Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Another proposal

Been trying to think of other ways to do the table without drastically changing it from past seasons. What do you guys think of this? ^Kytabu_Talk 01:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No.	Driver	Team	Constructor [Car Details]	Rounds
1	Sebastian Vettel	Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault Chassis: RB10 Tyre: P Engine: Renault Energy F1-2014	All
3	Daniel Ricciardo	Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault Chassis: RB10 Tyre: P Engine: Renault Energy F1-2014	All
4	Max Chilton	Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari Chassis: MR03 Tyre: P Engine: Ferrari 059/3	All
6	Nico Rosberg	Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes Chassis: F1 W05 Tyre: P Engine: Mercedes	All
7	Kimi Räikkönen	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari Chassis: TBA Tyre: P Engine: Ferrari 059/3	1-17
8	Romain Grosjean	Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault Chassis: E22 Tyre: P Engine: Renault Energy F1-2014	All
11	Sergio Pérez	Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes Chassis: VJM07 Tyre: P Engine: Mercedes	All
13	Pastor Maldonado	Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault Chassis: E22 Tyre: P Engine: Renault Energy F1-2014	All
14	Fernando Alonso	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari Chassis: TBA Tyre: P Engine: Ferrari 059/3	All
17	Jules Bianchi	Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari Chassis: MR03 Tyre: P Engine: Ferrari 059/3	1-17
		Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari Chassis: TBA Tyre: P Engine: Ferrari 059/3	18-19
19	Felipe Massa	Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes Chassis: FW36 Tyre: P Engine: Mercedes	All
20	Kevin Magnussen	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes Chassis: MP4-29 Tyre: P Engine: Mercedes	All
21	Esteban Gutiérrez	Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari Chassis: C33 Tyre: P Engine: Ferrari 059/3	All
22	Jenson Button	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes Chassis: MP4-29 Tyre: P Engine: Mercedes	All
25	Jean-Éric Vergne	Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault Chassis: STR9 Tyre: P Engine: Renault Energy F1-2014	All
26	Daniil Kvyat	Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault Chassis: STR9 Tyre: P Engine: Renault Energy F1-2014	All
27	Nico Hülkenberg	Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes Chassis: VJM07 Tyre: P Engine: Mercedes	All
44	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes Chassis: F1 W05 Tyre: P Engine: Mercedes	All
77	Valtteri Bottas	Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes Chassis: FW36 Tyre: P Engine: Mercedes	All
99	Adrian Sutil	Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari Chassis: C33 Tyre: P Engine: Ferrari 059/3	All
#	Driver Name	Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari Chassis: MR03 Tyre: P Engine: Ferrari 059/3	18-19
TBA	TBA	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault Chassis: CT04 Tyre: P Engine: Renault Energy F1-2014	All
TBA	TBA	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault Chassis: CT04 Tyre: P Engine: Renault Energy F1-2014	All

I'm not a fan. It is another over-complicated solution to a problem that does not exist. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind it. Don't think it needs the car details to be hidden. --Falcadore (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This layout is actually very much like what you would find in a traditional event program. --Falcadore (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's about twelve times bigger than it needs to be, and looks messy on a mobile device because it doesn't have the collapsible function. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What if you get rid of the collapsible part like this? ^Kytabu_Talk 06:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's bigger than it needs to be. It doesn't do anything that the current table does not already do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the exact same size as the current table so I don't see how it's bigger than it needs to be. I'm just trying to come up with something different, seeing as everyone can't agree on what to do with the current style. ^Kytabu_Talk 22:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the style which is the debate. --Falcadore (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also unnecessarily duplicating information. Like I said, what does this table do that the other versions do not? It contains all of the same information, after all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If this had to happen - I'm still opposed, but open to ideas - then I would suggest making these changes:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
No.	Driver	Team	Constructor (Car Details)		Rounds
1	Sebastian Vettel	Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault		All
			Chassis	Red Bull RB10
			Engine	Renault Energy F1-2014

I'm still not keen on it. The vertical height of the table will be much bigger, and it will be considerably narrower. But it might be possible to halve the height by making two columns:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
No.	Driver	Team	Constructor (Car Details)		Rounds		No.	Driver	Team	Constructor (Car Details)		Rounds
1	Sebastian Vettel	Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault		All		20	Kevin Magnussen	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes		All
			Chassis	Red Bull RB10						Chassis	McLaren MP4-29
			Engine	Renault Energy F1-2014						Engine	Mercedes (engine name)

I left out the Pirelli icon because everyone uses Pirelli tyres.

