Formula One Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In 2014, for the first time, double points are to be awarded for the final race of the season. Can this fact be mentioned briefly in the lead, thus? Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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

• Comment: I have phrased this as "can it be mentioned?" rather than "should it be mentioned?" because two involved editors continue to insist in this discussion that it cannot be mentioned under any circumstances. I can't see any policy-based reason why it can't, and I'd like to hear the views of uninvolved editors. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Double points need not be mentioned on its own. It could be part of a short sentence on the lines of "Other rule changes include the introduction of a 'penalty points' system for driving offences, a relaxation of the 2011 'curfew' rule, and the awarding of double points for the final race of the season." Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Support: The second para is largely about ways in which the 2014 season differs from previous seasons, notable rule changes are one such difference. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: But it is a question of which rule changes are most notable - and it has largely been felt that the double points are not the most notable. Hence this RfC, which amounts to "Editors did not agree with me, so I am going to open an RfC to get the answer I want". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from am editor with very little knowledge on F1. As long as it is mentioned in the body then it can be mentioned in the lead. There appear to be a lot of rule changes do it comes down to the best way to present them in summary style. That will mean leaving some information out or only briefly mentioning others. I personally don't see an issue with the sentence above presented by Scolaire. I think it would fit in nicely in the second paragraph if some of the other information is shortened. I am specifically thinking of —previously used between 2006 and 2013— and with the race to be held at the Red Bull Ring in Spielberg, but there may be other ways to keep the paragraph concise. AIRcorn (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Comment: of course it can be mentioned, but the real issue here is whether or not it should be mentioned. The article lead is a summary of its contents. It is the place to mention key points; in this case, items that will have the most bearing on the season. The lead currently mentions the engine changes as the most pertinent point. After all, they have spent three years in development, have probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and have been described as being twenty years ahead of their time and the single greatest technical change in the sport's sixty-year history. This is an example of an extremely important point, and is something that I think anyone can agree is worth including in the lead. But on the other hand, we have double points: a one-off change to the points structure that might affect the outcome of the championship - but then again, it might not. We will not know for certain until the end of November. Compared to the overhaul of the engine regulations, this is a relatively minor change. But, if we were to include it in the lead, it would imply some kind of importance. After all, there have been a dozen changes to the sporting regulations this year. Why should double points be mentioned in the lead instead of any others? The sport now uses a demerit point system to enforce driving standards, as a response to a decline in driving standards in recent years. The driving penalty system has been rewritten to give stewards more leeway in settling on-track disputes, as a response to the suggestion that stewarding is inconsistent. And the grid penalty system has been reworked based on which components are changed and when, to encourage manufacturers to develop more-efficient engines. These three changes are significant, and have the ability to affect the championship from race to race. Double points, however, will only affect the championship at the end of the season - and even then, that is not a guarantee. So why are double points so important that they merit inclusion in the lead before any other regulation change? That is why we have not included them: it is a matter of importance. Compared to other events in the sport, double points simply aren't important enough to go in the lead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The change is not a "one-off" change according the the cited source: Formula 1 season finale to be worth double points from 2014.
2. Whether the change might or might not affect the outcome is not the matter of interest. It is simply the fact that the system has been changed (by "outcome" presumably you mean the winner; all teams and drivers are potentially affected in terms of their finishing position, which has big financial implications for them). Such changes are mentioned in the lead of the 2003 and 2010 articles, so it is not unreasonable to mention them here.
3. I offered an alternative wording that also (briefly) mentioned other rule changes that you considered important, but you rejected it out of hand. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the consequences of the change are unimportant, then why mention the change in the lead at all? Because it happened at all? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it happened, and because the change was deemed noteworthy in the 2003 and 2010 articles. Now, anybody interested in reading your arguments or mine can find them in the previous section. I don't intend to go round the roundabout again here. Scolaire (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And those changes in 2003 and 2010 affected the points allocations for every single race over the course of those seasons. The 2014 changes apply to one race and may or may not affect the outcome of one or both championships depending on the points standings leading up to that race. There is a world of difference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If one of the titles get decided on double points, then I think it should be put into the lead, because something that decides the direct outcome of the season is important, but we have to wait for that. Think about it; if it doesn't affect the outcome of the championship, why should it be included? Otherwise, unless we have a sentence like "other major regulation changes include ...", I really can't see a place for it to go up there. —Gyaro–Maguus— 09:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the edit conflict. As I said above, I proposed just such a sentence, and it was rejected. I have now added it as an option at the top of the Survey section. I think a change to the points system is inherently important. Season articles do not, as far as I know, ever talk about how points changes in that or previous seasons affected the outcome. Also note what I said about the "outcome" not being limited to first place. Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My feeling is that if you can put together an exemplary sentence that highlights the points change and at least three or four other changes that fits seamlessly into the intro, then I would support it. Otherwise, it is not worth the effort.
      There are two future scenarios that would grant it its own sentence, however.
      1. As above, if a Championship's direction is altered because the double points.
      2. If the rule is dumped next year.
      But we will have to wait for those two. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "an exemplary sentence". I have proposed a short, simple sentence above, based on two rule changes that Prisonermonkeys thought important. If such a sentence were added it could – and would – be edited, hopefully for the better. This is what building an encyclopaedia is about. If content could not be added until it was perfect, there would be no content in any article. Please tell me at least what you would consider suitable for inclusion. Scolaire (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • But why do the regulation changes need to be mentioned in the lead at all? We have the technical changes, which are substantial, but none of the changes to the sporting regulations match the technical changes in terms of scale or impact. All this time you have assumed that the changes are worthy enough for inclusion, but you have not demonstrated that any of them are important enough in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>> Bahrain activists urge boycott of F1 race Lihaas (User:Lihaas|talk) 18:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are directing our attention to this. I assume you want it included in the article somehow. In that case, I direct your attention to WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a news source. Just because activists want the race to be boycotted, that does not mean the article should mention it. If someone does boycott the race (and these calls are nothing new), then it can be mentioned. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a short mention about the protests on the article for the Grand Prix in question just like we did for the previous two editions of the race. But that's the maximum we could do with this. Tvx1 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added this section, explaining which drivers were carryiong penalty points and why. Hunocsi partly reverted my edit with the summary "No need for positions, it isn't a competition - and I think the explanations are unnecessary".

