Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Pole Trophy table

Please note that the "Second" column in the Pole Trophy table is there to record the number of time a driver qualifies in second, not the number of times they finished in second. It has been included because second places will be used as a tie-breaker in the event that two or more drivers finish the season with an equal number of poles.

Hamilton has three second-place starts: Bahrain, Canada and Monaco. Someone keeps changing the cell entry from 3 to 2 because he has two second-place finishes. Apparently they have not understood the purpose of the table, which is odd, since it is clearly about qualifying, not the races. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better clarified with some prose rather than an ambigious chart for, currently, three data points. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is already prose there, in the paragraph above the table. But without that column, it kind of becomes a case of "take our word for it that Hamilton is ahead". This way, there is visual evidence of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's the same person or not but there is a slight wave of users constantly changing things like this until warned and very quickly after just 'leaving' the account. We've had this problem twice now, here and on Suzie Wolff's page. Both have also deleted what has been created to avoid the issue (Such as the tag or information on their respective talk pages) It should most likely stop at some point. *JoeTri10_ 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is prose above the chart, but solely describing the rules for the trophy. There's no actual explanation of what has happened in 2014. If you eliminate the chart, you eliminate the problem. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How about instead of eliminating something relevant without reason we instead use a system we have used for previous formulas in which we show both the qualifying position and race result in the same box? *JoeTri10_ 01:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the race result has no bearing on the Pole Trophy, and including qualifying positions - which do not pay championship points - in the results matrix is an over-complication, and it is unreasonable to expect that readers will be able to distill information on the Pole Trophy when the emphasis of the matrix is on championship results. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not proposing "eliminating something relevant", I am suggesting changing the tiny box into text so that it is more concise and does not lead to confusion amongst new readers. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should somehow explain the order in case of a tie, but I don't think we need an extra column for very Xth place they are tied on. If they have the same number of 2nd grid positions as well we would need to enter a column displaying their number of 3rd grid positions. And if they are tied on that as well we would need the number of 4th grid positions. And if that is tied too the number of 5th grid positions. This is all unnecessarily expanding this table. Surely a footnote explaining the order backed with a good source can accomplish exactly the same goal! Tvx1 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to just have the Poles column, and for those times (like now) when first and second in the table have the same number of poles, add a footnote explaining that "Even though Drivers A and B have the same number of poles, Driver A is leading because he has qualified second X times versus Y times for driver B". DH85868993 (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was referring to. I agreeTvx1 (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that you are basing it on the assumption that drivers will tie on poles, on second places, on thirds, and so on and so forth. With every assumption you add, the idea becomes further and further removed from realm of possibility.

I do not think it is unreasonable to include a column for the tie-breaker, since prose will effectively repeat what is already in the article. The article states that, in the event of a tie, second placings will be used to settle the result. That has been included because the Pole Trophy is a new addition to the championship, and thus an explanation of how the standings are scored is needed. How can additional prose cover that without being redundant? Putting it in the context of the season results will do nothing because the table already provides that context by naming the drivers and showing the order they were classified in, and the article already explains how a tie will be settled.

I would only consider a footnote or additional explanation if we get to a point where drivers are tied on poles and second places. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. My suggestion is not that unrealistic at all. Just look at the past. If the 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix would have finished with Alonso in 2nd place and Hamilton in 5th, they would have been tied on 111 points and Alonso would have won the title on number of 7th places. It's not unthinkable at all. I donk think it's helpful at all to add a column each time there is a tie, that could become redundant by the next race. A footnote is the best way and would not be redundant as it would list the actual standings to explain the tiebreaker. This is how that would look like:

Pos.	Driver	Poles
1†	Lewis Hamilton	4
2†	Nico Rosberg	4
3	Felipe Massa	1

Notes:

• † — Lewis Hamilton currently leads Nico Rosberg in the pole trophy by virtue of having scored three second places in qualifying to only one for Rosberg.

Of course, the exact wording, can be fine-tuned. Tvx1 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, all your proposal does is repeat what is already in the article, but does so less effectively. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If my footnote repeats already included information, then surely your extra column does as well and is just as unnecessary. Tvx1 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I see no problem with what is already present in the article. Is it really that important that it requires this argument. *JoeTri10_ 23:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The column does not repeat anything in the article the way prose would. The column simply provides supplementary information without repetition.

But no, this is not something that needs a full discussion. The column works fine as is, and the original issue was someone not understanding the purpose of the column, probably because English is not their first language. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? If it works just fine, then why are myself, The³5₉ and DH85868993 complaining about it? And why did it keep being changed to the number of second race positions. And come with an actual explanation, and not a pathetic excuse like "they probably don't understand our language", please. Tvx1 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Because much like with someone on Suzie Wolff's page who constantly changed her nationality to Scottish, they clearly didn't understand what they were editing. The way it's explained now on the current article is perfectly fine. PM has sorted the initial issue (the person has yet to return also) and now for some reason this discussion has been made out of something resolved. Why? *JoeTri10_ 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I am happy for the table to remain in its current format and for this discussion to terminate. DH85868993 (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There you go. Only one race later the table has become redundant again. That wasn't really worth the effort of entering all those extra lines at all. Tvx1 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And what do you propose we do if there is a tie-breaker again? Add and remove the column from the table as needed? That hardly creates stability, and that is not in the interests of the article. You have been looking for an excuse to get rid of that column for a week, and as soon as you get one, you rush in to remove it without considering the implications for the article, and round it all off with a condescending stab at the people who disagreed with you.

