Talk:2008 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Editing policy suggestion

Now that it has been decided to keep the 2007 Formula One season article, it is important to keep the information contained within future season pages respectable. I have removed M Schumacher from the Toyota driver line up on the 2007 page. This is complete and utter speculation. I would suggest we apply the following guidelines to this article and similar speculative articles in relation to F1:-

1) If information is confirmed by a team, driver or the FIA then it should obviuosly be included. e.g. Alonso to McLaren in 2007

2) If information is strongly hinted by those invloved and backed up with a large amount of media writing but yet to be confirmed, it should be added but with a * (* = to be confirmed) and references (and links where possible) given.

3) If information has sufficient back-up i.e. respected media strongly suggest it to be true, then it can be added but with a ** (** = Strongly speculated) and references (and links where possible) given.

4) If information is mere speculation in media and general gossip, then it should NOT be added to the article but discussed on this talk page with references (and links where possible) given.

Feedback/comments please. MonkeyMumford 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. And I've removed the line-up table, because I think it's too early for it. We do know some drivers, but not enough. Wait until end of 2006 season at least, like with the 2007 season article. Manipe 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've just reverted a batch of edits by an IP which re-added the table Jsydave 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering when would the 2008 season not be concidered as a future event. Would it be now, that is 2008, when the FIA realese driver numbers or when the first car his the melborne track on friday prctice?Busubi (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

At the first Grand Prix it will change to being a current event Madraykin86 (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Renault from the GMPA

I was not aware that Renault had left the GPMA. Could you please supply a source to the story? I was aware the Renault are going to be considering their position in F1 every year from now on, but I never knew they had abandoned the GPMA. Manipe 15:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.formula-1.updatesport.com/news/article/1139743296/formula_one/F1headlines/Renault-to-break-GPMA-ranks/view.html and Pat Symonds quotes in F1 Racing Magazine March 06 "We Have Come To A Decision about the GPMA And that is we are signing up to Bernie's Agreement"

Thanks Manipe 16:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky but I can't find the Pat Symonds quote in this months (March) F1 Racing. Could you provide more info and a page number? This is quite significant and I have not seen it mentioned anywhere else. The link you posted was incorrect. This is the correct one http://formula-1.updatesport.com/news/article/1139743296/formula_one/F1headlines/Renault-to-break-GPMA-ranks/view.html . This article is just pure speculation from Briatore. I haved changed the article back until Renault confirm. Also removed Honda and Toyota speculation. To my feeling, there is no point putting in speculation to these articles. It changes so quickly that we would spend our time updating content rather than improving quality.MonkeyMumford 20:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest putting all news and speculation in the news section of Portal:Formula One. Articles such as 2008 Formula One season should not really be used for speculation. Portal:Formula One can be used for day to day news and the other articles on Formula One should be kept for reference info only, not news. Anyone agree? MonkeyMumford 12:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you there anyway Manipe 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

MoU?

What does MoU mean in the heading for the GPMA teams? Manipe 19:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

- Sorry, it means Memorandum of Understanding. MonkeyMumford 17:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Drivers Table

With 2006 over and 2007 on its way, how long until we begin at the very least a preliminary drivers/team chart? We already know some contracts in place that extend into and through 2008. The359 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you! The 2006 season is over, and from now on the 2008 drivers table can only improve, so I would already add it to the article. It would look like this:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No	Driver	Test driver(s)
ING Renault F1 Team	Renault	R28*	Renault	B		TBA	TBA
						TBA
Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	B		Kimi Räikkönen	Luca Badoer
						Felipe Massa
Vodafone McLaren Mercedes	McLaren	MP4-23*	Mercedes	B		TBA	TBA
						TBA
Honda Racing F1 Team	Honda	RA108*	Honda	B		Jenson Button	TBA
						TBA
BMW Sauber F1 Team	BMW Sauber	F1.08*	BMW	B		Nick Heidfeld	TBA
						TBA
Panasonic Toyota Racing	Toyota	TF108*	Toyota	B		Jarno Trulli	TBA
						TBA
Red Bull Racing	Red Bull	TBA	Renault	B		TBA	TBA
						TBA
AT&T WilliamsF1 Team	Williams	TBA	Toyota	B		TBA	TBA
						TBA
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso	TBA	TBA	B		TBA	TBA
						TBA
Spyker F1	Spyker	TBA	TBA	B		TBA	TBA
						TBA
Super Aguri F1	Super Aguri	TBA	Honda	B		TBA	TBA
						TBA
Prodrive	Prodrive	TBA	TBA	B		TBA	TBA
						TBA

What do you think? – Luxic 19:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Would not Heikki Kovalainen and Fernando Alonso have contracts continuing into 2008 as well? I also believe Spyker's deal with Ferrari was for 2 years. I'd also leave the "constructor" and "chassis" sections as TBA, especially for the non-factory teams because of the fact that they can buy chassis now in 2008. The359 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Alonso's deal is three years isn't it? 2007, 2008, 2009. Mark83 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember off hand, but I believe Webber's contract with Red Bull might go into 2008 as well.... The359 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant when I said that "the table can only improve"! If you find the references, you HAVE to add further information. And we can also discuss the issue about the constructors and the chassises, of course. But first we should decide whether to add the chart to the article or wait a little longer. – Luxic 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest we try to fill it out a bit and then add it. On the other hand if we add it now it might give us all a collective hurry up to get it filled out a bit better? Mark83 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To fill it out is obiouvsly our primary target (even though the table hasn't been added to the article yet). But we still have to decide whether to add it or not. What about a poll? – Luxic 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The main article has a "full" driver lineup for 2008! Where did that spring up from? I can't find any sources anywhere!! Lord Tau 07:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed (again). -- DH85868993 08:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Has this sort of thing happened before, then? Lord Tau 09:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, about 5 hours earlier. -- DH85868993 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To bring this up again, there SHOULD be some sort of drivers chart on this page since there is confirmed contracts in place that go through 2008, so we do know some drivers and even sponsors and engine packages. However no one seems to have been able to gather the proper information that will allow us to build a factual chart (and not that assumed one that some anonymous person keeps adding). The359 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite agreee. Probably something like the chart immediately above this discussion. DH85868993 02:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, i believe Mclaren signed both Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton to LONG Term deals

RIPped 01:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Heidfeld on this list? He hasn't signed a contract for 2008 with anyone yet. Sausageman 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The reference only says he's likely to continue. I'll remove his name. DH85868993 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why Giedo Van Der Garde is listed as a Spyker Driver when nothing was said ever about Sutil's teammate 99.247.17.188 —Preceding comment was added at 15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Here isVan Der Garde's website He seems to think he's apart of spyker. Busubi 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For Super Aguri 2008 Driver line up As a big Super Aguri Fan I can say without doubt that Sato and Davidson are not Confirmed for next year. The refferance in place is not official ie: super Aguri or the Official F1 or FIA websites. Busubi 21:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC

Kaz Nakajima confirmed for Williams 2008 drive Nakajima confirmed for 2008 so I will put Nakajima alongside Rosberg in WilliamsRIPped

Is it a bit too early to include Fisichella as a driver for Force India? I know there's a reference to AutoMoto365.com but there's been no official confirmation as of yet. Sausageman (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Official Formula 1 Website has published the FIA's confirmed list of drivers for 2008. I have now updated the Super Aguri section. davepusey (talk) 16:11, 07 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.148.180 (talk)

Test Drivers

If a driver goes testing for a team does that make them a test driver? For example Sam Bird tested for Williams on tuesday. Now as far as i'm aware there has been no anouncement that he's on the books as a test driver for them but he has tested. What does everybody else think? Busubi 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A driver has to be on the payroll for the team in the capacity as a test driver for them to be listed. Someone who just drives the car on weekend to learn F1 or get a joy ride is likely not doing any setup testing for the team, and should not be listed. The359 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Full list of failed teams

I seem to remember that when the FIA announced that Prodrive was the 12th team for 2008, that at they same time they also named all the teams that had officially applied. The article currently only lists 4 of the better known ones, but it might be nice if we had the complete list? The359 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's more teams (some genuine entries, and some rumours added by contributors here) named at the Future of Formula One article, but it wasn't the FIA that named them, but F1Racing. (The FIA didn't because it would have showed how little serious interest there was.)--Don Speekingleesh 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Race Schedule

I think it's far too early to begin assuming on the race schedule, especially since you are placing in races that wish to be on the schedule but may not be, as well as assuming not only the order of all races, but also the order of where these 2 new races would go.

