Talk:2014 Formula One season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


RFC: FP1 drivers[edit]

I've put this here to try and stimulate some discussion on the above.

This issue relates to the presence of the FP1 drivers in the team and driver table of season articles, such as 2014 Formula One season. The question is to whether or not they should continue to be included.

The arguments for are as follows:

  • FP1 drivers participate in sessions officially sanctioned by the FIA as part of a Grand Prix weekend.
  • FP1 drivers play a vital role in carrying out a team's pre-race testing procedures.

The arguments against are:

  • FP1 drivers only take part in a single session of a weekend (and sometimes they only take part for 30 minutes). No championship points are offered for this.
  • In order to enter a race, a driver must either take part in FP3 or qualifying, as per the sporting regulations. Drivers who only enter FP1 cannot enter the race unless they are designated race drivers by the team, in which case they would be included under the "race drivers column".
  • FP1 drivers cannot affect the championship outcome unless they are redesignated as race drivers. Their participation would therefore be better suited to team, car, race and personal articles rather than season articles.
  • Although FP1 drivers do play a role within a team in establishing car set-up, this role cannot be quantified. FP1 drivers also take part in sessions for different reasons; an example of this is Max Verstappen, who is driving to gain experience in a Formula 1 car.

I will leave it to proponents in favour of keeping the column to outline their arguments more fully. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


Survey[edit]

Please do not add threaded replies to the survey section. This will make the RfC easier to read for the editor who closes it. Please state the reason for your !vote concisely.

Yes. Free practice drivers should be listed. Both points 'for' the idea are sufficient; if not obvious reasons. It's been a common practice to add FP drivers to the table for years and personally I find it very informative and interesting when chain viewing yearly articles. I mean I did not realize that Jules Bianchi TD for Force India of all teams!.

I don't understand why there has been such a discussion for this to be honest. oh well... *JoeTri10_ 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No FP drivers should not be included. 2014 Formula One season is a summary of the season, which is a tally of the seasons results. FP drivers do not appear in those results. They do not participate in the races that make up the season. Their contributions is at the races and it is in the race report article; eg 2014 Australian Grand Prix, where their contributions, if any beyond attendance can be quantified via sources, should be documented. --Falcadore (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The presence of the Free Practice drivers crowds an already crowded table. Free practice drivers are listed on the teams page, and can be explained on the drivers pages themselves. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Really poor argument. Nothing else than WP:IDONTLIKEIT

Yes The scope of the table is to show which teams and drivers (now matter what their role is) take part in the grand prix weekends during the season, and not to show how its content determined the outcome of the season. That's what the result matrices are for, and there the FP drivers are quite rightly not mentioned. This combined with the two points provided in favour in the description above and the many arguments similarly in favour added in the discussion below, is more than enough to justify their inclusion. There should have never been such a long winded discussion over something which' inclusion was already agreed upon by the community 18 months ago. Tvx1 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thought about this long and hard. This RfC would be a clear no outcome, if the discussions were referring to the race results because the FPs don't figure in the race. But they do figure in the event. Our article says "A Formula One Grand Prix event spans a weekend" so yes, to me they should be recorded in this more comprehensive table. Moriori (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No This discussion refers to the season article. As FP1 drivers have no affect on the season, they are of minor importance to a summary of the season. They can be mentioned elsewhere when such information is more useful, such as team and driver summaries, and race weekend reports. The359 (Talk) 00:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No I cannot imagine the average user gaining much value from the inclusion of this information or attempting to find such information in this place even were they attempting to discover it. Their relevance and or/importance to the overall race season is minimal. MichaelProcton (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

In this subsection you can have a more in-depth discussion on the matter should you wish to do so.

@Joetri10:, you say they should be included on the back of the two "for" arguments, but how do you explain the importance of FP1 drivers to the season as a whole considering that they do not qualify, race or score points—and in some cases, they only drive for 30 minutes? Similarly, how do you quantify the role that they play within the team? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A test driver still gives valuable feedback to the team. How long they drive is irrelevant to us. their positioning within the chart is not to highlight any championship positioning but to simply showcase their validation as an F1 official driver as well as their placement with the program. They took part in the F1 2014 season and therefor should be noted so *JoeTri10_ 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, how do you quantify that? You say "a test driver provides valuable feedback to the team", but that suggests that said driver is specifically put into the car to gain feedback as if they have some special skill in that area, which you would need to demonstrate. Look at Max Verstappen—he is driving at Suzuka this weekend, which is a circuit he has no experience of, and he's driving a 2014 car, which he again has no experience with. Toro Rosso openly admit that he is there to get experience in the car first and foremost, so how can you justify saying that he is there to gather feedback when feedback is clearly not his priority?
Likewise, you say that FP1 drivers take part in the season. But what is the season? It's 19 Grands Prix. Not 19 practice sessions. If a practice session wasn't in the formal definition of a Grand Prix, FP1 drivers would not be included. Even the FIA say that the only way to enter a race is to take part in FP3 or qualifying first. I'm yet to hear an argument that addresses this, except "but they drive the car". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be under the illusion that only one person eats a cake leaving not a single slice left. Yes, The primary goal is for Verstappen to gain experience but there is certainly no scale so one sided that it ever would enforce the notion that Toro Rosso (or any team for that matter) would not gain 'any' information during. He may be there to test new parts that don't relate to 'speed' or maybe he is there to test tires for the run up to a test Q time for FP3?. Ask anyone and they will say FP1 is most important for set-up work than for anything else. That being said however, it is still completely irrelevant to us. He can do little or he can do a lot but the result is still the same; he has then taken part in a race weekend just like everybody else.
To your question about what "makes" a season. That is the same as asking what "makes" a team. Is it the driver? Is it the mechanics? Sponsors, Development team, management?. A race weekend is made up of multiple small and large parts. Free Practice, Qualifying, the race on Sunday. Even the press conference on Thursday and Friday. The table is to clearly demonstrate who of the contracted drivers took part in the practical form of the weekend; practical being driving. Also your statement issued by the FIA is incorrect. They state that the only way to qualifying FOR the race is to set a time 108% within the pole lap, this can be done during either your FP3 run or in qualifying. The logical reason behind it being in FP3 is because that is when most teams are likely going for a simulated qualifying lap. At the end of the day friend, the only argument I have is and will mostly likely always be that of "because they drive the car". It seems to come down to personal preference on what Free Practice means in the grand scheme of things and that should not be the case. *JoeTri10_ 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, so let's consider what free practice is. Participation in FP1 is not required to enter a race. There are no rules on what teams can or cannot do with their time; they can run constantly or sit on their backsides for 90 minutes, or anything in between. Likewise, the only rule on who they can run in that session is that the driver must hold a valid superlicence. Their reasons for running vary greatly; Verstappen is there to get experience, Stevens to inject money into the team, Pic and van der Garde to maintain a presence in the sport, and so on and so forth. Free Practice is just that - free. The teams can do as they please, and you cannot quantify the effect that they have on the team, nor on the performance of the car once it is returned to its regular driver. So you are right: this boils down to "they drive the car". My question is whether or not driving the car in FP1 is enough to merit inclusion in the article. Since their impact cannot be quantified, and because FP1 does not have the implications for the season that qualifying and the races do, I don't think they do merit inclusion. I do think it feels a bit like RECENTISM - sure, it's a session in a Grand Prix meeting, but articles should be written with a mind to what they will look like when they are finished. And when the season is over, will it really matter that Charles Pic drove in free practice at Monza, or that Will Stevens did so at Suzuka? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
FP is the same scenario as the once participated In Season Testing. I just told you what the possible benefits are for the team and you dismissed them on your stubborn notion/opinion that FP1&2 has no significance on the race the following Sunday. This page is not just about the races on Sunday but the entire event. Please stop trying to derail the purpose towards that one thought. Do you got to the team's garages and see what information they collect? In fact do you follow any social media at all? As a follower of Force India, I can report and even quote to you many a time where the team has discussed in snippet the work they carried out and information they collected with the importance of Saturday and Sunday. However STILL I feel the need to remind you, the table is not about any of this, it's about which drivers take part in the event. Whether they can score points or how long they sit in the car, it's all total irrelevance so please stop trying to quantify it when it's not important anyway. As for the finished page? I have looked through many f1 season pages and I always find it fascinating with drivers TD for whom in that current year. If you don't feel that way then that's not our problem. *JoeTri10_ 10:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You keep talking about "possible" benefits. That sounds like CRYSTAL to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This provides back up for both our points. On my side; it displays their intent for the FP Sessions in regards to Ericsson. On yours; the intent for Merhi (which was indeed for him to gain experience driving the car). Disregarding both facts now as trivial due to the basis of opinion, it should not in any way deter Merhi's placement as a TD as again, it is an official documented event held during the race weekend timeplan. *JoeTri10_ 13:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
And contrary to what you seem to believe, they have the potential to affect the outcome. If they crash the car it can affect the race drivers' ability to compete in the rest of the weekend, and, due to the rules limiting the amount of some parts that can be used during a season, they can even provoke a driver penalty for the race driver. Tvx1 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
You keep talking in terms of "if", "might" and "could". All of which is speculation.
As for the Caterham link, that's hardly definitive proof—all I see is Ericsson describing the use of the new front wing and Merhi mentioning getting his mileage up and learning the circuit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Judging by that, you have nothing left of relevance to say. The page stays the way it does and we will continue to update FPD's until a better valid argument comes fourth.
For future reference can we please focus on new content to this page and not trying to lose stable existing content. We seem to be in a loop of someone doing something by accident which then quickly derails into such obscurity that for random reasons the aspect is then under scrutiny of existence. I ask of you PM to please stop doing this. Same to you TVX1. That's enough now *JoeTri10_ 00:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm sorry, but you can't just arbitrarily declare that a decision has been taken simply because you feel one argument has no merit. We've been down that road before. And if you look above to the survey section, you will see that other users are still contributing their opinions.