Still, not a fan of the concept. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeh, Sorry. Not to be a negative force again but we just got over arguing about numbers. Why all of a sudden do we have discussion on changing how the actual layout is? Have I missed the point? I guess the new idea looks nice but a little big. Joetri10 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering your preferred option is based on something that is not relevant to the season depicted (hence the lack of a sortable option) it is unlikely you could be impressed. What happenned in 2013 is not that important to the 2014 season that it needs to be an unexplained influence in the manner you support. --Falcadore (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Who are you talking to and what on earth are you talking about Falcadore?. Prison simply doesn't like the size of the table whilst I just said don't understand why it's being considered for change at all in the first place?. Nobody said anything about the seasons? Joetri10 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your insistance on the merits of Constructors order, would have thought that to be obvious. --Falcadore (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even mention that? You're still not paying attention are you? Get that stick out of your ass. My question was: why is the layout design of the chart being changed? Why is it getting bigger then before? Why is stuff getting cramped. Why is it even up for change in the first place when the actual problem before was how information was listed. You just lost credibility fast with me Falc, sorry Joetri10 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore, ffs, we JUST got over that argument, why in the world would you feel the need to bring it up again? As far as I'm concerned you have no further place here. Grow up. Eightball (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How did we do that, did I miss something? This whole thread is freakin' complicated mess. As I understood it we were standing back pending a resolution. If that isn't the case please let me know. --Falcadore (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I hate to be annoying...

I really do, but what is wrong with listing the teams in number order? It makes the most sense. 58.168.85.19 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The concern is that, when arranged in number order, there is no apparent pattern to them. It would go 1-3-4-17-6-44-7-14-8-13-9-10-11-27-19-77-20-22-21-99-25-26. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely people can look at it and see that the order is based on the lowest number at each team, being 1-4-6-7-8-9-11-19-20-21-25. ^Kytabu_Talk 12:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Then the problem turns into understanding a lack of point for the most part. They will see the numbers are going numerically and then have to find why the numbers are so screwy this time. Leading then to finding out why they have these numbers and then wondering why it matters for them to be numerical when their actual purpose before (In these articles) is now defunct. Joetri10 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just add a note at the top like "Teams ordered alphabetically by constructor name" or "Teams ordered by the lowest numbers of drivers who drive for the team" (that second one would have to be reworded)? The reader would instantly understand how the table has been ordered. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That should not be necessary. No other motorsport season article does it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Number order makes more sense than constructors order, because there is nothing, anywhere, in the article that indicates why it should be in constructors order. Number order makes some sense because there is a pattern based on the lowest number in each team. To find out why it is in constructors order you have to open a whole other article - the preceeding years article - and even then it recquires a familiarity with Formula One that we can not assume a reader will have. Both number and alphabetical order makes sense and is obvious to the reader (after all Joetri10 it is you says readers are not idiots, every second number is not that difficult to discern) but constructors order does not. It is based entirely on facts not in evidence and needs a secondary explanation to be understood. --Falcadore (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with number order? The numbers aren't in order, as Prisonermonkey's row of numbers makes clear. Ordering by every second number is not very logical, hard to fathom for unfamiliar readers, ugly (to my eyes), and I've yet to see any other source doing it. I accept the arguments against constructor order, and I'm still in favour of alphabetical. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Manual archiving

