Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... WP:F1 conventions allow for future championship articles to be created up to 18 months in advance provided that they can be substantiated by reliable sources --Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've contested the speedy deletion, as the article is not identical to the version deleted. There is extra information, such as the change of engine suppliers for Mclaren & Toro-Rosso. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Joseph2302. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --79.75.94.67 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The three tier system mirrors Moto GP?

I cannot see the connection between MotoGP, Moto2, Moto3 and F4, F3, F2 - Moto2 and Moto3 both follow the 'main' MotoGP championship as support races. Of course this is true for F2 and the newly formed F3, so from this respect, the three tier structure (F1, F2 and F3) are very similar to the structure adopted by MotoGP. However, the global pathway also includes F4, which runs totally separate to the F1 events, as it runs regionally. Would it not be best to say the 4 tier structure is SIMILAR to the MotoGP structure? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

MotoGP also has the Red Bull MotoGP Rookies Cup, the MotoGP equivalent of Formula 4. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Calendar

I have update the calendar to reflect all the races, but can't find sources for China and Bahrain at the present time. Pch187 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Constructor names

Even though McLaren and Toro Rosso have confirmed engine supply deals with Renault and Honda respectively, we cannot say for certain that the constructor names will be "McLaren-Renault" and "Toro Rosso-Honda" because 2017 has seen teams compete under different constructor names—case in point, "Toro Rosso" instead of "Toro Rosso-Renault". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Add Sauber?

They have a multi year engine deal.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/headlines/2017/7/f1-sauber-ferrari-engine-honda-multi-year-deal-2018.html PD001 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Junior formulae reform

If the organisers of the FA Cup announced tomorrow that they were changing the way the system of promotion and relegation between the divisions worked, would you agree that this qualifies as a serious enough change as to affect all articles related to the FA Cup for a season of competition?

That's precisely what the FIA are doing with the Global Pathway. They're streamlining the entire process of getting into Formula 1—going through Formula 2 and/or Formula 3 will be practically mandatory. And this isn't something that was dreamed up overnight; Gerhard Berger and Stefano Domenicalli have been working on it since leaving Toro Rosso and Ferrari.

The restructuring of the junior categories might have more immediate relevance to other articles (articles which have not yet been created), but that does not mean that it has no relevance here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe for the general article on Formula One, the article of the FIA or the articles of the junior formulae. But this not relevant to an article which is intended to report the sportive events of the 2019 World Championship. Bear in mind that with a junior formulae reform implemented in 2019, the first time a driver could promote from them to F1 is in 2020, not 2019.Tvx1 16:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You cannot present content without context. The junior formulae reform changes the context, and is therefore relevant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't, because as I pointed out this does not apply to the 2019 drivers anyway and because it's not a change to F1.Tvx1 10:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right. It's just a change that affects all international open-wheel motorsport. How stupid of me to include Formula 1 in that definition when it clearly exists in a vaccuum despite what the article says. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is changed directly to F1, whether you like it or not. Moreover, the 2019 season isn't affected in anyway. It's utterly irrelevant here.Tvx1 17:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Bahrain

Unless you have a source detailing the future of the Bahrain Grand Prix, it cannot be added to the list. Including a sub-heading of "status unknown" does not exempt it from requiring a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

clarify 73rd championship

on the 2017 page it says "The 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship was the 71st season of Formula One motor racing. It featured the 68th Formula One World Championship, a motor racing championship for Formula One cars" - this should be the adopted wording for 2018 and 2019 pages Pch187 (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

2019 German GP?

Germany will not have an F1 race in 2019, as per this link: https://www.racefans.net/2018/06/27/no-german-grand-prix-2019-f1-calendar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvey994 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The source is kind of vague. "Hesitant to host" is not the same as "will not host". Especially at a time where Liberty are reworking the way the sport works with event promoters. I'd wait for something more definite because this is not a recent story and it hasn't been picked up by the wider motorsports media. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Teams

Some teams are not included in the team list, teams like Haas,

Can someone fix this Zinwe Mazwi 98 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

By WP:F1 convention, teams are not added to the table until they have announced a driver or engine unit contract. DH85868993 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to where? I can't seem to find it in the article or in the "other conventions" list. I may have missed it but a direct quote or link would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjack (talk • contribs)

It may not be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions, but it is the convention. The initial version of this article only listed Ferrai, McLaren and Toro Rosso - the three teams who had announced engine or driver deals. Red Bull was added once they announced Verstappen's contract. Sauber was added once their engine deal was announced, etc. Similarly, the initial version of the 2018 article only listed the 4 teams which had announced drivers. You may also notice that the text above the table says "The following teams and drivers are under contract to take part in the 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship". This wording was deliberately chosen to avoid situations in the past where teams or drivers were added to the table based on rumours. DH85868993 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The addition of any team or driver requires a reliable source. Right now we have no evidence that the missing teams have any plans for 2019. 1.129.105.199 (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is fine if that's the reason. But let's not go down the route of pretending it's in the convention if it isn't. If you want the "no contract for engine or driver" rule in the convention then suggest it be added, not make it up as you go alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjack (talk • contribs)

Whether or not something is the convention isn't defined by whether or not it's listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions. But this one has now been added to the list. Also, please sign your posts. Thank you. DH85868993 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Could we use a similar convention to contracted/non-contracted races, by listing 2018 teams (and maybe drivers) not yet confirmed for 2019 at the bottom of the table under a separate heading?Jcbolton1 (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

They're not contracted to race. They're entered to race. 1.129.104.81 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Entrant column

The entrant column should be removed from the article as it is not sourced (with the exception of Sauber). As we saw in 2018, entrant names can and do change—even for teams that have competed under a particular name for years. 1.129.104.64 (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done,Tvx1 13:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 29 August

Please update the "changes" section to include the following reference:

https://www.speedcafe.com/2018/08/29/pirelli-to-simplify-f1-tyre-compounds-from-2019/

It should be accompanied by the following text (or something like it):

"Tyre supplier Pirelli will simplify its approach to its supply. The seven tyre compounds available to teams in 2018 will continue to be used throughout the championship, but Pirelli will adopt a relative naming system. The three compounds made available for individual Grands Prix will be known as the "hard", "medium" and "soft" compounds regardless of the tyre's composition. The change was adopted in response to criticism over the previous system where compounds were known by the official names, such as "hypersoft" and "supersoft", which was found to be confusing." 1.129.111.94 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Race calendar

You are writing 'twenty' races, while 21 listed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.72.69 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed now. Someone only updated part of the article with the provisional calendar, which is why it was inconsistent. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the "planned calendar expansion" can be removed or copied over to a 2020 article since there are no new races in 2019. 1.129.104.58 (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

2019 German GP?

So it seems that the 2019 German GP is expected to happen after all. Though they merely have a preliminary agreement at the moment and no contract has been signed yet. We cancan’t thus include it at this time.Tvx1 14:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

So we're okay to add this, even though it isn't 100% a done deal, but not the Red Bull Honda? Both seem to be likely to happen but not confirmed, so neither should yet be there. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You’re right. I made a typo.Tvx1 20:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Feeling of awkwardness

Guys, when feeling of awkwardness became a valid reason for removal? 2017 reference is irrelevant in the case. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Set to quit" implies that Sainz left the team by choice and that Ricciardo was hired to fill a gap in Renault's line-up. If that is indeed the case, then it should be reflected in the prose of the article and be supported by a reliable source. Right now the text says something completely different to the caption. So which is it? I could come up with an alternative wording per your request but I can't because I don't know which version is correct: did Sainz leave the team—quit—and create a gap for Ricciardo, or was Ricciardo hired over Sainz, leaving Sainz out of a drive? Since you insist that the current wording is valid, there must be a source to confirm it. If so, please provide it because I haven't seen anything like it.

