Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

McLaren driver order

I noticed that Kevin Magnussen is listed first, with Alonso underneath. As told numerous times regarding concensus, this tells me that Fernando Alonso is replacing Kevin Magnussen, and not the other way around (which it should be). Going back to the article years from now, it will be implied that Jenson Button and Kevin Magnussen were the regular drivers, and Alonso was the replacement/reserve driver. Twirlypen (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like Alonso is replacing Magnussen, which is false. Although in the case of drivers replacing other drivers, it seems like the standard is to list the drivers in the order they first drove. Usually this would make sense, as it would mean Y replaced X mid-season, however here this isn't the case, and so creates the possibility for misinterpretation. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The table is simply a visual representation of the grid. The circumstances behind any changes should be detailed in the prose below, which in this case, they are. When the new number system was introduced last year, we gave priority to the rounds column, so that whoever drove the car first is ordered first. I see no reason why that should change here simply because the replacement driver is driving first. The prose adequately explains the situation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know well the reason it's listed the way it is. I'm just saying how it's going to come off to those that have had the concensus previously explained to them. Now, I know we don't like dealing with "what ifs," but if Magnussen were to replace Button later on at some point during the season, would we leave Magnussen listed at the top, or add his name again underneath Button? Twirlypen (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We would list him again beneath Button of course. It all depends on when they drive first. We have perfect precedents on the Magnussen-Alonso case. E.g. in 1994 Jyrki Järvilehto was contracted as one of Benetton's drivers. However, shortly before the season start he was injured in a testing accident and he was replaced by Jos Verstappen for the first two races. So, although Järvilehto was the main driver, we list replacement Verstappen first because he was the first to drive the #6 car. And it's a good example of who to deal with the same driver driving different cars throughout the same as Järvilehto drove three cars during that season. Another precedent is Ricciardo in 2011. This "potential for confusion" is only temporary anyway. Once the round column is added next thursday all will be clear. And it will be even more once it reads Magnussen:1, Alonso: 2-20. T v x1 20:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely with this, the rest of the article can clear up that Alonso is the main driver. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's still an issue between now and next week, I would be inclined to leave Alonso ahead of Magnussen until the round column is added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend on dragging this out. I just wasn't sure if that's just how it was added or if it was done intentionally this way. I, personally, am conflicted with having a driver potentially participating in only one race this season being listed first, but at the same time can understand why it's done that way. Twirlypen (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that listing Magnussen second despite driving first causes more problems than listing him first even though he will only do one race will. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it might seem weird, but once the round column appears and certainly when to column's content is in numerical order vertically it won't be anymore. And as mentioned, there is enough prose present to remove any remaining confusion. Just be patient. Besides it has always been our convention to list in order of appearance instead of order of regular driver-replacement driver. One of the main reasons is that on occasions teams have used some many drivers that it's almost impossible to determine who was regular driver and who where replacements (e.g. Lotus and Simtek in 1994). So, yes they are currently listed that way intentionally. T v x1 08:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why aren't they simply ordered numerically, like all the other drivers? Eightball (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Because this:

McLaren Honda	McLaren-Honda	MP4-30	Honda RA615H Hybrid	P	20 14 22	Kevin Magnussen Fernando Alonso Jenson Button	1 2–20 All

makes more sense than this:

McLaren Honda	McLaren-Honda	MP4-30	Honda RA615H Hybrid	P	14 20 22	Fernando Alonso Kevin Magnussen Jenson Button	2–20 1 All

once we are a few races into the season. —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

...how? It looks retarded. You've changed the driver sort for no reason whatsoever. I'm sorry, this is indefensible, and it shouldn't even be a god damn discussion. You guys ALWAYS do this. You take something that is simple and obvious and you turn it into a giant argument when the correct decision is staring every reasonable person in the god damn face. Just fix the stupid sort, make it what all the other drivers are, and go away. Jesus tapdancing Christ. 108.39.205.207 Eightball (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What would do if it was rounds 1-9 and 11-20? Would you still idiotically put Magnussen first? Did you even consider that? Or are you just a child who can't leave ONE SIMPLE RULE ALONE without causing a ruckus? Just leave it alone, just leave it and shut up and let me keep my god damn sanity for ONCE on this stupid website. Eightball (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to order the drivers by the races the participate in. I specifically do the same thing for the 2014 FIA World Endurance Championship season since there is, inherently, no particular reason to put them in any other order. It is not changed for "no reason".

I'd also point out that the 2014 Formula One season has the drivers sorted in the same way. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the drivers in this article are sorted by their numbers. I'm sorry, but I cannot and will not assume good faith when every decision you people make both provably makes the article worse and is indefensible from any logical perspective. Eightball (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait a second...you're completely wrong! That's NOT how drivers are sorted in the 2014 article. The primary driver is sorted first and his replacement is sorted second. If we follow on from the 2014 style then, again, it does Alonso - Magnussen - Button. Christ, now you're just straight up lying. Explain to me again how this isn't vandalism? You're intentionally making this article worse, what else should I call it? Eightball (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

When have you ever assumed good faith? There is no lie. No one is lying to you. No one is vandalizing the article. The article is neither better nor worse for your edit or anyone else's edit. I really don't understand how you can be so utterly paranoid and accusative, and it's completely worthless to try and convince someone so stubborn otherwise.