Let's leave this here before it turns into any more mudslinging. Issue resolved by bot.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The page, in its current form, is roughly 250,000kB in length. This is entirely too long. Now, I am well aware that there is an automatic archive scripted for this page, but considering that most of the content is redundant or has been incorporated into the article, I see no reason why it should not be archived early. And I would dearly like User:Sport and politics to explain himself in why he is reverting the article constantly, restoring 250,000kB of unnecessary and outdated information simply because a bot will come by in a month. It is more convenient for everyone if the page is archived now. I would also like him to explain why he blanked Talk:2014 Formula One season/Archive 3 to justify his borderline edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Manual Archiving is wholly unnecessary on this page as a bot does the archiving. If the page is getting too long then the time the bot does the archiving should be reduced. In this case it has been reduced from 30 days to 7 days, please also do not fall in to assumed male pro-nouns when talking about people. I would also like to ask why Prisonermonkeys when they did their most recent "archive" did not move the talk page content to an archive. In doing so they effectively deleted the information as opposed to archiving the data. The above mentioned page was not "blanked" as has been claimed. The unnecessary archiving was simply undone and the random single section in the now deleted archive 4 was moved to its appropriate place in archive 1. Archives 3 and 4 were speedy deleted as general archive clean up. There is nothing really here apart from Prisonermonkeys getting a little hot and over the top over their manual archiving being unnecessary and their removal of information which was not put in archive being restored. This is all way out of proportion and could easily have been avoided by simply changing the frequency the bot automatically archives as opposed to manually archiving, which is wholly pointless, or Prisonermonkeys simply starting a discussion about if the page needed to be archived. The bold approach here has simply been the wrong way to go about this and has in my opinion left Prisonermonkeys looking very silly. Sport and politics (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC) No there is no problem with Manual Archiving as such when it's clear that the Automatic Archiving does not work because the page reaches a size exceeding 250,000 (!) kB provided that the archived discussion(s) are completely finished. I did not know however that any user can change the automatic archiving cycle. Some time ago, I took the liberty to Manually Archive some 150,000 kB of obsolete discussions (mainly focussing on the Sirotkin debate) well after they had concluded and I got not complaints about it. Regarding this situation however, I do not think it is right to archive anything regarding the debate concerning the table order because it has not finished by any means. For a start, by archiving the lot, all the visual examples of the different proposals were removed. That should not have happened. Lastly I would like to point out that the Auto Archiving has some flaws as well. The bot only archives a discussion when the entire heading received no more replies during the preset time. It does not however take into account the numerous subheadings. This why some subheading which have had no replies for over 30 days (which was the original archiving time) are still present on the talk page. This why it is avoidable to have to many subheading and preferable to use entirely new headings. Tvx1 (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you, User:Sport and politics for not answering the question. Again, why is it so important that we let the bot do all of the archiving in a month when it is clearly in the interests of the page to have that content archived now? Or do you really think that edit requests for Max Chilton's number are crucial issues that everyone needs to be aware of? There is no Wikipedia policy that says editors cannot archive material on their own. Even if there was, policies are only guidelines, and you can WP:IGNORE them if need be. 250,000kB of useless content on the talk page is as good a case for manual archiving if ever there was one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC) The bot came, the bot saw, the bot moved about 210 kB into three new archives. We can now all be happy. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC) As Maguus has said the bot has done its job so case closed and this storm in a tea cup is over and over the top hot headiness from Prisonermonkeys can now be directed at something else.Sport and politics (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Okay. For my next topic, I choose you and your unacceptable conduct. Particularly the way you contribute nothing except, but still see fit to inflict your will on on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Test Drivers/Free Practice Drivers

I think it would be a good idea to introduce a test drivers or free practice drivers column. We did this in 2013 so I think it would be a good idea. I am new to wiki so can someone else please do it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyhead99 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We have plans to. However, we have no idea who those drivers might be, so we are not in a position to add them just yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I know that Sergey Sirotkin is a test driver for Sauber and I think Susie Wolff for Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyhead99 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And Antonio Felix da costa and Sebastian Buemi for red bull. Pedro de la rosa for Ferrari. That's enough isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyhead99 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We need to know which rounds they are driving at. Last year, it was decided that test drivers should only be included in the article if they actually drive in at a race meeting. Just joining a team - they need to have some kind of discernable contribution to be included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you confuse "test driver" with the newer term "friday driver". Test drivers don't necessarily drive at race meetings. You should bring back the "test/reserv drivers" column, an add a "friday driver" column for the drivers who actually participate in the friday practice session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.164.12 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Since in season testing will return this year, "test drivers" have a role again and they should be listed again. Not only those who actually participate in one of the First Practice sessions of one the Grands Prix. Tvx1 (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Car images and COPYVIO

Can everyone please keep an eye on the car articles for images that break COPYVIO? I have noticed that an IP editor has been uploading images to the articles in the past few hours, and some of them are definitely not free.