I think the drivers chart, shown above, is a far better concern for this article then trying to guess the schedule. The359 15:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How about changing the heading from Speculated Race Schedule to something like Speculated Grands Prix?mpbx 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

2008 F1 season make

Prodrive numbers

It seems a bit silly to me including the race numbers only for Prodrive. Especially considering they're (a) unreferenced and (b) caveated. (Note that I understand that the other team's numbers are dependent on the outcome of the 2007 championships). I recommend we leave all the numbers blank (or "TBA") until we know them all for certain. DH85868993 00:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the message talking about the numbers if the champion was to move teams. Eddie6705 02:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As well as the possibility of having cars 1 & 2 (ala Arrows in '97), in the event that another team withdraw from the 2008 Season, Prodrive will move up two numbers on the grid. Anyway, wouldn't the last team in the entry list have cars 23 & 24 not 24 & 25? Whatever, if unreferenced and challenged (as this is) the guideline is it stays out of the article. AlexJ 22:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the number 13 is skipped the last two numbers on a 12 car grid would be 24 & 25. --Don Speekingleesh 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My arse are Rosberg and Alonso confirmed with Williams and McLaren for next season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.70.161.157 (talk) 13:08, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Alonso has a contract for next year, whether he stays or not is another issue.--Don Speekingleesh 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton's not likely to go to prodrive. But every new team would get 24 & 25. If you check teams like Mastercard Lola, BAR and Pacific they all took the last numbers as they were new teams.Pattav2 06:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument that the 2007 World Champion, whomsoever he might be, is not likely to go to Prodrive. So Prodrive's number are likely to be 24 and 25 (unless one of the existing teams withdraws, as mentioned by AlexJ above). But the key word is "likely", i.e. we don't know for sure, so listing Prodrive's numbers as 24 and 25 is speculation. And it hardly seems worthwhile listing the likely numbers for Prodrive when the numbers for all the other teams are still blank. We may as well just wait until all the numbers are confirmed and fill them in them. DH85868993 09:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Prodrives numbers should be put down as 24 & 25. Because if we get it wrong, its not our fault. That template at the top of the page says that information may CHANGE as the event progresses.Pattav2 13:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Difference is, BAR, Lola, etc, didn't come in a year after someone was excluded. If by some chance Alosno/Hamilton do fail to win the championship, I wouldn#t put it past Moseley to make them higher #s than prodive. Until the official entry list is published with numbers, leave em all blank. mattbuck 13:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia (i.e. a collection of facts), not a news site. If something is unknown, why would we want to guess what it might be? 4u1e 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See i was right all along about the numbers.Pattav2 08:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like a barnstar for that? Bretonbanquet 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But... I removed all the numbers until the FIA publishes an official entry list... mattbuck 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Spyker buyout (aka Indian nationality for former Spyker)

Spyker was bought by Indian busnessman Vijay Mallya. Ive edited the spyker team part and put Indian flag and TBA. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.29.63 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/9/6817.html I found that Mallya has yet to confirm a name for the team or a 2008 driver line-up. So I removed the drivers put there —Preceding unsigned comment added by PS3 wins (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that it's quite likely that the team will be re-registered as Indian, it's by no means certain. The nationality of the team is that of the national sporting authority it is registered with, and so could be anything (pretty much). It will I guess continue to be based in the UK and until we know the situation, I suggest the flag is left out as well. 4u1e 18:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

After further additions of the Indian flag, can I note again that the nationality of F1 teams is defined by the national sporting authority with which they are registered, not by the team's ownership or location. All we know at present is that Spyker has been bought by an Indian-led consortium of Vijay Mallya (an Indian) and Michiel Mols (a Dutchman). Mallya seems to be the lead partner, but as yet neither the name of the team nor its nationality (currently Dutch) have been confirmed. Until they are we should not speculate in an encyclopedia. Cheers. 4u1e

actually now Vijay Mallya has said the team will change name to Force India F1 and the Indian flag, and Mol will approve of it 99.247.17.188

This is a quote from the official F1 site: Spyker’s new owners intend to change the team’s name to Force India for the 2008 season, it was revealed on Saturday. Indian businessman Vijay Mallya and Dutch entrepreneur Michiel Mol bought out the Silverstone-based squad earlier this month.

The new title, which is expected to be approved by the FIA next week, reflects Mallya’s previously declared aim of bringing an Indian flavour to the former Jordan team, which has undergone three ownership changes in the past two years.

“Having an Indian-owned Formula One team on the grid was something that was considered completely out of reach before,” Mallya told news agency Reuters. “This reflects the new India and new economic prosperity.”

The team’s new logo is also expected to include the Indian national flag within its design.

Spyker planning to become Force India for 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Busubi (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Having the Indian flag in the logo does not give the team an Indian license. Red Bull Racing ran under a British license in their first year (held over from Jaguar), before switching to an Austrian license in their second year. As for the team name, wait until it is actually approved by the FIA before changing the article text. The359 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

359 is right - we don't yet know what license the team will race under. I understand there is some complication with India's national sporting body (there are two of them, one recognised by the government, one by the FIA) which could make things difficult. As we don't know yet, the Indian flag, no matter how likely, is only an assumption. 4u1e 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, unconfirmed is unconfirmed. I was editing to that effect but 4u1e got there first :) Bretonbanquet 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, mate! :D 4u1e 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The FIA have confimed the name change to Force India. As there is no mention of re registering as an Indian team, maybe the dutch flag should be put back next to the name.Busubi 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alonso confirmation

Because somebody was brainless enough to put Alonso as being confirmed for next year I have removed him because it isn't. Whoever did that is stupid and probably Alonso-obsessive and wanting to defy people into thinking he's driving there next year. 82.69.113.6 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and WP:Assume Good Faith. Your assumptions as to the reasoning that Alonso was added are not necessary. The359 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, assuming we're talking about McLaren here, as things stand he has a contract with McLaren, and no-one is officially saying that he is moving. I agree it seems unlikely that he will stay, but stranger things have happened. Probably. 4u1e 13:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I placed an {{old fact}} as it is out dated. Please do not remove it again unless you fix the problem mentioned here. Now I would accept removal if someone posted his contract source and mention "Based on continued Contract" in the reference source. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sawblade I have added a reference from today no less. I don't see the need for "based on continued contract" because that's just common sense. Mark83 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC Sport site is reporting that mclaren will announce Alonso's future in the team in early November. Busubi 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

McLaren

Neither current McLaren drivers confirmed for 2008 season, a word from Alonso's Manager is not guaranteed his seat, while offered a huge salary does not mean Hamilton will be stay. Also McLaren not officially announced the 2008 lineup, so why it can be put Alonso/Hamilton on the 2008 list? --Aleenf1 00:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On the basis that it has previously been confirmed that Alonso is contracted to McLaren for multiple years, as is Hamilton. Until we know otherwise, this is the information we have. mattbuck 09:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also wouldn't McLaren Numbers be 24-25 because thier owner points were disallowed this past year, so I would think any new team would have a lower number? Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

McLaren have the lower numbers because they are a returning team, regardless of whether they were officially part of the 2007 Constructors' Championship. Prodrive are a completely new team and so get the higher numbers. Even if McLaren were treated as a new team, they would still most likely be given lower numbers than Prodrive. There is no reason Prodrive would have lower numbers than McLaren. - MTC 08:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't McLaren have the numbers 3 and 4 for the 2008 season? i think it is done by the last season's driver's championship. this is why Fisichella is 3 in 2007 and Alonso was 1. so i think McLaren should have 3 and 4 for 2008. Kimi will be 1, Massa 2 etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbnd8000 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's done by constructors actually, but champion always gets #1. I personally don't think we should have any numbers in there until they're confirmed by the FIA. mattbuck 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree wait, but i'm sure the numbers go in constructors championship order and not drivers except for 1 and 2 because the world champion has number 1 regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Busubi (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to say who will be allocated which numbers, but until they are confirmed by the FIA, we should wait. But for sure Raikkonen will be #1 and Massa #2, with BMW 3 & 4, Renault 5 & 6 etc, with probably McLaren 22 & 23, and Prodrive (if they make it) 24 & 25. But we wil need a source before we can put the numbers in. Bretonbanquet 19:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The last bit is the area of most uncertainty - no precedent for what will happen with McLaren's numbers. 4u1e 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added the numbers to the Ferrari. The number of Raikkonen should be #1, with no exception. Although he would not drive for Ferrari, he would still have the #1 car. So the Ferraris would get the number. However, at McLaren, Prodrive and ex-Spyker's case, I would not willing to give any number, because those teams' number still have to be confirmed. I think it would be a better decision. Raymond Giggs 09:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose #1 & 2 are fixed, but still, we can't really confirm it until there's an entry list. mattbuck 09:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

I think a few people are confused with car numbers. Since 1996 car numbers have been determined by there constructor finsh last season. EG Sauber came fourth in constructors in 2001 therefore they are numbers 7 & 8 for the next season. If a team ends up being confirmed to race for next year but end up going bankrupt, folding etc before the season EG Prost, the numbers do not change. Pattav2 06:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is though, are McLaren placed behind or ahead of Prodrive? Since there is no precedent for this, you cannot say without a doubt that the numbers you have assigned are correct. They may appear to be based on past assignment, but you have no reference saying the numbers you have added are the real numbers.