Also, why is the image of Ricciardo different to the image in his article? I feel like they should at least be the same. 1.129.104.240 (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree that "set to quit" is the wrong phrase given he was on loan to Renault, it would be better just to state that Ricciardo has taken his place for now. As for the awkward photos, they are terrible pictures, just use the ones from the drivers articles if you really feel the need to add any.

The one of Sainz can be the one that was used. The image from his article shows him in profile when ideally we should be able to see his face. Also, it's forcing the Ricciardo image to be very small. I just found it awkward to use two photos from the same charity football match because we're talking about one person replacing another at a team, but the images show them wearing the same uniform without offering any context. To an outsider, it's confusing. 1.129.104.125 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, if Sainz will join Red Bull, it will be confusing too. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now, that's speculation. McLaren have publicly indicated interest in him, too. 1.129.104.125 (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the purpose of the images. The caption only restates what the section says, so the whole thing comes across as having been added for the sake of it rather than adding any encyclopaedic value. I'd prefer to wait until we get more driver movements and then choose the most notable one for inclusion. 1.144.108.121 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that Alonso has announced that he won't be racing in Formula 1, the question is what is more worthy of a picture: Ricciardo to Renault or Alonso's departure? 1.129.111.149 (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is obvious that Ricciardo's move is more worthy as he will be a 2019 competitor, while Alonso doesn't. But I have nothing against to add his photo if Sainz will be confirmed with McLaren. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree—Alonso is a double World Champion (and frequently lauded as one of the sport's all-time greats) who is walking away from the sport. 1.129.111.149 (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I can rephrase, who has more relation to 2019 Formula One World Championship? Former double World Champion Alonso or Ricciardo who will be an actual contestant? Corvus tristis (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel that a picture of Alonso does not have much relevance to the 2019 article. Since he's leaving the sport at the end of 2018, I feel a picture is better suited there.Tvx1 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Alonso has to be replaced by someone; McLaren can't enter a lone car. If you look at the 2018 article, the picture is of Sirotkin replacing Massa when it could have been Sainz going to Renault, or Gasly/Hartley racing for STR. I would argue that a two-time World Champion leaving the sport beats out a race winner moving to an untested manufacturer team any day of the week. 1.144.110.14 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

When we will discover who replace Alonso (which is expected quite soon), then we can make a different photo decision, now it is an empty talk. You are wrong, Sainz, Gasly/Hartley already made their moves in 2018, so there is no urgency to highlight them. And it is odd to hear about Renault as an "untested manufacturer team", the team which brought Alonso his only F1 titles. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That was a decade ago. In the time since, they've been humiliated, sold off, been Lotus-but-not-Lotus, mismanaged, hired Maldonado and finally bought back. They had a massive staff exodus and have only just started to rebuild. The point is that a lot has changed since 2006. 1.144.110.210 (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

He's leaving the sport at the end of the 2018 championship, not during the 2019 one. In the mean time McLaren have already announced Sainz as his replacement.Tvx1 18:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

What's your point? I'm questioning whether the Ricciardo/Sainz images are the best ones to use. We've got Alomso leaving, Sainz to McLaren, Ricciardo to Renault and someone new on the grid. It's also anticipated that Gasly will go to Red Bull, Stroll will replace Ocon and Leclerc will go to Ferrari or Haas. There's a lot of movement, so the image(s) should be of the most important changes. Is the Ricciardo/Sainz change the most important one, or are they in the article because they were the first ones announced? 1.144.97.84 (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The point is that Alonso has a very weak connection to 2019 Formula One World Championship. When the other moves will take place we can talk, now it is pointless. It seems that you have nothing else to improve if these two images bother you so much... Corvus tristis (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Alonso leaves, Sainz takes his place. That seems like a strong enough connection to have. Likewise, Ricciardo leaves Red Bull and someone will take his place. Alonso/Sainz and Ricciardo/whoever seem as equally-valid choices for photos as Ricciardo/Sainz. 1.144.97.72 (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Save for the considerable difference that Ricciardo and whoever takes his place are both expected to participate in the 2019 championship, while Alonso isn't. Therefore while he has a connection, it is rather weak. Certainly not strong enough to merit a dedicated foto montage. Mentioning him in the prose gives him his due weight. We are under no obligation to included pictures for every name mentioned in the driver changes section.Tvx1 18:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, much as Alonso is considered one of the greats. He will be leaving at the end of 2018 and wont have anything to do with the 2019 season, and as such his picture would probably be best suited in the 2018 season article, perhaps discuss on the 2018 talk page? A more considerable change to the sport would be Lando Norris' introduction to the sport, maybe have his picture there instead?--AdamComer (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please change the wording of Raikkonen's Sauber move. It should read:

"Kimi Räikkönen is due to leave Ferrari and return to Sauber."

The reference should go at the end of the sentence, not in the middle of it. 1.144.110.38 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Prose has been re-worded now. AdamComer (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Also need to tweak the punctuation. Full stops, commas and semi-colons should go before the references, not after them. 1.144.110.38 (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation amended as per request. AdamComer (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Implemented AdamComer (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

1,000th GP

So there seems to be some debate as to whether or not the location of the 1,000th GP should be included despite being a significant milestone in the sport, the information being back by two reputable sources and the 1,000th GP being mentiond in the opening pragraph. I have added an asterik which subtly points out the location of the 1,000th GP and written at the bottom of the calendar the note.

This has been deleted, then re-instated and then deleted once more. Before I have finally re-instated again.

Please discuss further changes here. --AdamComer (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Prose over notes, charts, data points. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing subtle about it. It overtly stated it. Speaking of the 1000th race, the article lead current says the following:

"The 2019 championship is also scheduled to see the running of the one thousandth World Championship Grand Prix in China."

This should probably be changed since it can be read as China hosting the 1000th race (as intended), but could also be read as the 1000th Chinese Grand Prix. 1.129.109.103 (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The new revision (above) is a better solution, agreed with changing the wording in the opening paragraph though, I'll update it to say "which is being hosted in China" instead.--AdamComer (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Have updated now and added sources. Shall we close the case here?--AdamComer (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

DISCUSS: Some editors have mentioned that the 1,000th GP is trivia and should be removed altogether. Are there any others that feel this way too? Personally I think it's a key milestone in the sport and has taken 68 years to reach this point. It's at least noteworthy if anything, but agree that it doesn't need any real focus. What are people's thoughts on this? --AdamComer (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

How will Formula One be different after the Chinese Grand Prix? --Falcadore (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It won't change the sport, but it is certainly a landmark. How many other sports have achieved that milestone? It's certainly worth mentioning. 1.144.108.248 (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

But is it worth mentioning here? And if so is it that important that it needs to be highlighted in the lead? I have strong doubts over both. It's certainly worth mentioning on the article on the race in question or even the general article Formula One. I would certainly leave out the identity of the race in question for the moment since races have the tendency to be shuffled between the initial proposal and the final calendar.Tvx1 13:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it is co-incidence that is slated for China.