Look at some of the arguments that have been made—for example, that an FP1 driver might crash during practice, affecting a regular driver's ability to compete. That's pure speculation, and not an argument to keep the FP1 drivers in place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no speculation by any means. They have that potential. I just gave an example. And you yourself have stated that having the potential is enough to warrant inclusion. And the user that has added their opinion in the survey is no shock to me. That user has stated their dislike for their inclusion on multiple occasions. In fact, it was considered in the original discussion 18 months ago and a consensus to keep them was achieved nevertheless. Tvx1 (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It's absolutely speculation, because by including them, you're suggesting that they WILL affect the season, not that they CAN affect it. All of this boils down to what they MIGHT do, which you're using as a substitute for demonstrating what they ACTUALLY do.
So please, show me a conclusive example of where an FP1 driver has positively or negatively changed a driver's performance in a race in 2014. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Guys please, this is over. Do not derail this into another lengthy argument over nothing. Boy am I myself tired of being in them. *JoeTri10_ 14:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Frankly, all of this has been happily and constructively dealt with eighteen months ago and now one user goes on a crusade not wanting to accept anything else but removal of the content the user doesn't like, hiding behind the argument that consenus can change. Prisonermonkeys, I don't have to show you anything. Nobody has to seek personal justification for the inclusion of content with you. You are not the owner of this article. Tvx1 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. On the 2015 season article, you have been insisting that people provide sources to demonstrate the content they are changing. Why, then, don't you have to provide sources to demonstrate what you are saying? You keep talking about how FP1 drivers play an important role within the team, but you haven't backed that up with anything. All I ask is that you adhere to the same standards that you ask of everyone else. As User:Falcadore pointed out, FP1 drivers do not appear in results matrices, and their presence is more appropriate elsewhere. I don't know how you can declare that the discussion is over without having addressed those points at all. And then you accuse me of owning an article when all I have done is ask you to prove what you are saying. Since the idea that FP1 drivers can affect the outcome of a race is key to your argument for their continued inclusion, you absolutely need to prove what you are claiming, because if you can't prove it, the content has to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
"FP1 drivers do not appear in results matrices, and their presence is more appropriate elsewhere"; You're right there. This is the results table. This is not the results table. If you look just a little bit under the heading for said table you will notice it says "The following teams and drivers are taking part in the 2014 season"; FP is part of the season and these drivers are contracted as part of the team. No where does it state that the page for the season has to only show results otherwise the calendar, driver changes, regulation changes, etc would need to be removed also. Therefor Falcadore's vote is invalid. Also once again, FP is recognized by the FIA as part of the 2014 season. There are no ifs or buts unless you want us to take this to the FIA?. Please remember WP:YESPOV *JoeTri10_ 01:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I would contend that they are part of the Grand Prix but not of the season. Their contribution exists only of the Friday or races and does not go further. The events that make up the season occur on Saturday and Sunday. --Falcadore (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Invalid? Really? You would not consider that calendar, driver changes etc would not be explanatory prose of the events of the season? Or are you one of these misguided editors that believe that tables explain everything. I find your conclusion invalid and frankly nonsensical. --Falcadore (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Where is it written that we have to do absolutely everything the way the FIA does it? The team and driver table is currently lusted alphabetically by constructor, with each team's drivers in numerical order. But the FIA does not publish entry lists like that.
Likewise, you still haven't demonstrated the effect FP1 drivers have on regular drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, Where is it written that we have to do absolutely everything the way you want to do it PM? Is this going to be another toys out the pram scenario from you? We have given you evidence and you ignored it. We told you what affect Friday has on the weekend and you called it a concoction of if's and buts when in actuality we; or at least myself never used an 'if'.
Falc, you completely misunderstood the context of my point. Also: "events that make up the season occur on Saturday and Sunday", That's your opinion. Honestly right now it feels like you guys are simply trolling because I know from experience that you guys are clearly smarter than this. This feels like yet another case of ownership over the page, pioneered once again by Prisonermonkey. This info does not "Have to go" just because you're unable to grasp the concept of Free Practice. That is not our fault, but instead yours to deal with. What I do find very amusing however is this absolute beautiful tactic of telling me that FP is not part of the weekend and then giving it some reinforcement by stating we should not have to do everything the FIA does. What's even better though! is the example you used in regards to the listing of Driver Names because you know damn well why it is the way it is so don't even dare try and use that card *JoeTri10_ 03:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
No I don't believe it did. No where does it state that the page for the season has to only show results otherwise the calendar, driver changes, regulation changes, etc would need to be removed also. Therefor Falcadore's vote is invalid. I think I responded to that interpretation of what I said with reasonable precision. The Formuloa One season is the world drivers' championship. It is supposed to summarise the events of the season. That is essentially the points allotted from the race results but more broadly includes also the races and the major events of the season which occur off track. What occurs in Friday practice is part of the season but it is both inconsequential and very difficult to quantify if it has any real consequence at all. Anything beyond that is opinion, whether it is yours, mine or the drivers. It has much the same influence as for example as a boxer's sparring partner, or a footballer who is part of a team's squad, but who is not selected to play in the games. Why should we highlight a FP1 driver when in similar articles sparring/training partners and non-selected team members are not? An FP1 driver might have some influence over the course of some races, but over the season as a whole their involvement is negligible and certainly considerably smaller that a lot of team personnel like the pitstop crew, strategists, team managers and car designers to name a couple of dozen.
I am not that involved in the arguement though. I do not care greatly as to the result of this RFC. I was asked my opinion and I responded. My opinion only has the power you give it. Ownership? That's up to you, I'm not going to make any edits. --Falcadore (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That "evidence" was just the Caterham drivers describing what they did in practice. In the case of Merhi, it amounted to "I got as much mileage as I could". But that was not what I asked for—I asked you to provide me with evidence that a driver taking part in free practice in lieu of a regular driver had a positive or negative effect on that regular driver's ability to compete, since that's what your argument is based on: that FP1 drivers should be included because they affect the regular driver's ability to compete. Is it really too much to ask that you actually support your claims with evidence? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Just driving the car itself helps the cars original driver. Many a time TD have been appointed to test the car in any way it needs to be. The evidence I showed you also gave a quote from the team in the matter of the amount of data they gathered from both Ericsson and Merhi. That alone is helping the team help Kobayashi in that car. *JoeTri10_ 03:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I only see quotes on the data Ericsson gathered. Nothing in Merhi. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's a similar report to the one *JoeTri10_ posted before. This one, which is from Italy, clearly quotes team principal Albers commenting on the plentiful of data gathered from "all three" of the friday drivers. And here's one from Force India as well. I'll be happy to provide many more if deemed necessary. I'm utterly puzzled regarding your argument on the sourcing that I highlighted should be provided for the other article. The contents of the sources we used here, on the previous season's article and on next season's article is identical. It states that the party involved (team, driver, engine supplier, tyre manufacturer,..) has a contract to fulfill the role it is credited with in the table. The sources currently used for the Free Practice Drivers oblige to that definition just as any other ones. We have NEVER requested that the supplied sources quantify the party's effect in the outcome of the season by any means. I'd really wish you'd drop the authoritative attitude you keep displaying here. Throughout this discussion you act like you are going to decide what's going to happen based on the arguments provided for and against. That's no how wikipedia consensus discussion works. And it's about time that you stop ignoring that a community-wide consensus has been achieved to list them. Basically, you're declaring it to be invalid simply because consenus can change. Tvx1 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you even read the sources you are providing? There is nothing in the one from Caterham on the data Merhi gathered in Monzs - just a note that Ericsson did most of the work.