To fix this problem, for the time being, I'm simply removing the numbers section from the chart. This should prevent occassoinal editors from adding them based on the past. The359 06:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason McLaren would be placed behind Prodrive? McLaren are a returning team (if not from 2007 then from 2006), Prodrive are completely new. I can't see any reason Prodrive would be placed ahead of McLaren. - MTC 08:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No documentation saying they will be though. So it doesn't matter if you can see the reason, it matters if you can reference it as a fact. The359 09:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the 2008 car numbers be added onto the driver pages yet? There are a lot that can be filled in now if so due to driver confirmations and constructor standings from 2007. Tombag 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. Nothing has been confirmed, and anyway, if Renault get excluded from the 2007 championship, all the numbers will be changed again. Let's wait and see. Bretonbanquet 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

whoops. sorry didn't notice that the numbers column was intentionally left out :)  - oahiyeel ^talk 13:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kovalainen in drivers' table

Since Adrian Sutil appears in the drivers' table for 2008, despite the fact that he is in with a chance of landing the seat at McLaren, why is Heikki Kovalainen not in the table alongside Renault, since he too holds a contract for 2008? Surely if Sutil appears with FIndia, then Kova should appear with Renault?? Manipe 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he doesn't have a contract. There was a source we found that refuted a previous one saying he did. mattbuck 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, you're right. I've since read that he doesn't hold a contract for 2008, despite me also reading elsewhere before that he does. Strange... Manipe 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cockpit Rule Changes

There is nothing"set in stone" Chassis being enclosed although Mark Webber; in his position as director of the GPDA has suggested that Cockpit safety is paramount [1]. I therefore suggest that it go under a separate section until concrete rule changes occur.Thelostlibertine (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's nothing more concrete than that story, is there any point in mentioning it at all for 2008? The 2008 cars will all have had their layouts finished long ago, they'll be into final manufacture and assembly by now, so no changes to cockpit surrounds will be implemented for 2008, surely? If they were, they'd have to be 'stick-on' units of the kind Sauber sprouted in 1994. Further work from here on in will be aero and suspension tweaks within the limits of what's already been designed. 4u1e (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The photos on formula1.com of the new F2008 and MP4/23 show the new raised cockpit sides (helmet area). davepusey (davepusey) 16:21, 07 January 2008 (UTC)

... Michael Schumacher Test-Driver Anomaly ~

Michael Schumacher, employed by Ferrari, as he is still a works Ferrari driver, FiA Super-license in-hand, this unique exception should be denoted in your Official Test Driver component, as such. That he can go to Fiorano, just snap his fingers, Ferrari will roll out an F2007 for him, anytime he likes, he should be shown as an official test driver in Ferrari's stable. Or, a special circumstance should be preserved, in a separate column, earmarked bay all drivers having tested for a particular F1 team, that season - asj.

Michael Schumacher is indeed employed by Ferrari, and of course still holds a Super license. However his employment position at Ferrari is not that of a test driver, although his specific employment position is not clarified. From what I understand, Schumacher has actually rarely driven the team's current F1 cars, and for that matter performed very few tests of the F1 machinery. It has only been recently that he assisted the team in an F2007 at Fiorano and at the recent group test.

I do agree that he is a unique case, since unlike the other recent drivers, he is actually doing some setup tests on the car and not simply getting a feel for the team/car or having a joyride. I believe I will actually bring this up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One and see what their belief is on this matter. The359 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel he's an official test driver. He's only testing currently because he's one of the few drivers with pre-TC experience. mattbuck (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Doornbos

Doornbos is currently listed on the drivers table as keeping his test seat at Red Bull for 2008, even though I can't read Dutch this is certainly what the citation suggests. However I was wondering what could be made of this: Doornbos in talks with BMW Sauber.

On that site a source is listed which is also a Dutch site, I was wondering if a Dutch speaker could read both the citation website and the BMW source site and say which seems to be more accurate. If this second article is true then that means that he does not have a 2008 contract with Red Bull and should be taken off the table.

Cheers! Tombag (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on F1Today.nl indeed mentions talks between Doornbos and his manager, and BMW Sauber, about a test driver contract for 2008. Talks would have taken place early November, since the article is from November last. The article also speaks about a shoot-out at Jerez -- when, it doesn't say, but isn't there a big test at Jerez next week? However, the F1Today quotes Christian Horner all but saying Red Bull have parted ways with Doornbos and that Horner understands Doornbos will persue a succesful campaign in Champ Car. Lustigson (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is now partly obsolete, since Red Bull announced Sébastien Buemi as their official reserve driver. Lustigson (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Aguri

In the drivers' table, Super Aguri are shown to have no drivers for 2008, whereas at the foot of the page, Sato and Davidson have been retained. Which is the case? --80.4.6.146 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)db1987db

Looks to me like Sato and Davidson are going to stay with Super Aguri - http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/drivers/ Linczone^Talk/Watch 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha, looks like it's been amended...--80.4.6.146 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)db1987db

I amended it for consistency sake with the article. Let's put it back only when there are official statements. :) - oahiyeel ^talk 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Lets leave it until we have full confirmation. I've removed the edit on the Super Aguri Article - Linczone^Talk/Watch 14:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Davidson and Sato are official ... the team just hasn't announced it. They are official drivers for 08 though and both have contracts. If we are waiting for official confirmation a few of the drivers that are currently on the list shouldn't be...I say we add them now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter-27 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the drivers on the list have either been confirmed by the team or confirmed themselves as part of the team. We havn't heard anything from Super Aguri, Anthony Davidson or Takuma Sato. Until we hear from them we should leave it - Linczone^Talk/Watch 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think we should add them now, as we know they are official team drivers for 2008. They or the team doesn't have to say anything to the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter-27 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course a media Announcement will be made Eventually. Super Aguri haven't Confirmed anything about they're 2008 Campaign because they are Suffering financial Difficulties. Until we have Confirmation these are just Rumors. You could add this to the Driver Rumors Section of the Article if you wish. (Also please Remember to sign you comments with four tildes) - Linczone^Talk/Watch 11:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Davidson is staying - ITV-F1.com - Linczone^Talk/Watch 13:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let Everyone know, we are not adding Takuma Sato or Anthony Davidson until Super Aguri confirm them despite the fact they are on the FIA Entry List. The reason being according to Super Aguri no contracts have been signed. Although it is their intentions to keep the 2007 drivers, they can not sign them until arrangments are made with the sponsors. Please do not add them until their contracts are signed and SA announce it. Thanks - Linczone^Talk/Watch 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Formula1.com has confirmed Davidson and Sato driving for Super Aguri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cars o holic (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No they havent. If you're talking about the "drivers" page on formula1.com, that is only the FIA entry list. However as mentioned, contracts have not been signed, thus they are not officially their driver, yet. - oahiyeel ^talk 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that if we leave Hamilton's car number as 22 (what the FIA entry list says) and not 23 (what the team says) then, for consistancy's sake we should add the drivers into the table as this is what the entry list says. There should be no problem with putting something like "Takuma Sato (TBA)" FaithHealer1 (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well according to this the team say Ron Dennis made a mistake and Hamilton will carry No 22. However I don't see a problem with adding

TBA(Takuma Sato)

TBA(Anthony Davidson)

seeing as the team want to keep them - Linczone^Talk/Watch 11:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Officially Mr X has started to put names in the SA drivers list without proper references Chubbennaitor (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC).

All drivers need references. If they don't have a source then remove them.

Also, it wasn't Officially Mr X that added the SA Drivers. It was an IP User - Linczone^Talk/Watch 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Giancarlo Fisichella

Why does the Driver changes say Fisichella has a seat with Force India, the site automoto365.com is a site run by the company of nicolas todt (jean's son) though he might be a reliable source of information at Ferrari elsewhere it isn't too sure. can anyone clarify this for me RIPped (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One website claiming to have insider information is not a good source. Even if their source is right, it's not "confirmed" by the team or driver. An official announcement by either Giancarlo Fisichella or Force India is what we need. The359 (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Force India will announce the Second and Test Drivers on Thursday 10th - Linczone^Talk/Watch 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Driver car numbers

recently there have been many additions of car numbers to the table at the bottom of the page. As per previous discussions, the numbers would not be put until the FIA announces the car numbers. Should the numbers remain? or be removed? - oahiyeel ^talk 07:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd Remove them. No Confrmation of the Numbers yet. There are still three Unconfirmed Driver seats - Linczone^Talk/Watch 09:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed them again - except Raikonnen - due to Number 1 assigned to defending champion automatically. If defending champion would not take part in this year's race, there will also no Number 1 car. Raymond Giggs 09:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Kimi Räikkönen will get #1 but I think it's best we leave it until all the Official Numbers are Announced. This is what was Decided at WikiProject Formula One. Adding one number will tempt IP Users to add the rest, and then we're back to square 1 - Linczone^Talk/Watch 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed all the numbers, including columns, in order to stop people adding numbers as they see fit. Until there is an official entry list, they should be kept out totally. mattbuck (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The FIA has now released the entry list - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64522. Madraykin86 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Direct link to FIA: http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2008/January/040108-01.html –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think we can add numbers now. I'm still not sure about the Super Aguri thing though. There has been no Announcement and that's very unusual. I suupose we could keep the SA Drivers though, this is the Official Entry list after all - Linczone^Talk/Watch 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Aguri are now saying that despite appearing on the entry list Davidson and Sato have not been signed. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64526. Madraykin86 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought so. We'll wait until Super Aguri confirm Sato and Davidson before we add them - Linczone^Talk/Watch 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