Was it mentioned in the season articles for 100 and 500 Grands Prix? --Falcadore (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The 100th GP was not mentioned in the 1969 season article. However, the 500th GP was mentioned in the 1990 Season Page as quoting "The last race of the year was in Australia for what would be the 500th World Championship Grand Prix race". AdamComer (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Where does the notability of this milestone lie? Does it belong to the whole of Formula One? If so it belongs on Formula One. Does it belong to the race itself? If so it belongs on 2019 Chinese Grand Prix. Or does the co-incidence that allows the 1000th race to fall within the 2019 season claim honours over the 1000th race? If that is so, then yes it belongs here. --Falcadore (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see where you are coming from. Feel free to remove if you feel that's necessary or leave as is. Requested a 2nd opinion to make the decision for us. AdamComer (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Second opinion requested

I see no reason why the milestone cannot be mentioned here, on the Formula One article and at 2019 Chinese Grand Prix. 1.144.107.90 (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you please stop adding templates suggesting that the discussion has been resolved when it clearly hasn't? 1.129.108.135 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed that the 2nd opinion was enough to close it. Have removed the “resolved” marker and replaced with ongoing. This is quite trivial after all, it’s one sentence, shall we keep or remove? AdamComer (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Discussion ongoing...

Racing Point Force India Team

Hi, I notice in the section with the teams at the top of the article that the Racing Point Force India Team is missing in the list, so, is it possible to include it? Thanks in advance. --70.82.16.93 (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't know anything about their plans for 2019. We don't know who will drive for them, what engine they will use, or even what they will be called. The "Racing Point Force India" name appears to be a placeholder name—they needed to be called "Force India" because they use a Force India-built chassis, and the "Racing Point" name is derived from the company that owns the assets so as to differentiate the team from "Sahara Force India". So we don't even know if they'll be "Racing Point Force India" next year. 1.129.110.130 (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the team still exist for 2019 season, so, it could still be added then. Right? I mean, many teams don't have both pilots confirmed, and you can still add the team and change the name later when confirmed. Thanks in advance.--70.82.16.93 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

With no specifics announced we cannot say that the team “still exist for 2019”. Especially since their are parties contending the legality of the takeover and others inzending to block them getting their money. Just wait.Tvx1 22:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Besides what would we include? The entrant would be "TBA". The constructor would be "TBA". The engine would be "TBA". The drivers (and their numbers) would be "TBA". Their entry would look like this:

Entrant	Constructor	Power unit	Race drivers
			No.	Driver name
TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA TBA	TBA TBA

It literally adds nothing to the article. 1.144.108.248 (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of Ferrari, who aren't registered in the UK, every other team follows this principle of naming the team after the registered entry on the Company's House, with their title sponsor at the start and engine manufacturer at the end. Mercedes, Red Bull, Renault, Haas, Toro Rosso, McLaren, Sauber, Williams.

This company has been registered to be assosiated with the 2019 team. It is likely the entrant will be called "[Title Sponsor (if any)] Racing Point F1 Team [engine manufacturer]. And we know they are based in the UK as the old factory was part of the assets Racing Point bought from Force India."AdamComer (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:E780:EE00:1853:796D:6879:FE40 (talk)

We don't add teams until there is either an entry list, engine supply contract, or signed driver. If you can provide a reliable source indicating that the Mercedes engine deal was transferred in the takeover of Force India then it could maybe be added with a note saying the team name may change. Alternatively wait until a driver is signed or more information about their 2019 season is released. Until that point it is all speculation. MetalDylan (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above, I always thought it was standard procedure to only add teams once they have made their first official announcement. I was merely suggesting that the team name, when it gets added, will likely be Racing Point. So if we were to mention anything about them now, it'd probably be safe to use that name. Maybe even make it clear that the information is in regards to future events and are subject to change until the FIA has approved all entires? But until further information is released clearing up their 2019 entry status, it's probably best to leave them out. AdamComer (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think, we have "driver confirmation" here: https://www.wheels24.co.za/FormulaOne/perez-denies-mclaren-was-2019-option-20180910 "I have already signed a contract and I'm not going to change anything ........ I think that if you can't be with Mercedes or Ferrari, it's hard to find a better team than the one I already work for," --84.16.51.161 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We'd need a bit more to confirm a driver has signed officially, it's a rather questionable source. However the timestamp on that article suggests a more official report may be on the way very soon. AdamComer (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It is likely the entrant will be called "[Title Sponsor (if any)] Racing Point F1 Team [engine manufacturer].

"Likely" is not the same as "confirmed". And until it is confirmed, it's speculation. 1.144.110.87 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair point, agreed. AdamComer (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Still a bit of a speculative article but this contains quotes from Otmar Szafnauer stating that they are designing the cockpit of their 2019 car for Stroll, indicative that they as a team will be present next year with Stroll as a driver. Thoughts?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/138421/stroll-had-seat-fitting-at-force-india

MetalDylan (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This looks promising, but as you say, still a bit too speculative to be confirmed as fact. In addition, the article says Stroll had a seat fitting in the current year's car, for all we know this could mean they plan on putting Stroll in the car this year? Remember Manor Racing had already tested their half size cockpit for the 2017 car in the wind tunnel and paid their entry fee before pulling out of the 2017 season, a lot can happen between now and 2019. Still too early to tell, I reckon. AdamComer (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Discussion ongoing...

Semi-protected edit request 2

Some of the prose in the article needs to be changed. This is terrible:

"It has been announced that Daniel Ricciardo is to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team to join Renault."

By limiting the prose to "it has been announced" implies that there is nothing more to it than an announcement and is subject to change. It's one thing to remove the predictions of future events, but this takes things too far by implying that the sources cannot be trusted. 1.144.109.29 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Prose amended to reflect the above. AdamComer (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved

Semi-protected edit request 3

Could someone please add a nowrap template to Antonio Giovinazzi in the driver table? They're really important for making the tables display correctly on tablet and mobile devices, especially with the sortable function. 1.144.111.121 (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The prose could also do with a comment on who Giovinazzi is—that he drove in the place of the injured Wehrlein in 2017. 1.144.106.71 (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Red Bull Racing-Honda Sotirissot (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 9 October 2018

Please delete the section "calendar expansion". While the proposed expansion was discussed, it never actually happened. It might be worth moving it to a 2020 article, especially since Copenhagen and Miami have said that 2020 is the most feasible start date, and now Hanoi has joined the mix and there is still talk about Zandvoort returning. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018

{{subst:trim|1=

And another official element for Red Bull Racing and Honda. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.red-bull-'hugely-impressed'-by-honda-ahead-of-engine-switch.4O7sUNf8ViMus4sqKagQSg.html

 Question: @Sotirissot: Is this a source that goes with the discussion with the Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018 section Request for Comment (RfC)? Looking at the discussion above and your comment it seems to be the case. If this is the case please keep all discussion about this topic in the same section and refrain from using the {{edit semi-protected}} template until the RfC has closed.