And once again, you miss the point. I'm not asking you to find sources showing that FP1 drivers gather data. I'm asking you to find evidence that a race driver's performance in the race was directly affected by another driver being in the car. Demonstrating that they gather data is not enough, because, as evidenced by the quotes from Caterham in Suzuka, data can be shared.
In other words, I want you to show that a race driver's performance in the race would have been different if they had taken part in FP1. I don't know why you don't understand this, given that it is key to your argument.
Also, take a look back at the survey section. You will see a minor consensus in favour of removing FP1 drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A minor consensus for removal? There are barely three reactions. What is in the survey sections does not outweigh the existing consensus, which has a much, much wider input, but which you rather predictably consider to be irrelevant. And somehow my opinion, The359 's and —GyaroMaguus—'s have apparently become irrelevant. All in all, over the course of the discussion four users have stated that the information can stay while three have stated they want it removed. That is not "a minor consensus for removal" by any means. Tvx1 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, I see you have completely neglected to address the actual point - namely that you are yet to actually prove what you are claiming. Show me an example if a race driver's performance being a direct result of an FP1 driver in their car. How many times do I have to ask you to do this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And how many times do I have to repeat that I don't have to prove you anything. Consensus is not unanimity. We don't need you personal approval to keep this content. You are not the one who decides whether or not content can stay. Tvx1 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, you know you can't prove it, but you won't admit it because it will undermine your argument.
Also, I suggest you avoid arguments like "you are not the one who gets to decide", since you are doing exactly that - you're deciding that the old consensus still stands. You haven't even addressed User:Falcadore's point that FP1 drivers do not appear in results matrices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have not read this argument (for I wish not to lower my IQ) and overall I have been attempting to avoid this because I want to keep the column, but for the most part only under WP:ILIKEIT and the fact that including FP1 drivers in the table was an idea I introduced, which means I do not have an argument to give unless I decided to put some thought behind it.
So I now have, and actually, I think we need to think about the impact of the drivers on the sport. They appear on TV, in commentated, live events. They (somewhat often) gain media coverage (e.g. Verstappen, Sirotkin, Rossi, Stevens). They appear in official documents. They are also included in what is the best equivalent of the entry list. All these appear to me to be strong arguments for their inclusion within the table. Whether they actually do any useful work for their teams is irrelevant. It is the wider impact that is important. And they have that. Also, to combat Falcadore's point, it is quite easy to tell that these are not race drivers, and hence they do not need to appear in the matrices. GyaroMaguus 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely their contribution to the team is the most important aspect of their presence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
That's only your opinion what is most important aspect. Tvx1 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
PM, you have a source for that? GyaroMaguus 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
What's more important - that they contributed, or that their presence got media coverage? Including them simply because it's a news item breaks NOTNEWS.
All I want is for someone to demonstrate that FP1 drivers contribute to the team in such a way that it has a tangible impact on the regular driver's race performance. After all, that's the linchpin of Tvx1's argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all, that second point was not for a news item. I provided sources to back up my case and I said general media. As for your contribute wants, I specifically recall Heikki Kovalainen's FP1 drives in 2013 were done specifically because he was an experienced driver and thus, the regular drivers' performance was enhanced. Of course, there is absolutely no way to definitively prove this argument for each and every driver, but then again, why is this concept so vital to the inclusion of the column? Why does this need to proven?
I am putting forward a new argument – one that reinstates their value to the F1 world. If they were so pointless and unnecessary, then why would they be included in official documentation? Why would the media report on them as much as they do? Why would drivers with little or no importance on occasion be the focus of the TV cameras (re Merhi's spin in FP1). On the subject of Merhi, he nearly accidently caused Bottas and Williams to have an issue, but Bottas managed to avoid the Spaniard. This pointless, unimportant driver, nearly affected the outcome of the race in an indirect fashion. Your move. GyaroMaguus 23:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Nearly affected". Not "did affect". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gyaro, if we were to use the fact that a team member appears "on TV, in commentated, live events." Then why should we not include Team Principles? Car Designers? They(somewhat often) gain media coverage (e.g. Allison,Newey, Brawn, Horner) While they don't (to my knowledge) appear in official documents, they DO have an effect on the team, and therefore the season. It has been widely reported that Adrian Newey was a major reason for four consecutive championships that Red Bull won. I would argue that team principles, car designers, etc. can have more of an impact on the season then practice drivers. I would not however, argue that they merit inclusion on the table. They should be included in the relevant pages, regarding the team, practice driver, team principle, etc.
What this whole (very lengthy) argument boils down to, is what we feel is most relevant to the readers and how best to convey that. You can shout WP:IDONTLIKEIT at me if you want, but I just don't believe that the Free Practice drivers make a significant enough impact on the season to warrant their inclusion in a very crowded table. I'm not arguing that they don't participate in the season, just that their impact is minor. Finally, its late and I need sleep. I'll make sure that this was legible in the morning. JohnMcButts (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a "Teams and drivers" table, not a "Teams, drivers and personnel" table. FP1 drivers are drivers, and they have participated in events. Personnel, who I would also include if width was not an issue, are not drivers and the table does not cater to the them under the current format. I have really said all that I have to say on the relevance side, so I will not go further there. And PM, what if Bottas did hit Merhi? You missed my point. GyaroMaguus 00:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
If Bottas had hit Merhi to the point where it totally compromised his weekend, then I imagine it would go in the season report section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
And hence, his participation would have relevant. This could happen at any time during an FP1 session. They have the potential to affect the season directly. (I know and understand this violates WP:CRYSTALBALL). GyaroMaguus 00:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
How, exactly, does including him in the table effectively represent his impact on the season? Especially considering that Caterham is listed at the top of the table, and Williams at the bottom? Surely a line like "while Valtteri Bottas' weekend was ruined after colliding with Roberto Merhi in free practice" in the season report section would be much more appropriate and much more effective. Where is the pressing need to include Merhi in the driver table? And what do you do if it's the only notable incident involving an FP1 driver all season? Wouldn't including all of them with no context imply that they all have an equal impact? And if an FP1 driver does nothing, why is the context needed? The only coverage of FP1 drivers that we give in the prose are the notable ones—like former drivers demoted to FP1 roles, or Susie Wolff being the first female driver in twenty years. Is knowing that Robin Frijns did two FP1 sessions really key to understanding the season? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, your insistence that every fibre of information in the teams and drivers table must have a tangible effect on the outcome of the season is utterly unfounded and is not supported by the community, as proven by the multiple users disagreeing with it in this discussion and by the existing consensi (including one for Free Practice drivers) for the inclusion of these informations in the table. Please explain to me how the fact that Mercedes' engine is named PU106A Hybrid affects the outcome of this season? How does the fact that Caterham's 2013 was named CT3 affect the outcome of the 2013 season? They don't. Pure and simple. Why are they included in this table then? Because the community thoughtabout it and came to the consensus that they merit inclusion. And they did exactly the same regarding the FP drivers eighteen months ago. Back then, there was no unanimous agreement either. But the party which was in favour of removing them (which was Falcadore by the way) accepted and respected that the general opinion was in favor of keeping them. Tvx1 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Consensus, as you have pointed out, can change. And here, I have proposed a viable alternative that not only addresses all of the issues, but better represents the contributions of FP1 drivers ... and you completely ignore it?

