now. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks The359, could that have been with the old site of the same name (per QueenCake's comment) do you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't use Motorsport.com, so I don't really know about old vs new versions. However, I do know that Motorsport.com's parent now owns Autosport and their associated websites. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

And on that, half their staff work for both publications.

The issue of a shares parent company creates a further issue when discussing the disputed content: people are treating Autosport and motorsport.com as separate sources. Both have claimed Sainz is moving to Renault based on an anonymous source, but both are owned by the same company. It would be like treating FOX News and The Sydney Morning Herald as separate sources when they are both owned by NewsCorp. I cannot find any publication making the same claim as Autosport and motorsport.com independently of them. Those that are discussing it—like F1 Fanatic, SpeedCafe and news.com.au—make is clear that the Autosport/motorsport.com article is their source, not the anonymous person used by those publications.

An unsubstantiated claim without any independent source to verify should be an immediate red flag. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request 13 September

First of all, I'm going to tag @EdJohnston here as he was the admin who protected the page. I'm sorry if there's a template that I am supposed to include here; I don't think I have ever requested edits to a protected page before, so I don't know how to do it.

I would like to request that Carlos Sainz Jr. be restored to the table as a Toro Rosso driver. Although no consensus has been formed, it is clear from the above discussion that those opppsed to his inclusion have failed to prove their case. I submit that:

1. They have not refuted anything in the original article used to justify Sainz' inclusion.
2. The only evidence offered to claim otherwise contains unverifiable claims.
3. The argument in support of the motorsport.com article hinges on their reputation as a reliable source despite the unverifiable claims. In other words, "they have a good reputation, so it must be true".
4. motorsport.com is completely separate to Carlos Sainz Jr., Renault or any other relevant party; thus, they cannot speak for anyone involved.
5. No other reliable source is running thus story. Those that are publishing something about it—such as SpeedCafe and F1 Fanatic—make it clear that they are getting the story from Autosport, a sister publication to motorsport.com; they are owned by the same company.
6. The editors involved personally feel that it is unlikely Sainz will continue with Toro Rosso, which is speculation at best and original research at worst.

Therefore, with no evidence to the contrary, Sainz Jr. should be returned to tge table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I think you are misunderstanding WP:VER, its first sentence says "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." The case against restoring Sainz as a Torro Rosso is verifiable, the motorsport.com source you quote states unequivocally that "Carlos Sainz has signed a deal to join Renault". Readers only need to go to the cited source to be able to verify that, as WP:VER requires. Sure the original version was verifiable too, but the later reliable source must take precedence over the older one - things have moved on - that's straight logic and not original research. Let's wait to see if a consensus develops before getting the article changed. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Since motorsport.com is completely separate to Renault, Toro Rosso or Sainz, the reader has no way know if what is said is in fact true. An article quoting an anonymous source cannot trump an article that does. Especially when you have failed to disprove anything in the original source. That's why I put it to an admin—you have failed to prove your case. There is nothing to build a consensus on because your argument amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: That a source is independent of the subject is a good thing, not a bad thing. If they are considered to be a reliable source, then stuff they publish as fact can generally be considered to be fact (OTOH if it was reported as opinion that would be a different matter).

Like I alluded to above, there is no reason to disprove the original source, we can assume that at that time is was factually correct too, but circumstances have changed and the later source gives the later situation.

The decision I think we need to make now is whether the statement in the later source carries enough weight to supersede, or even just bring into doubt now, the statement in the older source. And no, I don't see any evidence of personal POV colouring the contributions of those who think the old version is now outdated. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And you know why? Because it doesn't mention anywhere that his contract with Toro Rosso has been disbanded, nor does it quote anyone with the authority over his contracts. There it does not prove his contract has been disbanded and it cannot be used as proof to remove him. Therefore I support the edit request.Tvx1 08:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you two ever admitted in your entire lives that you were wrong at any point? Just curious. The fact you cling to your own edits like this is simply laughable. Are you telling other editors here that, despite evidence suggesting Sainz will be confirmed at Renault, you'd rather push old information just because it was yours? You know as well as I do it's not really correct anymore. It's only correct because you added it. Face the facts. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You want Sainz listed at Toro Rosso because you don't want other people to have power to change the article. Instead, you will change it as soon as there is confirmation otherwise, and you will pretend you right the entire time. This is not how Wikipedia should operate. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with having power over an article and everything to do with ensuring that the content of the article is factual.