I'm gonna go head and close this for now. If this request is unrelated to the RfC above please reopen it and provide more detail. Also please remember to sign posts with ~~~~ at the end. Thank you. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Images

Why are there so many driver images in the article? Seriously, it's a cluttered mess. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, should be reduced. Preference would be to focus on the bigger stories (don't think Giovinazzi <driver with some experience moving to low-ranked team> or Sainz <mid-table team to mid-table team> should be there). OZOO (t) (c) 09:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In the past, we have only really shown the image(s) related to the most significant driver movement(s). I would say the Leclerc-Räikkönen swap fits the bill this year. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

Because Red Bull Racing have confirmed their 2019 engine supply partnership with Honda, the table listing teams and power units should be updated as follows: 1) Change "Red Bull Racing-TBA" to "Red Bull Racing-Honda", linking "Honda" to the same link as "Honda" in "Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda" 2) In the "Engine Unit" column and in the same row as the above change, change "TBA" to "Honda"

Sources verifying change:

https://redbullracing.redbull.com/article/honda-power-2019

https://www.redbull.com/us-en/red-bull-racing-honda-anouncement

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/44530950 Chronotides (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the ongoing RfC on 9 October's edit request. Keep the discussion here please. RhinosF1 (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request — driver changes

There are a few changes that are needed to be made to the driver changes section. First, the number of images should be reduced. There should be at most two. I would suggest keeping the Leclerc/Räikkönen pair as they are the most relevant.

Secondly, the prose need to be re-written:

"The lead up to the 2019 season has seen a high volume [huh?] of driver changes. [compared to what] Only Mercedes and Haas will feature the same line-up as the previous season. [not true—some teams have not confirmed any drivers] Daniel Ricciardo is scheduled to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team, joining Renault. Ricciardo's agreement with the team is that he is to replace Carlos Sainz Jr., who has been on loan to the French manufacturer from Red Bull's driver development programme. [this implies Red Bull traded Ricciardo awsy] Sainz did not have his deal with Red Bull renewed and will to move to McLaren to replace two-time World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso, who had earlier announced that he would not compete in Formula One in 2019. Alonso's 2018 teammate Stoffel Vandoorne did not have his contract renewed. McLaren's test driver and McLaren Young Driver Programme member [his European F3 title seems far more relevant] Lando Norris was promoted to replace Vandoorne. Ricciardo's drive at Red Bull Racing is scheduled to be taken by Pierre Gasly, who has been competing for Scuderia Toro Rosso since making his first Formula One start at the 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix. After much speculation, [there is ALWAYS speculation; this is nothing new] Ferrari announced the signing of current Sauber driver, Ferrari Driver Academy member and Ferrari test-driver [pick one] Charles Leclerc in September Kimi Räikkönen, who has driven for Ferrari for 8 years over two stints, [is Räikkönen's first stint with Ferrari a decade ago relevant?] will return to Sauber, with whom he had started his career in the 2001 season. Räikkönen will be joined at Sauber by Ferrari test-driver Antonio Giovinazzi, who is set to replace Marcus Ericsson. Giovinazzi previously started two Grands Prix at the beginning of the 2017 season, when he replaced an injured Pascal Wehrlein at Sauber. Daniil Kvyat will rejoin Toro Rosso, after last racing for the team in 2017. Current Formula Two championship leader and Mercedes Young Drivers Programme member [you can't mention Mercedes' YDP without discussing its failure] George Russell will drive for Williams, with negotiations having begun as early as June. [relevance is questionable—Russell was promoted so Mercedes could save face after failing Ocon; this over-states his relationship with the team, especially in light of the criticism he took in Monza*]"

The section should read like this:

"The lead up to the 2019 championship has seen several driver changes. Daniel Ricciardo is scheduled to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team and move to Renault. Ricciardo's agreement with the team will see him replace Carlos Sainz Jr. Red Bull promoted Pierre Gasly from sister team Scuderia Toro Rosso.

"Sainz Jr., who was on loan to Renault in 2018, did not have his contract with Red Bull renewed. He is due to move to McLaren, where he will be partnered by 2017 European Formula 3 champion Lando Norris. Sainz Jr. and Norris will replace Stoffel Vandoorne and two-time World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso; Alonso announced his retirement from Formula 1 while Vandoorne did not have his contract with the team renewed.

"Charles Leclerc will leave Sauber after one year with the team. He will join Ferrari, taking the place of Kimi Räikkönen. Räikkönen returned to Sauber, the team he started his career with in 2001. He will be partnered with Antonio Giovinazzi, who made two starts for the team in 2017 when he replaced the injured Pascal Wehrlein.

"Daniil Kvyat will rejoin Scuderia Toro Rosso. Kvyat last raced for the team in 2017 before being dropped by the team for the 2018 championship.

"Current Formula 2 championship leader George Russell signed a contract to join Williams."

That should fix the issues. 1.129.104.55 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

* — this is a bit of a thorny issue because it wasn't widely reported, which makes it an original research problem; a lot of the British media won't touch it because Russell is British, so I think we need to be careful how we address Russell in future. The short version: Russell complained about a move Artem Markelov made in Monza. Markelov slowed just enough to let Russell past, but kept enough speed to stay in DRS range and got him on the straight. Russell complained that it was a dirty, dangerous move, but it was completely legitimate. He was criticised for his racecraft—lacking the foresight to anticipate a clever move from an experienced racer, and apparently expecting that once passed, another driver would not fight back. Perfectly valid criticisms, but under-reported by the British media. Instead, they ran glowing feature articles like Autosport's "A lap of Suzuka with a future F1 star". I think we really need to be careful in how we handle this because I think the British media are anticipating that Hamilton will retire soon (2022?) and are trying to set Russell up as his heir apparent. 1.129.104.55 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

For the next year of formula one 2019 you need to write from Red Bull Racing-TBA will have to convert to Red Bull Racing-Honda! specify the source:https://www.gpfans.com/nl/artikelen/9385/red-bull-racing-en-honda-ondertekenden-contract-pas-in-japan/