McLaren #23

Since the FIA entry list is not final, Ron Dennis' comment that LH would be in car 23 is the more reliable source after all it's Dennis that gets to decide which McLaren carries which number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.15.237 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron's probably right but we should wait until McLaren or the FIA confirm the claim. After all, Dennis was just mentioning it. The decision could still be reverted - Linczone^Talk/Watch 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

McLaren has confirmed their number indeed is 23. Their test car in Spain sports #23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cars o holic (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except from what I've read, de la Rosa and Kovalainen were the ones who drove the car, not Hamilton. Hardly conclusive. The359 (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080111095120.shtml, so Hamilton will be #22 Madraykin86 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This photo clearly shows Hamilton (with yellow helmet) driving the no. 22 McLaren. http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/photos/zoom/zoom.shtml?/f1/photos/imgactu/zoom08/hamilton-test-z-dr-03_100108.jpg 80.41.236.235 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

According Ferrari they've clarified Michael's role for 2008, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64638. I'm still rather confused by it though, will he be a test driver or not? Madraykin86 (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Formula1Sport.net says: "In an interview with a popular Italian newspaper, Luca di Montezemolo has hinted that Michael Schumacher is set to test Ferrari’s newly launched car in 2008. To the Turin-based daily La Stampa, Ferrari president Montezemolo described retired seven time world champion Schumacher as the team’s “terzo pilota” — ‘third driver’ in English." Lustigson (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael is quoted as saying "If the team need me to drive I will, but not too often." Here: http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080111152758.shtml. If this is Ferrari clarifying things I'd hate to see them trying to confuse everyone. Madraykin86 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, Schumacher will be in charge of car development for Gestione Sportiva – which is the motorsport section of Ferrari. He says we will continue to test for the team but that in no way makes him an official test driver or a third driver or any kind of race driver. Ferrari have also said that he has no schedule for further testing - Linczone^Talk/Watch 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is about "Test driver", not the third driver. Actually, Schumi tested for Ferrari. Raymond Giggs 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because a driver tests for a team, it does not mean they are an official test driver. Schumi is testing because he has experience racing without traction control - Linczone^Talk/Watch 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Applications for entry in '08

In the 'Teams' section it says there were 21 applications, whereas the 'Team Changes' section says 22. Which is correct? Madraykin86 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 21 is right. It also says 22 on the Prodrive F1 Article but that's probably also a mistake - Linczone^Talk/Watch 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Williams FW30 launch

Williams may not be having a huge launch party, but the FW30 will still be seen for the first time publically on January 22 at Valencia. The section isn't just for launch parties, it's for the launch of a new car. Why this date cannot be listed is beyond me. The359 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, today's Red Bull RB4 launch had the team merely rolling the car out at Jerez, taking some pictures, and going straight into testing. No big launch. The359 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All Williams are doing on January 22 is testing the new car for the first time. Hardly counts as a launch - Linczone^Talk/Watch 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Define for me xactly what a launch is? It is nothing more than an unveiling of the new car for the first time. If Williams says they're going to show their car for the first time, then that's a launch. The359 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

However, Renault are also 'launching' their R28 at Valencia on Tuesday, but, the official launch of the car takes place in Paris on January 31. Which 'launch' are we going to include here? Red Bull tagged the roll-out of the RB4 as a launch, however, Williams are just calling it a roll-out, a first test, not a launch, therefore, I believe that we should omit Williams in the launch table. Otherwise we must include Renault's January 22 launch and January 31 launch in the table, for consistency. Manipe (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

By putting none, it implies that Williams has no new car for 2008. Also, Renault testing their car isn't exactly a "public" launch per se, especially since if I recall last year they ran the R27 in default colors before they "launched" the car with its official paint scheme in Paris.

It's a launch of a car because someone has launched it into it's first drive. Underneath there should be put 'it wasn't a official launch' or along those lines (like there is) and ut underneath when the car was first tested if before the launch.Chubbennaitor (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

At the very least there should be an explanation in the article. The359 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari Test Drivers

Can anyone find Reliable sources confirming Luca Badoer and Marc Gené have been signed as Ferrari test drivers for 2008 - Linczone^Talk/Watch 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New cars

An IP has added notes on the new cars. I don't think that they are needed because all it does is squish up all the important things and add things that could be said underneath. Shall I undo this or leave it. Chubbennaitor (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore me someone's done it already. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 08:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Test Drivers

I'm trying to clear up some confusion and misunderstanding regarding a few of the 2008 test drivers - Linczone^Talk/Watch 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Narain Karthikeyan

I'm pretty sure this driver left Williams at the end of 2007. His article seems to support this saying that he was looking for a test drive with Force India for 2008 and not mentioning an official test role for 2008 in F1. Also when Williams Third driver for 2008 Nico Hülkenberg was confirmed the announcement doesn't mention more than one test driver at Williams - Linczone^Talk/Watch 12:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Karthikeyan is certainly not part of the Williams set-up this year. I don't know why he was ever included as a test driver. Hulkenberg is the team's only tester for 2008. Manipe (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike Conway and Luca Filippi

According to this Conway and Filippi will test the Honda RA108 from time to time but will not be present at the races and will therefore not be official test drivers. They will only be testing at driver evaluation days. Also Both drivers will compete in GP2 this year. - Linczone^Talk/Watch 12:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Conway and Filippi are officially just part of the team's driver development programme, so I'd vote for them to be excluded. True, they will test sporadically for the team in 2008, but they are not official testers, that role falls to Alex Wurz. Manipe (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Giedo van der Garde and Roldan Rodriguez

All I can find is that Rodriguez was only a winter driver for Force India. Only full-season drivers are included. As for van der garde, i'm not quite sure why he is there. He was a test driver for Spyker but has nothing to do with Force India as far a I can see - Linczone^Talk/Watch 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, neither have been confirmed as test drivers for 2008. Liuzzi was the only one to be confirmed at any stage by Force India. Rodriguez was reported to have a deal with Spyker, but that obviously fell through, while van der garde may or may not have had a deal with Spyker, but he certainly is not part of Force India. Both drivers only tested in December during the shoot-out, but the team has decided to concentrate on Sutil/Fisi/Liuzzi, rather than the rather messy route taken by Spyker to ensure more sponsors and to keep them happy. Manipe (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

As already discussed, Schumacher is not a permanent test driver. He has tested only twice for Ferrari. This also says he is not interested in driving for Ferrari too often - Linczone^Talk/Watch 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari have confirmed that Schumacher will test for the team over the year, but he is not an official test tester, thus suggesting that he should not be included in the list. Schumacher is only a consultant with the team, so elevating him to test driver status may be a bit much. Manipe (talk)

---

I should probably point some of the references originally provided for these drivers were the team profiles from formula1.com which hadn't been updated since last season - Linczone^Talk/Watch 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are my two cents on the matter... Manipe (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tyres

Just wondering what the point in having B for Bridgestone next to all the drivers was considering that all drivers must use these tyres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.109.220 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I think that after 2009 + articles we shouldn't put the tyre type on the chart and put it as a note unless there are two types of tyre manufacturers for that season. Chubbennaitor 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting this on the WPF1 talk page to catch up on this conversation go there. Chubbennaitor 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Webber / Bourdais after Malaysia 2008

The fact that Bourdais didn't finish the race in Melbourne is irrelevant to his stats for the season. He was classified 7th and scored 2 points. Webber and Bourdais have exactly equal stats and are thus ranked equally in the standings until the next race, when it will change unless both cars retire again. Anyone disagreeing should do so here on the talk page rather than revert again, citing the rule that says a classified finish outranks a classified non-finish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I also thought that if they cant be seperated by positions, like this instance, then they are ranked by car no i thought like all the drivers who havent completed a race, and in this case webber would still be ahead so it should stay like that. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Forix has Bourdais ahead because he scored his points before Webber did, so there is some confusion here. The "official" site has the standings completely wrong, so unless someone can come up with a decent cite, I think they should be listed as equal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mosley Newspaper speculation