The problem with the FP1 drivers is that they exist in the table without context. Their role within their teams is variable and their contributions are entirely subjective. Let's say, hypothetically, that Merhi and Bottas had collided at Suzuka, ruining Bottas' race. That's a fair case for his inclusion. But what about Robin Frijns, who drove in two sessions without incident or impact on the season, and yet is represented in the table in the same way? Without any context to their participation, you could be forgiven for thinking that they contributed equally when in fact they did not. And yet they appear in the driver table without any context.

So, I would propose cutting FP1 drivers from the table, and instead mentioning them—and putting them into context—somewhere else, like the season report. If their contribution is so great that they can affect the outcome of races, then that absolutely needs to be put into context, which cannot be done in the table. If they do not contribute anything beyond completing a test programme, then they probably don't rate a mention either.

The table us only there as a visual representation of the teams. Given that the definition of what an FP1 driver does at a Grand Prix is much broader than that of a race driver, the table is an inappropriate place for them to be listed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not ignored your "viable" alternative. Me and a vast number of other editors do not think that it is a better way of presenting things. You keep trying to force the definition, that the content of the teams and drivers table must show how it affected the outcome of the season, through despite it not being endorsed by the community. That is not the scope of that table, that is what the result matrices are for. After all, you still haven't explained to me how engine names, chassis names or even driver numbers affect the outcome of the season. And we don't highlight the world champions in that table either, do we? In fact, it is easier to find out who the defending world drivers' champion is, than who won the championship in the season the article deals with through the teams and drivers table. The teams and drivers table is there to list which teams and drivers (no matter in which role) participated during a grand prix weekend during the season in question. No more, no less. The context is provided by listing them in the article for the season they participated as a Free Practice Driver. That should be enough really. But if you want more context, maybe we should return their rounds column. I asked wether it should be kept because we didn't require such a column during the previous seasons either. But if it provides more context, I have no problem with returning it and adding it for the previous seasons. But that the table is an inappropriate place for those drivers to be listed at all is purely your personal opinion which is not even shared by the majority of the contributors.Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone should not have to read multiple articles in order to understand the context—and doubly so when those articles aren't being updated. Look at the Japanese GP article; last time I checked, it didn't cover Merhi's participation. If readers do have to read multiple articles, it is an example of poor writing. It's a basic rule of academic writing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
{{replyto|Tvx1—can you please address the above issue? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll try that one again and tag @Tvx1: properly this time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
And that's why we want to keep them in the teams and drivers table. Your alternative is the one that would cause our readers to have to read multiple articles to understand the context. In your proposal they would have to stroll trough Team, Driver, and Grand Prix articles while they are all nicely in the season articles now. The fact that they are listed in the Free Practice Drivers column in the article dealing with the season they took part in is the context. If you want more context I'll be happy to return the rounds column in your version. Those who wan't to find out more in-depth info about the drivers in question can do so by virtue of a simple click on the drivers' names. After all, that's what the internal link was invited for. Putting that aside, I don't know why I have to personally answer every argument that has been presented. After all, I'm not the owner of the articles.Tvx1 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not context. It's a list. Like I said, it makes no distinction as to the extent of their contribution.
If I ask for your thoughts, it's because a) you're the one making the bulk of the arguments, and b) I want to understand your thought process a little more. You claim you don't own the article, but refusing to answer questions that address the issues born out of your arguments makes you come across as if you think you do.
And you are also neglecting to address the concerns of people opposed to their continued inclusion. Even if there is no new consensus, more people are voicing opposition to their inclusion. You cannot disregard that because it's inconvenient. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What will it take for you to understand that Team&Drivers table does not make any distinction as to the extent of the contribution of anything included in it. Not for the teams, not for the drivers, not for the teams, not for the chassis, not for the tyres, not for the constructors, not for the engines. It's jus a list. They are listed alphabetical, and numerical. Results don't even remotely into equation in this table. That's for the result matrices. And they are no listed in them. You keep forcing trying to force this requirement for inclusion through despite it clearly not being endorsed by the community. Tvx1 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Racing teams and drivers have a much narrower definition than FP1 drivers. Whatever happens, they are there to race, and their performance will affect the championship. FP1 drivers are there for all sorts of reasons - to get experience, to maintain a presence in the sport, to keep the team afloat, to kick start a career in Formula 1, and so on and so forth - and their actual impact is much more subjective. A simple list is not enough to provide context to their presence.
And considering that four or five editors are opposing their inclusion, I don't think you can really disregard them much longer. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one that has to disregard opinions or not. The policy is crystal clear. If a Request for Comment does not yield a clear outcome, we make a request for closure 30 days after it was initiated and an uninvolved and (hopefully) neutral administrator assesses the discusion and makes a decision on the outcome. But if I have to regard them, Id like to point out that a consensus is based on the merit of the arguments and not on the numbers first. And if I have to look at the arguments for removal, I will point out that one user's opinion is, as already stated, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, another is the opposing party from the original discussion just restating their opposition from eighteen months ago (Falcadore) and the remaining two are based on the same misconception, which I already have explained is wrong, that the "Teams and Drivers" table has to provide context so as to the effect on the season outcome by the list's content. There, now you can't say that ignore them anymore. But then again, you'll never accept me as an neutral analyzer, will you? Tvx1 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By that logic, your arguments are no more than ILIKEIT. I have repeatedly asked you to prove your claims the way you would in an article; you refused. I have asked you to show context to their inclusion; you have insisted that it is not needed. I have provided a solid argument for their removal based on their inability to score points; you have not directly addressed this, and have instead referred back to an old consensus. And I have pointed out the growing trend of opposition to the idea, which you have barely even acknowledged, and have instead moved to shut the conversation down. I shouldn't be surprised - this is the way you always conduct yourself in these debates. Rather than actually addressing the issue, you rely on policies and are always the first to accuse someone of OWN or IDONTLIKEIT.