Agree but  Second opinion requested Seems fine, but due to being contversial I'm going to check to see if we can establish a consensus. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus that unless there is official confirmation from Red Bull and/or Honda, we cannot update the article because without it we don't know if they're referring to a contract or the existing memorandum of understanding. 1.129.104.132 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Status:     On hold - unable to reach consensus so I have requested an RFC to gain a better view of thoughts. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Based on the above source can we now include Honda as Red Bull engine provider? RhinosF1 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Support, the new source can be added to the multitude of other sources we have confirming Red Bull will use Honda engines in 2019. OZOO (t) (c) 16:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment — you were asked time and time again to provide a source showing that Red Bull had signed the contract, and you failed every single time. This source does not adequately demonstrate that they have signed the contract; there is no "multitude of other sources". It is quite clear that you have not read the source provided and that you are just treating this as a battleground because you disagreed with a previous consensus and are looking to settle the score. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The source does say they have signed the contract. #RedBull and #Honda officials sign engine contract for 2019/20 post #JapaneseGP at #Suzuka . Photo via @RacingLines pic.twitter.com/nPFU3aPn91. OZOO (t) (c) 09:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's your source? A single Twitter post? Despite being posted a week ago, the story hasn't been picked up by any of the mainstream motorsport media. Autosport, the BBC, Speedcafe—they're not reporting this story that Red Bull are now committed to using Honda engines. Which is odd, because it's headline news. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, also the article under discussion, is my source. Perhaps the reason why most of the MSMSM are not picking up the story is that they have regarded the Red Bull/Honda agreement as a done deal for several months? They didn't report on any reason why it wouldn't be, after all, and have been and are talking about how Red Bull "will" partner Honda without question marks. OZOO (t) (c) 10:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The picture of a group of people sitting around a table looking at documents. It's by no means definitive. It's impossible to make out what the documents say, the only person I can positively identify is Christian Horner and neither Red Bull nor Honda have made a statement about this alleged contract signing. They're the ones who confirmed the existence of the MOU rather than a full contract. You're nowhere near providing an adequate source. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Support - See my Pre-RFC Comments - it in power unit column.

Note: Please be aware past discussions have voted against as at that point it was a Momendum of Understanding. New source is dated after these discussions.

Addition - Past Consensus seems that Power Until for Red Bull is only stated in that column as they don't use provider in name. RhinosF1 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

YouRhinosF1 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait Red Bull have used the TAG Heuer moniker over the past seasons. There is every possibility that they will still use a different branding. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition I am fine with adding Honda to the Power Unit column though, the switch is sufficently sourced by now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment — it's not a question of sourcing, but of what they actually have. None of the sources provided have demonstrated that Red Bull have actually signed a contract. All we can prove with these sources is that they have a memorandum of understanding, or an agreement to sign a contract at some point in future provided that certain conditions are met. In order for a source to be acceptable, it would have to demonstrate that the contract has been signed. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• question - is the source considered reliable? If so, seems pretty cut and dry that they've denoted that they are using the engines, and the only argument against is that Red Bull may have not signed a contract regarding this.

I understand that the burden of proof is with the suggested, but if an RS has been submitted, it's up for debate whether the source is lacking, or can be proved otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment &mdash @Lee Vilenski, which source are you talking about? 1.129.107.136 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • the one in the original question. Or, for that matter, any source that comments on this. If any RS comments on the subject, it should be commented on in the article. Even, if it's conflicting evidence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski — I wouldn't call that a reliable source. I've followed the sport for twenty years and the first time I had heard of that site was when it was postes here a week ago.

None of the reliable sources do anything to demonstrate that Red Bull have signed a contract. The most we can show is that they have a memorandum of understanding. The team might say that they intend to use Honda power, but that does not mean they will. Last year Sauber signed an MOU with Honda, but backed out without penalty. Naming Red Bull's engine supplier as Honda in the table with anything less than proof of a contract suggests a certainty that we do not have. 1.129.104.55 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Red Bull Honda

@Tvx1 — the current status of page protection isn't doing much to fix the Red Bull/Honda problem. Do you think it might be worth requesting pending changes protection so that changes can be reviewed before they are applied? The 2019 MotoGP article is having a lot of success with it. I'd request it myself, but it appears to be a different process to RFP and I don't know how to do it. 1.129.104.63 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ralph1300 — please read your sources. While the source you provided says Red Bull has a contract with Honda, more-recent sources—which are used in the article—have the team confirming that there is no contract, but rather a memorandum of understanding; an agreement to sign a contract in the future if the terms can be negotiated. 1.129.104.242 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have requested PC protection (which one does at WP:RFP as well), but I'm not sure it will help. The editors who are not prevented to edit through Semi-protection are going to have their edits auto-accepted with PC-protection. It's technically a reduction of protection level. I fear that full protection might be the only effective solution.Tvx1 14:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Could just put in the article that Red Bull Racing will be using Honda engines next season, what with the many sources that say they will and all. OZOO (t) (c) 14:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Red Bull Racing themselves admitted the contract isn’t signed yet. We need to wait until it has been.Tvx1 17:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This is moronic. Does anyone really expect Red Bull will publish a statement saying "Hey, you remember that Honda contract we announced three months ago? Well it's still on." The statement that Red Bull will use Honda engines is a lot more reliably sourced that the opposite, which all hinges on an (two month old) article which itself says that the situation is "extremely unlikely to change in the coming months." OZOO (t) (c) 11:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@OZOO — Sauber were in exactly the same situation: they signed a memorandum of understanding to use Honda engines in 2018 and look how that worked out. 1.144.106.163 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I'm sure if/when Red Bull decide to use Honda engines, they'll have a big PR event to confirm it. Which will give us the confirmation sources we need. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How is this not a big PR event to confirm it, giving us the confirmation sources we need? OZOO (t) (c) 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Because subsequent sources reveal that there is only a memorandum of understanding in place. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone should tell Helmut Marko that Red Bull haven't agreed to use Honda engines. He's going to feel a right fool when he finds out. OZOO (t) (c) 09:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@OZOO — Red Bull have not formally announced the Honda deal. All we can prove is that they have a memorandum of understanding and nothing in the multiple sources you have provided actually says that they have signed the contract. You cannot cherry-pick your sources. 1.129.108.92 (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

They have announced it, here. The sources currently linked to the article additionally contain quotes confirming the partnership from Helmut Marko, Red Bull motorsport advisor, Christian Horner, Red Bull team principal & Max Verstappen, Red Bull driver. Saying that the engine partner is To be announced therefore misleads the readers. OZOO (t) (c) 12:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And that article pre-dates the revelation that they only have an MOU. None of the subsequent sources that you provide confirm the existence of a contract—they just have Red Bull intending and expecting to use Honda engines, but fall well short of confirmation. 1.129.108.92 (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thought I might draw @Tvx1's attention to this. 1.129.104.139 (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

How, precisely, is senior Red Bull F1 personnel talking about how they are using Honda engines in 2019 not a confirmation that Red Bull's engine partner is to be Honda. Saying Red Bull power unit is TBA (aka To Be Announced, aka absolutely nothing has been announced) in this article is a flagrant untruth. OZOO (t) (c) 06:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark — the Red Bull-Honda deal has not been confirmed. They can talk about using Honda engines all they want, but they have not signed a contract yet. How many times to @Tvx1 and I need to tell you this? 1.129.110.126 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually it has been confirmed, by multiple people multiple times, both from within Red Bull Racing and from outside, and many of them after the Autosport article that is being used as a supersource. OZOO (t) (c) 14:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Show me a source where Red Bull say words to the effect of "we have signed the contract". 1.129.110.19 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.110.126 - Christian Horner, Helmut Marko, Max Verstappen and many other Red Bull Racing personnel have confirmed that they will be using Honda power units in 2019 and its been covered extensively by Sky Sports, BBC Sport and many other media sources, Renault's Managing Director Cyril Abiteboul has confirmed Red Bull's switch in a interview on Sky Sports. (Red Bull-Honda source: https://redbullracing.redbull.com/article/honda-power-2019) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

