Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 Formula One World Championship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Free Practice Drivers' Round column

When I added the free practice drivers' columns at the start of the season I added a round column by accident. I edited from my mind which columns I thought we always used for this. But throughout the year the column got wider and wider until it became impractical. If has now been replaced by their number of appearances, but I wonder wether that's actually better information. I really wonder whether we need this column at all. After all, the previous seasons' articles did not have a round column for free practice drivers and it worked just fine. Tvx1 (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed the column to the number of appearances primarily because van der Garde's entry expanded the width of the column to be stupidly wide. And it would have been wider still if he makes another appearance.

This is tertiary information at best. I don't think that its continued inclusion or removal is something that warrants a consensus, because I doubt anyone has any strong feelings about it one way or another. I know I don't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So, is it OK if I remove it? Tvx1 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't need my permission. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Where can I find this information now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.129.38 (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As an addition, if we're going to simply list which drivers took part in FP1, do we really need their car numbers as well? That column could easily be tossed aside. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It could, but the FIA recognises it as a completely different car, even if the only thing that changes is the number decal - the unique number appears on timing sheets and official results. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

None of which we use anywhere else on Wikipedia, and none of which has any relevance on the season. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well they should be used elsewhere, since they're assigned to the teams. Without them - and the recognition that they are treated as a separate entry - it implies that each FP1 driver is assigned to the car of a regular driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How does not listing the practice driver numbers imply anything? They're just numbers. Surely we have the concept of free practice drivers explained somewhere so that a common reader can understand why they're included in the chart, right? The³5₉ (Talk) 06:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe the teams have been allocated other numbers for third drivers (though I don't have a source). More simply, I mean that the numbers are not unique to the driver (which is the situation for the main drivers) and the drivers are using them out of force rather than choice. So when it comes to saving space, I think that column can go, and we can keep the thinned column. —Gyaro –Maguus— 13:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Your claim makes sense and there is even one number that has been used by more than one free practice driver. Unfortunately, wikipedia does not work on personal opinions and we would need a source to back this. Nevertheless I do think these numbers have a value. They are one of the primary means of identification of the drivers, whether they are race drivers or free practice drivers. Clearly the free practice drivers do not use the race drivers' numbers so this column directly provides a way by which to identify them. Tvx1 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If FP1 drivers are assigned numbers along different lines to race drivers, then that would need a reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

But we're not a fan guide. If we're not covering free practice results, and they have no relevance on the season, what merit is there to their inclusion in the season summary? Especially since they can be arbitrarily assigned to drivers. I'd point out that Andre Lotterer used Caterham's supposed test number as his race number. So is 45 no longer Caterham's test number now? The³5₉ (Talk) 05:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'll point out that Kimi Raikkonen chose #7 because it was convenient. What's to say Lotterer didn't choose #45 for the same reasons, and the number was put back into service when he left the team? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just how does the manner in which numbers are assigned to drivers affect the justification of those numbers being included here? Even the race drivers' numbers are in way arbitrarily assigned. They can state their preference but the ultimate authority to decide which number they get lies with the FIA, based on what's available. But more importantly, I never knew that the justification for including numbers was dependent on the notability of the assigning procedure. The reason we provide numbers here is plain and simple. It's one of the primary means of identifying drivers, whether they're practice or race drivers. If there are season articles which don't provide separate numbers for practice drivers, it's because they used the same numbers as the race drivers they stood in for. Providing numbers for free practice drivers is exactly the same as listing the numbers of substitute footballers on articles like the 2014_FIFA_World_Cup_Final even if they never left the bench at all. Tvx1 (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that they are substitute drivers. Remember when Sergio Perez was sick and had to sit out the Canadian Grand Prix? The team had to put Pedro de la Rosa in the car. Now, de la Rosa was with McLaren at the time, but we can see the same logic in action at Spa this year: Kobayashi was benched, and Lotterer filled in; likewise, Chilton was stood down, and Rossi drafted in. Both Lotterer and Rossi used the same number that they would have carried were they simply FP1 drivers. Even though Marussia did a u-turn and put Chilton back in the car, they had still confirmed that Rossi would race with #42. And like I said, the FIA is recognising FP1 drivers as third entries, albeit entries that only take part in one session. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason to include the numbers? What purpose does including their race numbers serve? --Falcadore (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My point comes down to this. How are the numbers of the free practice drivers more relevant to the season summary than which specific Grands Prix they were free practice drivers in? We are not a spotters guide for fans, the number used by the test driver amounts to nothing more than trivia. Simply because we have the data does not mean it needs inclusion. Listing the number does not help anyone identify anything anywhere else on Wikipedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be really brutal about it, then why not remove the FP1 drivers entirely? Sure, they drive the car during Free Practice, but what do they actually do? Looking at the list of drivers who have taken part in FP1, Susie Wolff is the only one whose presence is actually notable. And even then, the reasons for that notability can be (and are) covered in prose. Likewise Pic and VDG.