• The McLaren MP4-29 and Sauber C33 images are the launch photos released by those teams.
• I suspect the Mercedes F1 W05 image has been taken from F1 Fanatic with the copyright stamp cropped out.
• I do not know about the Ferrari F14 T. It is not a great quality shot, but the timing of the upload is suspicious.

Thanks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: The W05 image appears to have been taken from Autosport's gallery, not F1 Fanatic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No numbers, alphabetical teams and drivers

Since the above discussion got driven away from a resolution, I thought I would reboot to the last saved point. Would it be worth considering removing the number column from the article - the most contentious point of the table - and instead arranging the teams alphabetically by constructor name, and the drivers alphabetically within their teams?

Such a system would give priority to the rounds a driver participated in in the event of a mid-season driver change. Demo table above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to remove the numbers entirely, as they're still a useful way for identifying cars/drivers. They just aren't very useful for sorting a table if they aren't all in order.

As for sorting the table (Teams then Drivers) alphabetically, I have already voiced my opinion that this is the best option. I don't think labeling the drivers as "A" and "B" is the way to go. (although the camera mounting colors could be incorporated somehow) JohnMcButts (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind, the last thing the table needs is to add color and make it even more confusing. JohnMcButts (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That colour was really just there to tie drivers to one car. In the example, Frijns replaced Kobayashi, so the two are grouped together to show one replaced the other in the same car. However, the rounds column does the same thing, showing where one driver stopped and the other began. It would only be a potential issue if a team replaced both drivers at the same time, but even then, they can be grouped together (ie Frijns and Kobayashi go together, while Ericsson and Juncadella go together as well), and the whole thing is accompanied by prose under the table explaining the changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the rounds column works for that. No matter what system we use to order the table, replacement drivers should be directly bellow (when possible) whoever they are replacing. It becomes tricky for something like HRT in 2010, but we should stay focused on the main sorting factor. Things like mid-season replacements can be addressed later, once we have a consensus for the table. JohnMcButts (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be totally OK with this. I'd leave the numbers in the table for identification purposes etc, just that they are not suitable for ordering the list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing the numbers entirely has to be the single stupidest thing this conversation has generated. You're suggesting ripping useful information out of the article simply because we can't agree on a way to sort said numbers. That's insane, and I absolutely refuse to agree to such nonsense. Eightball (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. Tvx1 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Driver, team and personnel changes

I saw an edit just now that added details of changes in Lotus' management structure. I removed them for the time being, but it did get me thinking - is this something we should consider covering? Formula 1 is not NASCAR, where the crew chiefs are as well-known as the drivers, but a change in management will almost certainly has some effects on the team. Is this something we should consider adding to the article, and if so, what should be included? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes in Management; as well as changes in sponsors, Both have a much bigger affect of teams then one would think. Should it have it's own section on the brief showcase of the year though? I reckon so. But a slight description of their position within the team should be surely noted alongside. Joetri10 (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes in sponsors certainly have a big influence. Take the 2006 and 2007 Formula One Seasons, for instance. In 2006, Honda, with numerous sponsors, the most important being Lucky Strike, finished a respectable fourth in the championship. In 2007 they had no sponsors at all and they duly dropped to a eight place in the championship. Tvx1 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you prove that Honda's dismal results in 2007 were a direct result of the team's failure to find a sponsor? Or was it because Honda insisted on having a Japanese national design their cars, and so hired Shuhei Nakamoto for the position, a man the engineers were openly saying was out of his depth by the end of the 2008 season?