Even if there is not currently a tie in effect, the provision for a tie-breaker exists. To suggest that it is not necessary breaks CRYSTAL, since you cannot predict that it will not be needed again in the future. And while we cannot predict that it will be needed again, the information is nevertheless recorded for future use, even if it is not currently being used.

If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you lose the attitude. It's tiresome. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The column doesn't have any use right now. Keeping it because there will undoubtably be another tie in the future is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Removing it isn't. And please stop blowing up the issue out of its context. A minor change to a tiny table that hardly deals with a major event in the season does NOT have major implications. There is only one Qualifying session every week at the very least, but more often once every two weeks, so stability doesn't even remotely come in effect here. If you are desperate for having that information ready for use, then at the very least hide it from the article when it has no use. And please stop acting like this is a personal action aimed at you. It isn't by any means. Tvx1 (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now, removing the column under the premise that there won't necessarily be a future tie violates WP:CRYSTAL; and keeping the column under the premise that there might be a tie in the future also violates WP:CRYSTAL. I say we keep it, because it is the tiebreaker. The tiebreakers in the matrices are the individual results, so having the tiebreakers in the pole trophy table isn't going to hurt anyone. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I wholly agree. The results matrices are an established precedent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The table in question is not concerned with what might or what might not be, but with what IS right now. And what is right now, is that there is no tie to be broken, and there won't be one until at least next saturday, so it's outright ridiculous to include this information now. If a tie arises again next week, one, I iterate ONE, simple edit will suffice to make the tiebreaker clear in the article. The column was removed on the basis that there is no tie to be broken right now, which is NOT a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Right now the only argument to keep this column in the article is that another tie might arise in the future which IS a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. And arguments like "it hurts nobody to have the information in the article" should be avoided. I had that thrown at me as well in an earlier discussion when I used a similar argument. There is no precedent in the other result matrices either, as their sole purpose of existence is NOT to act as a tiebreaker. They are there because championship results have an use. The drivers' and constructors' prizes are awarded according to their results. Again, if you are that desperate to have the information ready for use, put in the code and hide from the actual article. Tvx1 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(I'm a bit tired so apologies in that this argument is disjointed) Why do you appear to get so worked up at such minor issues as a column in a table? I am a hypocrite and I probably threw an argument in the style of "it hurts nobody" at you. But I reiterate, it is just one column. I specifically worded my argument to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. I said because it is the tiebreaker, it should be included. Not from whether it gets used again or not. In fact, as I stated, not taking my route of discourse within the argument can only lead to a violation of the policy that is WP:CRYSTAL – to which I write again I deliberately avoided. Give me an argument that doesn't mention or imply the reference to WP:CRYSTAL and we'll continue from there. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use CRYSTAL as an argument in favour of keeping the column because you cannot predict that a tiebreaker will be needed again. Likewise, you cannot use CRYSTAL as an argument for removing the column, as you cannot predict that a tiebreaker will not arise again. The whole thing makes for a circular argument, so let's try something else.

Adding and removing the column as needed is nothing more than RECENTISM. While we aim to keep the article current, RECENTISM is to be avoided. In this case, it is short-sighted to remove the column. Just because there is currently no tiebreaker situation, that does not mean that information for a tiebreaker is not being collected. Therefore, while that information is not of immediate relevance, disregarding it for that reason is the very definition of RECENTISM. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I didn't remove the column on the basis that column will not be needed in the future, but on the basis that is not needed RIGHT NOW. WP:CRYSTAL never came into equation in my reasoning. It only does in your reasoning of there might be another tie in the future. And again stop blowing things out of proportion as on short term, only two edits will be needed to update this section within the next six weeks. That's not as dramatic as you claim it to be and is no "stability risk" at all. I don't understand by any means why you are so desperate to have that column. Again, if you want the information ready for use, put it in the code and hide it from the actual article. Tvx1 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove the column on the basis that column will not be needed in the future, but on the basis that is not needed RIGHT NOW.

Which is RECENTISM, pure and simple. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Try again. WP:Recentism is an essay, not a guideline or policy we should abide, whereas WP:CRYSTAL is a policy we have to follow and which thus trumps WP:Recentism. By the way, you should really start reading articles you cite. The essay on recentism has a neutral point of view on the matter and not a major no-no view on it like you claim. In fact, it even states that recentism can be positive. More importantly, according to the essay, your column is itself in fact a clear cut example of recentism. Tvx1 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to turn this into another one of those long and drawn out debates that go on for days and weeks longer than they have to because you refuse to accept any point of view other than your own?

Because I'm not in the mood for one of those. And yet here I find myself, with you aggressively editing content out of the article, and digging trenches on the talk page before flinging everyone's arguments back at them.

I do not see what has so fundamentally changed since everyone agreed to avoid making an issue out of this. Yes, Rosberg scored another pole, but that doesn't invalidate any of the arguments that have been made until now. And so I find myself left with the distinct impression that you are once again making an issue out of a trivial matter regardless of what the community feels for no other reason than IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You are the one drawing this debate out and blowing things out of proportion, despite it clearly having it pointed out to you that there is no justification for having the column in the article at the moment. At no point during the first eight races was it even considered to add a column because there might be a tie some day. Yet now that we had a tie for a short period suddenly such a column becomes unmissable. Tvx1 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"clearly ... pointed out to you that there is no justification for having the column in the article at the moment"? No. That was not given. The column serves as a tiebreaker, so people can see who can lead in the case of a future tie, so we don't need to add it back in case of future ties, to aid article consistency, to help us ensure we don't get it wrong if a tie occurs in the future, because it is the tiebreaker officially used by the FIA, and hence, after all these reasons, it is important. It wasn't considered in the first eight races because the table is new and we weren't used to it. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the results matrices, they do contain the results used to calculate standings in the event of a tiebreaker. There is currently no explanation of that in the text, which did prove to be an issue a few hours before the race last night. If the matrices contain no information on the subject, then perhaps that is a failing of the matrix rather than this table.