Ericson participated before Stevens, and Kobayashi participated before Lotterer. See also 2013 Formula One season to see Kovalainen replacing Raikkonen. Or 2012 Formula One season when d'Amrosio replaced Grosjean. It is simply complicated in 2014 (and 2015) by the fact that the drivers have different numbers.

I agree that listing them numerically makes sense now before the season has started, but once the season has started it makes more sense to list drivers and their replacements in chronological order. There is no "rule" that you speak of, and the 2014 article specifically shows that there exists a precedent predating your supposed "rule". The³5₉ (Talk) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

But in F1 2014, all the primary drivers drove in Australia (the first race), and also had a lower car number than their replacement drivers. So the article doesn't prove anything about style choices, as none needed to be made. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this is not going to turn into another dispute like the German Grand Prix, Eightball. You are awfully quick to accuse other members of vandalising the article, of lying and of being intentionally disruptive when you don't get your way. We're happy to discuss the reasons for the ordering, and will do so at length if need be, but your aggressive tactics will not be tolerated this time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me be the first to say, that after the Australian Grand Prix, this table will look stupid in it's current format. McLaren will have someone who hasn't driven listed at the top of their team list. Which is the complete opposite of every other year since Formula One began, where the drivers have been listed in the order they drove a given car (see F1 1994 where Verstappen is listed first despite not being the intended main driver, for exactly the same reasons as with Alonso/Magnussen). It seems like you've decided to change the rules because you feel like it, even though there is not a consensus to do so. And anyone who doesn't agree with you is classed as a vandal. WP:OWN immediately springs to mind with these edits, you cannot own the article, and must have consensus (which is what we were trying to achieve here) to change the normal procedure on listing drivers. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the current format for the time being. In the absence of a round column, the number column is being used as the discriminator for the ordering of the drivers. But once that round column is added, it will take precedence over the numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We have changed nothing. We are using the exact same practice as for the previous decades worth of articles. There are dozens and dozens of examples. Williams, Benetton, Simtek and Lotus in 1994, Sauber in 1997, Minardi in 2005, Toro Rosso in 2007, HRT in 2011, etc. The main reason why the criterium of primary driver-replacement driver wouldn't work is because there many, many cases where there was no clear "primary" driver. This is especially the case with smaller times who hire driver purely bases on the amount of money they bring and are chucked out if they stop paying their money. For instance in my 2005 Minardi example, want to make a statement whether Friesacher or Doornbos was the primary driver for the second seat? T v x1 17:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't think it is unreasonable to list the drivers by number until the race. Magnussen will be listed ahead of Alonso based on the rounds column, which acts as the discriminator. But without that column showing that Magnussen will drive before Alonso, the number column is acting as the discriminator. This presents a problem because the McLaren drivers are listed out of numerical sequence with nothing in the table to explain why when all of the other teams have drivers listed in numerical sequence. So we should either add the rounds column now, or swap Magnussen and Alonso about until such time as the rounds column is added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you even ask if you simply ignore and edit the article. Anyway, I have no problem with the round column being present. T v x1 01:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought, why don't do something similar to previous articles before 2014, like this:

McLaren Honda	McLaren-Honda	MP4-30	Honda RA615H Hybrid	P	20 14	Kevin Magnussen Fernando Alonso	1 2–20
McLaren Honda	McLaren-Honda	MP4-30	Honda RA615H Hybrid	P	22	Jenson Button	All

Pch172 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That would prevent the sorting from working properly. T v x1 22:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is another reason why I object to listing them purely by number order. The fact is that the reason why it would work in this case is that by sheer coincidence the three drivers' numbers form a sequence that matches the events of who replaced whom and thus Magnussen would be listed directly underneath Alonso. But that's not always going to happen. For example, let's just assume that van der Garde replaces Nasr and picks, say, 4 as his number. Listing by number in that case would neither provide the correct order of appearance, nor correct regular-replacement order. The round column would be a mess for that team, while looking normal for others. That's why it just doesn't work. T v x1 05:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And look at the 2014 season article—the Caterham drivers are listed in the order 9-46-10-45 rather than 9-10-45-46 because Stevens (#46) replaced Ericsson (#9) and Lotterer (#45) replaced Kobayashi (#10). To list them as 9-10-45-46 leaves Stevens out of sequence, nowhere near the driver that he actually replaced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

KyleRGiggs—please read this discussion before reverting the article any further. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Prisonermonkeys. I'd now hereby leaving a question here, from the list of Caterham driver in 2014, is that really any sequence present at the list? The situation I now describe has yet to be occurred, using the list of Ferrari of 2014: A driver, such as I called him Barack Obama of number 66, replaced Räikkönen at Round 6, and replaced Alonso at Round 7, then Räikkönen and Alonso drove for Round 8 since, the table should be as following:

Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari	P	7 14 66	Kimi Räikkönen Fernando Alonso Barack Obama	1–5, 7–19 1-6, 8–19 6-7

That's simply show which driver participated in the specific race, not which car was used at the race, as the rule change at 2014. If according to the concept of Prisonermonkeys, the table will be listed like that:

Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari	P	7 66 14 66	Kimi Räikkönen Barack Obama Fernando Alonso Barack Obama	1–5, 7–19 6 1-6, 8–19 7

The readers would bewildered that why there is two same person here. If I split into cars, the strange feeling would still present here:

Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari	P	7 66	Kimi Räikkönen Barack Obama	1–5, 7–19 6
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari	P	14 66	Fernando Alonso Barack Obama	1-6, 8–19 7

The readers would still bewildered that why a driver has to be listed twice. I look for the F1 2014 article twice, I still have no any idea why the drivers are listed like that. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The another concern is, if the table listed like that, it would largely expand the size of the article, which Twirlypen expressed his concern at the following discussion. It is not talking about who replaced who. For example, if Pérez was replaced by Ricciardo at the Aussie Grand Prix this season, the table is still listed by number of 3, 11, 27. That's not talking about Ricciardo is the reserved driver of Force India, but only the sequence of the number. Don't get your mind too deep. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 12:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to my opinion, I found that I have not given any opinions here. For me, I have two choices, 14/20/22 or 20/22/14. Thank you. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 12:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Under the current method, you above example would actually be:

Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari	P	7 66 14	Kimi Räikkönen Barack Obama Fernando Alonso	1–5, 7–19 6–7 1–6, 8–19

Because Obama replaced Räikkönen first. Hence, we can see that with the current method we order by drive, but do not split a driver into two drives if he drives both drives (hope that is understandable). We actually used to do that split when numbers were given to the teams rather than the drivers (see HRT in the 2011 season). —Gyaro –Maguus— 13:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is more bewildered. Why two drivers started from Round 1, and Obama being the second driver, demoting Alonso to the third driver? It is what I could imagine by a reader's mind. Also, using HRT of 2011 as an example is a stupid idea. We are talking about the number system introduced from 2014. For 2011, this is the only method we could done. But for 2014, not the driver change the car which number is given to, but the car number change according to the driver's identity.
For example, in 2011, the smaller number is labeled red and the bigger number is labeled yellow. But since 2014, the same number could be used on different cars. That's what Prisonermonkeys intended to suggest for, so I split the number into cars in suggestion, but it would largely expand the size of the article, but ranking into 7, 66, 14 is very strange why the numbers won't listed accordingly but with a nonsense order. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Third driver? Where does that come from? There is only two cars racing at a time, there is no third driver. Please don't make up circumstances that do not exist. Any demotion takes place entirely within your own perception. --Falcadore (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have no idea why I was tagged as expressing concern over the size of the article. That very clearly was not me. Twirlypen (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The driver order is not any kind of driver superiority, nor does it imply such a thing. It simply attempts to group drivers by driver seats, since teams can only run two drivers at a time. Obviously, you have come up with an awkward situation without an ideal solution. But let me tell you: it doesn't really matter. Once Alonso starts driving it'll look okay. Your proposed scenario is rare. —Gyaro –Maguus— 16:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we would have to ditch a year long practice here. If a driver replaces both drivers of team on, we list them twice. Similarly if a driver drives for more than one team, we list them with each team they drive for. There's no rule that each name can appear only exactly once in the drivers' column. T v x1 02:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No third driver is the main point I want to say. As there is no third driver here, why McLaren listed drivers in 20-14-22, it's really nonsense. I am still leaving the question for why not 14-20-22 or 20-22-14, but 20-14-22. No response here. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 12:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As no response for the question for about a week, I've made the change to the 2014 article, for the order of Caterham, listed by simply driver number. I'll make a change for McLaren's order by same principle too if still no one could respond my query. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 12:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is to keep it 20-14-22. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the consensus is what I am query for, that doesn't answer my question. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This whole discussion explains why it's this way. The reason is because drivers that are driving exactly the same car have always been placed next to each other,in chronological order of the races they drive. So in 2015, Magnussen and Alonso are driving the same car, and Magnussen drove it first, so he is listed first, followed by Alonso, who's the next person to drive that car. Button is driving a different car, so he's listed afterwards. Exactly the same reason for Caterham in F1 2014, Will Stevens' drove Ericsson's car in race 19, so should be listed directly below Ericsson. This has been the way it's been done for every year since F1 started, listing all the drivers of 1 of the team's car, followed by all the drivers of the team's other car. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You're overfocussing on the number column. The long-standing consensus is to give priority to the round column. At the end of each season that column's content in combination with the driver's column will make the able very easy to understand. You're just thinking to much about how it looks right now and are forgetting about how it will look in few weeks, months and even years. T v x1 18:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The table currently use does not show which car a driver used. There is one car with a yellow camera, insist difference of both cars. For Caterham last year, what would happened to the table if Kobayashi using a car with black camera? It would be more unclear if using a priority of round column. Keep for 20-14-22 is okay, but I'd rather make it like that.