Should the Max Mosley newspaper speculation be included in the rumors and speculation area of the page??? Or should this be left totally alone??? What are the thoughts on this one??? Personally i think it should be included, but not to a massive ammount unless the situation changes at the FIA meeting about the matter. ESPImperium (talk) 16:14, 6th April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As you said, right now, it's virtually all speculation, making it very questionable to include it under WP:BLP; it's also not very germane to discussion of the 2008 season. Maybe to Max Mosley, but not to this article. Rdfox 76 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It also has nothing to do with Formula One. It has to do with Mosley and the FIA. They do have series outside of the F1 world, so there's no reason it should be brought up on F1 pages. The359 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is having an affect on this season. They mentioned during the US telecast of today's race that four F1 teams had asked him to resign. Also he was asked by the Bahrainian (sorry it was a long name that I didn't write down but he presented the 1st place trophy) who is in charge of the race that he not attend the event. Now I am not asking that any of this be put into the article but be aware that others may do so. MarnetteD | Talk 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

F1 teams asking him to resign isn't really worth mentioning, since several other organisations not involved in F1 have also said the same (AAA and ADAC among the ones I recall). The only thing that really pertains to F1 is the Shiekh of Bahrain asking Mosley not to attend. The359 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a footnote will be all that's required if Mosley rides it out, but if he has to resign because of this, it has everything to do with Formula One. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"F1 teams asking him to resign isn't really worth mentioning"? I'm confused by that statement. Sure, they don't have any direct influence over the FIA, however F1 is pretty much unique among sports in the extent to which it has become a simultaneously a business and a sport (some say more business than sport) - therefore the statements of the major commercial bodies involved is extremely relevant - the FIA's Formula One World Championships would be less valuable assets if the major manufacturers become alienated. Mark83 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My point above in an authoritative, verifiable publication: [2] Mark83 (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The opinions of teams belongs on the Max Mosley article then, quite honestly. The FIA presides over not only a multitude of motorsports series, but also a variety of general automotive groups that are not directly related to motorsport. What happens in the FIA is not directly correlated to F1.

If a manufacturer or sponsor is likely to pull out of F1, then they're just as likely to pull out of any other FIA-backed event. F1 just gets all the press because some people seem to forget that the FIA has more to them then making F1 rules. The359 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Test drivers

I've been bold and removed all test drivers not confirmed for 2008.

1. Narain Karthikeyan (Williams) was never confirmed as a test driver for Williams, and was never contracted, whatever the official F1 website says.
2. Conway/Filippi are development drivers for Honda, and will only test sporadically for the team over the course of the season, if at all. They'll probably only test during the winter. Wurz is the official tester, and the only tester.
3. Rodriguez/VdGarde were never confirmed as testers either. Force India, rightfully, abandoned Spyker's choice to have an army of test drivers, instead opting for consistency and experience with having Liuzzi as the only tester.
4. James Rossiter was never announced as the SA tester, Davidson and Sato were lucky enough to get their seats, although that may change in Spain...

Unless someone can cite a recent source (i.e. after the start of the season), then by all means, reinstate them, but not by using sources months out of date, clearly with the wrong information. Manipe (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this lies in the vagueness of the term "test driver" - it can cover a lot of bases. People can add anyone who sits in the car and call him a test driver. Simply listing reserve or "third drivers" would suffice, I think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the car numbers listed for the test drivers at all relevant or meaningful without Friday testing? If not we should remove that column. Kenhullett (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are, when I hae seen de la Rosa testing he always runs a car without a number on. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, teams are still allowed to run a third driver in Friday practice. Just because no teams decide to do so shouldn't mean we omit the numbers, because if any team were to use a third driver on a Friday, he would use the numbers listed. Manipe (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that the rule prohibiting the teams from having a third car in the paddock would mean that they'd have to use one of the primary cars, which almost certainly wouldn't be relettered during the weekend just so that the test drivers would be carrying a different number from the race drivers. I say leave 'em blank until/unless they change that rule. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Ralf

That photo of Ralf Schumacher in the driver changes section, do we really need it? Sausageman (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to get fussed up over it! It's fine there and there's no reason why it shouldn't. Chubbennaitor 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I originally put the picture in. I know it seems odd to have a picture of a driver who is not competing in the season, but i think it's a more notable driver change than anything else and the article has very few images - Linczone^Talk/Watch 17:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Super Aguri Withdrawal

Could we have Super Aguri in Red or Black or even strikethrough so we can tell that they are no longer in the championship --Adamml13 (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious already from the text and the tables that the team has withdrawn. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if adding WD to every race now for Aguri is really the proper action. Shouldn't the spaces merely be left blank, for Did Not Participate? That is what the key seems to indicate. There is no WD on the key. The last time this happened, with Arrows, we don't really have this chart, but I think this would be the correct way to display the standings. The359 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should really depend on whether they've been put on the entry lists or not. They're obviously on the entry list for Turkey, so a "WD" is fine. But if the entry lists for races in the future have not been published yet, then Super Aguri will never appeared on them at all, in which case the spaces should be left blank. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What about putting no text in what so ever, but putting the box black--Adamml13 (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Black boxes are used for Disqualifications. The359 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What did we do for arrows in 2002?--Adamml13 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The 2002 Formula One season does not feature the same Constructors Championship table as 2008, so there's nothing there regarding it. The Arrows article simply leaves the five Grands Prix after Arrows withdrew blank. The359 (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should put WD in for Turkey, and put a Did Not Participate in the rest (Drivers column). In the constructers column we should put WD on all, as it is the constructer that has withdrawn. I shall edit this and it can be discussed. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Did not participate". After Turkey the drivers' boxes should be left blank. Personally, I think the constructors' boxes should be left blank as well, since I doubt SA have technically entered for these individual later races. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely its the whole championship the constructors enter, and not individual races. Its the drivers themselves that enter the individual races, so the arrangement stated above should be adequate. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically yes. In reality, the entry lists for the later races have not been drawn up, and when they are, SA will not be on them. So they won't ever have been officially entered in that respect. Regarding the constuctors' tables I don't feel strongly enough to argue, but the drivers' boxes must remain blank. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thats what we will do then. I will put a note in by the table to explain this to future editors. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The drivers should be left blank. Sato and Davidson could be hired by another team before the season ends, so it's an "assumption" to claim that they wont be in any more races this season. The359 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to cap this for future questioning: The Turkey boxes for Sato and Davidson in the Drivers table will have WD in them, all others will be left blank (for Did Not Participate). In the Constructors table, all Super Aguri races will have WD in them as the team itself has withdrawn and will no longer participate this season. This is what has been decided, you are welcome to oppose, but do not edit before a further decision has been made. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you are peering into a crystal ball here. SA is being sold as a going concern, and the administrators claim to already have had some interest. Whether that means a return to F1, or perhaps a step back into the lower orders, remains to be seen. It does seem extremely unlikely, granted, but to blankly state that they "will not" participate again this season is actually just an informed guess at the moment. I'd much rather you leave the boxes blank (and get rid of that rather dogmatic footnote) until the situation has been clarified. Purchasing Aguri would still be the easiest way into Formula One for any manufacturer who wanted to do so (another Ford works effort? Suzuki to pick up the pieces after its namesake, who knows... ;-) and if they do so then the rules state that they would have to complete the season as "Super Aguri". Don't push references further than they justify. Pyrope 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Accepting your comment, although it is likely that the team will be bought, they will most probably not compete in the rest of this season as they would not have a chassis to use as their own (unless they buy these rights off Honda, which will probably not happen). the likelyhood that the team will be bought is also unlikely, as the new rule on the legality of customer cars comes into force in 2010. Also, if a works team wanted to enter Formula 1, they would have enough financial backing to create a team from scratch and enter themselves. At this current point, however, Super Aguri have withdrawn from the championship therefore will not participate in any more races this season. This is how it stands so far, if it changes then we will change the page to compensate this. Cdhaptomos (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

But "will not" is still a predction. Wikipedia is not the place for "most probably" and the more I read that footnote, the more it irks me. And as for manufacturers staring their own team from scratch, only Toyota (the world's largest) has done. Honda came from Tyrrell, BMW from Sauber, Renault from Bennetton, Jaguar from Stewart, and Mercedes are in the process of taking over McLaren. We'll need to wait and see what a new Concorde Agreement throws up, but you also have the not insubstantial hurdles of the cash bond and the proposed team number limits. Pyrope 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will get rid of the bit on the footnote, but the Wd's stay. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Going by precedent you use WD for a team that shows up for the race then withdraws, say like a few years ago when Minardi were getting mysterios rear wing failures, I think Brazil in 2003, and pulled out from safety concerns. If a team does not show up then they have effectively taken no part in the race. With zero involvement comes a blank box.

Or put more simply, you have to at least be there to withdraw, otherwise what are you withdrawing from? It's dictionary definition stuff.