I accept the first point, it isn't a competition so won't challenge the removal of the positions column from the table, but just leaving the references in without explanation makes it very hard for the reader to see why one driver has more penalty points than another. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the section is necessary at all. If a driver gets twelve points, he is banned for a race. Should that happen, it will naturally be covered in the driver changes section, like when Grosjean got banned in 2012. On the other hand, if a driver does not get twelve points, then nothing happens - so why cover it? It's stats creep. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more stats creep than the section above it. Some people will be interested in finding out this information, and the section enables them to do so. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FIA Pole Trophy is an actual award that will be handed out. It might not count for championship points, but it is still a tangible award. The demerit points system, on the other hand, is not an award, and is completely intangible.

Also "people might be intetested" is not an argument for inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's important information about who may or may not be "pushing" because they are at risk of receiving a race ban. It's also interesting because it can show to a reader which races tended to have the most conflicts. I wouldn't be surprised if by the penultimate race the winner of the championship could be decided by who is banned from the double-points finale. 216.19.190.98 (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Hunocsi's edit strikes the right balance - no need for "rankings", but there is a need to see the points accrued. 216.19.190.98 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those points do not mean anything until a driver gets twelve. If and when someone gets twelve points, then we can address it. Until then, detailing them serves no purpose. It is little more than trivia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:TRIVIA guideline does not apply to "the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations". If any content policies apply here, please cite them, otherwise I see no reason to exclude this information. 216.19.190.98 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

• This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
• This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
• This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