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Driver	Round
McLaren Honda	McLaren-Honda	MP4-30	Honda RA615H Hybrid	P	20 14	Kevin Magnussen Fernando Alonso	1 TBA
McLaren Honda	McLaren-Honda	MP4-30	Honda RA615H Hybrid	P	22	Jenson Button	1

The yellow colour according to the camera colour. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What I am talking about is always that being nonsense for using a driver order in one column. To show the round sequence, it should be 20-22-14. To show the driver number sequence, 14-20-22. There is no any reason that including 20-14-22 in one column. For now, maybe someone understand, but for future i.e. a decade, a century, something like that, no one would understand why it would listed 20-14-22, despite a round order has clearly show. Clear does not mean explicit, in my opinion. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it will be obvious, because future versions of the article will look like this:

No.	Drivers	Rounds
20 14 22	Kevin Magnussen Fernando Alonso Jenson Button	1 2-19 All

It will be clear that Magnussen and Alonso drove the same car, and when Alonso took over from him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You ignored my focus on Caterham in 2014. What if Kobayashi used a different car - despite the fact he used the same car. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I ignored it for good reason—it's a bad idea to edit based on obscure hypothetical situations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

And we can't use separate cells for drivers in the same car because that's not compatible with the sortability of the table. T v x1 06:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And shading the cells of the number column to correspond with the camera housing would be inappropriate because there is nothing in the table or the article to indicate what those colours represent or why they have been included, so there are better ways of arranging the table—which we already have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Then not to use shading cells is okay. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

While I am not sure, but I think the separate cell issue could be solved if using the method what UEFA Euro 2012 used, but I have not yet to start a new sandbox here. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're putting forward solutions looking for a problem. There is nothing wrong with the current arrangement except that you don't think that it adequately addresses obscure outcomes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that table is supposed to provide us with a solution. That table has the same number of cells in each column, unlike your proposal. Your table uses row-spans in a couple of its column and if you use the sorting button in such a table the row-spanned cells will split and double. This effect is than irreversible without refreshing the page. Therefore it's a no go. T v x1 10:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Formula 1.com overhaul

The official Formula 1.com has received a complete overhaul. As a result of this, any links to that site we are currently using have become broken. So it seems we have a bit of archiving and replacing to do. I have already tackled this article, but there's more I'm afraid. T v x1 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying that, any race results links might not be worth bothering with yet as they have not yet implemented the historical data. —Gyaro –Maguus— 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to wait and see for now. The website has only just been given an overhaul, and so some of the older pages might be carried over to the new format in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It will still be mistake riddled though won't it? --Falcadore (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the internet. Over time, these things will happen. We will ~~probably~~ very likely have to bite the bullet on this and do a project-wide update if a bot can't do it for us. Keeping in mind I don't know the first thing about bots or their ability at swapping sources to the updated or archived links. Twirlypen (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it until the beta tags come off, as we don't want to waste effort on something that might fix itself. It might be worth checking the known errors to see if the new F1.com has fixed anything. Any non-results links will still have to be changed of course. QueenCake (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Following Formula1.com, the FIA's official site has received an overhaul as well. T v x1 16:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

FP1 drivers

Do we really need to include the numbers of the FP1 drivers? The numbers belong to the team, not to the individual drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. They are the primary means of identification. T v x1 15:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Constructors points

Someone made a math error, Ferrari have 52 points, not 42. For some reason, I cannot change it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed I updated the template at Template:F1 Constructors Standings. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Engine allocation

Per [GP Update], all teams have agreed to return to last year's allotment of 5 units instead of 4, but this still needs to be passed by the FIA, so it shouldn't be added til then. Twirlypen (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am back...

Let's stop this nonsense

The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.

... as a sock. You could ban this account, but you can't find all the others or to put it more precisely you can find them but what you can't do is to find any evidence (IP-addresses etc.) of connection to my main account. I have learned my lesson and this time around I know how to bend rules to make them suit me. This is not at all wrong as my enemies are all the time using sockpuppets to provoke me into edit-warring. The Russian Grand Prix thing was prime example of that. If they are not fighting fair, I ain't either. There's no alternative left. Just to confuse you further I am of course going to deny being behind this account when confronted at my talk page. Wikipedia is a mess but that is not my fault and you are going to see that it takes more than guns to kill a man. Prisonernonkeys (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Been there, done that :) Sometimes Wikipedia is no more than a social experiment where those insignificant people of the world find an avenue to gain and exercise the power they lack in real life. I especially like it (or, rather, chuckle) when they gang up too. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That you see other editors as enemies to be fought, is the problem.