"despite evidence suggesting Sainz will be confirmed at Renault"

Key words right there: 1) "suggesting", which is speculative, and 2) "will be" which is future tense, describing an event that has not happened yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But Sainz staying at Toro Rosso is not factual. Seriously, have you ever been wrong, or is what you say always factual? This would be good to know in the future so we can avoid long discussions if the answer is always going to be "Prisonermonkeys is right because he says so." GeoJoe10000 (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As explained to you already years ago, we report on contracts, not on who will drive.Tvx1 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: maybe, I don't remember, but rather than just asserting that, we need to be able to readily reference the discussion where that consensus was reached, not only for those getting older and more forgetful like me, but for allcomers, especially newcomers, to make it verifiable and, hopefully avoid the confusion and timewasting that these discussions lead to. And also to make it open and open to scrutiny. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

DeFacto, continue with the rest of your day knowing that you did all you could here. F1 pages on Wikipedia report on what Tvx1 says they will report. That is the reasoning, and that reasoning is infallible here. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: the older source says he will stay with Torro Rosso but the newer source says he has signed a deal to drive for Renault. So we clearly can't have him in the table as a Torro Rosso driver, so where would you put him if not as a Renault driver? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Because the newer source does not quote anyone with the authority over the contracts in question. The newer source's claim is not reliable or verifiable.Tvx1 12:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: we've gone full circle, my original question was where is that requirement specified? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"the newer source says he has signed a deal to drive for Renault"

But it offers no proof of this claim. It has been reported that Pierre Gasly and Nobuhara Matsushita will drive for Toro Rosso and that Charles Leclerc and Antonio Giovinazzi will race for Sauber. Why not include them, too? No proof has been offered, but someone believed it enough to repeat it in print, so clearly it must be factual.

"Sainz staying at Toro Rosso is not factual"

Prove it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There it is again: only you're right. But since you insist: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

You'll have to go through all of these sources now and explain why they are not enough to question Sainz staying at Toro Rosso. Or you can just admit you aren't willing to accept other opinions. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Because they're all quoting the original motorsport.com article. They're using another publication in lieu of their own sources. Even the title of the news.com.au article acknowledges it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Why can't it just be policy to wait for an official source from the team website? Mercedes did it this morning with Bottas. Easy bright-line rule. Toro Rosso has not done that yet, suggesting there is no official deal in place to keep Sainz around in 2018. I'm not suggesting he will be at Renault for sure. I'm suggesting his contract cannot be official when he has been involved in dealing with Renault, which can be confirmed. We shouldn't have people running F1 pages if they can't follow the driver market or keep up with the sport. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Same repetitive issue. None of your sources provides verifiable proof for their claims. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the guidelines and policies? And why on earth would we have to wait every year for drivers with multi year contracts to be officially reconfirmed. A contract is a contract.Tvx1 13:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no contract in place for Sainz. You have no proof of it. An option is not enough; they are at the will of the team. Just admit you don't want to be wrong. The policies you are using are simply being construed by you in your favor. They can be construed other ways, as has been seen. If we don't have to wait for official confirmation, then Sainz is clearly racing for Renault. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course I have proof. It was reliably sourced until it was removed shortly before the full protection.Tvx1 13:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't reliable. There was no official confirmation from anyone at Toro Rosso. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Red Bull family operates as one in terms of driver signins. Everyone knows that. Suotes from Horner and Marko are more than sufficient.Tvx1 13:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No they aren't. Only you say that. There was no mention of an official contract in place. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The irony is that the articles you are using to justify his removal do not contain any mention of an official contract. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't give so much weight to an outdated article. Wikipedia policy, I believe (WP:UNDUE). Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the guidelines and policies?GeoJoe10000 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It was a month old. It was hardly out-dated. And in the absence of any other evidence, it was the best available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: I am disabling this request due to lack of clear consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin. Hope you're having a nice day! GeoJoe10000 (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: - would 'TBC' not be most suitable for this situation? - Clearly there is a dispute as to whether Sainz will drive for TR next year, so really we are awaiting further confirmation from Renault, Toro Rosso or another party with regards to understanding exactly who will occupy the TR and Renault seats. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

MSGJ — I don't think a consensus is needed here. The people opposed to the inclusion of Sainz as a Toro Rosso driver have completely failed to prove their case. They're basing the entire thing on an anonymous source, the reputation of the publication and their personal opinions of what is likely to happen. If that's all it takes to dispute well-sourced content—an authority figure confirming the existence of a contract—things are going to fall apart very quickly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"all it takes to dispute well-sourced content" - I couldn't agree more, I cannot believe that people are still disputing information provided by reliable and trusted sources, such as Autosport and Motorsport.com, and "all it takes" to dispute this is an old source that is clearly irrelevant now, as the new agreement would make the old contract void.