So please, do what you should have done a week ago, and actually address the issues with content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This all boils down to the misconception you are unwilling to admit to yourself to that everything that is listed in the teams and drivers has to have "the ability to score points" which multiple users have repeatedly pointed out to you is not the scope of this table. This table is not by any means concerned with points. That's why we have RESULTS MATRICES. What will it take you to grasp that? I don't know why you claim I haven't addressed the so-called "solid" argument that they are unable to score points. If have stated repeatedly that this is irrelevant to the teams and drivers table. That's not what it's designed for. And I have given you your context as well. They are listed as FREE PRACTICE DRIVERS in the article for the 2014 FORMULA ONE SEASON. That's more than enough context for a teams and drivers table which is not concerned with the outcome. I have even given the option of returning the rounds column in your version to give the more context. And I don't understand why you accuse me of trying to shut this discussion down, when I literally stated that I'm not in a position to determine the outcome. You accuse us of not addressing your issues, while myself, *JoeTri10_, GyaroMaguus have done more than that. If has become increasingly clear to me that you and me trading replies is leading nowhere, especially since you are clearly unwilling to be convinced and to accept any other outcome than the one you wish. That's why I suggested we let this RFC be dealt with in the way it's designed for and let it run its default time (does it ring a bell to you a why there is this default 30 days running time in the first place) and allow as much users as possible to find about it, come here and post their opinions, instead of trying to force your consensus through based on three editors out of 71927 wikipedia contributors voting no. That's another thing you very obviously need to learn to have: patience! I'll remind you that consensus is not unanimity as well. Tvx1 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I myself personally would like to know why exactly they must have context in regards in their inclusion and why they must affect the season in some way to be included in the table that as far as I am concerned is meant to represent the entry list (which I will add, FP1 drivers are on). GyaroMaguus 23:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Because one of the primary arguments in favour of keeping them is their potential to affect the season. If this is true, then context will explain how they affect the season—and it is needed because they can all affect the season differently, but if they simply appear as a list in the table, then the reader could conclude that they all affect the season equally.
One of the most fundamental aspects of academic writing is the need for logic and cohesion in an article. Someone with no knowledge of the subject should be able to read an article and understand not only it but how the author(s) came to the conclusion that they did. As it stands, there is nothing explaining the role and function of the FP1 drivers (much less the individual impact of drivers, which has yet to be demonstrated beyond "they might affect it"); they simply exist as a list. And that is where the context is needed—to make it clear to the reader what role they play.
That may be the problem here. You're writing as a follower of the sport, which is great because it means you have informed knowledge of the subject and can build the article. But at the same time, you have forgotten your audience, and your audience includes people with limited or no knowledge of the sport. You can't make assumptions or generalizations like that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Limited or no knowledge, and complete idiots I assume you meant to add?. I cant imagine many people looking at a title that states "The following teams and drivers are taking part in the 2014 season", Seeing a column listing "Free Practice Drivers" and then all of a sudden start to convulse on the floor because their brain cant handle such a complex portion of the chart which for some reason seems to represent the world of F1 and therefore must have a 10 page discussion behind it's purpose even though we gave you 1 clear reason 9 pages ago!.......
You are clearly trying to exhaust everything you can possibly think of now to get us to agree with you once again and lucky for some TVX1 has the patience to deal with this nonsensical babble. *JoeTri10_ 11:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, it was you guys who made the argument that FP1 drivers should be included because they affect the season. I'm just pointing out that despite this assertion, you provide no evidence of it in the article. Objectionable assertions should always be supported with evidence, which is again a cornerstone of academic writing.

If so then we shall source their inclusion with the direct team articles that report their results/conclusions (The ones we have used previously in this discussion for example). That should warrant their inclusion in accordance to what you're asking. *JoeTri10_ 01:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You need to demonstrate the impact they have in the article. A source is necessary as supporting documentation, but it is not enough. Context must be given. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It does. *JoeTri10_ 03:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How?

Like I said, a reader should not have to go to another article or another site in order to understand something that should be explained in the article. If the justification for including FP1 drivers is that FP1 drivers can affect the outcome of a race or a season, then it absolutely needs to be explained in the article. The sources are presented as evidence the content is accurate; they are not a substitute for content.