How many times do I have to explain this? They have signed a memorandum of understanding, which means that they intend to use Honda engines. It does not mean that they will. None of the sources you have provided confirm that they have signed the contract. 1.129.110.199 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There are loads and loads of reliable sources verifying that Red Bull will use Honda, and as far as I can see one several-month old source vaguely, but not really, opposing it. There is not a single source saying that Red Bull's engine partner is To Be Announced, and saying it is as we do is a clear lie. OZOO (t) (c) 07:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

as far as I can see one several-month old source vaguely, but not really, opposing it

Which just goes to show that you still don't understand how a memorandum of understanding works despite multiple explanations. It's effectively a pre-contract, an agreement to sign a full contract at some point in the future. Teams sign pre-contracts with drivers all the time—Ferrari had one with Robert Kubica—but we don't include them in the table until they have a full contract, so why would we do something different for an engine?

saying it is as we do is a clear lie

Nope. We can prove Red Bull have a memorandum of understanding. You have been unable to prove that they have since signed a full contract. 1.129.110.199 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is getting rather ridiculous now because I'd like to know where this "memorandum of understanding" crap is even coming from because I provided a legit source from the official Red Bull Racing website that says in black and white that they will be using Honda PU's in 2019, I have not yet seen 1 single source saying that they have not signed a official deal with Honda and the source that I have provided surely has authority over whatever source you can provide as my source is from the official RBR website. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

We can't read into the future so if for some reason RBR cancels their Honda contract we remove it from the article like we did with Sauber. (I have just seen the "memorandum of understanding" source provided on the article but I still stand by the inclusion of "Red Bull Racing-Honda" to the article as more sources back it's inclusion compared to leaving it as "TBA".) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"I provided a legit source from the official Red Bull Racing website that says in black and white that they will be using Honda PU's in 2019"

Technically it's a self-published source and there's no third-party confirmation. We know that there's an MOU in place, but we can't expect the RBR website to say "we're going to use Honda power unless we don't".

"We can't read into the future so if for some reason RBR cancels their Honda contract we remove it from the article like we did with Sauber."

Or we just do what we do with everything else and phrase the article in such a way thay it makes clear that we are talking about future events. In the case of Sauber, we weren't aware that they had signed an MOU until after they backed out of the deal.

"I still stand by the inclusion of "Red Bull Racing-Honda" to the article as more sources back it's inclusion"

But they don't. The team is talking about future events, so when they say "we are going to use Honda engines", it's unclear as to whether they have signed the contract or not. 1.144.108.206 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

What we have to go by is that they WILL be using Honda PU's in 2019 as announced by many reliable sources, Everyone under the sun is under the knowledge that RBR will be using Honda power units in 2019, Wikipedia is that special exception apparently. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That's because wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a news site. Just be patient. They're bound to sign a contract sooner or later.Tvx1 09:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not apply in this case. It's not original reporting (I could find 50 sources with no difficulty backing up Red Bull-Honda) and it's not a news report (no more than everything else in the article). The verifiable fact is that Red Bull have announced Honda, and the statement of "To Be Announced" is completely wrong. OZOO (t) (c) 10:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, could this not be added to the article, and then another line being added in to the 'Notes' section explaining that this is an MOU (citing the official Red Bull announcement) and is yet to be officially confirmed, as was done with the US GP. Or even leave it as TBA (or TBC since it's been announced now and just needs confirming officially) and add the note anyway, for clarification? It seems silly to have all information withheld whist we await a confirmation which will likely never come until the car is on the track next year, as it is already widely understood by the paddock that they will be using Honda power. In addition, it's already clear to the readers that this article is referencing future events that are subject to change. If by some bizarre turn of events, Red Bull for whatever reason do not go with Honda, I'm sure the Wiki community would spare no minute in updating the article to reflect the changes. In this particular scenario, there needs to be a slight amount of leeway on the "rules" given the overwhelming amount of sources, both 3rd and 1st party. Maybe worth getting an admin to review this and suggest an outcome if a decision can't be made here, as in this particular case it feels more confusing to leave the information out entirely than to include it and just clarify further? AdamComer (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"Or even leave it as TBA (or TBC since it's been announced now and just needs confirming officially) and add the note anyway, for clarification?"

The article already does that. The table lists their engine supplier as "TBA" and the "team changes" section explains the situation. 1.144.110.248 (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, given the situation I don't really see what more should be done then. Leave as is until further notice. AdamComer (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@AdamComer — nothing needs to be done for now. Although you should remove the space between the "TBA" and the reference. Also, we tend to keep the full reference in the body of prose and the markup in the table; those references will be removed from the table once a full entry list is published. 1.144.110.38 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

What more should be done is not saying something which has been clearly and explicitly announced multiple times is "to be announced". OZOO (t) (c) 08:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think "to be confirmed" would be the better terminology in this case, it's already been announced, but a contract has not yet been confirmed. With the note on the end though, anybody not sure will be able to read the clarification. AdamComer (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no note. There is a bit of text saying that Red Bull have announced a Honda partnership, but no direct link to say that that is related to the thing which hasn't been announced; nor any explanation as to why, if it is the thing that has not been announced, it is not considered an announcement. Anyway here's Formula1.com talking about it not once but twice over the past few days; does that suffice as an announcement? OZOO (t) (c) 10:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The note I refer to is the citation alongisde the “TBA” letters, which link to a detailed article about the MOU. Furthermore it is clarified in the Team Changes section that there is an MOU with Honda. Until an actual confirmation that a contract has been signed and the MOU is no longer in effect, it can’t be said that they are confirmed to be using Honda power. However, I do agree that the “To Be Announced” terminology is incorrect in this article and should be updated. AdamComer (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"does that suffice as an announcement?"

No, because they haven't said that they have signed the contract. You have already had this explained to you half a dozen times. What do you not understand about this? 1.144.110.38 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why the official Formula One website saying explicitly Red Bull will switch to Honda power for 2019, can't be used to verify the statement that Red Bull will switch to Honda power for 2019. OZOO (t) (c) 13:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Because they have self-admitted that they haven’t signed a contract (yet).Tvx1 14:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Marko, Horner, Verstappen are all going to be very embarrassed when they find out they've been talking up a Red Bull-Honda deal that doesn't exist. And imagine how Ricciardo will feel when he realizes he didn't have to leave Red Bull to avoid using Honda engines. OZOO (t) (c) 15:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You guys must have been in the room during RBR-Honda discussions. (!) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I dont doubt for a second that Red Bull will be using Honda in 2019. But until it’s an actual fact it simply cannot be stated as such in a Wikipedia article. There is still a chance, albeit a very slim and unlikely chance, but a chance nonetheless that Red Bull could theoretially still pull out of the deal. Once they have signed the legally-binding contract and it had been publically announced by Red Bull and Honda themselves that a deal has been signed; OR the 2019 Red Bull car rolls out on track in pre-season testing being powered by a Honda engine (whichever comes first) then the article will be updated. As @Tvx1 and anon:1.144.110.38 has stated previously, until that point the current format provides all the neccessary information and will stand as is. Even though we ALL KNOW that it’s an almost certainty, the rules are clear. AdamComer (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've given up with this whole thing, it's just getting frustrating. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Then un-frustrate it: provide a source that demonstrates that the contract has been signed. 1.129.104.225 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Marko, Horner, Verstappen are all going to be very embarrassed when they find out they've been talking up a Red Bull-Honda deal that doesn't exist. And imagine how Ricciardo will feel when he realizes he didn't have to leave Red Bull to avoid using Honda engines."

