Talk:FIA Super Licence

Spelling of "Super Licence"

The web address name of the article uses "Super License" but the actual article uses "Super Licence". Can we at least have some consistancy here... which is it? Graybriggs 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The PDF of Appendix L to the ISC (linked from the article's external links section) has "Super Licence" and "Super licence". Majin Izlude ^talk 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh! It should be "license," not "licence." It's only referred to incorrectly in the PDF as "licence" b/c the FIA doesn't translate English properly. Azx2 19:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. In British English (in which this article is written), "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun - see http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-license-licence.asp for further information. Also, regardless of the variety of English used in the article, when quoting a reference (including the reference title), the spelling should exactly match that used in the reference. DH85868993 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Azx2 01:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Licence to print money

How do teams get their Super Licences to qualify to participate? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources needed

This article stub needs some additional verifiable, reliable sources (of which I'm sure there are thousands). I just edited the section on the cost of the super-license and added two additional references to the same BBC article that the section was basically plagiarized from w/o being appropriately cited. LAZY! Come-on, people! Don't plagiarize stuff and not give credit and pass off an entire BBC article as your own work... Azx2 18:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Should Nelson Piquet Jr.'s Formula E win be classified as points

I'm not sure if we should be counting Piquet Jr's Formula E Championship win as 40 points. After all, FE does not count in the Super Licence points tally but the winning driver nonetheless is awarded a Super License for his efforts. Maybe he should be removed from the points tally and named separately as a Super License holder via Formula E. Lpjz290 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't have a list of qualifying drivers in the first place. This type of constantly updated trivia is not encyclopedic content, and borders on original research. QueenCake (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring table of data

IP User:121.219.13.214 is continually pushing a table full of data. I invite him to discuss the matter here to try and halt the constant edit-war this page has turned into. --Falcadore (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Drivers securing super licence

This table is important. Please stop removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.112.129 (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, you will be blocked.

Explain why it is important before you add it back in again. In detail. Just saying it is important means nothing, it's just your opinion. Justify that opinion. And take your time doing it.

And if you've added it back in again while I've been typing this, be responsible and take it back down until a WP:CONSENSUS is formed. --Falcadore (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It is important because this is the only current method in which drivers are eligible to become drivers in Formula One. These are the drivers satisfying this criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.112.129 (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

True. And this article writes all about it. But why is the table important? Why is it important to list drivers who have achieved one of the requirements of a Super Licence in years past but have not taken up the licence. Take your time. --Falcadore (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It is important because these are the possible drivers in F1 in the future. Future F1 drivers are not those who are currently competing in, lets say, GP2, and are "strugglers" at the back of the field. It is only these drivers who are eligible. TAKE YOUR TIME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.112.129 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Prove it with sources. --Falcadore (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Collantine, Keith (7 December 2015). F1Fanatic.co.uk http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/12/07/revealed-which-drivers-have-enough-superlicence-points-to-race-in-f1/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.112.129 (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is about the collation of drivers eligible into a table. It's that table that is the issue, not the concept of the super licences themselves. Prove that the table is important. --Falcadore (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just use common sense. Suppose someone visits the page, they may think "Hmmm, I wonder what drivers have received the required number of points to complete the first step of gaining a super licence." This table gives that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.112.129 (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything that changes the rationale we established before to remove this table. Long, trivial lists of possibilities have never been welcome on Wikipedia. If we have a list, it has to be of something important that meets guidelines, is reliably sourced, and something that is tangible, not something that could be. QueenCake (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not recognise "common sense". Common sense is an opinion. It recognises proof. --Falcadore (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.150.218 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not. I refer you to WP:VERIFIABILITY. This is wikipedia's gold standard for editting and nobody's opinion.

Where is the proof that a large table of of drivers and numbers is important to this article. --Falcadore (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016

Bring the table of qualified drivers back.

110.149.153.39 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Racing Licence

This article is specifically about the FIA Super Licence, which is granted to existing holders of a Racing Licence who additionally meet stipulated criteria. However, there is little detail about the Racing Licence, and apparently no separate article (that I can find – is there a more formal name for it?). Should there be:

• more detail about the Racing Licence here, or (as I think)
• a standalone article about the Racing Licence?

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.80.28 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Requirements

I'm missing some information in the requirements section. It seems to only explain the requirements for obtaining a Super License for the first time. But what happens after that? The Super Licence needs to be renewed every year. Is there any minimum performance in F1 requirement? And what happens if a driver completes a couple of seasons in Formula One, ends up without a drive and then gets a new offer, which would allow him/her to return into F1, two years later? Does the past F1 experience allow him to obtain a new Super Licence or should he have collected enough point in the lower categories in the mean time? To illustrate this with an example, would say Jean-Eric Vergne qualify to obtain a Super Licence allowing him to drive in 2017.Tvx1 14:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jean-Eric Vergne would qualify only if the FIA judged he has recently and consistently demonstrated outstanding ability in single-seater formula cars, as he had no Super Licence during three seasons and has scored only 14 points with its three Formula E seaons (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Points changes

I updated the points table on october 9, based on the Appendix L published on 27 september 2017 on FIA website ( [1] ). Someone cancelled my update, based on this document : https://www.fia.com/file/61678/download?token=ICMRdbv4

This document is a bit older (21 september 2017) and lacks context. Looking at its name, it comes from the World Motorsport Council, and thus may be a working document, not a final version.

Should I update again the points table based on the officially published Appendix L ? SartMatt (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SartMatt (talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 

The point table does not match to the point table in source [2]

I quickly compared the point table in the article with the point table in source [2]. I can't find W Series in source [2]. Is there any source that the W Series champion gets 15 points? I also cannot find the 5 points for the winner of the Macau Grand Prix in source [2]. What about MRF Challenge Formula 2000? According to source [2] you need 5 race weekends on 3 different tracks. MRF has only 3 race weekends (with 5 races each weekend). ??? 91.89.90.71 (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)