I know we list them because a Grand Prix weekend consists of three practice sessions, qualifying and the race itself, but I think that's wrong. The rules state that a driver must qualify in order to race, so I think the definition of "participation" should be moved back to qualifying. Look at the lists of FP1 drivers on other season articles - some of them, like Ma Qinghua and Rodolfo Gonzalez, never came close to racing. I'm not speculating on whether the likes of Frijns, Nasr or Sirotkin will ever actually race, just questioning what their presence actually adds. Like you said, we're not a spotter's guide, and we don't add stuff just because we have that information at hand. And there are things out there - like penalty points and power unit usage - that are arguably more relevant to the season as a whole (because they have the potential to directly affect the drivers who actually race) than FP1 drivers, but which we don't include.

So if we remove the entire section on FP1 drivers from that table, what do we actually lose? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair I would think that free practice drivers do have relevance to the season. Events in practice can have negative or positive effects come race weekend, be it wrecking the car and losing valuable track time and setup, to gaining knowledge of a car in different weather conditions. Some drivers are not good at testing duties and having a test driver in the role can be beneficial to the team. And qualification itself is not necessarily a requirement anymore, with the decision ultimately falling on the stewards and not the lap times. As you point out, the FP1 drivers are "entries", and the chart is quite frankly a visualization of the entries for the season.

Now I'm not saying that they are as relevant as penalties or power units, but I think it's clear that they "do" something. Whether or not that merits their inclusion, I don't know, my point was merely on saving some more space by deleting the car numbers column. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that hinges a little too much on a maybe, as in "maybe they will be of use", and I think it's a little difficult to show that as a tangible outcome, least of all demonstrate that their participation directly affected the outcome of a race for better or for worse.

Also, with regard to the qualification thing, the FIA says a driver must participate in qualifying in order to take part in the race. Whether or not they do qualify is beside the point; the driver must take part in the session. It's there to stop teams from having one driver qualify the car and another race it. It's the reason why Marussia wasn't able to enter another driver when Timo Glock took sick in Valencia—Glock had qualified the car. That's why I think we should redefine participation as when a driver takes part in qualifying, not free practice.

We're interested in the final outcome of the season—the championship standings. In order to place in the championship, a driver must record a result. In order to record a result, they must race. And in order to race, they must qualify the car. Therefore, I don't think that we can consider a driver to have taken part in the Grand Prix until they have met that condition of having taken part in qualifying. So with that in mind, I don't think that we should include FP1 drivers on the grounds that their participation might affect the outcome of a race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's because you keep erroneously mixing up the terms Grand Prix and race. These are NOT synonyms. A Grand Prix denotes the ENTIRE WEEKEND while just the race is denoted by the word RACE. We do not claim these drivers participate in the races. We state that they took part in the Grands Prix which is correct as Free Practices are a part of the Grands Prix. Furthermore, the rules state that a driver must qualify in order to race, and not to simply participate in a Grand Prix. So you're simply wrong there. Additionally, they are no longer simply FP1 drivers since from this season teams are allowed to use them in both Friday (or Thursday) practice sessions. Now, an extensive discussion was held on this matter 18 months ago and a consensus was achieved to list them and to do so in the current manner so I don't see why we should change our practice just because one user now thinks that we no longer should list them. And arguments like, what do we stand to lose, are to be strictly avoided. Regarding the numbers, all the arguments made against them can be just as much applied to the race drivers' numbers. Removing that column doesn't save that much space at all. If you really want to save space, you should have a look a the teams and engines columns. Is it really necessary that all team names are put on one line. The Mercedes name takes a whole lot of space this way. Surely that can be split over two lines in an aesthetically pleasing manner. And just how important are the engines' names to the season? Surely we only need to know which brand of engines they use. The engines names can be put in the more in-depth article on the teams, cars and engine manufacturers. Tvx1 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My argument was that the test driver numbers are not used anywhere else on Wikiepdia, but the race driver numbers are, so no, not every argument can be reused in that regard. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are. They are mentioned on those drivers' articles. Tvx1 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more the Teams Championship matrix. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, I am aware of what your position on what constitutes a Grand Prix and what constitutes a race is, and I feel it is wrong. A driver does not have to participate in any free practice session in order to race. Likewise, no points are awarded for particpating in free practice. So I'm still in the dark as to why it is so important that we list the drivers who only take part in free practice, given that they have no impact on the outcome of the season. And you should be aware that a consensus can change over time. Just because something was agreed eighteen months ago, that doesn't mean that it will always be that way.