As it has been a day and there has been no further opposition or debate on this, I have added the column back in. If you wish to remove it, please establish a consensus first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had pointed out that there is no justification for including this column right now. That it is the tiebreaker is no justification since there is no tie to be broken. That another tie may arise in the future is no justification either as that is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. There is NO consensus right now to include this column while there is no tie. Especially regarding the problems I have pointed out with your arguments. Tvx1 (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No justification? Let me repeat myself. "The column serves as a tiebreaker, so people can see who can lead in the case of a future tie, so we don't need to add it back in case of future ties, to aid article consistency, to help us ensure we don't get it wrong if a tie occurs in the future, because it is the tiebreaker officially used by the FIA, and hence, after all these reasons, it is important." —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If you want to keep the second place information accurate and ready for use you can do so in the code, hidden from the article, or even in your sandbox. It is not the tiebreaker at the moment since there is no tie. It serves no purpose whatsoever in the article right now. A standings table in an encyclopedia is not concerned with what might or what might not, bit with what is the fact RIGHT NOW. We are not a news site and are therefore not concerned by any means in providing information for calculating next raceday scenarios. Furthermore who is leading in case of a tie after race 9 doesn't even affect the outcome of this minor competition by any means. This information holds no significance whatsoever. As far as the FIA (and probably even the drivers) are concerned, they are tied in such a case. The tiebreaker only comes into useful effect if there is a tie a the end of the season when all the qualifying session have been completed and when they actually have to break the tie in order to be able to award the trophy. Your desperation of having this column included when there is no tie is ridiculous as at the moment it is utter, utter trivia. Tvx1 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what would really help?

If you stopped being so aggressive in your editing. You have a documented history of making whatever changes you see fit regardless of the prevailing attitude of the other editors, then lecture people about edit warring.

You can't have it both ways. Leave the article along please. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid being sucked into this argument, but it's been on going for close to a month now. I'm in favor of keeping the second places in the table until someone wins the trophy. If winner did so without the tie-breaker we can remove the info, but if they do win with the tie-breaker, then the information is already there. There's no sense in continually adding and removing the information. JohnMcButts (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@PM There was no intent of aggression in my edit by any means. If you want to interpret that as aggressive that is your problem. I have made my arguments based on guidelines and policies, not by any means on personal preference. There's only one user here that is trying to stamp this through based on personal preference: you. I have explained you time and time again that your argument for inclusion, it might become useful someday, is invalid because of the WP:CRYSTAL policy. All in all your stance amounts to nothing else than "I like it". For the good order, I suggest both of us stop editing the article on this subject until the debate has been settled, that is if you are so determined to continue dragging on until you get things your way entirely disregarding the guidelines an policies. At the very least you could wait until there is some from input from the wider community, you accuse me of not caring about, in the request for comment I set up down below.

@JohnMcButts, you've clearly fallen for PM's trap of overdramatizing things and of speculating things into existence we don't know actually exist. As I had already stressed earlier, there will be TWO edits in the next six weeks to update this table. ONLY TWO. That's even remotely continuously adding and removing this information. So your concern isn't even in the slightest an issue. Tvx1 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that does not invalidate his opinion, and nor does it give you the right to disregard it and edit the article as you see fit - which has become an increasingly bad habit of yours. You did it during the numbering dispute, and again during the race titles saga. And here we are again. Once is an accident, and twice is coincidence, but three times is a pattern. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You're the one disregarding opinions here. You've disregarded mine, The³5₉ (Talk)'s and now there's *JoeTri10_'s which you can read below. You accuse me of not caring about the community, so I start a request for comment. But you don't even bother to wait for any response before trying to force your preferred version through. For the record, I did not edit the article by any means during the numbering dispute. The edit war that raged back then was between you (in fact you were involved in edit wars in all the examples you cited), Joetri10 and Eightball. I'm getting really tired of your accusations. Could you really for once and for all stop assuming bad faith by default in any user who disagrees with you, please. Tvx1 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith in people who disagree with me. I just see a pattern in your behaviour, which leads me to believe that you have broken WP:OWN. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: FIA Pole Trophy

Taking into account wikipedia's policies and guidelines, should the FIA Pole Trophy table contain a column listing the number of second grid positions the drivers achieved, which serves as a tiebreaker if two or more drivers have the same number of poles, when there is no tie currently in place?Tvx1 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No? What would be the purpose of that? *JoeTri10_ 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

*JoeTri10_, I'm not sure which side your argument is for, but for the good order: Arguments in Support or Oppose of the proposal can be posted in the "Survey" subsection underneath here. A more in depth-discussion can be held in the "Threaded discussion" sub-section. Tvx1 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose: The only concern of the table is to display who is currently leading the competition. When there is no tie, tiebreaker information is not needed to achieve that concern. Furthermore, including potential tiebreaker information on the grounds that it might become necessary someday is a via lotion of WP:Crystal and has recentism issues, although the latter is not a clear-cut problem. Tvx1 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