You get banned because you refuse to stop edit warring, it is just that simple. When you feel the urge to revert someone's edit, just don't do it. Continue the talk page discussion, just without reverting others, for any reason. Don't go blaming others for baiting you, just don't do any reverting. Then you'll never get banned again. Probably. --Falcadore (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, were we supposed to actually believe you were Prisonermonkeys? Obvious misuse of cliches are obvious. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Prisonernonkeys has been indefinitely blocked for trying to impersonate User:Prisonermonkeys. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well everything is going to plan then. Dential gave unexpected help in stirring up the aussie (which is not that difficult anyway). However, I have to admit that Ben pennels (see edit history of this article for example) is not one of my brainchildren...Darrandarra (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ferrari's 2015 power unit name

A google search of "Ferrari 059/4" yields quite a number of results, albeit nearly all of them are in Italian. Anyone more knowledgable than I with the language feel like seeing if any of these results are worth using to give this unit a designation? Twirlypen (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Do any of them come from Ferrari themselves? T v x1 23:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, my Italian is at a level one would expect for someone that took a high school course for one semester 15 years ago. There may be quotes and/or confirmation from someone with authority within Ferrari in these links. I'm just asking if there's someone that knows the language to see. If there's nothing, then fine. A quote from Maurizio Arrivabene or a technical director would certainly qualify as reputable enough to add the designation, right? But if you're asking if any of the search results links directly to the Ferrari website, then no — but I don't think that is exclusively what we need necessarily. Twirlypen (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Italian Wiki's SF15 T article, which is far more detailed than our English article, has this designation. Hesitantly though, its only reference is the [official] site, which I can't view on my work computer at the moment. Is it lying in plain sight? Twirlypen (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Italian wiki article might be more detailed, it's certainly not better. There is literally no reference in the entire article. So everything, including the power unit designation, is unsourced and we can't use anything of it. The only link it has is to the SF15-T presentation page, which only includes four videos. As far as I can find while googling, the 2015 power unit has been nicknamed 059/4 by some journalists who simply counted forward from last year's designation. Nothing official has emerged though. T v x1 14:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I initially found it odd that when I searched "Ferrari 059/3 successor" that it suggested I search "Ferrari 059/4", because I know Ferrari enjoys being completely non-linear and ambiguous when it comes to their engine designations. Twirlypen (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Pole Trophy table

Are we doing this?

Pos.	Driver	Team	Poles
1	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes	2

I remember that since this became an official FIA award, and it mentioned in the infobox, we had kept a tally last year at the bottom of the page, but in a prose fashion and not a table. Twirlypen (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As there is only a trophy and no second place or third place or any recognition for effort beyond the winner it should be covered with a sentence rather than a table. --Falcadore (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Going from last year's experience I don't think a table is really necessary. It doesn't seem to get much coverage anyway and we seemed to be the only a site to be keeping those standings (in contrary to the Fastest Lap Award), which is not actually an acceptable practice. T v x1 03:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Different table looks in different browsers

Ok, so here is how the redesigned tables look in Chrome:

in Firefox:

in Safari:

and in mobile Safari:

The original, which has been reinstated in this article, looks like this in desktop view:

and in mobile view:

The FIrefox version is what I think the IP was complaining about in the above section. Given that the redesigned version looks so different in Firefox I think it's better we reinstate the original version. That was already executed in this article, but many articles still contain the redesigned version. Prisonermonkeys made most of the conversions, so I'm going to tag them here because they'll know best in which articles the conversion has been executed. T v x1 02:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got the one with no borders. And that's going to be a problem in the results matrices - it's now even harder to distinguish between cells. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The borders qre there though. They just have a lighter color on mobile and are therefore much much more difficult to see. T v x1 05:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I know they're there. It's just a pain. I don't see what was so wrong with the version we had up until yesterday. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

How it looks like in Firefox. See my picture above. And here is how the result matrix would look like in Firefox: T v x1 05:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1—I still don't see how that's a problem. Every individual cell is clearly delineated, and it is easier to distinguish between blue and purple results. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who complained about it and certainly not who changed it back. That would have been Elk Salmon. T v x1 06:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't have happened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1—I have restored the cell borders, but have lost the sortable function in the driver table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's because you didn't include the parameter which makes it sortable. T v x1 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to, but I broke the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That means you didn't use the correct parameter. By the way, I thought sorting didn't even work on mobile? T v x1 07:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't, but I can read the markup well enough to know what it does. And I can still view it in standard format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I made a RfC here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Tables_look_different_in_different_browsers because this is wikipedia wide issue. A consensus should be reached before editing this back and forth. --80.223.129.187 (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually like how the table looks in the Firefox browser. It's easier to see and to follow who finished where, and to do stats, which i love doing. YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind the new tables, even though I had to re-adapt at first. Only thing is: Is the font smaller than before? I feel like I can read it worse than before... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Bridgestone

Obvious troll

I remember to have read somewhere at Gp Update that Ferrari considers moving to Bridgestone tyres mid-season. Has anyone got more info and how should this be incorporated in the article? I seem to be unable to edit the article btw.188.67.81.167 (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there supposed to be a championship-wide tyre supplier?Rentzepopoulos (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Pirelli is still under contract at least until the end of 2016. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Pirelli has an exclusive contract that runs for this and next season. Secondly, I don't really see why Ferrari would want to change supplier, given the fact that the tyres have been playing in their advantage thus far this season. Thirdly, you can't edit this page because it's semi-protected. Only user that been registered for at least four days can edit semi protected pages. T v x1 20:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No rumours please. When Ferrari announce a relationship with Bridgestone, that's when it is incorporated. Wikipedia doesn't do soft news and rumour, it is outside the website's scope. --Falcadore (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be Prisoner*n*onkeys again. WP:DUCK. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's no secret GP Update is my primary source of Formula 1 news, and I've never seen such a story. Provide links, don't just say "I remember reading somewhere..." Twirlypen (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it was a troll trying to stir up trouble. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Another colour issue — the world map

How does everybody see this image?