Sponsor changes should not be covered. They are a purely cosmetic change. They might bring money to a team, but we have no idea how much (unless teams say, which they rarely do), and teams often acquire several new sponsors from season to season. If we were to detail that, it would put undue weight on something that only changes the colours of the car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, sponsor changes are not purely cosmetic changes. Allow me to give another, admittably extreme, example. The 1997 Formula One season and the disastrous attempt of Mastercard Lola to take part in it. They wanted to enter in 1998, but their sponsor forced them to enter a year early. Needless to say they weren't ready by any means and after one dismal attempt at qualifying for a race at the Australian Grand Prix their sponsor left and as a result of that the team collapsed and with it nearly the parent company Lola Cars. Clearly sponsorship means more than just a colour. If that's not enough for you I can cite many more examples. Like, for instance, the collapse of Super Aguri after they lost their main sponsor Ss United. We can easily give a short mention to the most important management and sponsorship changes in an other changes section underneath the table. We don't need to go in much detail at all. Which changes are mentioned can be decided by their notability, i.e. the amount of media coverage they get within the sources we use to make these pages. Tvx1 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Title sponsor changes are often not purely cosmetic. Minor sponsors changes usually are. Honda's poor results in 2007 were probably in part due to a lower budget as they lacked a sponsor; it's hardly a leap of faith/imagination to make that statement. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, still speculation. We cannot claim to know what a team's budget was under an old sponsor, what their budget will be under a new sponsor, and how any difference between their sponsor arrangements will affect their performance.

After all, the Brawn BGP-001 started out as a Super Aguri project. When Aguri folded, it was acquired by Honda. When Honda withdrew, it was inherited and finished by Brawn GP. It was developed by three teams with minimal budgets and almost no sponsorship to speak of - by the end of the year, Brawn were relying on race-by-race sponsor deals just to finish the season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Which underlines the importance of sponsors once again, because if they didn't have them they wouldn't have been able to finish the season. Honestly, were talking of giving hardly one line of text in an entire article for a title sponsor change. Why are you making such a fuss about this? Tvx1 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Drivers can't finish a race without pitcrew, but we don't detail that information. If we are to detail everything a team cannot do without the articles would become loaded up with trivia that gets in the way of what the article is supposed to do, tell the story of how the 2014 season was won and lost. I feel some of these debates lose touch with that outcome and is a side effect of there being no races at this time of year.

If only some of this excess energy during this time of year could be used to flesh out season description instead of discussing minuatae. --Falcadore (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you and Prisonermonkeys keep acting like we want to write an essay with a length of half an article per sponsor change and why do both of you keep insisting in making this a much bigger problem than it really is. We're talking about a mere note of a around one line in case their a change in title sponsor for a team. For this season,i.e., we are talking about mentioning one title sponsor change: Mclaren & Vodafone. That means adding no more than a couple of 100's of kB to a page that currently has a size of 90.738 kB. I don't see how that loads it up with trivia and gets in the way of what the article is supposed to do. Both of you are being utterly unreasonable. Furthermore, I've done some research and found that some of the previous season's articles already mention sponsorship changes which means we're actually discussing something that is already allowed. Tvx1 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is supposed to describe things that affect the season as a whole. Ricciardo moving from Toro Rosso to Red Bull is a change that affects the season as a whole because he will be scoring points for a different team. Williams switching from Renault to Mercedes is a change that affects the season as a whole because it means a change in their constructor name, so results will be credited differently. But McLaren changing sponsors from Vodafone to whoever does not affect the season as a whole - just McLaren. Therefore, it is better-suited to the McLaren article, not the season article. Especially since you cannot definitively credit any changes in performance to a change in sponsor.

If other season articles do it, then that content should be removed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And who decides that the content should be removed? You all by yourself? You need a consensus to remove well sourced content. Tvx1 (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A Formula One season surely is first and formost about 20 or so motor races. Is it really that bad to ask to focus on those races rather than on background information? We don't want F1 articles to end up looking like 2009 Formula 3 Euro Series season where ten times the words are used detailing who changed teams than there is description of how the series was won?