I have already given a very good reason to exclude that content - penalty points have no effect on a driver's ability to race until he gets twelve of them. A driver could get eleven points in the first minute of the first practice session if the first Grand Prix, and still contest the remainder of the season without a problem unless he gets another infraction. If he does, then he will be banned for a race, in which case the team will seek out a replacement driver, and all of this will be covered in the "teams and drivers" section. Until such time as penalty points impact upon a driver's ability to race, there is no need to include them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your point of view, and when this discussion originated on 8th April I would have tended to agree with you. However today this is now being mentioned by multiple expert sources. The opinion of F1 driver Pastor Maldonado is "The rules are the same for everyone, so you need to avoid incidents ... But at the same time [the threat of penalties means] you cannot race, you need to only stay on track and wait for problems." (original article is behind paywall on Autosport). This issue was also discussed and recognized by expert commentators during Sky Sports F1 Chinese GP Free Practice 1. I will be adding this section back to the article with appropriate references. 216.19.190.98 (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an entirely subjective opinion coming from a driver who is notorious for his reckless disregard for other drivers. It is at the point where a running joke within the fan community suggests his team should get a ten-place grid penalty for an unsafe pit release every time they let him out of the garage. Maldonado is basically upset that he got a penalty for causing an avoidable collision in Bahrain that caused another driver to somersault out of the race. As for the commentary, I did not get the chance to hear it, but I would assume that they considered both sides of the argument before passing an opinion, but an opinion is an opinion - it is not a fact.

Drivers may consciously hold back in order to avoid getting penalty points. However, if this happens, then it is entirely subjective and unquantifiable. If each individual penalty point came with some kind of tangible penalty - for example, a success ballast - then you could argue for its inclusion. But as it stands, it is intangible, informal, subjective and unquantifiable, and therefore not something that can be included.

I think we might need some more input on this. User:Bretonbanquet, User:Falcadore, User:John McButts, User:GyaroMaguus; do you have any insights that you would like to offer? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm looking to the teams&drivers table I feel the separation between race drivers and free practice drivers looks somewhat weird. Here's how it looks now:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix										Free Practice driver(s)
Nat.	Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Nat.	Drivers	Rounds	No.	Nat.	Drivers	Rounds
	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham-Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9 10		Marcus Ericsson Kamui Kobayashi	1–3 1–3	46		Robin Frijns	3
	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/	P	7 14		Kimi Räikkönen Fernando Alonso	1–3 1–3	—

I was wondering whether it would look better if we would change that to this:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Nat.	Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Nat.	Race Drivers	Rounds	No.	Nat.	Free Practice Driver(s)	Rounds
	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham-Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9 10		Marcus Ericsson Kamui Kobayashi	1–3 1–3	46		Robin Frijns	3
	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7 14		Kimi Räikkönen Fernando Alonso	1–3 1–3	—

Tvx1 (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference that I can see (you may have done more, but if so, they are not apparent on a mobile) is the way you have put a single bar across the top of the table. The problem is that it says "Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix", but free practice drivers do not compete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we even need a bar across the top of the table? Just remove it completely and the table would look tidier.

On a related point, why exactly is the team and driver table on this article so wide compared to those of previous years? Has all the tinkering around with it pre-season stretched it across the page? QueenCake (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a side effect of the sortable function. It was making the table practically unreadable on mobile devices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table has been coded differently to cater for all the mobile users Queen. So in essence yes it has but I don't see it as much of a problem regardless.

As for the suggested layout, it does not work as PM said seeing as the FP drivers do not take part in GP's therefor it's false information. I don't see a problem with the old one so I'm confused? *JoeTri10_ 23:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to the meaning of "Grands Prix". These free practice drivers do take part in the Grands prix because a "Grand Prix" denotes the entire event, all the session held during the weekend. Not just the race, as that is denoted by the word "race". Of course the exact title in the bar can always be adjusted. E.g. "compete" could be replaced by participate. Tvx1 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems like an unnecessary change. And it also forces the column headings to be three lines long because "Free Practice Driver(s)" is stretched out onto three lines, whereas most of the other columns simply have one line headings. So in the end, it is a purely cosmetic change that only creates cosmetic complications. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed that now by adding some non-breaking spaces I had forgotten. Tvx1 (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better, but it still creates a massive blank space in the column. I am not really sure why this is necessary at all, except to give the table a title cell - which no other table in the article has. Not to mention the way the section heading acts as a title for the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]