I think that the pink and the grey are way too similar, and extremely difficult to make out. The pink should be a darker colour — possibly red or dark blue. Alternatively, we could simply do away with the former host nations and venues for the maps that we use in season articles since we're showing host nations for the current season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks exactly like it's described in the caption in the article to me and the pink actually sticks out quite clearly. It probably appears different to you due to your red-green colorblindness. T v x1 23:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but it's still a bad colour to use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to making the pink a little darker, but the emphasis of this picture is the current nations, so a darker shade should not be to the point that it overpowers the green. Twirlypen (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested getting rid of past nations entirely, and just showing 2015 nations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally think we should ditch non-current nations. After all, how useful is it that Argentina or South Africa hosted a race? These last happened in 1990s and 1980s. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd support that. Twirlypen (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we could indeed do with a past host-less version of the map in the season articles, but the map with past hosts is useful for articles such as List of Formula One Grands Prix. T v x1 09:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but it should use a darker colour than the pink. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I support Tvx1's idea. The past hosts are not relevant to the current season, but the map is relevant in the list-article. As for the color issue maybe the maps could just have an outline of the countries, then the colored countries would stand out more? --Tuoppi gm (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At first, I've seen this disccusion too late (after the question of Prisonermonkeys and redesigning the map...)

Of course that's not acceptable, and for me it's an additional indicator, that we're not thinking enough of creating barrier-free articles.

So I've thought a second time for the reason of the colors, and think the most important message are the actual countries, and the former countries are enough to indicate (not more). So all countries are now a lighter grey, former countries dark grey and actual countries ~~red~~ dark green. ~~Are the colors acceptable for you, or do you think blue is better than red?~~ regards --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 12:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Good lord, no! That color is way, way to bright. The green was much better. T v x1 12:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I was also not sure, so I was prepared :-) and changed the red version back to green. regards --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 13:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW: I've tried darker red instead of pink too, but red is too dominant, so I've used now dark grey. My favorited suggestion at the moment. regards --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 13:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Green/dark grey looks fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and it seems what we want to achieve is more contrast between former host countries and countries that have never done anything regarding F1 races. So I was wondering if instead of meddling with the color of the former host countries, we could leave that a lone a make the color of the countries that have never done anything lighter to increase the contrast? T v x1 13:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

the light grey is lighter than before, that's not light enough? Regards --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I cannot really see the point of this map anyway. Are you trying to show how "global" Formula One is this season? And if isn't explicitly sourced, I would argue it is an example of synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

All it's doing is showing which countries have Grands Prix. It's a pretty harmless complement to the calendar. Which is sourced, so I'm not sure how you think it's synthesised. QueenCake (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The point of it is to be interactive, and fill some whitespace. All the current host countries are sourced on the page anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's more than simply filling up white space. If that was its only function, we wouldn't include it. No, it's a visual representation of the calendar, one that is intended to supplement the calendar table.

And I dispute the claim that it is synthesis—that there is any synthesis in the article at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was supporting the map, but worded last post badly. It's interactive as a visual representation, and it fills up whitespace, which is really good too. Also, where's the synthesis? Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what I want to know. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I can say: The map is identical to the List of Formula One circuits and the references. By the way, I'm the main editor of the German list de:Liste der Formel-1-Rennstrecken, and I've updated and crosschecked 2012 the map and the list with references before (of course!) before I've nominated the list, and updated the list and the map the last 3 years. And the map is also included in the List of Formula One circuits now for 2 or more years... I know we've too many synthesis everywhere, so I understand your question, and I hope the answer is o.k. Thx and regards --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My point about synthesis is that the map itself isn't sourced, just the data from which it was created, right? It's not a big deal, I agree, and I don't really object to it on that basis. I think of more concern is that I see no point to a "visual representation of the calendar". What exactly is it intended to show? Right now, it just looks like a pretty graphic for the sake of a pretty graphic. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