"I don't think a consensus is needed here" - That is not for you to decide, it is down to the administrator(s) to come to this decision, and clearly MSGJ has come to the reasonable decision to make no changes until either a concensus is achieved or further information backs up one option. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"such as Autosport and Motorsport.com"

Only by those two, who are owned by the same company, Motorsport Network. They claim the deal has gone ahead, but they offer no proof of it. Their reputation as a reliable and trusted source does not excuse the lack of content in their articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"they offer no proof of it" - I guess you only read the parts of articles that back up your viewpoint? - If you read the entire article, you will realise that they do prove it, by quoting a source, albeit the name of the source is protected, but this doesn't make the source any less reputable, and this in turn proves that the deal has gone through. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just what you guess the claim means. For all I know, it might just as well mean that they do not have a source at all and they just added the claim to make it look like it is the truth. And sure enough, Sainz himself has told today that he hasn't signed anything with Renault yet.Tvx1 18:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: the fact is, that it doesn't matter why they chose not to reveal who their informant was. Because if they are considered to be an RS, then we can take what they report at face value. If they aren't considered to be an RS, then there are a lot of article which will need revisiting to remove any reliance on them. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I have just provided a link to a source which clearly proves that we cannot take the contested source at face value and you are still demanding we should? What sort of nonsense is that? Wikipedia does not and never has worked on an all or nothing bases. We judge both the publisher AND the content, not only the publisher.Tvx1 20:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: sorry, I'm struggling to keep up with all these threads. We can only judge sources with hindsight, motorsport will have been wrong if Sainz doesn't drive for Renault next year. I read the new source you provided, and although I can't see a date anywhere on it, I assume it's newer than the motorsport one. It doesn't prove that the motorsport source is wrong though, couldn't this new source be wrong? We need to remain neutral, and with no way of knowing what will actually transpire, take both sources at face value. We have to (per WP:NPOV) consider what they both say and strike a balance. One says Sainz's deal with Renault has been agreed, the other says he's close to signing, are the two incompatible? Is there still significant doubt as to whether Sainz will drive for Renault next year? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course they are incompatible. The first source doesn't quote anyone specific who is in a postion to know anything at all. The latter source quotes the driver in question directly stating he has not signed with Renault. It couldn't be more disproving. It's literally a person denying another source's claims about him.Tvx1 22:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Toro Rosso lineup

At this point, it appears that Toro Rosso's lineup has no confirmation anymore. It appears that some editors are not being collaborative though. Just wanted to make a note here before these editors get other individuals involved for no reason. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"it appears that Toro Rosso's lineup has no confirmation anymore"

Do you have any evidence of that? As has been explained to you, the story about Sainz does not constitute confirmation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Evidence to prove something isn't real? The page would require evidence that Sainz is currently signed with Toro Rosso through 2018. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you seem to have a problem understanding what "confirmation" means. I did not make an edit suggesting Sainz will race for Renault in 2018. Rather, there is clearly a lack of evidence suggesting Toro Rosso will have Sainz in its lineup for 2018, and you have no sources suggesting that. Where are your sources? Where's news of this 2018 contract in the face of recent news? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"Where's news of this 2018 contract in the face of recent news?"

The articles about Sainz moving to Renault do not refute that he has a Toro Rosso contract because the move to Renault has not been confirmed to the standard that the WP:F1 community expects. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's why I didn't add Sainz as a Renault driver, but his contract with Toro Rosso has come into question, and you have not proven the previous source is accurate anymore. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to prove the previous source is accurate. You're the one making the claim that it is inaccurate, so the burden of responsibility rests with you to prove that it is inaccurate. A rumour of him joining another team is not proof. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Well then I guess the new source is accurate too. Several sources announcing a deal is done is proof. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no official announcement from Toro Rosso that Sainz would drive for them in 2018. Your source is Chris Horner. That's not enough. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GeoJoe1000 - Why should we put something into the article that is extremely unlikely to happen (Sainz driving for Toro Rosso)? I appreciate that the Renault deal is not officially confirmed, and therefore I feel leave it as TBA in both Renault and Toro Rosso, as placing Sainz in either Toro Rosso or Renault are both doubtful with regards to their credibility. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Well put. Odds are we'll see an official announcement from Renault and Toro Rosso this week, so there's no reason to waste time fooling readers into thinking Sainz will race for Toro Rosso based on flimsy evidence from July. There are no credible sources available today suggesting Sainz will stay with Toro Rosso; his 2018 contract was simply a team option rather than an official deal. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"Why should we put something into the article that is extremely unlikely to happen"

Because that's speculation and is absolutely something that we cannot do.