The359, I believe the number column has been added to the WCC matrix this year for the sake of a little more connectivity throughout the article considering the changes to the number system. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, PM (or someone else) had prepared an individual table for Free Practice drivers, which was in the form of a collapsed table. Could we not use that? —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The driver numbers have been used in the WCC matrix going back at least a decade. I believe the new addition this year is that the numbers have been added to the WDC matrix. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

GM, I still question the need for FP1 drivers at all. Their inclusion seems to hinge on the fact that they have some degree of participation, even though that participation has no bearing on the championship outcome. They only seem to have been added because they technically have participated under the formal definition of a Grand Prix, which despite Tvx1's insistence that it includes free practice, qualifying and the race, is a) news to me (and I have been watching fir 20 years), and b) seemingly contradicted by the FIA rule that says a driver may only take part in a race if they take part in qualifying—there is no rule that says that they must take part in free practice.

The359, I meant WDC, not WCC in the above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I was the person that formulated the idea for the current usage of FP drivers in the table, in the discussion mentioned above. I only did that because a compromise was needed as the two sides of "we must include all test drivers" and "we must remove all test drivers" were not going to reach an agreement. That being said, that compromise was agreed before was made the more recent series of changes to the table and while I personally prefer to keep the FP drivers in the table (since they are, in some way, directly involved in the Grand Prix weekend), I see that they do not have much affect on the outcome of the season and are not (directly) involved in the final outcome of both the WDC and the WCC.

So, I need to simplify. Whether I support the inclusion of FP1 drivers or not depends on the agreed aims of the table – to either show those who fully completed in the F1 WDC/WCC or those who simply participated in some event during it. Right now I am under the under the influence of alcohol but I hope this helps the discussion move forward. —Gyaro –Maguus— 02:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, could you please stop mixing up terms which do not have the same meaning. Noone ever claimed that drivers must take part in free practice in order te be allowed to race. In fact we do not claim at all these drivers take part in the RACES. We state they participate in the Grands Prix, which is entirely different. If you want proof, for a start take a look at what's on the official site regarding the rules&regulations. The first sentence literally reads: At each Grand Prix meeting all race drivers may participate in two one and a half-hour practice sessions on Friday (Thursday at Monaco), a one-hour session on Saturday morning and a qualifying session on Saturday afternoon. That this is news to you is utterly irrelevant as we do not need your personal endorsement to keep this column. Furthermore you are completely wrong regarding the rule that one has to have taken part in qualifying in order to be eligible to race. Rule 31.2 of the sporting regulations states quite clearly that no driver may start in the race (again RACE, not Grand Prix) without taking part in at least one practice session on the second day of practice. That is Saturday Practice or Qualifying, not only qualifying.

Now, I'm well aware that consensus may change over time but I can see no reason why this one should. All I see is one user demanding a course of action without any support. That's nowhere near a new consensus. The discussion from eighteen months ago came to the conclusion that these drivers merit inclusion because they receive notability in the press and because they have an "impact" in that they have an important role in helping their teams with the car setup for that weekend's race. If you want to reopen this discussion than at the very least you could ask the opinion of the contributors that came to the current consensus. What we don't do here is removing information because one user doesn't understand its meaning. That amounts to nothing else than IDONTLIKEIT. Tvx1 (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, the rules you quote state that in order to race, a driver must participate in qualifying and Saturday practice. So what bearing, then, does a driver have on that if they are only taking part in FP1? If that is the extent of their involvement, then they have not satisfied the conditions needed to enter the race. Why, then, are they included? Because the formal definition of a Grand Prix meeting is Friday, Saturday and Sunday, even though each session is of different weight to the outcome of the weekend?