Why is emphasising where the focus should be, a bad thing? --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Both you and Prisonermonkeys are experts in unnecessarily dramatazing things, I must say! We are not suggesting any thing near like the Formula 3 Euro Series season article and you know that. We're proposing articles just like the 2011, 2012 and 2013 Formula One season ones with just two or three extra lines in the changes section underneath the entry list. The main focus would remain with the season report and how it was won or lost. I made that crystal clear and I can't see at all why you claim otherwise. Neither do I understand why you suggest that we start fleshing out a season description already even though the season is yet to start and it's absolutely forbidden, four reasons I fail to understand, to write even a single word concerning preseason testing. We never suggested shifting the main focus to the changes section, only to expand it a tiny bit. I even know this works because some previous season's articles mention some of these changes and is so annoying and eye-catching that neither you nor Prisonermonkeys noticed their presence. Your doing exactly what BroSwerve mentioned earlier: you're speculating into existance a problem that does not exist! Tvx1 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason why we do not cover testing at any great length is because it is generally accepted that testing times mean nothing. Teams have their own programmes that they follow, and there is rarely any emphasis on one-lap pace. What conclusions are we supposed to draw from any of that? The most we can say is that testing happened.

Occasionally, there may be things that happen during testing that warrant a mention. The 2012 season article includes these details, because Lotus' problems with their chassis were quite serious. I would argue that the issues Renault are having with their engine should be mentioned in the article, but I would prefer to wait until they determine the cause of the problem and create a solution before including anything in the article.

You seem to be of the belief that because something happens, it is automatically noteable enough for inclusion in the article. Using that logic, we might as well go through and list the reasons why each driver chose the number that they did. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1: You talk of my overdramatising arguments. I did not feel it was necessary to say I was referring to the 2013 season report as it is of course impossible to start work on the 2014 season report, but it seems to downscale your own dramatics I need to. Is there anything else I should spell out more specifically for your benefit?

The reason why I put my point in the way that I have is because we have had this exact problem in the F1 articles where minor bullet points which don't neccessairly need those difficult things as sentence composition or adequate referencing has overloaded the F1 season articles. This is not speculating a problem into existance but preventing a problem recurring. You write as though this is invention. 2007 Formula One season, 2005 Formula One season are examples of where more emphasis of changes from the previous season are given greater emphasis rather than the season the article focuses on. Later seasons got much worse before a concerted effort by WPF1 editors improved the situation. --Falcadore (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not including major sponsor changes is outrageously irresponsible. There are countless knock on effects that happen pre-season, during and even afterwards. Driver sign up's, change in management, money issues, lack of competitiveness. Of course sponsors are not the only major factor for all of these problems but it should still be noted even extremely briefly if one major one happens (Vodafone and McLaren for example).

As for pre-season testing, most of this should be added into the teams respective pages, however the problems Renault are (currently) having are almost catastrophic not only to purchasing teams but F1 itself. Right now it's all guess work and waiting for answers but if true fears happen, it's probably worth a note and maybe the fact that it even happened at all?. Anything else from the testing is rather irrelevant to this page specifically. Joetri10 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming that a sponsor change is notable enough for inclusion simply because it happened. You are assuming it has the same weight and resonance throughout the season as a driver change of change of an engine supplier. You characterise their exclusion as "outrageously irresponsible", and then suggest that their inclusion should only be mentioned "extremely briefly", which seems like a contradiction to me. How is it irresponsible to leave sponsor changes out? How does the fact that a sponsor changed have any lasting impact on the season as a whole? How is their inclusion as critical to the article as regulation, driver or engine supplier changes? I find your use of the term "outrageously irresponsible" to be provocative, alarmist and ironically irresponsible given that you have failed to show any cause for their inclusion.

I do not even know why we are discussing sponsor changes - this discussion was intended to be about the merits of including the movements of senior team personnel in the article. Ross Brawn's retirement, Eric Boullier's move to McLaren and Martin Whitmarsh's appointment, James Allison joining Ferrari and Rory Byrne's return, the breaking up of Red Bull's aerodynamics team; these are all significant events with a lasting, tangible impact upon the season, and their inclusion is far more justified than sponsor changes. And yet, some people have ignored this and are under the belief that it is a travesty that we have not made mention of the way McLaren will not have chrome and red cars this year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As much as I like reading everything I've said previous reiterated right back at me, please don't. It seems clear to me by your wording that you think all of this is our opinion. I don't "assume" anything. Just like a driver, a sponsor is always there, playing it's part. It might always be in the background but it is there and you cannot deny that, It's not a contradiction at all either. I don't know what you characterize as contradiction but what I said was leaving such info out, even a brief one line explanation is irresponsible, same if we were to ignore briefly adding the information you just listed about staff. I have a question for you: Do you know the term Pay Driver?. Oh, and we're not angry that the page does not make mention to why "the McLaren will not have chrome and red cars this year", if you think that then remove yourself from the discussion.