I will also point out once more that some of the evidence you have supplied—namely Caterham's summary of Monza FP1—does not describe the effect Merhi had on their performance; if anything, they pointed out that Ericsson gathered most of the data they used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

All what your a providing are no arguments for removal, but for adding a sentence or a footnote or so to point out their role. That's no problem for me. In fact, now that you mention it, there's not really anything in any season article giving a basic overview of what constitutes a Formula One season. So maybe we could add a (sub)section that very briefly outlines the structure of a season and its events, the same way any FIFA World Cup article has a format section. I think it would be an improvement if I read the presented concerns. Tvx1 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The only potential problem with adding context to FP1 drivers is that it puts undue weight on them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry really but is that some kind of joke or are you at this point just trolling? You can't ask of us to give context to something and then tell us adding said context would be impractical for the page. Essentially you have now done: Asked for proof of purpose/context=Ignored. Polled everyone=Ignored. Suggested we don't follow the FIA. Suggested we now add the previous ignored context=>then suggested it would put undue weight. Your argument is based on an opinion; one that does not fall in line with Wikipedia terms and you continue find a baseless argument for whatever we put fourth in the hope that we'd get bored basically. It's VERY easy to see that to you, it's remove them by all means necessary. I actually honestly think after these past two years (I have been here) that you're clearly joking here. Every discussion I remember has been the same, it's nothing more than a merry go round of us trying to fetch you answers and reasons that you anyway dismiss time and time again, yet we forget anyway that you're not the one we should be answering to anyway... This is clearly a joke or a manifestation or someone who clearly feels they are more important than they are.
The poll YOU asked for has spoken, 3 said no, 3 said yes. As per that result the original consensus will remain and this stupid trolling argument can finally cease.*JoeTri10_ 14:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
If you dedicate an entire section to them, yes. If you give them a minor sentence in a section that is dedicated to other aspects as well, no. Tvx1 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I asked for proof that, by participating in a session, an FP1 driver altered the outcome of a session. The evidence that I was given contained a quote from the team principal that clearly said the other regular driver did most of the work. That evidence disproved your case and proved mine. This is about the fourth time I have pointed this out.

I'm beginning to think that the only way to resolve this is to do it the same way we sorted out the race title issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No it didn't, you blatantly ignored what we tried to point out to you multiple times. *JoeTri10_ 15:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Read it again. Please tell me exactly where someone describes Merhi's contributions and the lasting impact on the team's ability to compete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
PM, we have pointed out time and time again that it's outside of the scope of the table whether each individual affected the outcome of the season or not. IT'S NOT A RESULT MATRIX! In fact you yourself, when questioned about other content in said table that obviously didn't affect the season outcome, have stated that they don't have to have affected it but just have to have the potential to do so. But apparently only the content you want to get rid of has to fulfill the extra condition you invented of having effectively affected the season. Furthermore I have repeatedly posed you an important question, how egine names, chassis names and driver numbers affect the season's outcome, which you have consistently ignored/refused to answer, which is behavior you are accusing us of. Then, we provide options to give them the context they're missing (returning the rounds column, adding some prose/a footnote), and you either ignore them completely or instantaneously declare it to give them undue weight (just how much weight does one sentence in 114,834 bytes long article really give?). This situation is crystal clear to me. You are not going to accept any outcome beside the course of action you demand, you are utterly unavailable for reasoning, you are utterly unwilling to collaborate with the other users in a constructive manner to improve the article by addressing your own concerns and your argument are entirely based on your opinion of the meaning of the table, which is wrong and utterly unendorsed by the project's community as I have pointed out and which is proven by the number of users who disagree with you now as well as back when the consensus was achieved to list them. Furthermore, you accuse us of disregarding three users "voting" no while you yourself ignore the users who have no problem with listing them and their arguments.
I have stated to you how this can be solved several times but, unexpectedly, you ignored that as well. Unless the participants come to a clear consensus, which is currently not the case obviously, a RFC runs for 30 days after which a Request for Closure is made and an uninvolved administrator reads the entire discussion, considers the presented arguments and determines the outcome. It really strikes me that you post a RFC, but than act completely oblivious as to how these are dealt with. They have a manual, you know. Tvx1 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious we're not going to sort this out on our own. The RfC is good for another two or three weeks, so let's wait for some more input from non-regular editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-reading the above, there has been no real progress on the RfC. However, there has been some support both from within the regular F1 editors and outside that I don't think you can really ignore it, @Tvx1: and @Joetri10:. Sure, a consensus is not a vote, but you cannot use that as an excuse to disregard the input of others. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what you consider to be progress. Likewise to the support you claim, there is an equal amount of support for keeping them and a pre-existing consensus you can't ignore. And what counts is not the numbers, but the merit of the arguments. But most importantly, it's not my duty to (dis)regard opinion anyway. I'm just an editor who has posted their opinion for one side of the argument backed by many arguments. Tvx1 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, you're not going to address any issues that have been raised so long as you're getting your way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Your entire argument hinges on a weak modal verb: might, as in "an FP1 driver might affect the season". If any of my students made an argument as committed as yours that was as reliant on a weak modal verb the way yours is, they would probably get a mark of about 15% for it. You haven't conclusively demonstrated the need for their inclusion, and you haven't even bothered to address the concerns raised by outsiders in thus RfC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Save that we are not your students and you aren't the teacher around here. We don't have to present our work to you after which you will grade it. Contrary to what you seem to believe your opinion, and mine, has exactly the same value as any other opinion presented in this RFC. I don't know why you keep claiming we haven't addressed the issues you and your supporters have voiced. We have done so time and time again. Them having a tangible affect on the outcome of the season is outside of the scope of this table. You are view regarding the scope of this table is wrong. And that is proven by many, many users disagreeing with the requirement you are trying to impose. And utterly ignoring this and claiming time and time again that we allegedly haven't responded to your questions is not going to change the facts that we have done so at all. Tvx1 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Marussia[edit]

Currently our article asserts the fact that Marussia is going to find a replacement driver for Jules Bianchi for this weekend's race. Yet, with less than 2 days remaining until the opening session of the next Grand Prix, Marussia haven't announced anything at all about a replacement driver. So do we really need these TBA's for a Marussia replacement driver? Wouldn't it be just enough to simply add that driver if they find one. Tvx1 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is every chance that they could leave the seat vacant in respect to Jules. GyaroMaguus 16:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking as well. Tvx1 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
They need to apply to the FIA to get a special dispensation to field a single car. Do you have a source that says one was granted? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a source that they have to do that in the first place? I'm really curious on how the ruling is that it is mandatory to field two cars. Tvx1 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that part of the Concorde Agreement? The current agreement isn't public, but I'm sure it's in one of the older versions. The359 (Talk) 19:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
a) I doubt they could afford to leave the seat empty; they need all the income they can get. Rossi must be nailed on, surely. b) Sporting regs 13.6: "No more than 26 cars will be admitted to the Championship, two being entered by each competitor." So teams do need special dispensation to run one car instead of two. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And journalists have posted photographic evidence of the team preparing a second chassis on Twitter.