At the first step this map was designed to illustrate the List of Formula One circuits and have exactly the same scope like the complete list, so when you want to talk about scope, we've to talk at Talk:List of Formula One circuits. I don't really understand your question. Many years before I take over the care of this map every time it was a helpful and easy overview of the host nations, and at the second the map shows also the balance between Europe, America and Asia, specially the last years when the focus was shifted more and more to Asia and America. Thanks my opinion, but I think the starting point of this discussion were a problem for color-blind people, not the meaning of the map. Regards --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem for the discussion of the colors of the map to extend into a discussion about whether or not it is necessary. Your comment about showing the global distribution of races is a fair point; however, if you are using that as justification for the map's existence, where is the reference talking about that distribution? I don't want to sound like an asshole about this - I actually like the map and have no real objection to its inclusion from a visual standpoint, but it does seem like its reason for existence is somewhat ill-defined. Right now, I maintain it is just a pretty graphic that doesn't really do anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. now the references are added in the description at commons. @Prisonermonkeys:, @Twirlypen: and others: Shall we change the map at List of Formula One circuits too? regards --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 14:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought, do we think we need an inset map for Europe? It looks clustered on the big map in Europe, and is unclear in the web page? Pch172 (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Tokens

How many tokens has each engine supplier used and how many tokens has each engine supplier got left? Perfectamundo (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

See this.T v x1 23:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Perfectamundo (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Manor or Marussia

I notice the table lists Manor as Manor-Ferrari. Should this be Marussia-Ferrari? After all, this is the constructors championship and the name of the constructor is Marussia. Manor is just part of the team name, in the same way that Petronas or Infiniti are for Merc and Red Bull, neither of which appear in this table176.35.156.53 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the team name is Manor Marussia F1 Team, but the "Marussia" part is just a legacy of the old team name, because Marussia no longer exists. The table notes the team name and, where different, the engine supplier. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The constructor column currently lists the constructor as Marussia-Ferrari. Is this correct? Shouldn't it be Manor-Ferrari? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's extremely confusing, as you can see from the entry list. Company names, team names, chassis names, and ~~engine~~ power unit names. I'm sure what we have now reflects a consensus of some earlier discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but I've noticed it's changed at least 3 times since yesterday, between Marussia-Ferrari and Manor-Ferrari. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

To explain: The entry's company name is Manor Grand Prix Racing Limited and the team was supposed to be renamed Manor for 2015. But after going into and coming out of administration, the team needed to make sure they could get on the entry list quickly and - more importantly - that they would get Marussia's prize money from 2014. So they kept the Marussia name for that purpose (pretty much like the Deutsche Reichsbahn was kept under that name in East Germany to keep the Berlin S-Bahn contracts). Also, the current car still carries the name, so it makes sense to keep the name in the constructor's name. So it should read Manor-Marussia-Ferrari in the table. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link: [1]. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Or rather: It should stay as it is for now. Full name on the left, Marussia as constructor, since it was Marussia who build the chassis they are currently competing with. If they should debut the MNR1, we can still see if we change it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, well explained. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote the OP above. One other thing to consider from a consistency perspective. If we populate this table using the official names registered with the FIA for the 'name of the chassis' and 'name of the engine' manufacturer, then Red Bull-Renault should be 'Red Bull Racing-Renault'. I'm not suggesting we MUST make this change, but if we are trying to be consistent with FIA terminology, then this is required.131.111.184.30 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I did notice that the onscreen graphics put them as Marussia-Ferrari. T v x1 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It was 3am when I watched the race live, but I'm almost certain NBCSN had them as Manor-Ferrari. Also, previous to Manor being disallowed to use their 2014 chassis, we had a discussion about if we should list the chassis as the MR03 or MNR1. They are using the 2015 chassis with a 2014 power unit. From our sources, Manor was denied the use of the 2014 chassis, but allowed to use a 2015 chassis with a 2014 Ferrari unit. With that, I gather that the chassis is actually more MNR1 than MR03. Twirlypen (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

They are using a revised version of the MR03. [2] As far as I read, they need to present a new 2015 chassis for Bahrain in 3 weeks time. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If and when it gets introduced, the table could get a bit messy. I suggest the following:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds	No.	Free Practice drivers
Manor Marussia F1 Team	Marussia-Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	28 98	Will Stevens Roberto Merhi	2—9 2—9	—
Manor Marussia F1 Team	Marussia-Ferrari	MNR1	Ferrari 059/3	P	28 98	Will Stevens Roberto Merhi	10—19 10—19	—

I think that this is the simplest and most effective way of displaying it, but I don't know what implications it has for the sortable function. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite sure we'll be able to handle it. In the 60s and 70s we have plenty of teams racing all sorts of drivers, engines and chassis. Note though that as far as I know Manor also aims at using Ferrari's 2015 power unit in the new car. Let's see if and when they are able to pull it off. Bernie's comments are certainly not helping (biggest douce in the universe!). Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been a bit of a problem on the WRC season articles when drivers change cars and numbers and tyres and co-drivers with regularity. When cells begin to cross over rows, it gets unwieldy quickly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we would have to duplicate driver information if a team uses more than one chassis during a season. We have never done that. See for instance Toro Rosso in 2008. Furthermore it's simply not compatible with the sort function. T v x1 11:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I too do not understand why there seems to be two separate parts for the Chassis... Many pages in the past have never been like this even though different engines have also been used in the past. Try not to break the system. *Joe Tri10_ 23:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the process that the team has to go through in order to get the new car ready, with its own set of crash tests and homologation, I think that it represents a change substantial enough to integrate into the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's nothing new and we have never done so in any previous case. And as I have stated before, it doesn't work with the sorting. T v x1 12:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, if Manor is in fact using a "modified" 2014 chassis, then the current content of our article is misleading. It explicitly states that they are using a 2015 model chassis with a 2014 power unit. I do not want to make the changes myself, because I clearly don't understand the situation fully enough myself to word it correctly. Twirlypen (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that this issue is so minor that we can disregard it on the basis that it is inconvenient for the existing markup. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the sortable function could be sacrificed if no alternative markup can be found.