As for why we're discussion this instead of the titles sake then I apologize. I only meant to improve your own point to why we should add such relevant info but you shot it down and now were here again. This is my fault, but not entirely. Joetri10 (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore, this it's the Talk page for the 2014 Formula One season's page so if you talk about a season report here then it's not logical by any means to assume you're talking about the previous season's article. Furthermore there already is a season report on that article. I you feel you can expand it be, bold and do so! Having said that I agree with you on what you say regarding the 2005 and 2007 articles and I must say the situation still exists on the more recent season's articles (e.g. 2012 and 2013). They have a much to extended changes section containing much to large sections of text. They should be reduced to a list of bullet points explaining the changes much more briefly.

Prisonermonkeys, I'm not assuming something is notable simply because it happened. Please do not accuse me of behavior I do not display. And don't accuse other users of that as well. When I consider that something is notable it is because it got considerable coverage within the contemporary media outlets. I can give you links to dozens of publications from reliable sources regarding the Vodafone-Mclaren change as well as regarding the other examples I mentioned. These changes get more than enough media coverage to justify a very brief mention in our articles. We don't want to change the weight of the article by any means and we have stressed that multiple times, so please stop accusing us of wanting to do otherwise. Regarding the testing I never requested including the times because that would be indeed ridiculous. A brief report of the major events should be possible, though.

Having said that, I agree with what Joetri10 stated above. Tvx1 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Media coverage does not automatically make something notable. Sure, I could probably find those same dozen sources as you can for the termination of the Vodafone-McLaren partnership, but that does not make it notable. This is the 2014 season article. Its contents should reflect changes that affect the 2014 season as a whole. A change of sponsor, however, only affects one team's ability to compete, and the impact of that change cannot be quantified. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not news, and I draw your attention to these lines of said policy:

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.

So, in ten years from now, how notable is it going to be that McLaren changed their sponsor in 2014? How notable is it going to be next year, should Honda provide so much funding that they do not need a title sponsor an/or Honda become title sponsor? After all, McLaren have already pointed out that they have secured a greater budget for the 2014 season than they had in 2013, even through they had Vodafone backing in 2013 and will not in 2014.

While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.

A change in sponsor is hardly the most newsworthy piece of material to begin with. Your argument amounts to "we should include it because it made headlines in these publications", which directly goes against the policy.

For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Which really speaks for itself. If we are going to include something as minor as a sponsor change, where does it end? We might as well include car release dates, the fastest lap times on each day of testing, and the reasons for each driver choosing the number that he did.

I also draw your attention to this, which states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.

How do you intend to do this? When ING left Renault in 2009, it was because of the fallout from the Singapore scandal; they did not want to be tarnished by Renault's image. Their departure would be justifiably included in an article, but not as a primary point. It would be better-suited as a consequence of the Singapore scandal, with the scandal itself being the main point being made. But in this case, you want to mention that Vodafone and McLaren are no longer associated with one another, giving that detail the same priority as a driver change or a change in engine supplier, and you offer no context to the decision behind the departure.

So, at the end of all this, how do you continue to justify the inclusion of that content, given that it complete fails NOTNEWS and INDISCRIMINATE? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're ripping these policies out of their context to make them suit your argument.

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.

In this context I wish to refer to another aspect from the notability policy, which is one you haf referred as well only multiple occasions in the past. Notability is not temporary. In ten years from now these changes will indeed not be notable for 2024 and the 2024 season, but we're discussing the article for the 2014 Formula One season and in this context they are notable enough to merit a brief mention in the article.

While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.