If Marussia haven't announced anything, it's probably because they need to build the car first. Also, they will likely need someone for the remainder of the season, so negotiating that may take time. The team are limited in the number of driver changes they can make - it's what is preventing Caterham from giving Sainz Jnr. and Merhi a race start - and swapping Chilton and Rossi about in Belgium might have used one of their changes up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

They may also have had to send for parts from Banbury. A team is allowed four drivers per season, not including FP1 drivers, so they should be fine on that front. But that's true, if they're negotiating with a driver for the rest of the season, that might be complicated. Maybe a more experienced driver has popped up with some cash, and he might be an option. They've still got tomorrow and probably Friday morning to decide – plenty of time in F1 terms. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. The fact that they haven't announced anything at all is not proof that they won't enter a second car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Sporting regs 13.6: "No more than 26 cars will be admitted to the Championship, two being entered by each competitor." literally reads no more than 26 cars. Not exactly 26, or two per team. This means up to two per team.
Marussia is not exactly a wealthy team so they cannot afford to bring in a replacement driver and pay him or her whatever they want the way Ferrari did when Massa was injured. They need a pay driver for that and it is not all a certainty that they can find one that can gather they required money in barely four days time. And they only have until tomorrow afternoon, because that's when Pre-Grand Prix scrutineering takes place.
However, if no one has problem with the TBA's being in the article I will make no further issue out of this and we can wrap up this discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem the TBA with it since it is an inevitable scenario. GyaroMaguus 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@TVX1 – Well, no, it says "two being entered by each competitor". It doesn't say anything about "up to two". This rule precludes impecunious teams skipping flyaway races, or saving money by only shipping one car, like they used to. Plus, Marussia won't be paying anyone to drive, it's not that kind of team. That's why they dropped Glock, whom they were actually paying. Bianchi only gets 5-600K all of which comes out of his sponsorship (plus he's the reason they get Ferrari engines), and Chilton pays something between 5 and 10 million and gets a salary of 150K. He's definitely not there for his talent, as proven by how quickly they gave him the boot when it looked like his money wasn't forthcoming in Singapore. Rossi pays to do FP1 sessions and so will Stevens. This is what I mean when I say they can't afford not to have a second car. Drivers will be queueing up with wads of cash, saying, "Take me." Teams never have trouble finding pay drivers, and callous as it sounds, I suspect they were receiving calls as of Monday inquiring about Bianchi's seat. F1 is brutal that way. But yeah, TBA is fine for now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From the extent of Bianchi's injuries, we can reasonably assume that he will be out of action for the forseeable future. While the team could apply for a dispensation to run a single car in Sochi and likely receive it, given the trauma of Suzuka and the way Bianchi's chassis is currently impounded, there are still four races left in the season, and a three-week gap between Sochi and Austin. It would be expected that Marussia enter the final three races. Now, Bianchi could make a miraculous recovery and race in Austin. Or his career could be over and Marussia need someone else. Since we have no available information on the team's plans, but we know that Bianchi is currently unconscious in a Japanese hospital, TBA is an entirely appropriate entry for the table, as the situation is currently that - To Be Advised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Formula1.com has stated that Rossi is nominated as the second driver but will make their decision over whether to run one or two cars on Friday morning. I think this means that they can comply with the "two cars being entered" idea while allowing themselves the option of leaving his seat empty. I'm not 100% sure as to how we should with this, but I think entering Rossi while leaving his rounds as "TBA" should suffice. GyaroMaguus 14:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have the same opinion. Since this proves very clearly that they haven't decided yet, I'd prefer to have a TBA as well. We're in no rush to add the round and we can easily wait until they have made up their mind on how to deal with this. It's already hard enough for them as it is. Tvx1 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
There you go. Only one car for Marussia. Once again we jumped a gun we shouldn't have and we wouldn't have if we had had one thing: patience. Tvx1 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Did we? We all said TBA was fine, as far as I can see. Gyaro Maguus is right – entering two cars and withdrawing one satisfied the "two cars" element, which is apparently contractual rather than a purely regulatory matter. They asked for and received dispensation to withdraw the second car, as Mjroots says below. Rossi can go in our WDC table if he's in the official table. The entry list at FORIX only has one Marussia on it, which suggests Rossi is not on the final list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Having watched BBC's Inside F1, Suzi Perry interviews Graeme Lowdon, who confirmed an intention to run two cars for the remainder of the reason. So we could write "17" as Rossi's round number. GyaroMaguus 12:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
No. They might have confirmed their intention to run two cars for the remainder of the season, they have not confirmed their intention to have Rossi drive for the remainder of the season. Just a car. Now when I was referring to jumping a gun, I was not referring to the TBA's, but to us listing Rossi with a round number 16 even though Marussia stated that they were unsure they were going to enter two cars. Tvx1 (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Rossi[edit]

So Rossi was officially entered, and then withdrawn with the steward's dispensation before FP1. IMHO, this means that he should get an entry on the season table with DNP for the Russian GP, once the full table is updated post-race. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, he should also be listed for Belgium, since he entered FP1 as a race driver, but Chilton was reinstated ahead of FP2. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
That's an issue for you chaps to thrash out - would suggest that WDN might better summarize that one. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
No WDN is used for drivers who qualify for the race, but ultimately don't even leave their pits to line up on the grid. We actually had a discussion on how to deal with these and similar cases quite recently, but it got archived with our reaching a determined outcome. Tvx1 (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"WDN" is not used at all. The scenario TVX1 describes would be a DNS. Rossi would probably be a DNP if he is considered to have had an entry on the final list. DNP is very rare, we hardly ever use it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
DNS is fine by me. Re Russian GP, DNP does describe the situation. Marussia had to enter two drivers, which they did; and had to ask for permission to withdraw Rossi, which they also did. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see Rossi was never actually entered, but only nominated as their potential second driver. This, this, this, this and this all state that. Tvx1 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And admittedly, the Stewards decision which basically forms the entry list states "eligible to take part". I believe this means he was, in a technical sense, entered, but if they do not take part, then we don't have to include their round number. GyaroMaguus 21:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That is true, but I don't think that's the issue they're discussing. I think they want to establish whether they should include him in the results matrix. Tvx1 (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
My vote, if I have one that counts, is that Rossi should get an entry for the Russian GP, with him listed as NO TIME for qualifying on that event's page and race result as DNA for car #42, since Marussia did in fact enter two cars & two drivers for initial entry per FIA regulations. However, once the team had permission to do so from the FIA, they instead built up a #17 car and parked it all weekend. As such, Rossi should be listed on the season points calendar (underneath Lotterer) as DNA for the Russian GP with Bianchi's box blank since he was never entered into the event. This then should in turn grant him a "PO/DNS" box for the Belgian GP since he was officially entered for that as well, but did arrive and was then replaced midway through the weekend. Might as well get some mileage out of these boxes since they are hardly ever used. A little long-winded, I know, but it makes sense in my head :) Twirlypen (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What Twirlypen said. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Further, while not trying to speculate, it would seem to be a near certainty that Marussia would allow Rossi to finally race at his home USGP. Twirlypen (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First and foremost is that Rossi is not on the official WDC standings, so that is proof that he did not have an entry in the final reckoning. He isn't on any of the Russian GP results lists anywhere that I can see. Whatever that fact, he's clearly not a DNA since he was present at the track and so was the car he would have used. DNA is for drivers or teams who literally didn't show up at the meeting. Equally he cannot have "no time" next to his name in qualifying because he was not entered in qualifying. We are bound by the sources, and Rossi is not shown in them. Likewise for the Belgian GP, nothing anywhere says he had a race entry on the final list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Concur. --Falcadore (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well. On top of what has already been written, we simply can't credit Rossi with an entry for the Belgian race because we already have two entries for that race and, unless Bernie gets his wishes fulfilled, we can't have three entries. Tvx1 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Age/experience[edit]