Secondly, you say they have "an important role" within the team. Can you please quantify that for me in a meaningful way in the article? Because we have Max Verstappen, who is there to get experience; Sergey Sirotkin, who is there to satisfy local audiences; Roberto Merhi, who was there for his sponsors; and Giedo van der Garde, who is there to keep himself in the sport. You cannot demonstrate what role and what impact each driver has.

To me, all this comes down to is "FP1 drivers are there because they take part in a Grand Prix weekend". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, they drive the cars and in doing so gather information regarding the car-setup, tyre wear and so on for that weekend's race. That's more than substitute footballers who don't get on the pitch during a match and just sit on the bench and watch the game. And the rules I quote state that one has to compete in saturday practice OR qualifying, not both. Tvx1 (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying that they do it, but you haven't actually demonstrated it in action. Look at Max Verstappen - he's taking part in Suzuka FP1 to give him more experience in the car, not for the benefit of set-up. And since FP1 drivers are not taking part in Saturday practice or qualifying, they cannot enter the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you really going to repeat the "FP1 drivers are not taking part in Saturday practice or qualifying, they cannot enter the race" sentence in every single reply you post. I don't even know why you keep hammering so much on that, since we DON'T claim by any means that they can enter the race. As for their inclusion, you shouldn't forget that these drives are included in driver records. For instance, Vettel holds the record of being the youngest driver to have participated in a Grand Prix by virtue of his FP appearance at the 2006 Hungarian Grand Prix.

Uh-huh. And how does that affect the season? Surely that's better suited to a) Vettel's article, b) the driver records article, and c) the article of any driver who breaks that article.

To me, this is a case of placing the information in the most appropriate place. I'm not denying that FP1 drivers play a role within the team; I just don't think they have a bearing on the season as a whole. They could be listed in team articles, car articles, race articles, and naturally, their own articles, but I don't see their relevance to the season as a whole. Especially considering that some of them only do the first 30 minutes of FP1.

I think this is going to need an RfC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What is this obsession with some users that any information included in a season article most affect the season as whole. Please show we the way to that Project Guideline. I just not practical to rigidly apply this "rule" to everything in these articles. After all, we list replacement drivers who only make a one-off appearance as well. For instance, please tell me how Markus Winkelhock affected the outcome of the 2007_season as a whole? And what about d'Ambrosio in 2012? And how does André Lotterer affect the outcome of the 2014 season. He didn't even complete a lap! Surely their notability as a race driver that season doesn't really stretch beyond those individual races? So should we only mention them in their own articles and the Grands Prix articles then? Tvx1 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Those drivers had the potential to affect the outcome of the season because they raced, and by racing, they could have scored points. Whether or not they did is beside the point—they had the opportunity to score, whereas FP1 drivers do not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You consider Winkelhock driving a Spyker and Lotterer driving a Caterham having potential to score points? Furthermore, can you provide any source proving that they had any notability as race driver outside of those races? And could you answer the most important question as well? Where is the guideline that says that any byte of information included in a season article most affect the season as whole? Tvx1 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's no argument at all. Whether or not a driver has the ability to score points is not the issue here; that would be CRYSTAL because we would be trying to anticipate the outcome of a race. They are entered in the race, which means that they can score points—look at Jules Bianchi; nobody would have expected Marussia to score points, but they did. FP1 drivers, on the other hand, cannot score points at all. They need to be re-entered as racing drivers for that to happen, in which case they would be moved to the race driver column and the details of the circumstances behind the move detailed in prose.