That's not an argument. For one, the deal does exist, it just hasn't been finalised (or if it has been, it hasn't been announced yet). Secondly, Helmut Marko does not work for Red Bull Racing. He was hired by Red Bull to oversee their driver development programme, and part of that involves consulting with Red Bull Racing, but he is not employed by them. And thirdly, Daniel Ricciardo has not publicly said anything about wanting to avoid using Honda engines.

Now, do you have an actual argument to make and/or a source to justify changing the entry to Honda, or are you just going to keep wasting everyone's time?

"Once they have signed the legally-binding contract and it had been publically announced by Red Bull and Honda themselves that a deal has been signed; OR the 2019 Red Bull car rolls out on track in pre-season testing being powered by a Honda engine (whichever comes first) then the article will be updated."

Or option number three, the FIA entry list. Teams need to enter for the upcoming championship which includes details of drivers and suppliers (engines and, in the past, tyres) and the FIA publishes an entry list which usually coincides with the final WMSC meeting of the year in November-December. 1.129.104.209 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Or option three indeed, which probably makes option two redundant. Thanks, I had let that one go over my head ;) AdamComer (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

do you have [...] a source to justify changing the entry to Honda - Certainly I do. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Ten sources, from ten websites, all saying Red Bull will use Honda engines in 2019 – and many of them from well after the Autosport supersource that does not say Red Bull won't use Honda engines. OZOO (t) (c) 11:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.104.225 - I've already provided a valid source, but anyway I'm dropping this discussion here. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved A new header should be added if this gets discussed in the future. AdamComer (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know we could just post a template to end discussion. Gonna use that from now on. OZOO (t) (c) 10:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Only when there's a consensus. Which there clearly is here. 1.129.108.135 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, as above, there is an overwhelming consensus here that the MOU does not constitute a finalised contract. There are only two users here that oppose this, one of which called the MOU “crap”, showing their lack of understanding for the matter anyway but has agreed to drop the discussion in good faith, so I thank you. And the other is just aggresively pursuing their cause, despite countless users explaining over and over the reasons why it cannot be done (yet). There must reach a point where somebody has to say enough is enough and put a stop to this. AdamComer (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You've just got to be careful about how you do it, especially if you do it prematurely (as you did below). I cannot read OZOO' comment:

"Didn't know we could just post a template to end discussion. Gonna use that from now on."

As meaning anything other than "I'm going to use those templates to declare discussions open or closed depending on what I want". Truth is that those templates rarely get used. 1.129.108.34 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@AdamComer - "There are only two users here that oppose this, one of which called the MOU “crap”, showing their lack of understanding for the matter" Ouch... that comment wasn't needed, I was aware of what a MOU was btw. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark - My apologies, I can see why that may have come across as harsh. No offense intended. It just seemed a bit of an explosive and almost ignorant comment but perhaps that was merely my own interpretation so again, apologies. AdamComer (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mark Jhomel — please read this discussion. The consensus among editors is that Red Bull have only announced a memorandum of understanding with Honda, not a contract. If in doubt, ask someone like @Tvx1.

Also, an article about Toro Rosso mocking Alonso is hardly an appropriate source. 1.144.106.160 (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Christian Nimmervoll and Dieter Rencken claiming Red Bull and Honda signed the contract. [11] LucasVon (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's going to take more than a journalist making a claim on Twitter to confirm it. We'll need either an entry list from the FIA and/or an official announcement from the team and/or Honda that names and quotes a senior figure (such as Christian Horner). 1.144.109.175 (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Would this be enough? [12] or [13] PD001 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Hi, Please see the RfC from 9th October on this page. If you have any thoughts please comment on there. RhinosF1 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@PD001 — no, because they do not prove the existence of a contract. Both articles have been proposed before. 1.129.109.29 (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The note explaining the TBA in the table is completely unnecessary—the prose under the table already explains it. 1.144.108.87 (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is Racing Point Force India missing? It isn't even mentioned...

As far as I know they'll be around in 2019, they took the place of the original Force India. So why are they missing? Dqeswn (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dqeswn: Apparently, they are not currently under contract for 2019 yet. But looking at that, the table needs a source specifying where this information comes from anyway... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It probably isn't even public which teams are under contract. In case of this list, it is assumed that these teams have signed contract based on the fact that they have announced that they have at least one driver under contract for 2019. This should be noted above the table, unless a source could be found (I looked for it and did not).

Racing Point Force India should be added in the table with a note under the table, that it is not yet confirmed under which name the team will be competing.

Force India had Merc engine deal until 2020 (we are contractually obliged to Mercedes ‘til 2020 and we respect our contract).

Stroll has payed all the debts the team had, including Mercedes.

Wolff confirmed Merc's continued interest in cooperation with the team after the takeover (Mercedes to explore closer ties with Force India). Catdogsnail (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not it should not be included because the current team has not confirmed any specifics about competing in 2019. They even announced shortly after the takeover that Racing Point is a temporary name. And just because the original Force India had a signed contract until 2020 in 2015, it doesn't mean that's still valid. The Nürburgring had a contract to host the German Grand Prix biennially up to an including 2017 at one point. However, the circuit changed owners during 2014 voiding the contract an no new one was ever agreed on.Tvx1 13:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Revitalised Force India re-signs Perez for 2019

2. The following teams and drivers are under contract to take part in the 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship:

Can You give any source for this? Were I can find confirmation by these teams that they have signed a contract to take part in the 2019 season?