-sigh- Upon re-reading the discussion, I will change my attitude and stance on this. I was in the mindset that the default attitude here would be: In the position of a tie, an extra column (featuring second places) would be added to address the situation and once we again have a leader, the column would be removed. It would appear however that for some reason that is not the case. Pm; you do well on this, you're fast, precise and well educated with Wikipedia, so why for the love of god do you do this sometimes? It doesn't even make sense. TVx1's edit is the most on point for the article. There is no need for this........ Also, why in this case would Massa keep n/a to the chart? Is it because we know the poll was a fluke? He could very well be a contender for the cup for all anyone else would know. Plus what if there never is a tie again, Nico could very well storm ahead and the column would become more and more irrelevant; if not confusing at the same time. WP:Crystal anyone? *JoeTri10_ 00:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that adding and removing information as needed is little more than recentism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be the case if you were to suggest such a clause would arise at such a constant rate. To suggest that from now on Rosberg and Hamilton would continuously swap polls like trading cards is guess work as it could also go the other way and have Rosberg (or Lewis) be the constant poll holder. In actuality you'd be needing to constantly update the less important column just because you're using 'recentism' as justification to keep (which again seems to denote the idea of the aforementioned 'Crystal'). It's more plausible to return the column only when necessary then to constantly update it because something might happen. Besides, as Tvx1 mentioned previously, Recentism is much less (and more complicated) of an issue than Crystal, something in which you have preached to us multiple times in the past. If you're going to bake your cake, you should really eat it too. *JoeTri10_ 04:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are five options available to us:

1. Keep the column. The article will be consistent throughout the season.
2. Keep the column, but have some word above, to the tune of "Ties are separated by second places, which are shown in the table below".
3. Remove the column, but state above that "Ties are separated by second places, of which Hamilton (3) leads Rosberg (1)."
4. Remove the column, but just have "Ties are separated by second places". Not consistent, as column will have to added for every tie.
5. Remove the column, but add no prose. Not consistent, for the same reason as above.

Now, I think this discussion shows that options 1 and 5 are not agreeable to. We also cannot go about constantly adding and re-adding the column. We need to add some prose. I prefer the second option. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think option three is a good compromise. But I have to say once again that you and Prisonermonkeys are unnecessarily overdramatizing things. On short term we have need only two edits in the next six weeks to update this table. On long term we require only an average one edit every 1,89 weeks during an entire season to update this table. 19 edits in a 365 (or 366) days long year. And the chance that we would have to remove or add this column every time is next to nothing. So this claim that we would have to continuously add or remove the column is outright ridiculous. There's no need to make such a fuss about a potential having to add or remove three cells to a table "all the time". A difference that isn't even noticed by the majority of the readers. So options four and five are not unagreeable at all. But again, for me option three is a good compromise. Tvx1 (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with both options 2 and 3, so if PM is fine with option 3, then that is good to go. I understand that the number of edits is small but I'd prefer to not add and remove a column eight or nine times at most, because even though the edits are spread out and not particularly large, it is not consistent and I feel that repeated changes like this are to be avoided. Also, Tvx1, in situations like this, compromises have to be made. Neither I nor PM will have option 5, and you won't have option 1, or a middle ground that pleases all needs to reached. This is what I am trying to do. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

—Gyaro–Maguus—, I stated twice in my previous reply that I consider your third option a good compromise, so there is no need to insinuate that I'm unwilling to compromise.Tvx1 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If I knew people were going to react like this to one simple very occasional edit sequence then I would have supported Tvx1's idea instead

Pos.	Driver	Poles
1†	Nico Rosberg	5
2†	Lewis Hamilton	4
3	Felipe Massa	1

Notes:

• † — If a tie would occur, Lewis Hamilton would lead Nico Rosberg due to more second starting positions secured. *JoeTri10_ 22:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

-sigh-

I don't really like this new proposal put forward by the unknown person. My footnote proposal related to when there is a tie, not to when there is no tie. I don't think we should really start putting markers next to positions when there is really nothing to remark about them at the moment. It's not within the scope of this table to provide what might if. Gyaro's alternative (option three) would be much more efficient here. Tvx1 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And, as has been explained to you, your footnote proposal repeats what is already in the prose of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Pos.	Driver	Poles
1	Nico Rosberg	5
2	Lewis Hamilton	4
3	Felipe Massa	1

Notes:

• If a tie would occur, Lewis Hamilton would lead Nico Rosberg due to more second starting positions secured.

I would much prefer this. We don't need the dagger. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It's amazing how hard you guys are trying to make this issue. Ok fine, we don't need the dagger. (Ps, Tvx1, clearly it was me who wrote that, I forgot the sig once, something you clearly haven't done before -roll eyes-) *JoeTri10_ 22:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Be careful - deciding content based on whatever is least likely to upset a minority of editors rather than what is best for the article sets a bad precedent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that a matter of opinion? What's best for the article is simplicity however you are creating complicity out of opinion. *JoeTri10_ 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Our focus should be on improving the article, not trying to prevent a tantrum. Ideally, everyone would be equally satisfied, but when that can't be achieved, we should naturally satisfy the need within the article, rather than the whims of one person holding the article hostage because they are not getting their way, and I feel that settling for a redundant footnote or a grammatical mess of integrating it into existing prose because it will stop a disruptive editor is a bad decision. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine... well I've said what I think is best for the article and I also came to a compromise (Along with others). as neither of those worked for you and Tvx1's current article is also 'incorrect' then there's only one option left isn't there...... Yours (shocker). *JoeTri10_ 01:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about me getting my way. This is about my concerns that people are making decisions for the right reasons. A compromise is fine, but it shouldn't be made for the sake of calming down an extreme outlier. My concern about the proposed compromise is that it will be redundant, simply repeating what has been said in the explanation of how a tie is settled. And integrating that compromise into the existing text is not an option, because it will be a grammatical nightmare. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns. In fact, I have already stated that my footnote proposal doesn't work in this situation and that Gyaro's third option is a better compromise. If a grammar issue exists in the current example for this compromise, then that can be easily resolved. Contrary to what you seem to believe a grammar error in a sentence can be rectified. That's no nightmare at all. Could you please for once and for all stop overdramatizing minor issues. We really ought to search for a long-term solution that always works and not just now while Mercedes is dominating. To sum up the issues with your preferred version (always having a second place column), it puts undue weight on the tiebreaker, and thus what might happen if a tie occurs, and not on who is actually leading. Furthermore, like Joetri stated, that is what we would be updating most of the time even though it's the lesser important column. And what would be the point of all that if you have a situation where one driver has four poles more than his closest competitor, for instance? The same undue weight issue exists with Joetri's proposal, so that's why I consider Gyaro's cited proposal the best compromise that has been put forward. Tvx1 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Gyaro's proposal was simply that of mine/Tvx1's? but without the dagger. I too agree(d) to this *JoeTri10_ 04:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal #3 is the redundant one. The article currently details the protocol for addressing a tie, which proposal #3 simply repeats. And you can't get rid of that repetition by putting the season-specific content in without making a grammatical mess of things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So what do you propose we do? (Without adding the extra column in) *JoeTri10_ 06:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Gyaro's option three is the one where the relevant second place standings are incorporated in the prose above the table, not the one with the "redundant footnote" beneath it. I don't understand why you keep claiming that would cause a grammar nightmare. I don't see that by any means. Aside from that, a small tweak to the initial footnote proposal for a tie can effectively remove the "dramatic and unacceptable" repetition. Like this:

Pos.	Driver	Poles
1†	Lewis Hamilton	4
2†	Nico Rosberg	4
3	Felipe Massa	1

Notes:

• † — Lewis Hamilton has achieved three second places, Nico Rosberg achieved one.

See? Not a single word from the prose is repeated here. Just a small tweak has the potential of improving a proposal. Shooting down something based on an addressable concern doesn't help anything.

The issue with the extra columns is that it could lead to something like this: the pole trophy standings at the eve of the final race of the 2009 season:

Pos.	Driver	Poles	Second	Third
1	Sebastian Vettel	4	3	3
2	Jenson Button	4	1	1
3	Lewis Hamilton	3	0	1
4	Rubens Barichello	1	3	4
5	Jarno Trulli	1	3	0
6	Mark Webber	1	1	3
7	Fernando Alonso	1	1	0
8	Giancarlo Fisichella	1	0	0

This clearly creates more problems that it solves. There are much more cells present than there are really necessary. On top of that if would require quite some work to update the second and third place columns even if there is not tie that needs breaking. The same goal could easily be achieved like this:

Pos.	Driver	Poles
1†	Sebastian Vettel	4
2†	Jenson Button	4
3	Lewis Hamilton	3
4‡	Rubens Barichello	1
5‡	Jarno Trulli	1
6§	Mark Webber	1
7§	Fernando Alonso	1
8§	Giancarlo Fisichella	1

Notes:

• † — Sebastian Vettel has achieved three second places, Jenson Button achieved one.
• ‡ — Rubens Barichello and Jarno Trulli have both achieved three second places, Barichello achieved four third places while Trulli achieved none.
• § — Mark Webber and Fernando Alonso achieved one second place, while Giancarlo Fisichella achieved none. Webber achieved three third places, while Alonso achieved none.

Now pick yourself which one is the most efficient and contains the least superfluous data. Of course Gyaro's alternatives remain valid as well. Tvx1 (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how it could end up in the future does change my view on this. I think the notes could be done better, though I'm not sure how. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't decided what I think the best way forward is. All I know is that whatever it is, it will be done for the right reasons. Not because it will stop someone from throwing a temper tantrum. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we all know how you think about me, so you can stop repeating it now. Contrary to what you seem to believe I only thought about what is best for the article too. See, this is why I mentioned you assuming bad faith earlier on. I just think that is unnecessary to have an extra column even when there is no tie, which requires updating all the time just to remain accurate, because it might be necessary one day. Besides, that has policy and guideline issue as well, as I pointed out. Tvx1 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"I just think that is unnecessary to have an extra column even when there is no tie, which requires updating all the time just to remain accurate, because it might be necessary one day."

The same argument can be made for any representation of the tiebreaker in the article - whether it is a column, prose or a footnote. No matter how it is represented, it will always need to be updated when someone achieves a result that affects the tiebreaker. The only time the tiebreaker will directly affect the order of the table is when drivers are tied on poles - which is what it is designed to do. If you intend to add or remove footnotes or prose as needed, how is that any different to adding and removing a column as needed?

So what we're really debating here is not whether or not the tiebreaker should be included, but the best way to represent it in the article. And I think a visual representation is best because it shows that information in a way that is easy to take in and process. Look at the table you produced above, with multiple footnotes and blocks of text. That has its own innate complexity.

I think the best way forward would be a hybrid: a column showing second-place tiebreakers, and then notations for any subsequent results that are needed to settle the final standings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we put this sort of explanatory details in the list of world championship pointscore article instead of loading up season articles with data it does not recquire? Please bear in mind who our audience is. If we can refer to another source/document that explains tie-break procedures we do that, we don't repeat that explanation unneccessaily. --Falcadore (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

PM, you're mixing the two issues through each other here. I never stated that we should include the footnotes in the article even when there isn't any tie. That is just a proposal for when there is a tie. I suggested to go with —Gyaro–Maguus—'s proposal, incorporating the tie breaker information in the prose above the table, when there is no tie if you are really that desperate to even include this when there is no tie. To clarify what's the difference between using footnotes/prose and column, when you use footnote/prose you can limit the included tiebreaker information to the drivers that are actually involved in a tie, whereas with extra column you will have to include the information for drivers who aren't even remotely involved in a tie as well. That's the primary advantage of using footnotes/prose here. Tvx1 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So, the chance of having a tie has dropped once again. It's certain now that we won't have a tie until the 6th of september. I really don't see the point of including potential tiebreaker information that might have an use someday. The only concern of this table is displaying who is currently leading this minor side competition. It currently does so perfectly and doesn't desperately need the potential tiebreaker information right now. Tvx1 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"Reports"