"his 2018 contract was simply a team option rather than an official deal"

You have yet to provide any actual evidence of this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to go back to that Sky Sports article you love so much. It's only a team option for 2018. Also, I'm glad you agree we can't suggest Sainz will race for Toro Rosso. Seems like this issue is settled. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"I'm glad you agree we can't suggest Sainz will race for Toro Rosso"

I did not say that. I said that we could not include rumours in an article.

"Seems like this issue is settled."

No, it's not. I see nothing wrong with the Sky article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There's certainly nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't prove anything. If Sainz moving to Renault is still a rumor, then so is Sainz staying at Toro Rosso. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Where has Toro Rosso confirmed it's lineup for 2018? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"then so is Sainz staying at Toro Rosso"

How does that work? Christian Horner, the Red Bull team principal, is telling Sainz that he will stay at a Red Bull team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

He cannot invoke a binding team option through an interview. Where was the official announcement? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Read the text above the table. It tells you clearly that the table contains signed drivers. We have a very reliable source stating that Sainz has contract with Toro Rosso for 2018. He might well be negotiating to opt-out of it and sign with Renault, but as long as his contract with Toro Rosso is still valid we cannot report anything another than him being signed with Toro Rosso.Tvx1 00:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's all moot now because the article has been edit-protected. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. Reliable sourced information is now missing and we need a consensus if we want the protection to be lifted.Tvx1 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What was reliable about Sky Sports? What wasn't reliable about Motorsport.com? You can't cherry pick reliable sources that suit your preferences. There was simply an assumption in place that Sainz had a long-term contract in place, but we all know now there is no actual contract in place for 2018. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Going back to https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/sainz-renault-switch-str-mclaren-honda-951146/, "Carlos Sainz has signed a deal to join Renault..." So what makes anyone here an expert on Sainz's contract situation at this point? His contract may have been valid for this year, but he was never confirmed for next year. Now he's definitely not confirmed for next year. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The standard expected by WP:F1 for confirmation is a senior team member is named and quoted, or the driver themself—that means Eric Boullier, Cyril Abiteboul, Franz Tost, Carlos Sainz Jr. or someone from Honda.

I told you that yesterday (word for wprd), before you broke 3RR. The motorsport.com article does not name anybody who would be in a position to speak on it. Quoting anonymous sources is not good enough for an article to be accepted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well Horner isn't part of that list, so the article is in the best position as it now stands. Let's just wait and see what happens this week. Nothing you say here is going to make Carlos Sainz stay at Toro Rosso. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The list was an example. As Red Bull team principal, Horner is obviously in a position to comment on it.

"Nothing you say here is going to make Carlos Sainz stay at Toro Rosso."

You're in no position to know that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that the Sky sports source literally states he is signed with Toro Rosso for 2018. The Motorsport.com does not mention about a contract actually being signed. Moreover, we don't make edits based on the assumption that something might be announced next week. The same site claimed that Sauber would announce in Monza that they would become Alfo Romeo next season, yet nothing happened.Tvx1 06:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: can you point us more precisely at the section or discussion where the standard expected by WP:F1 that you refer to is elucidated. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The earliest I remember it being discussed was April 2009. Luca di Montezemolo was seen shaking hands with Fernando Alonso on the grid in Bahrain, which led to a flurry of speculation—and edits—that Alonso would join Ferrari in 2010 (the 2010 article having been created by then because of the grid being opened up). However, that was around the time I became a regular editor, so the idea may have existed much sooner than that; possibly even as early as the day the WikiProject was founded. If you want something more specific, I'll have to go looking for it, but it could take time as there are years' worth of archives to sort through. But a "named, quoted authority as a source" has lomg been a guiding principle of the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: the problem is, that with it being asserted as evidence, it is very difficult for newcomers to appreciate the implication without being able to read it for themselves. Perhaps we should add a section to WP:F1 to detail it (if we can find it). The other thing is, without it being documented, it would be hard to refine it of modify it in any way in the future. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It can be directly tied to the policies of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, which should be the first three things any new editor learns. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, it would probably best to cite those then, rather than the ancient and non specific WP:F1 discussion. At least we can easily access them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to adding the specific principle to the WP:F1 guideline. Regardless, it should be common logic that a source stating something like "some say driver X might sign with team Y, cannot be morphed to support the on wikipedia claim that "driver X has signed with team Y" nor that "driver Y's contract with team Z has been disbanded".Tvx1 10:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