Also, please tell me where there is a guideline that says all information related to the season as a whole has to be included? As I said, we don't detail power unit consumption or driving infringement penalties when these two elements have the potential to affect a driver's performances. So there is obviously some line that has been drawn—and I don't think that drivers who only take part in one non-points scoring session meet the conditions for inclusion in a season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Which conditions? The ones you set out. Well this isn't your article, so we don't care about your conditions. A thorough discussion was held on this matter and a consensus was achieved that they do merit inclusion. No one has given your view any support here, so obviously you are going to have to live with them on the article. Whether you wan't it or not. Tvx1 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"What conditions?" you ask. The conditions that we as a community consider have set out. Like I said, we include some things but disregard others. Evidently a decision was made at some point. Also, you should be aware that consensus can change over time. Why are you making these non-arguments? You still haven't explained how you can quantify the role of FP1 drivers, either. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The community has already tested them to their conditions and came to the consensus that they merit inclusion. You, however, add your personal conditions to them and demand that they be obeyed. Well, that's not how wikipedia works. Consensus can change over time, but one user demanding a course of action is not a change of consensus. Tvx1 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Green background for finish points in Drivers' standing table

The key alongside the table says:

Green Points finish

However, all the results giving points seem to have a white background. The same as the background for DNS - described as white in the key.

Same under firefox and chrome.

Also the same in 2013 results. Holland jon (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

They look OK to me using IE11 on a desktop. Is it just the cells which should appear green (i.e. positions 4-10) which appear white? Or do all the cells have a white background? There is a known issue where background colours don't display properly on mobile devices. DH85868993 (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm on a mobile at the moment, and the colours appear just fine. This is one of the few articles that uses the fix.

Are you sure it's not the settings of your monitor? We use very pale colours for the matrices; perhaps your colour settings make them look too pale to be discernible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick check on Safari(desktop&mobile), Chrome, and Firefox and everything looked fine for me. So i'm led to believe it's (hopefully) just a hardware problem for Holland jon. Tvx1 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Age/experience

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

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

Terrible idea. There is no correlation between age, experience and performance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Marussia

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

There is every chance that they could leave the seat vacant in respect to Jules. —Gyaro –Maguus— 16:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. Tvx1 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

They need to apply to the FIA to get a special dispensation to field a single car. Do you have a source that says one was granted? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that they have to do that in the first place? I'm really curious on how the ruling is that it is mandatory to field two cars. Tvx1 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that part of the Concorde Agreement? The current agreement isn't public, but I'm sure it's in one of the older versions. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

a) I doubt they could afford to leave the seat empty; they need all the income they can get. Rossi must be nailed on, surely. b) Sporting regs 13.6: "No more than 26 cars will be admitted to the Championship, two being entered by each competitor." So teams do need special dispensation to run one car instead of two. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

They may also have had to send for parts from Banbury. A team is allowed four drivers per season, not including FP1 drivers, so they should be fine on that front. But that's true, if they're negotiating with a driver for the rest of the season, that might be complicated. Maybe a more experienced driver has popped up with some cash, and he might be an option. They've still got tomorrow and probably Friday morning to decide – plenty of time in F1 terms. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that they haven't announced anything at all is not proof that they won't enter a second car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sporting regs 13.6: "No more than 26 cars will be admitted to the Championship, two being entered by each competitor." literally reads no more than 26 cars. Not exactly 26, or two per team. This means up to two per team.

Marussia is not exactly a wealthy team so they cannot afford to bring in a replacement driver and pay him or her whatever they want the way Ferrari did when Massa was injured. They need a pay driver for that and it is not all a certainty that they can find one that can gather they required money in barely four days time. And they only have until tomorrow afternoon, because that's when Pre-Grand Prix scrutineering takes place.