Yeah, I know the response, that they withdrew from the season, but those boxes indicate individual races, not the season as a whole, so withdrawn is still factually incorrect. --Falcadore (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding too. A blank box indicates "did not participate", which is closer to the truth. Pyrope 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Super Aguri withdrew from the Turkish GP but haven't entered any further races so there is nothing for them to withdraw from. Readro (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the "blank box" theory if a driver or team has no participation in a race at all. In the case of Turkey, Super Aguri were entered and expected to show, and they withdrew. For the rest of the races, I don't think they're really entered as such. They entered the championship as a whole but they're not entering the remainder of the individual races... so as has been said, you can't withdraw from something you haven't entered. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that for the rest of the season it should be put under "Did not participate" or a blank black box--Adamml13 (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, black boxes are used for disqualifications. The chart is right next to the table, the color codes are there. Did Not Participate is just blank. The359 (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the blank box answer is the best way to go about it. I'll edit it in. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i'll aggree with you on that, but do you think we can put SA in the rumors and speculation as well--Adamml13 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's cited to a reliable source. Pyrope 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Constructors

In the Constructors race details, all the teams have been given 5 starts (with the exception of Super Aguri). Shouldn't each of the constructors be on 10 starts since they have each entered two cars into each event? In theory, one car from a team might not start a race, which would not be reflected in the current table. What do others think? Andy4226uk (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there, actually. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would probably be easier to see in the table.--Adamml13 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I've edited as disscussed--Adamml13 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The teams have started 5 races, not 10. Each car is not a seperate team. F1 team used to be allowed to run 1 car or 2, so the number of cars does not matter. The359 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And before that they could run 1, 2, 3, 4 ... in fact as many as they felt they could support. 359 is correct, normal usage refers to the number of races the team has started. 4u1e (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Brendon Hartley

Brendon Hartley is a test driver for Toro Rosso. He has tested the new STR3 and has been significant in its development. He is also listed as test driver of the team on the team's WP page, and on lots of other websites as well. I have added him there. I can provide a reference if you wish. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Toro Rosso website does not list him as a test driver, and Hartley's own private website refers to him as just a Red Bull Junior Driver. The359 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian? Where did that come from? First 20 google searches all say NZ and his home page is '.nz' do we really need to source a correction so obviously wrong? --Falcadore (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a better question is, why is he still listed at all? The359 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A question answered if you delete it. --Falcadore (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Driver changes section

I think, instead of the paragraphes of bullet points in the Driver Changes section, we should have a simple, easily-read, arrow system, as shown below.

Fernando Alonso: McLaren → Renault

This would continue for all other driver changes.

In special cases, where the dates etc. are important, we can put notes by using the ± and similar symbols next to their name and transition. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Text is a hundred times more helpful and encyclopedic than symbols and charts for something like this. The359 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But if someone wanted to know ata a glance, for example, where Sébastien Bourdais was before this year, they would have to scan through all the text to find out. Yes, maybe the details are needed in some cases, but maybe it can be implemented as well as the text. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to have redundancy for everything just for those that might like a chart. It's not that hard to figure out where a driver is mentioned. The359 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Cadan's idea. I hate reading the text. I fall asleep when sometimes I want to know briefly about where and what he was doing etc. Chubbennaitor 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if there were any special circumstances, they can be put in notes at the bottom. Reading text is boring all the time, and where sometimes, text would be more appropriate, i think this system will be more appropriate here. Also, I have seen this kind of thing implemented in other book encyclopedia. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I will add it above the driver changes section for now, as an addition; we can discuss weather to remove the text afterwards. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Reading text all the time is boring? That's hardly a reason to do away with valid and useful information, simply because you're lazy. What book encyclopedia uses a chart to attempt to simplify something that is in fact, not simple? The359 (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just click on the link to Sébastien Bourdais, it's right there, linked and everything, begging, click me! Click me! Oh, and by the way, touring car, not stock car. Stock car is a regional term, and actually in some places like Britain, refers to a completely different style of racing --Falcadore (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen quite a few encyclopedia that do this, and it can in fact be simplified, just as I have done here. Falcadore, thanks, I saw stock car somewhere else, will change that too. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But the point is that it doesn't need to be simplified. Driver changes happen for various reasons, and these cannot be explained in a simple arrow. It is redundant to have a full, referenced explanation, and then simply repeat the same information and gloss over important facts simply because one doesn't feel the urge to read a few paragraphs. The359 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't put every single little detail in one encyclopedia, it would be too big! Sometimes you need to make some things into a more concice form. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Except this isn't "every little detail", this is "important details". The359 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting on the matter

Right, we will put this up to a vote. You can vote for either:

1. We keep it as it was before, with just the text.

2. We put the arrow system in, and get rid of the text, only noting dates etc. when important, and moving the rest of the dates to the relevant driver/team articles.

3. We keep it as it is now, with both the arrow system and text.

Put either 1, 2, or 3 in a comment on this page after this comment, and not straight at the bottom of the page. You have until 20:00 UTC on sunday to vote. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote 3, by the way Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't vote on matters like this. The359 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well how do we decide then? If you can find 50 people who care which date Sakon Yamamoto was announced as test driver for Renault, i will stop arguing. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't need 50, we need consensus. It's not good to say that you need 50 people before you'll even consider that your idea might not be for the best. The359 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, no need to take everything so seriously! It was a figure of speach by the way. Can we get some more people in here to help come to a decision? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't fix what ain't broke...says it all reli.--80.4.6.146 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Concorde Agreement

This article at ITV-F1.com says that there is no Concorde Agreement currently in force. It says in the introduction of the article (and also in the 2009-2011 seasons' articles) that there is one. What to do? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know that is a major error - ITV-F1 is right, the Concorde Agreement expired in 2007. What has been signed is a Memo. of Understanding between FOM and the teams. [3] James Allen says the situation is complicated by the fact that Ferrari, Williams, RB, STR, and Force India signed an extension in '05 and believe that is the "new" Concorde Agreement. In contrast the manufacturer-backed teams signed no such extension therefore believe no Concorde Agreement now exists.[4] Mark83 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much information?

I came into this page today after quite a time, and I found the results section overcrowded with unnecessary and redundant information. I'm referring to:

• Driver graph: in my opinion it's unnecessary, just a visual verson of what can already be found on the season standings table; also, it's too small in its current version and, since all drivers are so close, it's very confusing.
• The table itself: why do we need both the car and the chassis on the table? The information is already on the article, just scroll the page up a little bit!
• STR2B/STR3: why do we need two rows for this? If one wants to know what chassis was used in which races, it can be found on the chassis' page.
• Constructors: there's no need of including car numbers and drivers' shortenings here; again, if you want to know who drove which car, scroll the page up a little.

My proposal is, simply, to take all of this off and keep it simple like in the past years' table: keep a simple table is the best way to make it effective IMO. What do you think? Asendoh (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is alot of duplicant information and it will look clearer with the proposed changes. I dont like that new coutries table either,and they cant even spell the countries right, i think maybe a sentance at the end of the season if any, its not like the old champ car series where there was an award for the country.Please can people discuss new features before including them. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of them too. It's just all unnecessary! Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Asendoh's proposals, plus I'd go for the removal of the countries table - it doesn't actually mean anything. There's no country prize or anything... Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That table exists?!? Remove it. It is unnecessary. It could be good on the History of F1 but not on this article. Chubbennaitor 18:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't need the chassis on the drivers table and I don't think the drivers are needed on the constructors tally but I think they are useful. The flags of the teams drivers on the right to the teams or drivers on the tables below the results aren't needed. Chubbennaitor 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the old way of denoting the driver on the Constructors table was simply to use their driver number, to save space. The359 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after this piece of discussion I took the freedom to take out the graph and the shortenings; also, I formatted the constructors table like last year's and centered the results because I felt it was good :) I'm also taking out many flags from the constructor tables. Asendoh (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks so much better now but i think we should keep the car numbers in the constructors table as so that people can see that the results are from different cars and not just the best result first.

I also feel this article is a bit too busy. You have to scroll half way down the page to see the final standings. In my opinion, most people access this page to see the final standings. I think the final standings should be featured near the top of the article as in the older Formula One seasons.Orsoni (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Test Drivers AGAIN!