In the list of the races for this season, shouldn't the final column be retitled "Articles" and the links in the column itself, each be "Article" - we don't do "reports", we do "articles".--ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I interpret "Report" as an abbreviation for "Race report article". Also note that "Report" is the standard column/link title used for all motorsport series (see 1993 IndyCar season, 2012 FIA World Endurance Championship season as examples), so there would need to be a consensus at Wikipedia Motorsport to change it. DH85868993 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Eliminations

Should the drivers who can no longer win the championship be highlighted in red somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.141.27 (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. DH85868993 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

André Lotterer

André Lotterer raced on this week's Grand Prix in Belgium, but he didn't finished the race. I thought that when a driver doesn't finish a race, he's not officially ranked in the standings. What I mean is that, right now he's ranked 23rd, but I thought he should be ranked "—" instead. If you look at the 2007 season with Markus Winkelhock, he didn't finished the European Grand Prix, and that was the only Grand Prix he participated in that season, and he's ranked as "—". I don't mind having a driver ranked, 23rd in this case, even if he didn't finish the race. All I'm asking basically is consistency. Either have both with a "—", or both with a number. If not, then I would like to know what's the difference. Thanks! ─ Fabzzz _talk 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Lotterer is not classified at the moment in the Drivers Championship. Unless of course, you look at F1.com, which says he's 23rd. We know F1.com make up the rules as they go along, but people here insist on using it. Either good sense will prevail and we abandon F1.com as a poor source, or we'll continue to be wrong. FORIX/Autosport and the regular Autosport website show Lotterer as unclassified. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He is not classified. So there have to be a "–". The person who made the update made a mistake. He is not listed in the FIA classification [1] --Gamma127 (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So it looks like it's only F1.com that have it wrong. I'll change it if it hasn't been done already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamilton's retirement in Belgium

Consensus achieved
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
In the season's report, the wording on Hamilton's retirement isn't quite accurate. The incident with Rosberg did not eventually force him to retire. The retirement was entirely voluntary on Mercedes' part. He could have easily finished the race if he or his team really wanted to. He signaled his team over the radio multiple times that it would be better to retire in order to save his power unit because he was too far back to be able to salvage some points. His team refused though, noticing his pace was good, in the hope of a Safety Car period which would have brought him right back into the hunt, like in Hungary. That didn't materialize and ultimately they decided to call it a day to save his power unit. A full chronological overview of the events can be found here. So I think we should tweak the wording somewhat to make it more accurate. Tvx1 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC) It did force Mercedes to consider reitrement. --Falcadore (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, but it didn't force the retirement itself, which is what the article is claiming now. As pointed out, they could have easily taken the chequered flag if they wanted to. There was no terminal damage on the car as a result of the incident. Tvx1 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Actually, no, it didn't force them to consider retirement. They didn't have to. There was no terminal damage. It was entirely their own choice to consider that. Tvx1 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Would "which eventually drove Mercedes to retire Hamilton's car" be any better? —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC) I do think that that or something like "which eventually led Mercedes to retire Hamilton's car" or "which eventually made Mercedes decide to retire Hamilton's car" would actually be better. Tvx1 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Something like "which ultimately prompted Mercedes to retire Hamilton's car" would probably be OK. It's just about keeping it fairly neutral. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) I think using "ultimately prompted" gives the most accurate idea of what actually happened. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) That would work just fine too. Tvx1 (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC) I've inserted Breton's sentence. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RB10 Photo

It looks horizontally distorted/compressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.8.168 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

F1 cars can look odd at unconventional angles. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Penalty Points

Who has the most penalty points this season? I've been unable to find out in this article.95.45.37.88 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A decision was made to not include it in the article. However, as the information here shows, Ericsson has 5; Bianchi, Maldonado and Magnussen have 4; Bottas and Sutil have 2 and Vergne has 1. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Rossi - Belgium

This may not be the place to note this, but I would just like to point out that Alexander Rossi's page has his appearance in Belgium listed as a "PO" (practice only), which is accurate considering that he was initially the driver entered for the whole weekend. A similar thing happened to Sergio Perez back at the 2011 Canadian GP, except in that case it was due to a concussion that he did not race. On Sergio's page the "PO" is considered an entry, and on Alexander's it is not considered an entry. Also, on the 2011 Formula One season page Sergio's "PO" is listed in the driver's championship standings, but Alexander's is not listed on this article. So basically:

Sergio Perez's "PO" in 2011 is being handled differently to Alexander Rossi's in 2014, and I think they need to be consistent.