How about a later reliable source reporting "driver x has signed a deal to join team y" and "high level sources have confirmed that driver x's deal has been agreed..."? Surely that trumps a two-month-older source which reported 'boss describes driver x saying he's unlikely to be at team z in 2018 as "disingenuous"'. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It must be a named and quoted source, and the person named must be in a position of authority. Otherwise we're going to wind up with dozens of edits that only quote "high level sources" or "sources within the team" or "sources close to the deal". In the event that we have two contradictory sources, the most recent one that names and quotes an authority should be accepted. In this case, the Sky Sports source is best because it quotes Horner; the motorsport.com source doesn't quote anyone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: that's not specified in the WP policies you quoted, so where is it from? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, surely common sense should prevail in a situation such as this? - Your suggestion, @Prisonermonkeys:, is to leave Sainz at Toro Rosso, which if you are being honest, surely you don't believe is true any more than the rest of us. Therefore, if this is true, you are suggesting leaving the article showing incorrect information (Sainz at Toro Rosso). The Renault deal isn't officially confirmed, so I feel leave Renault as TBA, and it is very, very unlikely that Sainz will be at Toro Rosso next year, so leave that as TBA as well (as it is now). Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It relates to WP:verify. A claim like "according to some high level sources" amounts to nothing but "some say" and cannot be verified. And Wikipediaeditperson, we can source that Sainz has a contract with Toro Rosso so we should include that information. Whether it will be honoured is none of our concern.Tvx1 07:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: if we attribute the statement correctly it is verifiable per WP:VER. We can write "publication x reports a high level source from within team y as saying...", or whatever, and that would satisfy WP:VER and WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediaeditperson:

"Your suggestion, @Prisonermonkeys:, is to leave Sainz at Toro Rosso, which if you are being honest, surely you don't believe is true any more than the rest of us:

"it is very, very unlikely that Sainz will be at Toro Rosso next year"

No, I don't believe it at all. But that's the point—it's not about what I believe. It's what I can prove through the use of reliable and verifiable sources. Even if I worked for Renault or Toro Rosso and was the guy who gave Sainz the pen to sign the Renault contract, what I thought still wouldn't matter because it's not in the sources. As editors, our job is to take what the sources say and incorporate it into the articles. We don't interpret and we don't speculate. We simply take the information that we can prove and put it into the article.

@DeFacto:

"that's not specified in the WP policies you quoted, so where is it from?"

It's derived from WP:VERIFY. If someone makes a claim, the reader should be able to investigate it for themselves. Ordinarily, this is done through sources—if, say, Otmar Szafnauer were to say "Pérez and Ocon will not have their contracts renewed because we cannot trust them to race together", then the reader can be confident that this is true. Libel laws prevent the media from making things up. But if instead of Szafnauer it's a "source within the team" who allegedly says it, but is never named, then the reader cannot verify it and thus cannot be sure if it is true. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: if a reliable source publishes a claim and we mirror that claim and attribute it and cite it to the RS, then we satisfy WP:VER - our assertion is verifiable from the publication we cite. In this case the data was asserted in the RS as a fact too, and not as speculation, which means we can do the same (so long as we attribute it correctly). OTOH, if there in a WP:F1 consensus that we only accept RS quotes from named team seniors (which is what I though was the claim with this) then, assuming we can document a link to that consensus, and that consensus isn't changed, we can continue to uphold that position. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous sources cannot be verified. How many times have you seen the likes of Autosport run a headline story claiming something has happened, only to read it and find it is full of innuendo such as "Autosport understands" and "sources close to the team"? Ever since they introduced metred viewing and independent publications like F1 Fanatic have gained traction, they have done it more and more frequently. I don't care what the publication's reputation is—a named, quoted authority is the only bulletproof way of ensuring that the article content is accurate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: the source (as in the WP:RS) is not anonymous, and they report the move as fact; so stating it as fact in the article, supported by the reliable source, satisfies WP policy. If it does not happen for some reason, then so be it - it can be changed in the future. OTOH, if an RS reports speculation, such as your example, we could include it - so long as it is "notable" speculation and we describe it and attribute it as speculation and support it with the RS - and it would be just as "bulletproof" (in terms of WP:VER), but as sourced speculation. However, as a project consensus, we might choose not to include any sort of speculation, but we need to be able to cite that consensus so others (especially newcomers) can see it or even challenge it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporting it as fact does not make it fact. If a story relies on unnamed sources to substantiate it, it should immediately be subject to critical examination. In this case, it is rumour and speculation dressed up as fact to make it look like they have an exclusive story when they do not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: we can, with a clear conscience though, report the fact that "source x" reported the move as fact, because they did. Verifiability means being able to check that the information comes from a reliable source, not that it is necessarily correct. However, we may reach a consensus to require something more than to just satisfy WP:VER, in which case we need to be able to demonstrate that consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That just opens the door to articles being flooded with irrelevant and unsubstantiated details. There must be a cut-off somewhere. We should not be concerned with what is reported as fact, but rather by what is fact. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: @Tvx1: Above, I was merely saying that common sense should prevail - Common sense suggests that Sainz won't drive for Toro Rosso next year, and anyone who is interested in F1 would know this was close to certainty months ago, and this 'source' suggesting he has signed for Renault just adds to this certainty.