However, if no one has problem with the TBA's being in the article I will make no further issue out of this and we can wrap up this discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem the TBA with it since it is an inevitable scenario. —Gyaro –Maguus— 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@TVX1 – Well, no, it says "two being entered by each competitor". It doesn't say anything about "up to two". This rule precludes impecunious teams skipping flyaway races, or saving money by only shipping one car, like they used to. Plus, Marussia won't be paying anyone to drive, it's not that kind of team. That's why they dropped Glock, whom they were actually paying. Bianchi only gets 5-600K all of which comes out of his sponsorship (plus he's the reason they get Ferrari engines), and Chilton pays something between 5 and 10 million and gets a salary of 150K. He's definitely not there for his talent, as proven by how quickly they gave him the boot when it looked like his money wasn't forthcoming in Singapore. Rossi pays to do FP1 sessions and so will Stevens. This is what I mean when I say they can't afford not to have a second car. Drivers will be queueing up with wads of cash, saying, "Take me." Teams never have trouble finding pay drivers, and callous as it sounds, I suspect they were receiving calls as of Monday inquiring about Bianchi's seat. F1 is brutal that way. But yeah, TBA is fine for now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Formula1.com has stated that Rossi is nominated as the second driver but will make their decision over whether to run one or two cars on Friday morning. I think this means that they can comply with the "two cars being entered" idea while allowing themselves the option of leaving his seat empty. I'm not 100% sure as to how we should with this, but I think entering Rossi while leaving his rounds as "TBA" should suffice. —Gyaro –Maguus— 14:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the same opinion. Since this proves very clearly that they haven't decided yet, I'd prefer to have a TBA as well. We're in no rush to add the round and we can easily wait until they have made up their mind on how to deal with this. It's already hard enough for them as it is. Tvx1 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There you go. Only one car for Marussia. Once again we jumped a gun we shouldn't have and we wouldn't have if we had had one thing: patience. Tvx1 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Did we? We all said TBA was fine, as far as I can see. Gyaro Maguus is right – entering two cars and withdrawing one satisfied the "two cars" element, which is apparently contractual rather than a purely regulatory matter. They asked for and received dispensation to withdraw the second car, as Mjroots says below. Rossi can go in our WDC table if he's in the official table. The entry list at FORIX only has one Marussia on it, which suggests Rossi is not on the final list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Having watched BBC's Inside F1, Suzi Perry interviews Graeme Lowdon, who confirmed an intention to run two cars for the remainder of the reason. So we could write "17" as Rossi's round number. —Gyaro –Maguus— 12:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No. They might have confirmed their intention to run two cars for the remainder of the season, they have not confirmed their intention to have Rossi drive for the remainder of the season. Just a car. Now when I was referring to jumping a gun, I was not referring to the TBA's, but to us listing Rossi with a round number 16 even though Marussia stated that they were unsure they were going to enter two cars. Tvx1 (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Rossi

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

In that case, he should also be listed for Belgium, since he entered FP1 as a race driver, but Chilton was reinstated ahead of FP2. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an issue for you chaps to thrash out - would suggest that WDN might better summarize that one. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No WDN is used for drivers who qualify for the race, but ultimately don't even leave their pits to line up on the grid. We actually had a discussion on how to deal with these and similar cases quite recently, but it got archived with our reaching a determined outcome. Tvx1 (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"WDN" is not used at all. The scenario TVX1 describes would be a DNS. Rossi would probably be a DNP if he is considered to have had an entry on the final list. DNP is very rare, we hardly ever use it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

DNS is fine by me. Re Russian GP, DNP does describe the situation. Marussia had to enter two drivers, which they did; and had to ask for permission to withdraw Rossi, which they also did. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see Rossi was never actually entered, but only nominated as their potential second driver. This, this, this, this and this all state that. Tvx1 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

That is true, but I don't think that's the issue they're discussing. I think they want to establish whether they should include him in the results matrix. Tvx1 (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

My vote, if I have one that counts, is that Rossi should get an entry for the Russian GP, with him listed as NO TIME for qualifying on that event's page and race result as DNA for car #42, since Marussia did in fact enter two cars & two drivers for initial entry per FIA regulations. However, once the team had permission to do so from the FIA, they instead built up a #17 car and parked it all weekend. As such, Rossi should be listed on the season points calendar (underneath Lotterer) as DNA for the Russian GP with Bianchi's box blank since he was never entered into the event. This then should in turn grant him a "PO/DNS" box for the Belgian GP since he was officially entered for that as well, but did arrive and was then replaced midway through the weekend. Might as well get some mileage out of these boxes since they are hardly ever used. A little long-winded, I know, but it makes sense in my head :) Twirlypen (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What Twirlypen said. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Further, while not trying to speculate, it would seem to be a near certainty that Marussia would allow Rossi to finally race at his home USGP. Twirlypen (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Concur. --Falcadore (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Caterham in administration