Right now this is just a list of teams that have confirmed their interest to participate. As such Racing Point Force India can't be excluded from the list before there is any news that that they will not participate next year.Catdogsnail (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Added as Perez is now confirmed. AdamComer (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@OZOO: - If we left Force India off the entire table simply because we did not know the status of their 2019 entry, then we just as equally do not know what their constructor name, or even team name, will be. "Racing Point Force India" still exists in 2018 as the season is ongoing, and they as a team have signed a contract with Perez, but none of this is any indication of what their 2019 name or constructor will be. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Previously, the status was unknown. Now, however, the status is known. Do you have a source that Force India is not a correct name for the team in the 2019 season? I have several that say it is. Until a reliable source can be found that contradicts the many, many sources calling the 2019 team "Force India", we should not hide this information from the reader behind an unrelated phrase. OZOO (t) (c) 16:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are misreading the source. Perez has signed with Racing Point Force India, because that is the company that currently exists. None of those article discuss the team or constructor name for 2019. This is no different from when Spyker bought MF1, changed the team name to Spyker MF1 for the rest of the season, then changed the entrant and constructor for Spyker for the following season. The team is not going to reveal their potential 2019 name in a driver signing press release. If the problem is with the linking to Racing Point Force India, then remove the link, but the constructor is still "To Be Announced". You equally have zero sources saying that the 2019 constructor name will be Force India, meaning it should be left as TBA. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Force India have confirmed one half of their driver line-up for next year, with news that Sergio Perez is to stay on with the team for 2019
The Mexican has been with Force India since 2014, having made his F1 debut with Sauber in 2011, and will contest his sixth full season with the Silverstone-based squad.
“I’m pleased that Sergio will continue his journey with us in 2019,” said Force India Team Principal Otmar Szafnauer.
“Force India has been my home since 2014 and has allowed me to grow as a driver and show my skills on track.
And that's just one of the many WP:RSs we can use to source the statement that Force India is currently the correct name to refer to the team that Sergio Perez will drive for in the 2019 Formula One World Championship. If the name changes, we can change it, but before that we shouldn't without a source. OZOO (t) (c) 16:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Because the team, as of right now, is still Force India. None of your sources state the constructor name, period. They aren't going to magically use the name of their 2019 entry if they plan to change it just for a driver signing. This does not confirm 2019's constructor or team name. We don't even have a column for team names at the moment because we don't know what anyone is going to use. You are using WP:SYNTH to presume the name of the 2019 constructor. We also have not "changed the name", we are listing it as unknown because the fact that the team has been sold means they can freely change their constructor name when they register an entry for 2019. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Every team could change their name between two seasons – so all teams should be listed as TBA?

Racing Point Force India is delighted to announce that Sergio Perez has agreed an extension to his contract and will race for the team in 2019.

Currently the team calls themselves Racing Point Force India. Media calls them Force India or Racing Point Force India. That is the name under which they are currently operating. They may change their name but maybe they won't? Catdogsnail (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As I asked already above. Where is the list of teams under contract? The list of teams here are just list of teams that have confirmed their interest to take part of the 2019 season. Catdogsnail (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@The359 — Perhaps a footnote is in order? Something stating that Perez signed a contract with Racing Point UK, but that at the time of the announcement, Racing Point had not publicly revealed and details of their plans for the team. 1.144.108.233 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Force India was sold is what specifically makes the constructor name for 2019 questionable compared to other teams. We went through this exact same thing when Racing Point bought the team initially, on whether or not the constructor was Force India or Racing Point. The fact is we don't know what Racing Point's plan is for 2019 other than they have signed Perez and Mercedes engines. Everyone is going to refer to the team as Racing Point Force India because the 2018 season hasn't ended yet, so what else could they possibly call them at this time? Per a reference regarding Spyker's purchase of MF1:

One potential problem is that FIA rules mean that a team cannot change its name mid-season. In September 2006, when Spyker bought the Midland F1 Racing team, it used the Spyker name as a headline sponsor: "Spyker MF1 Racing". This year it was allowed to change the team's name to "Spyker Formula 1" but it may have to retain the Spyker name.

I presume your proposal is to add a footnote to listing "TBA-Mercedes" in the constructor column, which is fine by me, but I think listing the constructor as "Force India-Mercedes" is questionable. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

First You made WP:PIPELINK WP:EASTEREGG there. This has to be replaced with a normal link! (Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on.) You are crystalballing. We are not in the 2019. we try not to tell the future. This is the list of teams expected to participate as of today's knowledge. You are crystalballing that they will change their name. Who can tell, maybe they won't change their name. Right now there is entry under Racing Point Force India name. The article should not predict the future but state things as they are now. Wikipedia must follow the sources. Media did not write TBA have announced Sergio Perez..., You said The fact is we don't know what Racing Point's plan is for 2019 exactly that's why we won't predict the future that they will change their name even if we know it is highly likely. Catdogsnail (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The source provided does not say that Force India will change their name. Saying "Force India have changed ownership therefore they will change their name" is OR. OZOO (t) (c) 09:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, sources about Perez say nothing for or against the naming of Force India for 2019. The press release is a driver signing, not a Formula One World Championship entry. You are using WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting the statements made by the 2018 team. Of course the media sources aren't going to say "TBA signed Perez", because that's dumb. Of course they're not going to say that. The table as of right now also doesn't list entrants, it lists constructor, and there is zero obligation or proof that the team will retain the Force India title for their cars. Post a reliable source that lists the constructor as Force India-Mercedes. If you can't, then it's TBA. If I can't prove they're changing their name, you equally can't prove they're keeping their name. Hence, their name is TO BE ANNOUNCED. How simple can it be? The³5₉ (Talk) 15:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, none of the constructor names are sourced and all should be set as TBA. OZOO (t) (c) 15:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Except we have sources from teams discussing their 2019 cars, with names, as we always have near the end of the season. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Where?

For the umpteenth time, the teams name is not TO BE ANNOUNCED at the moment it is Racing Point Force India. It is WP:SYNTH that You imply that they will change their name in the future and make Your conclusions based on that prediction. What does matter is how the team is called now. Every source right now calls them Force India or Racing Point Force India. Your arguments are clear case of CRYSTALBALL – Wikipedia does not predict the future. They may or may not change their name (as every other team). All Your conclusions are based on your prediction that they will change their name. Cite ' The table as of right now also doesn't list entrants, it lists constructor ' You are splitting the hair. Catdogsnail (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, we are discussing the constructor, not the team name, they are separate things. It is not being implied that they will change the constructor name, it is being implied that we don't know the constructor name. No different than the TBA for drivers or TBA for Red Bull's engine supplier. Even, further on that we didn't even list the Renault power plant for Red Bull prior to 2018 because we didn't know their naming rights for the motor at the time. The odds of Red Bull picking anyone other than Honda are preposterious at this point, but we still err on the side of caution and listen them as TBA because it's not yet confirmed. We don't know the name, therefore it should be listed as TBA. Presuming the constructor name is Force India is just as much WP:CRYSTALBALL as saying the name will change. We don't know if the name is changing or staying, therefore it is undetermined and should be TBA. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll also point out that Racing Point already changed the name of the team they purchased in 2018, as well as their licensed nationality. The only reason they couldn't change the constructor, assuming they wanted to, is that they couldn't because the cars were already built by Force India. So given that the team has already made changes to their entry, it is not beyond reason to presume they are potentially changing their constructor when it is legally allowed, which would be 2019. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And an apple isn't a fruit. Your arguments that constructor and team aren't the same etc are just a red herring. You are still crysrtalballing. It's a speculation that they will change the name. You are predicting the future. It is different than if driver or engine supplier isn't known, because we know that Racing Point Force India will take part of the next season (based on same method as other teams in the list they have contracted drivers). TBA means, that there will be a team next year taking part, but which team it is isn't known. It is known that Racing Point Force India (maybe under some other name) will take part of 2019 season if we take away SYNTH and CRYSTALBALL arguments. Again Red Bull engine branding is another red herring. Your We don't know the name argument is SYNTH. They are called Racing Point Force India at the moment. That they will change their name is to predict the future. You say Presuming the constructor name is Force India is just as much WP:CRYSTALBALL as saying the name will change. same is true to every team. They all could change their name – then You should list them all as TBAs. And Your second post is all WP:SYNTH You predict something based on something that has happened before. Catdogsnail (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The team have already said that they plan to apply for a name change in time for 2019. 1.144.106.27 (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)