The point I was trying to make is that if it is more certain than not that Sainz won't drive for Toro Rosso next year, then leaving the Toro Rosso seat as anything other than 'TBA' (or 'TBC' if you want a middle ground), is ludicrous, as we are effectively misleading the readers, by providing information that is, more likely than not, factually incorrect. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a reliably sourced fact that he has a contract with Toro Rosso. Him driving with Renault is just as certain as Sauber using Honda power units next year.Tvx1 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: It may be a reliable source, but the source is an old source, and I will repeat it again - surely COMMON SENSE suggests that it should be left as either 'TBA' or 'TBC' - the latter fits both arguments (it is to be confirmed, as there are contrasting sources and Toro Rosso is yet to confirm or deny these so-called 'rumours'). However, it is clear to me (especially given Toro Rosso's silence - surely they wouldn't want false rumours spreading about their driver?), that the Renault deal is in fact true, and therefore COMMON SENSE clearly suggests he wont be driving for Toro Rosso in 2018. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, in addition to what I mentioned above, there is no doubt that Autosport is a reliable source (it is very rare that they provide false information). Also, nothing is every completely confirmed in F1 or anything else for that matter, and therefore we should be providing the best information we have to date, and currently this information suggests that Sainz is leaving Toro Rosso. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: isn't it also the case that a newer, and also reliable source - motorsport.com, states that he will move to Renault: "Carlos Sainz has signed a deal to join Renault"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: that doesn't open anything, that's how WP currently works, that is what WP:VER and WP:NPOV insist on. And if you don't trust the fact from one source, why are you happy to accept a different fact from a different source? If you will only accept a fact if it is given as a quote from a specific named person, then you need a consensus from the article or the project that can be quoted if challenged again in the future - to save this type of discussion reappearing time and again. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Another thing is how can we possibly determine the reliability of a source based upon the name(s) mentioned as sources? - I could easily set up a website now, and say 'Christian Horner said: Sainz is to move to Mercedes for 2018', and according to the logic of @Prisonermonkeys:, this source is more reliable than the motorsport.com or Autosport source, as it mentions the name 'Christian Horner', even though Autosport/Motorsport.com are both reliable and trusted websites. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediaeditperson: yes you make a very good point. WP:RS describes in detail what a reliable source is, in the Wikipedia sense, and a lot of it is to do with the publication's record for fact checking of content and editorial oversight of content and it has nothing to do with who in particular they quote or use for their sources. A self-published source (as you describe) would probably not be recognised as a reliable source for this type of content. Also we need to be careful as to how the RS reports data - if they describe it as speculation or as someone's opinion, then we are obliged to state that too, and attribute whose opinion they say it is. If they state it as fact (as in the case here) then we can use it as fact, sourced to them for verifiabilty. The small print is that editors working on the article (or an overseeing project) can add requirements (and even remove certain ones) if they reach a consensus to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"COMMON SENSE clearly suggests he wont be driving for Toro Rosso in 2018"

But we cannot say that without a source. And nor can we neglect a reliable source simply because we think it unlikely.

"I could easily set up a website now, and say 'Christian Horner said: Sainz is to move to Mercedes for 2018', and according to the logic of @Prisonermonkeys:, this source is more reliable than the motorsport.com or Autosport source, as it mentions the name 'Christian Horner', even though Autosport/Motorsport.com are both reliable and trusted websites."