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

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

I say we should leave them blank. I assume that they won't enter the races, so they shouldn't be credited with entries. —Gyaro –Maguus— 22:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but teams aren't entered round-by-round. They are entered in all rounds at the beginning of the season, because they need to commit to competing in all rounds (with a provision for missing some in cases of firce majeure) in order to be considered a constructor. [1] Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We go by the entry lists published by the FIA. It they don't appear on the official entry lists for those races we can write DNP in their cells. Did Not Participate. They have been granted the dispensation to miss this race under the provision of the "force majeure" clause you cited. Tvx1 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The cells should be blank. PM is correct in that the teams are entered for all the season's events, but Caterham (and apparently, Marussia) will be removed from the entry lists for these two races. The FIA won't credit them with entries. Also, historically, teams that have given up the ghost mid-season have their cells left blank, and we ought to be consistent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Before we decide, I'd like to point out that there are three separate types of results matrices affected by this matter. Team results matrices (e.g. Template:F1 Constructors Standings), car results matrices (e.g. Caterham CT05, and driver results matrices (e.g. Template:F1 Drivers Standings. Now it's right that Constructors are contractually obliged ton enter the entire season, however drivers are credited with an entry on a race by race basis. I'm not sure how the ruling is on the entries for the actual cars. Tvx1 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I think that is a sensible proposal. On the same issue I was wondering if we could shadow those boxes covering races where teams/drivers/cars were never contracted for/entered in in one take, instead of putting a separate blank cell for every single race result even if they were never even scheduled to enter them. For instance, this is what the Super Aguri results could look like:

(key) (results in bold indicate pole position)

Year	Chassis	Engine	Tyres	No.	Drivers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	Points	WCC
2006	SA05 SA06	Honda RA806-E 2.4 V8	B			BHR	MAL	AUS	SMR	EUR	ESP	MON	GBR	CAN	USA	FRA	GER	HUN	TUR	ITA	CHN	JPN	BRA	0	11th
				22	Takuma Sato	18	14	12	Ret	Ret	17	Ret	17	15	Ret	Ret	Ret	13	NC	16	DSQ	15	10
				23	Yuji Ide	Ret	Ret	13	Ret
				23	Franck Montagny					Ret	Ret	16	18	Ret	Ret	16
				23	Sakon Yamamoto												Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	16	17	16
2007	SA07	Honda RA807-E 2.4 V8	B			AUS	MAL	BHR	ESP	MON	CAN	USA	FRA	GBR	EUR	HUN	TUR	ITA	BEL	JPN	CHN	BRA		4	9th
				22	Takuma Sato	12	13	Ret	8	17	6	Ret	16	14	Ret	15	18	16	15	15	14	12
				23	Anthony Davidson	16	16	16	11	18	11	11	Ret	Ret	12	Ret	14	14	16	Ret	Ret	14
2008	SA08	Honda RA808-E 2.4 V8	B			AUS	MAL	BHR	ESP	TUR	MON	CAN	FRA	GBR	GER	HUN	EUR	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	CHN	BRA	0*	11th*
				18	Takuma Sato	Ret	16	17	13
				19	Anthony Davidson	Ret	15	16	Ret

Of course, a n/a could be entered in the shadowed areas if preferred to make it more clear. Tvx1 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't sound so surprised. I actually think it might be worth reviewing the key, since there are fields that we haven't used for years. "DNE" or "DNP" (did not participate) could cover a lot of the more niche outcomes.

And I do like the idea of making a single blank row. Straight away I noticed that it became more readable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Got to disagree on both counts. We've never used anything to show drivers or teams who did not enter races, simply because the blank box does exactly that. No further clutter is required. Every other F1 results source will show no entry for these two teams, so we ought to follow suit.

On the other point about shadowing cells for races not attended – what's the point? A lot of work for nothing, plus with individual cells, the reader can tell at a glance how many races were missed. With shadowed boxes, that is much less clear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it really that important exactly how many races were missed when they weren't even contracted to appear in those races at all? And what about drivers who were only drafted in as a mid-season replacement? They were never expected to take part in the races taking place before their debut, so they didn't "miss" anything. And if you don't like working, I'll be happy to take the task on me. That's not really an argumentTvx1 (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think missed races are important enough to perform the simple task of leaving the cells blank. And yes, drivers who were drafted in mid-season still missed the races. If they weren't there, they missed the races. Without those cells, it isn't absolutely apparent that any races were missed at all, in my view. Plus, and you might think this a non-argument, it looks better as it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We already have an established procedure for this exact situation and multiples of precedent. If they take no part in the weekend, leave it blank. There is no reason to deviate from previous behavior.

