Talk:2007 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

message: Now that it has been decided to keep this article (see above), it is important to keep the information contained within respectable. I have removed M Schumacher from the Toyota driver line up. 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
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 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this policy.  I also believe the chart should be removed for the moment because it's there merely to list the few drivers whose contracts are known at the moment.  Speculation on chassis codes and team names however shouldn't be made this early. The359 17:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing policy suggestion 

message: I know that autosport.com has apparantly exclusively 'revealed' that Williams and Toyota have agreed an engine supply deal, but until Williams or Toyota confirm this, it is still speculation. Wikipedia is for solid, concrete information, and Williams-Toyota is not one of them. I'm removing Toyota as Williams' engine, and putting it in the speculation. All other information, like Bridgestone tyres, and chassis names are reasonable guesses which are 90% likely to come true, but autosport might not be actually getting the information from a reliable source. Manipe 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the policy was that something that was strongly implied and was also backed up by media sources would be placed on the chart and marked with an asterik or two? The359 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but only autosport has said that it will happen. And as of now, both Toyota and Williams are denying the story. So it's far from official. Manipe 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Williams and Toyota engines 

message: Unless I somehow missed it, the rumor of the now confirmed Toyota engines for Williams being labeled as Lexus still exists.  I believe some sort of note besides simply 'Toyota' or 'Toyota*' is needed.  I'm I'm wrong and the rumor is dead, feel free to correct.
:Yup, the rumour is dead. See the news link in put into the article. Manipe 12:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lexus

message: Red bull racing, today has said that they will use Renult engines for 2007.http://formula-1.updatesport.com/news/article/1150703848/formula_one/F1gossip/Red-Bull-and-Renault/view.html Motor Sport Mad 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to accept this as solid fact and news. As displayed in the link, it's clearly gossip, nothing more. There hasn't been any official confirmation about it by either side, which means it cannot be displayed on Wikipedia. Red Bull are contracted to Ferrari until 2007, and will remain RBR's engine supplier on this page until an official announcement from the team says otherwise. If you want, you can add a note about it to the speculation, if it's not already there. I'm going to change it back now. Manipe 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RBR didn't say, that in 2007 their engines will be Ferrari or Renault. I've put TBA till further info. SpeedKing1980 05:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Bull 

message: Since the official FIA schedule does not list circuits, has there been any confirmation on which specific tracks will be used for the German and Italian GPs?  The article in the speculation section implies that Hockenheim and Imola would be dropped, but the calender listed on the page has Hockenheim and Monza listed as the tracks.  Any sources on this besides mere speculation?  Maybe just put "TBA" for those two GPs until we get something more concrete?  The359 18:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nurburgring is the European Grand Prix, Imola is the San Marino Grand Prix. Nothing to do with German and Italian GPs. Mark83 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they have plenty to do with the German and Italian GP.  Both tracks are possible to be the new German and Italian GP.  Hence the question.  Which of each country's two tracks takes over as the GP for 2007? The359 20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not yet known about Germany, but Monza will definitely host the Italian round. Imola could yet return to the calendar, if the improvement works are completed, as there is currently a four-week break between Bahrain and Spain - something which hasn't happened in years. The German round though I think will begin with the Nurburgring, but I could be wrong. Manipe 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other strong rumor is that the round that will fill the break inbetween Bahrain and Spain will be the "Pacific Grand Prix" for Suzuka. The359 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware. the German GP will be held at the Nurburgring in 2007 and 2009 and in Hockenheim in 2008 and 2010. DavidB601 07:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German and Italian GPs 

message: I can't add the link to the news story relating to this for 2007.[] 
MonkeyMumford 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renault engines for Red Bull - can't seem to add the reference! 

message: Should these be in the table? I don't think so. Mark83 11:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I tried having the table with just the surnames but that had a minor affect on shortening the width of the table.--Skully Collins 11:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  having the directors in the table is fine I suppose. The only thing is that the links can lead to completely unrelated people. New pages with "<name> (Formula One)" or something as the article title is needed. Bob Bell is a funny one. Maybe it should not be added. What benefit does it really give? MonkeyMumford 12:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I guess it would be easy for those who wish to edit the person's main article. Because the question "Where di he work in 2007?" might be raised in the future. Although I do see your point. I suggest we wait until others give their opinions on the "new look" table.--Skully Collins 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm happy to wait. The problem I have with it is where do you draw the line? There are many other important people/factors in an F1 team. Also while chassis designation, engine designation, tyre supplier, driver numbers, drivers and test drivers all tend to change year to year, technical directors change irregularly and team principals even less. As for "where did he work in 2007", surely the best place to find that information is on the guy's article? But definitely, let's wait for further opinions. Mark83 13:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, personally I'd just have the team directors. Of course these people have the biggest influence on the team more then any other personnel. But then again, I wouldn't mind them both going...as of course you can check who does what in the team's main article and as you said in the person in question's main article.--Skully Collins 13:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about next year F1 season, so teams and drivers are necessary, while team principals and technical directros are not. If you want to know who fills those places, you shall consult teams' main articles. – Luxic 14:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are Wikipedia pages on all teams detailing team principle and tech director. Just click the team name. This details should be removed. --Macwomble 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definately do not see any reason for these people to be listed on the chart.  They simply crowd everything in an already busy chart.  The359 04:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sums it up. I've removed the columns, cheers.--Skully Collins 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Team principal/tech. director

message: I understand why McLaren are now No.1 and No.2 (because Alonso keeps his number no matter what team he drives for). However should McLaren be at the top of the table? Renault are still the number one team (W.C. Champions) and won't they have all the status that goes with that (primarily the first garage in the pitlane, Ferrari second, McLaren third.) Should that not be the order of the table? Mark83 20:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should go in numerical order.  See 1997 Formula One season, where last year's champion Damon Hill took #1 to Arrows, but obviously Williams was the defending constructor's champion.  Arrows is listed at the top. The359 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because that's the way it's been done on Wikipedia before doesn't make it right. At the moment you could mistakenly believe McLaren are World Constructors' Champions. However if McLaren were listed third and Alonso still listed as the number one driver then it would be easy to understand that he is WDC and Renault are WCCs. Aesthetics shouldn't trump accuracy IMO. Mark83 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is new to F1, I'm sure they can figure out who is the constructor's champion merely from looking at the 2006 page.  Not only that but one could put in a note in the pre-season section about Alonso taking #1 to McLaren. The359 22:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair points. Mark83 22:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates to table post-Brazilain GP