Someone has gone through and added a load of test drivers to the table. I have managed to find refs for some of them, but can we get these all sorted out NOW! FInd cites, and add your discussion to the following: Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

Now, he has been confirmed as a SPECIAL test driver. He has tested for Ferrari on more than one occaision, but does this qualify as being on the table? I think so! Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Narain Karthikeyan

I have not heared anything about him being tester at all. Why is he there? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

James Rossiter

As far as I can remember, he was never confirmed. Why is HE there? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Davidson

It was not me who added him to the table, but I added a reference to an article about his recent test for Honda. Does this count, or should we leave him out until he tests again? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Roldán Rodríguez

He was signed for the WINTER of the 2007-2008 seasons. Is this enough to qualify for being in the table? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Giedo van der Garde

Nowhere in his WP article does it say he is FI test driver, apart from in the Career Summary table. I personally have never heared that he is. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the criteria is whether someone is employed by the team in the role of test driver. Karthikeyan and Rossiter do not appear to have that job, and Davidson did test for Honda, but as far as I am aware, he was not hired by Honda F1 for a testing role. I think Rodriguez does count as part of pre-season testing. Van der Garde has a contract with Spyker to be a test driver, but there is contract problems and he never ran. I believe he is suing Force India for breach of contract, but the team does not employ him as a test driver. The359 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone apart from Anthony Davidson is not a test driver. They may test the car but they aren't the test drivers. Chubbennaitor 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

FiA/Mclaren Spygate Continioued

Do you think it would be worth mentioning in the article about the way mclaren are being treated by the fia because of last year's spygate? (i.e. the punishments and penalties they recieve for mistakes that other teams do too) --Mclaren1455 (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What punishments has McLaren received this year because of Spygate? --Golbez (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for speculation about how one entity is treating another without some sort of references to facts. The359 (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To give a few examples from the last 2 races- Hamilton penalised for hitting the back of raikkonen when raikkonen did the same thing 2 weeks earlier, kovalienen getting penalised for blocking webber even though it was actually the bmw next to him doing the blocking & hamilton penalised for passing vettel by avoiding the apex even though it was clear he had already passed him. --Mclaren1455 (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those happened, those are facts. It being part of a conspiracy against McLaren is not a fact, at least one you can reference or prove. It is not our job to make assumptions. An entire paragraph of this season summary does not need to be dedicated to penalties handed out to drivers, of which there have been several that you neglected to mention. The359 (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who did Kimi hit in the pits two weeks earlier? If you're referring to him hitting poor Sutil in Monaco, that's not remotely the same thing. And anyway, you have the bias backwards - it's not that the FIA has it out for McLaren, it's just that McLaren's cars aren't red. --Golbez (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In the States, the motorsports community has a term for the sort of thing that happened with Kimi and Sutil--"Just one of them racin' deals," coined by Dale Earnhardt, meaning an accident on track that occurred with no malice or incompetence by any driver, just someone making a slight mistake and the unforgiving nature of auto racing biting them--and anyone around them at the time. Kimi locked up under braking due to poor traction on a damp-but-drying track, and slid into Sutil. It's unfortunate, and I personally hope Ferrari did something to compensate Force India for the money it cost them (both in repairs and lost FIA revenues for next season), but it was "just one of them racin' deals."

If you want to talk conspiracy, there's the theory that a friend of mine (and *huge* tifoso) put forth to me after Montreal, that Lewis and/or Ron Dennis deliberately targeted Kimi for the pit road crash as the "greater threat" to Lewis's championship hopes. While there's absolutely no evidence to support this idea, and I personally don't think it's true, it has a certain plausibility to it--and no place on Wikipedia, because there's no reliable sources that back it up in the media, just like any claims of a conspiracy against McLaren. Hell, posting unsourced conspiracy theories here could even bring Wikipedia into legal trouble, as it could constitute libel against the people involved; at the very least, any such conspiracy would have to involve Charlie Whiting, among others, and unless there's proof of the charge, he could take action against Wikipedia for promulgating claims of a conspiracy that would involve him.

In short, please don't re-add the section about your theory of a conspiracy against McLaren without first getting consensus here to do so, and please read Wikipedia's policies on original research, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and statements regarding living persons, plus their linked guidelines, before discussing it here. Thank you! Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Five Live's commentary team, not cosy with the FIA in any way, (on their Chequered Flag podcast) were unanimous that the only reason Hamilton passed Vettel was because he went into the corner too hot, hence he had to cut the apex. Furthermore they made the point that Hamilton could easily have ceded the position and repassed and further still that the drive through was the least punishment that the F1 regulations stipulate for such a pass. So there's one verifiable source against the conspiracy as far as France goes. Mark83 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton hitting Kimi in the pits was definitely punishment-worthy, surely even the most diehard McLaren fan can see that. (Or can you? I consider myself a pretty good McLaren fan, and that was a very clear case of screwing up the pit exit. And note that Nico Rosberg was punished for doing the exact same thing.) Hamilton passing Vettel by cutting a chicane (or rather, passing Vettel by going at such a speed and angle that cutting the chicane was impossible to avoid) was definitely a bad thing. Neither of these had anything to do with the fact that he drives for McLaren. Then again, the stewards allowing Kimi to stay out with that exhaust pipe bouncing all over the place for 20 laps? It's not that I'm saying FIA has a bias towards the red cars... wait, no, yes I am. :P But seriously, in this case, you're really grasping at straws - in the facts, there's no evidence whatsoever of a vendetta against McLaren, and we can only go on facts. --Golbez (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I NOW do believe that being unfair to mclaren should not go in the article, i agree with Golbez about being biased to red cars!!!!!!!!! (PS I have now changed my nickname from mclaren1455 to Eladkse61) --Eladkse61 (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wow, you completely misread me. They didn't do anything unfair to McLaren at all, you haven't even tried to show any facts pertaining to that. They have not received biased treatment, every punishment they got has been deserved. That the stewards let Kimi stay out does not mean the FIA has it out for McLaren. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing

While it may be too much to ask - when updating results at the end of a Grand Prix can we please use the preview function a bit more rather than save the page after each small edit? We're creating a lot of unneccesary additional pages in the page history. Please.

Thanks for reading. --Falcadore (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by preview button. Chubbennaitor 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When you edit the page (using the default skin), underneath the "Edit Summary" box, there are three buttons: "Save Page", "Show Preview" and "Show Changes". I believe Falcadore is referring to the "Show Preview" button, which gives you a preview of what the edited page will look like, without actually saving a new version of the page. DH85868993 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that hitting "Show Preview" will also warn you if someone else has already made an edit before you had a chance to save yours. The359 (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I woudn't be so sure. I know what he three buttons are. Chubbennaitor 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I seriously dislike edits like this and this, both without an edit summary, and both partially updating a results/statistics table. Adding race results without updating the points column, or updating the race count without updating 'fastest lap' count or the points column renders the table invalid. I'd much prefer if an entire table were updated in one edit. Should we write a "after a race, please update all relevant rows and columns before saving content" comment in the table, and would it help? ––Fred Bradstadt (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Results table

Why are some results in italic and some in bold. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Figures in italics indicate that the driver also drove the fastest lap, and bold means pole position.Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian GP

I have browse several times that Brazilian GP start time is still marked as "TBC", is that sources from ManipeF1 consider reliable? --Aleenf1 07:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's the only place then no. Check Formula1.com. Chubbennaitor 19:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Checked start time, 1400 local = 1700 UTC, not 1100 UTC as previous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.1.126 (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Constructors Championship Names

Given that the FIA awards positions in the Constructors Championship to Scuderia Marlboro Ferrari, Vodaphone McLaren Mercedes, BMW Sauber F1 Team etc why do we show the Constructors in the Constructors Championship table as Ferrari, McLaren-Mercedes, BMW Sauber etc ? GTHO (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah we put the other name from the FIA in the column to the left of it if you haven't noticed. Chubbennaitor 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My question above relates specifically to the "Constructor" names used in the Constructors' Championship results table. As it stands this table shows the Constructors Championship being led by "Ferrari" whereas the oficial FIA listing shows the leading constructor as "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro". Why do we choose to use anything other than the official Constructor names in our results? Please see FIA Formula One World Championship Constructors Provisional Classification. GTHO (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. Go up to the table with the teams names on them and the chassis engine and the drivers for them. We put there entrant names (Scuderia Marlboro Ferrari) under 'Entrant' and the constructors names (Ferrari) under 'Constructor'. When it's put down on the results table we use their constructor name not the entrants. Chubbennaitor 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. See the Drivers table discussion from further up this page. Chubbennaitor 07:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to why my question is being misunderstood but if you'll bear with me I will try again. Why do the Constructor names used in our points table differ from the Constructor names used in the official points table as published by the FIA? GTHO (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The contents of the "Constructor" column in the "Constructors (Championship)" table are in line with WP:F1 convention, which considers/defines the "constructor" as the combination of chassis manufacturer and engine manufacturer (e.g. "Williams-Toyota", rather than "AT&T WilliamsF1 Team"). I take your point that our table differs from the table at www.fia.com, but as well as following WP:F1 convention, our table also matches the table at The Official Formula One website. DH85868993 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the 2008 F1 Sporting Regulations on www.fia.com here it would seem that we are following the FIA rulebook but the FIA are not. Interesting. But given that "Constructor" is the combination of chassis manufacturer and engine manufacturer, why does our Teams and Drivers table use the term Constructor when referring to the chassis manufacturer only? GTHO (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there is a complete lack of one constructor utilising a different engine, thus creating a different points competitor, so why not use the opportunity to make things look just that little more corporate? --Falcadore (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Apparently there was duplication of entire article and I hence reverted it to an earlier version. This may have caused some of genuine edits to be reverted. I'm also leaving a not on the editor's page who caused this. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to fix reversion of genuine edits and I think I was successful in my task. In any case, please recheck and correct if I have missed and mistaken in any of these edits. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling convention