If we have to have a debate for actioning tasks such as this is no wonder there are so many short fuses in the group these days. Is it at all possible to edit in the manner as performed previously without having a debate about it? --Falcadore (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sticking with the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" mantra. Just because teams are entered on a full-season basis does not negate that the results matrix is broken down on a race by race basis. And even if teams are entered for the full-season, there are multiple reasons teams can miss individual races, be it penalty (BAR), injury (Bianchi), folding (Aguri), dispensation (Marussia/Caterham), etc. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is a fair point, but we're no talking about shadowing cells for races they were scheduled to compete in but missed for some reason, but to shadow cells for races they were not contracted for and were never intended whatsoever to be a part of the team/driver/car's career. For instance what's the point in having two blank cells for the 1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix in Mastercard Lola's result matrix knowing the team had ceased to exist long before that point. Just how does the exact number of races a team/car/driver was not contracted for affect their success? Tvx1 (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Caterham in administration

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

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

I say we should leave them blank. I assume that they won't enter the races, so they shouldn't be credited with entries. —Gyaro –Maguus— 22:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but teams aren't entered round-by-round. They are entered in all rounds at the beginning of the season, because they need to commit to competing in all rounds (with a provision for missing some in cases of firce majeure) in order to be considered a constructor. [2] Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We go by the entry lists published by the FIA. It they don't appear on the official entry lists for those races we can write DNP in their cells. Did Not Participate. They have been granted the dispensation to miss this race under the provision of the "force majeure" clause you cited. Tvx1 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The cells should be blank. PM is correct in that the teams are entered for all the season's events, but Caterham (and apparently, Marussia) will be removed from the entry lists for these two races. The FIA won't credit them with entries. Also, historically, teams that have given up the ghost mid-season have their cells left blank, and we ought to be consistent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Before we decide, I'd like to point out that there are three separate types of results matrices affected by this matter. Team results matrices (e.g. Template:F1 Constructors Standings), car results matrices (e.g. Caterham CT05, and driver results matrices (e.g. Template:F1 Drivers Standings. Now it's right that Constructors are contractually obliged ton enter the entire season, however drivers are credited with an entry on a race by race basis. I'm not sure how the ruling is on the entries for the actual cars. Tvx1 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I think that is a sensible proposal. On the same issue I was wondering if we could shadow those boxes covering races where teams/drivers/cars were never contracted for/entered in in one take, instead of putting a separate blank cell for every single race result even if they were never even scheduled to enter them. For instance, this is what the Super Aguri results could look like:

(key) (results in bold indicate pole position)

Year	Chassis	Engine	Tyres	No.	Drivers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	Points	WCC
2006	SA05 SA06	Honda RA806-E 2.4 V8	B			BHR	MAL	AUS	SMR	EUR	ESP	MON	GBR	CAN	USA	FRA	GER	HUN	TUR	ITA	CHN	JPN	BRA	0	11th
				22	Takuma Sato	18	14	12	Ret	Ret	17	Ret	17	15	Ret	Ret	Ret	13	NC	16	DSQ	15	10
				23	Yuji Ide	Ret	Ret	13	Ret
				23	Franck Montagny					Ret	Ret	16	18	Ret	Ret	16
				23	Sakon Yamamoto												Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	16	17	16
2007	SA07	Honda RA807-E 2.4 V8	B			AUS	MAL	BHR	ESP	MON	CAN	USA	FRA	GBR	EUR	HUN	TUR	ITA	BEL	JPN	CHN	BRA		4	9th
				22	Takuma Sato	12	13	Ret	8	17	6	Ret	16	14	Ret	15	18	16	15	15	14	12
				23	Anthony Davidson	16	16	16	11	18	11	11	Ret	Ret	12	Ret	14	14	16	Ret	Ret	14
2008	SA08	Honda RA808-E 2.4 V8	B			AUS	MAL	BHR	ESP	TUR	MON	CAN	FRA	GBR	GER	HUN	EUR	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	CHN	BRA	0*	11th*
				18	Takuma Sato	Ret	16	17	13
				19	Anthony Davidson	Ret	15	16	Ret