Editadam 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sergio's "PO" should not appear in te results matrix and both their "PO's" on their driver pages should be changed to "TD". Tvx1 (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they are two different situations. Perez was an entrant in the Canadian Grand Prix, and pulled out after a practice session, to be replaced by de la Rosa. Rossi was set to be the entrant for Marussia, but this was changed back at the last moment to Chilton, and Rossi was only registered as a Friday practice driver. Consensus here is to track each entrant to the Grand Prix in the results matrices, and that Friday practice drivers are not entrants, and their participation is only noted on their own article. Hence, Perez gets a "PO" on the season article and his driver page, while Rossi gets a "TD" on his page. QueenCake (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought Rossi was officially entered for the Grand Prix and then it was changed to Chilton. Rossi only drove in FP1, yes, but I think he was actually entered for the race at the beginning of the session, just like Perez in 2011. I think both of them should be kept as "PO's" because they were actually entered for the GP at one point, and then withdrawn. But I do think that Perez's "PO" should not be included in the season results matrix, similar to how Kamui Kobayashi's "PO" from Japan 2009 is not included. But the question is whether or not it should be considered an entry on each driver's page.Editadam 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Rossi was indeed an official entrant. This is the official entry list that was released on thursday before the Grand Prix weekend. His car (#42) went through pre-Grand Prix scrutineering and he was one of the 22 designated drivers. Then on friday morning his team went through the official procedures in order to have the nominated driver changed in accordance with Article 19 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations. So yes, he should be credited with an entry and noted as "PO" as procedure-wise his situation is the same as Perez's (i.e. nominated driver being changed after the start of the Grand Prix Weekend). I agree as well with the notion that PO's, just like TD's should not be included in the season articles' result matrices. Tvx1 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the first time this has ever happened, i.e. a race driver being demoted to FP1 driver mid-event. So let's not place too much importance on precedents, because there aren't any. Regarding "PO", I've never been keen on it, and I think it's being misused. I understood it to mean drivers who were never intended to race, prior to the whole Friday third driver concept, in the days of T-cars and guest drivers / drivers practicing in each other's cars, that kind of rhythm. No other source uses "PO" anyway, so why do we? If a driver is entered for a race and doesn't start, he should either be "DNS", DNQ/DNPQ" or "EX". Perez in Canada 2011 was a DNS, and can't really be anything else. He's definitely not a "TD". Regarding "PO" and "TD" in season results matrices, I agree that both are a no-no.

As for Rossi – yes, he was on the entry list that Tvx1 links to, BUT that wasn't the final entry list. It was adjusted according to Article 19. Throughout history, all kinds of drivers have appeared on entry lists, only for a new entry list to be drawn up without them on it, even at late stages. We don't list those drivers. Rossi technically isn't any different. Ultimately, he was an FP1 driver and that's how we ought to treat him. One parallel I can draw is Japan 1976, when Masami Kuwashima was replaced after one practice session by Williams. He was entered and didn't start, so he's listed as a DNS. However, Rossi's role was changed to that of an FP1 driver, so that's what he ought to be shown as. For the record, FORIX/Autosport has Rossi as FP1. The other thing is that if Rossi is credited with an entry, then he has to be in the WDC table, and to my knowledge, no source lists him in their WDC table. So neither should we. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm getting a bit confused here. We have two well-seasoned project members claiming a different use of the "PO" moniker. First there's QueenCake who claims that it denotes a driver who was officially enter to race in a Grand Prix, but ultimately didn't and only took part in a free practice session. Then there's User:Bretonbanquet who claims that it actually is a predecessor to the now commonly used TD and thus denotes a driver who wasn't entered for the race and simply took part in a free practice session. So if we really want to give an answer on Editadam's question wether or not Rossi needs a PO we should really establish and agree upon what's the correct meaning of PO or if it should be even used in the first place. Breton, regarding your last sentence. Why would Rossi have to be in the WDC table if he is credited with simply an entry? After all Loterer, who actually drove in the race, isn't in the table either, is he? Tvx1 (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Lotterer is already in the WDC table, and an entry would mean that Rossi should be in that table. An example of this is Ricardo Zonta in 2005, who has no starts but is in the table (and rightly so). And based on my understanding of it, I think the "PO" moniker should be used when a driver has been entered as a race driver for the weekend but is then withdrawn before qualifying begins, after participating in one or more practice session (like what happened to Rossi and Perez). Obviously, if a driver is entered into qualifying that driver receives a "DNS" or "DNQ" depending on why they don't start.

But after thinking about this, and based on this definition of the "PO" moniker, drivers that receive a "PO" should not be credited with an entry, as their entry to the event was withdrawn before qualifying began. So neither Perez nor Rossi should be credited with an entry and the PO should not go in the WDC table, and it should basically be handled like a "TD", although it is certainly different than a "TD". Editadam 17:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1's confusion is perfectly understandable, and frankly, I share it. I don't know if there ever was a definition of "PO" or concrete criteria regarding how and when to use it. I don't recall being part of the discussion (although I might have been), but I've never been very happy with its use. So yes, we ought to establish exactly what it means before trying to decide whether to ascribe it to Rossi or anyone else.

But any driver who is on the final entry list has an entry, and so will be in the WDC table. So Lotterer is, and Rossi isn't, according to the sources. With regard to Editadam's last point – Perez does have an entry for Canada 2011, it's in all the sources. I doubt his entry was withdrawn per se, it just wasn't used by him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If there was a discussion on the correct usage of "PO" I can only guess it was when the tables were originally created. I do recall on a previous discussion concerning the results tables being told the use was for drivers who were entered into a Grand Prix and participated in a practice session, but for whatever reason did not attempt to set a time in qualifying, so I have always presumed this was an established consensus. I do agree it is out of sync with everywhere else, but I can see it being more useful than DNS (which is generally understood as a driver who doesn't start the race after qualifying) for people looking at the 2011 table and wondering why Sauber had three entries. QueenCake (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"PO" definitely came along after I went around updating all the tables to the current format. If the discussion you recall was true then that's exactly what we're not here to do. That is "making it up as we go along", inventing a term and applying it using our own criteria, which we apparently now can't remember. Therefore it has failed. We should be sticking very strictly to the reliable sources. As regards Canada 2011, if people wonder anything about it, they need only look at the race article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The original discussion is here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 4#Race and Career Result Charts – scroll down to "Non-results..." and it's there. User:Pyrope suggested "PO" and it was then put into the key. It looks a lot like it was a discussion that Pyrope and I had on our own with no other input apart from a line of support from User:Diniz. Those were the days ;) But I think its usage has been stretched since that time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