Some support folks, I'm up against the three revert limit with an anonymous editor who wants to change the spelling of tyre. --Falcadore (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You have mine...always use F1.com as proof :p. db1987db (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

DHL Fastest Lap Award

For those of you who don't know, DHL rewards the driver who sets the most fastest laps during a season [5]. Is this worth a mention in this article and indeed last seasons, as it's now in its' second year? Or its' own article? It's an official award. Let me know what you think? Thanks. db1987db (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not? :) - oahiyeel ^talk 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it an official F1 award? If not the best place to mention it would be on DHL's page rather than F1. --Falcadore (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote taken from the above page: "Every Formula One driver is fast, but is the race winner really the fastest? Since 2007 DHL has defined a new standard of speed with the 'DHL Fastest Lap Award'. One driver sets the fastest lap at each race - the award will go to the man who sets the most over the season. To win will require pure speed - something DHL, as the world's leading logistics provider and Official Logistics Partner of Formula 1, uses to achieve its goals, shortening international routes, facilitiating global trade and making the world a smaller place." I dunno if that would make it an official award though? Otherwise, couldn't a note be placed at the end of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Formula_One_season#Drivers_2]] section on the page, maybe linking it to the DHL's article (on which the DHL FLA could be mentioned)...if you get my drift! db1987db (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the award officiated by FIA, or is it simply a part of F1's marketing strategy? If latter, just a mention in the article won't do harm, and perhaps you can enter it as an award at the bottom of driver's article. If an FIA award, I'd say this might warrant a mention in the main F1 article as well. I don't see relevance of entering it in DHL article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was that it might just be part of DHL's marketting strategy, rather than F1. --Falcadore (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant that it could part F1-DHL marketing strategy. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And I meant just DHL. Completely un-official. --Falcadore (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I predict Raikkonen will hold this award until it dies quietly after a few years. Not worth mentioning, it's a marketing gimmick, and not a very effective one since I've never heard of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the official F1 website lists it, I would think it is official/notable enough to be included in the articles? :) - oahiyeel ^talk 06:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Point. --Falcadore (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So what do we reckon? In or not? db1987db (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a note at the bottom of either GP results or Driver results table. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an image of the trophy: [6] --Pudeo⺮ 11:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No reserve drivers

Should it be mentioned that this is the first season in a long time (possibly, ever) in which there were no replacement drivers? --SpeedKing (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be worth a mention :) 80.4.6.146 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether reliability or importance guys will agree. It's worth a mention though. Chubbennaitor 18:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tables

I suggest it would reduce the size of the article a lot if we transferred the tables in the article to an article subpage, (e.g. "2008 Formula 1 Season/Table"), and used that page as a template on this page (e.g. {{2008 Formula 1 Season/Table}}. The reason is, as this page stands at nearly 100k bytes, it is taking an awfully long time to load on my computer (2.16 GHz) and considering that there are many computers slower than mine, if we move the tables it would make this article much more accessible. (It would save around 40,000 bytes, tops.) I am not suggesting removing the tables; they will still be displayed on this page, if you know what I mean. Shannon1^{talk contribs} 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I get what you are saying, but if anything it would make the page load slower, as it would have to be loading the template pages as well as the article page. I'm intending to do a lot of work on this article in just over a month from now, which should involve splitting the article and removing some of the tables. Apterygial 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel as though User:Shannon1 has brought up a vital important point - if laterally. This page is an example of everything that I think is wrong about Wikipedia's coverage of Formula One. There is minuatae detail on the dates of car launches, tables stating where departing and arriving personnel were coming from/going to and a lot of small finnicky detail.

And virtually nothing about the season itself apart from results tables. There is no prose description of the evolution of the season competition, which to a slightly interested outsider would surely be the most important thing to be looking for.

This is a very poor trend which has evolved in our approach to writing these articles in which there is a far far too heavy emphasis on statistics and events that can be quatified with tables and numbers. There is a large section and whcih TV stations were covering formula 1 but nothing on the evolution of the season.

How many people looking through wikipedia and wanting to find out about the 2008 F1 season want to know about where the race could be watched in Turkey or where Honda laucnhed there car, and how many want to find out about the season long battle between Hamilton and Massa. Kubica's brilliant drive at Canada. The emergence of BMW as a serious threat, the late season resurgence of Fernando Alonso, the gloomy failure of Honda, the decline of Williams, where is the information about that? And please, do not suggest that people go to each of 18 race articles.

This article is very seriously screaming out for a season overview, perhaps the most important part of any enclopedic article and there is not even the suggestion of one!

Now please can all those who contrubited to the statistical mess of this piece please tell me 'well why don't you write it' and wash their hands of responsibility. Yes I know this has been a far from civil reply but the perhaps a jolt is needed to underline the basic failing. Please begin tearing me to shreds. --Falcadore (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and this is what happens when an article is slowly built up over time by many editors - the significant stuff is argued over to death so no one ever bothers to write it, while the stuff that non one can argue with (TV channels, car launches etc.) takes over the page. I certainly agree that the page needs a major overhaul, and I'm intending to do that as soon as I have some time. For now though, we need to ask why the same problem is developing at 2009 Formula One season. Apterygial 03:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's are some suggestions. These would probably won't work at the current season because of the traffic, but could work out here. Move details statistics such as tables containing individual driver results for Grands Prix to a separate article with title such as 2008 Formula One season statistics. Reduce tables with drivers and constructors standings reduced in terms of statistics in this article. Remove test drivers from the "Teams and drivers" table. They really have no significance here. Convert some other tables such as New car launches to prose. This should be a good start. ^LeaveSleaves 04:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to split the article into one other called Cars of the 2008 Formula One season (or something) and save this article for the sporting aspects, such as a season article and sporting rules changes. The new article would deal with the technical aspects. Apterygial 04:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the tables limited to calendar - with name of race, circuit and date only. Teams table with name, nationality and race number of drivers with team represented by constructor name (Brawn-Mercedes) and no other information. Points table for drivers championship as is. And a constructors table limited only to the final score. No more than that. Any and all other tabular and statistic information, including the expanded versions of the above four tables, should be placed in an article with a name something like 2009 Formula One season supplemental information or whatever we call it.

And I see no reason why this could not be employed at the current series article. We we are firm enough about tabular style additions only going into the supplemental article then the end result should be worthwhile, and would cause less problems in the future once edittors got used to the concept. --Falcadore (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Cars of the 2008 Formula One season article. There are individual car articles already and the new article would only serve as summary for those. I also feel there is need to keep at least one results table: the one containing pole, winner and fastest lap. On the other hand I don't see the need of race times etc. in the calendar table. ^LeaveSleaves 06:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my idea, LeaveSleaves. A cars article would not serve as a summary of those articles, rather it would serve to highlight the similarities in the 2008 cars. The new technical changes - reduced and standardised ECU, no TC, stronger safety standards, fuel make-up restrictions, component material restrictions, extended engine freeze (and the problems that caused for cars running Renault engines) - would be discussed. The article probably would also feature a big table with engine, gearbox and dimensional information - essentially a re-hash of similar information in the cars' infoboxes, as well as stuff taken from Autocourse - as well as general technical and drivability information, the drivers' reaction to the removal of traction control, criticism about all the add-ons that occurred, what Bridgestone did, etc. Basically just stuff that would otherwise be repeated in every car article. The reason that link is blue is because before it was a simple gallery of the cars, and the article I propose would be nothing of the sort.

A reduction of tables, both in number and spread across two pages, would relieve the problems cited on this talk page. A supplementary article to this one containing stats is a bad move, let's not forget FOM owns the copyright to all F1 stats, and such an article would be entirely under that copyright. I agree that a split is in order, but surely one that splits the article sporting/technical is better than one that splits it prose/tables. Apterygial 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Then its essentially in trouble now. It's practically all stats as it is.

My concept was to save the article, more or less as it is now as the 'supplementary article'. The primary age would have no more stats than this and be fleshed out with prose descriptions and photographs. --Falcadore (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A statistics article won't face any copyright problems. The FOM/FIA copyright claims primarily lie with the timings and the more detailed lap-to-lap analysis of the race as is available on TV and through their websites. What we are adding here are simply final positions of drivers after the race, number of starts, pole positions etc. This sort of information is well within standard public knowledge and is well printed/documented in secondary media. The closest we come to potential copyright violation on F1 related articles is timings added to the race articles. But even there (or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter) the information is being used strictly for education/general information with no commercial aspect involved. ^LeaveSleaves 14:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have the right amount of tables; we don't have a sub-heading entitled "Season Review" That's what we need. Chubbennaitor 20:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You seen the size of the articles - very badly needs a split aqnd there are some quite useless tables there that do little but duplicate information already present. Has to go. --Falcadore (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd back the amount of tables Falcadore has in his sandbox. I don't think the article needs any more than that. All it needs is fleshing out with prose. Can I get some comments on my proposed sporting/technical split? Apterygial 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)