No, you couldn't do that. It's not enough to simply mention Horner's name—a source must quote him. It must take his words and put them in print.

"a lot of it is to do with the publication's record for fact checking of content and editorial oversight of content and it has nothing to do with who in particular they quote or use for their sources"

That does not mean that we should not be conscious of how they represent content. There is a big difference between critically engaging with a source—asking "what is this story trying to tell me?"—and letting the source do our thinking for us. Case in point, last year Autosport developed the habit of reporting Rosberg's success in the context of Hamilton's championship campaign. They didn't run the headline "Rosberg wins in [country]"; rather, it was "Rosberg wins in [country], Hamilton only fourth". This subtly changed the way the reader saw the events—Rosberg was not independently successful with a championship campaign of his own, but rather his success was a barrier to Hamilton's success. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediaeditperson and DeFacto, you have some good points, but it's clear nothing but an official announcement will change anything on this page, as the "head honchos" have already made their decision and will never be persuaded otherwise here. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And that's the way it should be. If we start accepting unofficial announcements as being fact, the encyclopedia article will stop being an encyclopedia article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, we should never forget that we're an encyclopedia and a not a news site. Being a tiny bit outdated trumps speculation and vague statements everytime.Tvx1 22:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"And that's the way it should be." So you're saying it is better for you to be right than to look at other points of view? I understand the point you were trying to make about official sources, but do you see how this might be perceived as a problem when issues like this come up again? There will be debate on what constitutes an official source again. Will there be actual discussion, or will you simply act as judge, jury, and executioner? GeoJoe10000 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"So you're saying it is better for you to be right than to look at other points of view?"

Not at all. I have considered other points of view, and I find the argument to be flawed. You seem to have mistaken considering another point of view with adopting another point of view. It's possible to consider another point of view and then reject it. Consider the purpose of Wikipedia: to act as an encyclopaedia. We must present content that is relevant to the subject, both in the short and the long term. If we open the door to repeating what is reported alongside what happened, articles will be flooded with information that has no long-term relevance to the subject.

For example, it has previously been reported that Renault were assessing Robert Kubica for a return in 2018. At the time, that might have had immediate short-term relevance, but now that they are reportedly taking Sainz, how is the assessment of Kubica relevant to this article. Assuming for the moment that they do take Sainz, any mention of Kubica would amount to "Renault were considering Kubica, but then chose someone else", which gets less and less relevant with each passing day.

As Tvx1 said, Wikipedia is not news. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: "No, you couldn't do that. It's not enough to simply mention Horner's name—a source must quote him. It must take his words and put them in print." Exactly, that is my point, if I (falsely) quoted and sourced him, then how would you determine whether my source is true? - You would obviously have to determine its reliability, and this contradicts the idea of not including information from an already proven and reliable source (Autosport/Motorsport.com) Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: "Indeed, we should never forget that we're an encyclopedia and a not a news site." - Most people would expect the would expect an encyclopedia to provide accurate information, but if the article wasn't protected, @Prisonermonkeys: has explained above (before the protection was added) that they would be pushing for Sainz to appear still at Toro Rosso (in the article). At best, this information is disputed, but more likely it is blatantly false, so my point was it would be best to put it as 'TBC' until further confirmation is provided by Toro Rosso, Renault or even until the entry list is revealed by the FIA (we aren't saying put Sainz in Renault yet). Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We cannot afford to be complacent and assume that information is good simply because a trusted source publishes it. Especially when their story is relying on anonymous sources to substantiate it. It's far too easy to let biases and agendas slip in. WP:NPOV says that we must remain neutral. If Sainz goes to Renault, he will likely replace Palmer. Autosport have previously run stories casting Palmer in a favourable light. What is stopping them from publishing a story based on anonymous sources claiming Palmer's place in the team is secure as a means of pouring cold water on the Sainz-to-Renault deal?