An important word you missed in this sentence is topic. This line discuss wether or not something warrants an article. We're talking about a brief mention in an article without drawing the focus of the article to it. Furthermore the fact the these changes garner much attention among reliable sources and not just mainstream publications but specialized press as well by itself disproves your argument that they are not newsworthy at all. Again were talking about a brief mention, not extensive parts of articles let alone separate articles.

For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

This does not apply here since this is not routine reporting by any means.

Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.

What we are discussing complies to this, as it is put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.

Furthermore, the indiscriminate policy does not apply here at all, since what we're discussing here does not fall in any of the four categories described in that policy. They are neither summary-only descriptions of works, nor lyrics databases, nor excessive listings of statistics, nor exhaustive logs of software updates.

Again we don't want to give these changes the same priority as we give to other events mentioned on the page. Context is better suited for the team's page. Putting these changes in the corresponding season page is more than enough context for a page like this.

In essence you are citing parts of policies, cunningly leaving some important parts out, dealing what justifies own wikipedia pages and what not and incorrectly extrapolating it to minor contents of articles. Furthermore, the incorrect arguments you made affect the content you proposed as well and therefore you're shooting yourself in the foot. Tvx1 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you propose providing context to the change in sponsorship, in short an explanation as to its relevancy to the season at large? --Falcadore (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally will you be able to reference as to the notability of a new sponsor as to its out of the ordinary significance? --Falcadore (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Concorde agreement

I've noticed that a sentence stating the the teams and drivers participation in the season depends on them signing a new concorde agreement has been removed. The justification given for this in the edit summary is a press release from the FIA from back in september. This is the same press release Autosport referred to in an [1] published on the same day as the press release. We did not consider these sources sufficient back when they were originally published so why are they suddenly sufficient now? Having read through them again I must say they are unclear. Do they mean that FIA and FOM signed the agreement and that the only left was for the competitors (i.e. the teams) to sign it as well? Or is this enough to assume it has been agreed upon by the competitors as well? If these sources are enough for you to consider the agreement signed by all necessary parties it's fine by me. Tvx1 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the statement from the article. I was under the impression that the press release from the FIA meant that it was all "done and dusted". It wasn't clear to me that we were still waiting for all the individual teams to sign up as well. So if you want to put the statement back in the article that's fine by me. Having said that, all the teams seem to be taking part in pre-season testing, and I haven't seen anything in the press about there still being any doubt about anyone's participation in the season. DH85868993 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Official Race Edit Songs section

Many may have noticed that the Official Race Edit Songs section has been added to this article. This is because the previous article it was included in was deleted because it was not a stand-alone article.

Please leave this section in this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyBranton (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Except the article that the section was "spun off from" is now at AFD, so it may be an inevitability that it will get removed soon. ZappaOMati 04:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

How is it official? --Falcadore (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, apart from anything else, never place a huge table into an article if it is empty. That the events to fill the table have not occurred YET is not a defence. --Falcadore (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the empty Drivers' and Constructors' standings tables are already in the article as well, albeit hidden. Tvx1 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That is there as a matter of convenience, because those tables will be needed once the season starts, and they are quite complex in their coding. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Season review

I have just cut a whole lot of content from the season review subsection. I am still hesitant about its inclusion at all. It appears to be modelled on the 2012 season review; if this is how we are going to do it, then it should be no more than 300 words per section. However, I suspect we will follow the 2013 article, which looked at the season as a whole, rather than going race by race.

Of more concern to me is the tone of the section. Using emotive language is not appropriate because it almost immediately compromises neutrality. The section should also prioritise the most relevant facts, which in those case is Lotus' absence and Renault's engine problems. Listing who was fastest on each day and the average number of laps is trivia and recentism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No reason for it to be there at all. Season has not begun. Coverage of testing is essentially routine news which wikipedia is not supposed to record. But primarily the season has not begun so there is nothing to record. --Falcadore (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I removed it yesterday. The content relating to Red Bull's dramas is better-suited to the RB10 article, and they are being completely dysfunctional, with Horner, Newey and Marko all saying different things about the source of the problems, making it difficult to commit the article to anything solid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)