Hi, arriving a casual follower of F1 here, so apologies if this has already been discussed. Has anyone ever considered adding age (would have to be as of beginning of season)/experience (number of F1 races? Time in Formula 1?) information for each driver on the season articles? I think there's value in being able to easily survey the experience of the field, which is covered by those terms. Plus fresh blood/veterans fighting the dying of the light are consistent narratives in sport. Thoughts appreciated! HornetMike (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Age doesn't show experience, for example, Andre Lotterer had his debut at 33, Vettel is only 27, the age makes no difference to experience to an extent. Ages may also change during the season, so what age would you go by. People can cjeck the drivers article to see how many seasons or races they have raced in. ForzaChris (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Terrible idea. There is no correlation between age, experience and performance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Caterham in administration[edit]

Caterham is currently in administration, and overnight they have been granted permission to miss the next two races. My question is how we should go about representing this in the results matrices. The last time something like this happened, Super Aguri folded mid-season, and we simply left the matrices blank. However, Caterham's dispensation only gives them permission to miss Austin and Interlagos—they are evidently expecting or expected (or both) to compete in Abu Dhabi. Of course, a further dispensation may be granted or the team may fold entirely by then, but that remains to be seen.

So, assuming that they miss one or both of the next two races and that they can complete in Abu Dhabi, how do we show that in the results tables? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I say we should leave them blank. I assume that they won't enter the races, so they shouldn't be credited with entries. GyaroMaguus 22:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
True, but teams aren't entered round-by-round. They are entered in all rounds at the beginning of the season, because they need to commit to competing in all rounds (with a provision for missing some in cases of firce majeure) in order to be considered a constructor. [1] Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
We go by the entry lists published by the FIA. It they don't appear on the official entry lists for those races we can write DNP in their cells. Did Not Participate. They have been granted the dispensation to miss this race under the provision of the "force majeure" clause you cited. Tvx1 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The cells should be blank. PM is correct in that the teams are entered for all the season's events, but Caterham (and apparently, Marussia) will be removed from the entry lists for these two races. The FIA won't credit them with entries. Also, historically, teams that have given up the ghost mid-season have their cells left blank, and we ought to be consistent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Before we decide, I'd like to point out that there are three separate types of results matrices affected by this matter. Team results matrices (e.g. Template:F1 Constructors Standings), car results matrices (e.g. Caterham CT05, and driver results matrices (e.g. Template:F1 Drivers Standings. Now it's right that Constructors are contractually obliged ton enter the entire season, however drivers are credited with an entry on a race by race basis. I'm not sure how the ruling is on the entries for the actual cars. Tvx1 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Perhaps we should consider an additional entry in the key, then—one that can be used equally in all affected articles if someone is contracted to attend (like a constructor) but, for whatever reason, is never actually entered. Something like "DNE" for "Did Not Enter" might work. It would allow a standardised approach to results matrices and driver, team and car articles. And it would also take into account the current situation, whereby Marussia and Caterham only have a limited dispensation to attend; they are expected to be in Abu Dhabi (unlike Super Aguri, who withdrew entirely). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a sensible proposal. On the same issue I was wondering if we could shadow those boxes covering races where teams/drivers/cars were never contracted for/entered in in one take, instead of putting a separate blank cell for every single race result even if they were never even scheduled to enter them. For instance, this is what the Super Aguri results could look like:
(key) (results in bold indicate pole position)
Year Chassis Engine Tyres No. Drivers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Points WCC
2006 SA05
SA06
Honda RA806-E 2.4 V8 B BHR MAL AUS SMR EUR ESP MON GBR CAN USA FRA GER HUN TUR ITA CHN JPN BRA 0 11th
22 Japan Takuma Sato 18 14 12 Ret Ret 17 Ret 17 15 Ret Ret Ret 13 NC 16 DSQ 15 10
23 Japan Yuji Ide Ret Ret 13 Ret
23 France Franck Montagny Ret Ret 16 18 Ret Ret 16
23 Japan Sakon Yamamoto Ret Ret Ret Ret 16 17 16
2007 SA07 Honda RA807-E 2.4 V8 B AUS MAL BHR ESP MON CAN USA FRA GBR EUR HUN TUR ITA BEL JPN CHN BRA 4 9th
22 Japan Takuma Sato 12 13 Ret 8 17 6 Ret 16 14 Ret 15 18 16 15 15 14 12
23 United Kingdom Anthony Davidson 16 16 16 11 18 11 11 Ret Ret 12 Ret 14 14 16 Ret Ret 14
2008 SA08 Honda RA808-E 2.4 V8 B AUS MAL BHR ESP TUR MON CAN FRA GBR GER HUN EUR BEL ITA SIN JPN CHN BRA 0* 11th*
18 Japan Takuma Sato Ret 16 17 13
19 United Kingdom Anthony Davidson Ret 15 16 Ret
Of course, a n/a could be entered in the shadowed areas if preferred to make it more clear. Tvx1 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't sound so surprised. I actually think it might be worth reviewing the key, since there are fields that we haven't used for years. "DNE" or "DNP" (did not participate) could cover a lot of the more niche outcomes.
And I do like the idea of making a single blank row. Straight away I noticed that it became more readable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Got to disagree on both counts. We've never used anything to show drivers or teams who did not enter races, simply because the blank box does exactly that. No further clutter is required. Every other F1 results source will show no entry for these two teams, so we ought to follow suit.
On the other point about shadowing cells for races not attended – what's the point? A lot of work for nothing, plus with individual cells, the reader can tell at a glance how many races were missed. With shadowed boxes, that is much less clear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it really that important exactly how many races were missed when they weren't even contracted to appear in those races at all? And what about drivers who were only drafted in as a mid-season replacement? They were never expected to take part in the races taking place before their debut, so they didn't "miss" anything. And if you don't like working, I'll be happy to take the task on me. That's not really an argumentTvx1 (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think missed races are important enough to perform the simple task of leaving the cells blank. And yes, drivers who were drafted in mid-season still missed the races. If they weren't there, they missed the races. Without those cells, it isn't absolutely apparent that any races were missed at all, in my view. Plus, and you might think this a non-argument, it looks better as it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
We already have an established procedure for this exact situation and multiples of precedent. If they take no part in the weekend, leave it blank. There is no reason to deviate from previous behavior.
If we have to have a debate for actioning tasks such as this is no wonder there are so many short fuses in the group these days. Is it at all possible to edit in the manner as performed previously without having a debate about it? --Falcadore (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sticking with the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" mantra. Just because teams are entered on a full-season basis does not negate that the results matrix is broken down on a race by race basis. And even if teams are entered for the full-season, there are multiple reasons teams can miss individual races, be it penalty (BAR), injury (Bianchi), folding (Aguri), dispensation (Marussia/Caterham), etc. The359 (Talk) 05:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes that is a fair point, but we're no talking about shadowing cells for races they were scheduled to compete in but missed for some reason, but to shadow cells for races they were not contracted for and were never intended whatsoever to be a part of the team/driver/car's career. For instance what's the point in having two blank cells for the 1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix in Mastercard Lola's result matrix knowing the team had ceased to exist long before that point. Just how does the exact number of races a team/car/driver was not contracted for affect their success? Tvx1 (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)