That's why we don't just use reliable sources—we use reliable sources that quote people with the authority to confirm something. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And I would not say the claim of Sainz staying at Toro Rosso is disputed because there is no substance to the article being put forward as evidence. There is no way to verify the claims the article makes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires a neutral portrayal of what the reliable sources say on a subject, not the cherry-picking of the one you favour or arbitrary dismissal of the one you don't like. For now, based on the two available reliable sources, we cannot neutrally say that he will appear for TR although we could say that he will appear for Renault. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If all you are using to substatiate that claim is the motorsport.com article, it fails WP:VERIFY. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No, wikipediaeditperson, it's not objectively false. We have a reliable source that he has a contract with Toro Rosso and you have not provided any reliable source proving that his contract has been disbanded. As I wrote in my first comment, we do no list confirmed drivers and certainly do not list who "will" drive because we cannot verify right now who will start the 2018 Aussie GP. Case in point, Giovinazzi not being entered until the very first GP of 2017 already being underway. The only thing we care about is who is contracted with whom, because that's the only fact we can verify right now. And right now, Sainz is contracted with Toro Rosso.Tvx1 08:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. News stories do not confirm drivers join teams. Contracts confirm that drivers join teams; news stories confirm the existence of the contracts that confirm a driver joining a team. If the news story does not confirm the contract, the driver is not confirmed. And the only way to confirm the existence of the contract is from the team. So if a story does not have anything from the team, it's not confirmation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The crux?

Clearly there are two different understandings of what is required here. There is the requirement of the standard Wikipedia polices (WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:NOR, etc.) and there are apparently the less obvious additional bolt-on requirements historically agreed amongst editors participating in the WP:F1 project. Clearly one group is arguing under standard WP rules and another under the less transparent WP:F1 rules. I think we need to put this discussion on hold here, and try to get the WP:F1 requirements out into the open. Perhaps we need to take that discussion to WT:F1. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer is simple, DeFacto: whatever Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1 say goes. End of story. No matter how right you are, they will not allow someone else's opinion to hold here. The rules will be construed in their favor no matter what. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's take it to WT:F1, and see if we can find the consensus that they refer to, and see if we can resolve this amicably and with 100% agreement. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You are doing God's work with that kind of positive attitude. Hats off to you today. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop accusing us of bad faith and please stop pinging me. I regularly visit this page and I will see when there are replies to my comments. If you really think that forumshopping is going to help your case, your awfully naïve. But if you insist, go ahead. Don't claim I didn't warn you.Tvx1 14:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you, Tvx1, have ultimate power over these pages, and you are simply the dictator. Or at the minimum, you're assuming you're right based on your own opinions. That's bad faith right there! You are proving my case with every post. It's just silly at this point. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"The answer is simple, DeFacto: whatever Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1 say goes" - It certainly appears that way. Also, @GeoJoe10000:, I don't appreciate the way that the aforementioned editors talk in a demeaning way about editors who have a different opinion to them ("your awfully naïve" to provide an example). It seems that their decision goes, and when we contradict them, we will not be heard, as they will attempt to dumb down our well-founded opinions. This is just like the 'halo' debate all over again - something that is decided and there is an understanding among the entire F1 community that it will be implemented in 2018, however the aforementioned editors disagree with including this and then the article doesn't provide accurate information - now we are in a similar situation with the Sainz deal. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a tragic divide. I will admit that personal attacks will not get us anywhere, and it was never my intention to demean anyone. My intention was to determine the underlying motivation for the behavior seen in the F1 community on Wikipedia. I believe it is quite clear that the rules for this site will be twisted against new editors now and forever more. Common sense is not important: maintaining the status quo is. In that sense, I'm not sure what kind of solution can be reached for this discussion and future ones. Unless we agree with editors like Tvx1, we will never be taken seriously. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I asked this before, but never got an answer: when was the last time you were wrong, Tvx1? Have you ever at any point yielded your position? GeoJoe10000 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've started a thread at WT:F1#Historic consensuses to discuss this problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The warring resumes

I see that the edit warring over this has resumed. The courteous thing in these circumstances would be to leave this aspect of the article as it was while it was protected, and to wait until a consensus had formed to change it one way or the other. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You have failed to prove your case. All you have is speculation, and you are deliberately stalling to prevent a consensus being formed because you know that it will go against you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the general Wikipedia practice is to revert to the version prior to the ensuing of the dispute. You are the one proposing a change (removing content) based on a source of which the reliability has been contested. A talk page discussion was started over it, so the burden to get consensus in favor of the change lies with you.Tvx1 11:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You two do realize that your stupid reversion will be corrected tomorrow, right? You're just being petty now. GeoJoe10000 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering that Sainz has not signed anything with Renault yet, I strongly doubt that.Tvx1 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

And even if the contract was announced tomorrow, that doesn't mean we would be vindicated for including him in the table today. We can only prove that he has a contract from the point where the team says "he has a contract". Not before. Anything else is just guessing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)