<offtopic> Eeee... when I were a lad we had to file ANIs in cuneiform... </offtopic> ;-) Pyrope 21:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A footnote could be added to the team and driver table (as the matrix is a template, it can't go there) explaining how Rossi was scheduled to drive in Belgium, but subsequently replaced by Chilton. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
So, If I got that original discussion right, PO is to be used articles concerning events from before 2003, whereas TD is used from 2003-present. Much like in this template: Template:F1 driver results legend 2. If that's the case then neither Rossi, nor Perez, nor Kobayashi should receive a PO. Of course, Prisonermonkeys' proposal is good alternative to deal with this situation. Tvx1 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think both Rossi and Perez should be listed in those tables as PO. After all, they entered those practice sessions as the designated race driver for that particular car — after all, both Marussia and Sauber had to submit paperwork to the FIA to get the driver changes approved (and in the case of Marussia, re-submit for Chilton).

I suppose it comes down to where we draw the line as to when we consider a driver to have participated in a Grand Prix. We had this problem a few years ago when Timo Glock took ill after free practice in Valencia, and never qualified or raced, but was still listed as having participated in the Grand Prix. It was a problem because the sporting regulations say that you must qualify in order to be able to race. There is no requirement to take part in free practice. Yes, there are provisions that allow drivers to enter the race without having set a qualifying time, but it's a rule that is designed to stop one person qualifying a car, and then another person racing it. So perhaps we should change the definition of when a person is considered to have participated in a race as a race driver; that might help resolve this issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Just like Marussia now, Sauber had to re-submit to allow for de la Rosa to compete. Participating in a Grand Prix is not the same as participating in a race. A Grand Prix denotes the entire weekend, whereas just the race is denoted by the word "race". So, yes it is correct to list Glock as having participated in the Grand Prix. He participated in free practice which is part of Grand Prix. Tvx1 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

So are we in the clear now regarding the use of "PO", and, if so, should we apply it to the mentioned drivers? Tvx1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is this being debated? The correct answer is either "DNP" or "DNQ", it is right there in the legend. All this talk of PO and TD is talking of Rossi as if he was a test driver who never was intended to start the race. Neither PO nor TD is applicable in this instance. --Falcadore (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. "DNP" stands for "did not practice", which cannot be used because Rossi did practice. "DNQ" is for someone who failed to qualify, and this cannot be used because Rossi wasn't entered for qualifying. As for "TD", it is typically used for Friday test drivers – and Rossi was not originally entered like that. I personally prefer "PO", because he was entered for the race, but only practiced, so technically he fulfills the criteria for that one. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using "PO" at all because we made it up. It has no basis in any sources that we use. Rossi was not entered at all as of first thing that morning, then he was in, but by FP2 that entry was withdrawn and changed. That's why he's not in the WDC table. In the event, he was used as a FP1 test driver, and that is how the sources are treating him, FORIX for one. That's why we have "TD". If we decide that Rossi still had an entry, we'd have to put him in the WDC table and look like dickheads. Don't forget that we are bound by the sources we use. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should be using PO, I feel it makes more sense, TD for me doesn't quite fit it, although I'd get it, as a user of wikipedia, I feel PO sounds right, and we should use that. CDRL98 (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? Why don't you think TD doesn't quite fit? You feel PO sounds right... why? What aspects of PO vs TD do you think are relevant to Rossi's entry? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I would use PO because it is practice, I wouldn't think of it as a Test drive, therefore not TD CDRL98 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

All test drivers only drive in practice, and Rossi only drove in FP1, just like all other test drivers. How do you (and anyone else, for that matter) get around all the sources treating Rossi as an FP1 driver? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

TD does not stand for Test Driver but for (Friday) Third Driver. I do not agree with the notion that a driver that has practiced only MUST be listed in the Championship tables. Anyways, there should be consistency throughout our articles. Either all drivers mentioned receive a PO, either they all receive a TD. Tvx1 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They are also test drivers, in nearly all cases. On race weekends, they act as third drivers, and as you rightly point out, that's what TD stands for. But they can also be referred to as test drivers because that's what their day job is. To your other point, drivers who have practiced only cannot be listed in the WDC tables because they don't have race entries. Lastly, PO can technically be removed as unsourced if people insist on using it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what's the outcome of the discussion then? Should we credit any of the mentioned drivers with something or not? Tvx1 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-classified finish (NC)

Shouldn't Non-classified finish (NC) be purple and not blue? It counts the same as a retirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.129.38 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they are different things. A retirement means a driver did not finish the race at all. Not classified, on the other hand, means they were still running at the end of the race, but did nit complete enough laps. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I know they are different. I'm saying isn't an NC closer to a Ret than a non-points finish? NC means you weren't classified, just like a Ret. You can't even score points if you aren't classified, even if you finished in a points position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.129.38 (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

NC means that a driver was still running at the end of the race, but did not complete enough laps. DNF means a driver stopped before the end of the race. NC is a very rare outcome, so there is no real need to differentiate it. If anything, it is closer to a non-points finish because the car is still running. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing icon

Sutil and Bianchi retired from the race in Suzuka but they were classified as as they completed more than 90% of the race distance. the icon (†) is missing in both the Drivers' and Constructors' standings. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks a lot for notifying us! Tvx1 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)