This is not as simple as a team merely introducing mid-season updates to a car. Manor will need to design and build a brand new car from the ground up, then submit it to the FIA for crash tests and homologation. We will undoubtedly have an independent article for the new car, and results will be credited to it by the FIA. To my mind, it is no different to a rally driver switching from a Fiesta WRC to a DS3 WRC mid-season.

I am aware that there have been cases in the past where a new car is introduced mid-season, and that driver tables are not split up to reflect that. However, I do not think that this is a valid argument against doing it here, given the extent of the process a team must go through in order to get a new car introduced mid-season. And given that it happens so rarely these days, it is unlikely to cause major disruptions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are massively overrating the importance of the event here. Your WRC example doesn't relate to this situation either because that's an example of a driver changing constructors during the season, which is something we do acknowledge in Formula 1 articles as well by listing the driver in question with each constructor they competed with. T v x1 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we should it any different than in this 1968 example, except for not the engine, but the constructor changing names.

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	Driver	Rounds
Bruce McLaren Motor Racing	McLaren-BRM	M5A	BRM P142 3.0 V12	G	Denny Hulme	1
	McLaren-Ford	M7A	Ford Cosworth DFV 3.0 V8		Denny Hulme	2-12
	McLaren-Ford	M7A	Ford Cosworth DFV 3.0 V8		Bruce McLaren	2-12

Were not talking about a change of constructor names or power unit manufacturers here. Were simply talking about a constructor debuting their current season car during the season, rather than at the start of it. It's exactly the same situation as Toro Rosso debuting their 2008 STR3 a couple of races into the season, using the Toro Rosso STR2B for the first few races or Ferrari using the F2004M to start the 2005 season, while debuting the F2005 a couple of races later. I really can't see why we can treat the current season in the exact same way as these previous examples. T v x1 18:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a completely different car, and recognised as such by the FIA. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The STR3 was a completely different car than the STR2 (and it's evolution STR2B). The F2005 was a completely different car than the F2004 (and it's evolution F2004M). The Minardi PS05 was a completely different car than the PS04 (and it's evolution PS04B). Nothing unique. Exactly the same as in the past. T v x1 19:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's my point—Manor will compete with two completely different cars over the course of the one season, and the table should reflect that. Likewise, those past articles should be updated in the same way, showing when the new car was introduced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, if they use two chassis, then list them both in the order they were used. If it breaks the sortability then so what, make that column unsortable. The correctness of information is more important than sortability or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't work. If you add rowspan to even one cell, the entire table is affected. Not just the column in which it is contained. We have these situations before and we have perfectly dealt with them and no one complained. We would be the ones who making this event notable. Notability is not made up by the editors but by the sources. I really don't see why we would have to change the system now. T v x1 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but, PM, if it is the same as in the past, why are you arguing we do something new? And Joseph, if we display the information either way, it'll still be correct. If anything we could write the round numbers of the chassis into the table, either as solid text or as a tooltip, if the chassis was not used in all races. —Gyaro –Maguus— 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That could work actually:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Rounds	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds	No.	Free Practice drivers
Manor Marussia F1 Team	Marussia-Ferrari	MR03 MNR1	1—4 5—19	Ferrari 059/3	P	28 98	Will Stevens Roberto Merhi	2—9 2—9	—

T v x1 21:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And Joseph, we are not discussing whether or not we will include Manor's new chassis. We're discussing whether or not to duplicate power unit, tyre and driver information for each chassis. If we continue using our decades-long system for this it would simply look like this:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds	No.	Free Practice drivers
Manor Marussia F1 Team	Marussia-Ferrari	MR03 MNR1	Ferrari 059/3	P	28 98	Will Stevens Roberto Merhi	2—9 2—9	—

What's wrong with that? T v x1 22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but I would be inclined to have the chassis and rounds in separate cells rather than sharing a cell. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

GyaroMaguus — why am I arguing for something new? Because I think that it is something that we should consider, and to the best of my knowledge, we have never really discussed it before.

Like I said, we are talking about two completely different cars. They are recognised by the FIA as being two different cars. We will recognise them as being two different cars as we will have two separate articles. I think that the table should be updated to show when a new car was introduced, even if that means repeating some cells, like the drivers and their appearances. I still feel that it is no different to a rally driver switching from a Fiesta to a DS3 mid-season (even if they are built by different constructors). And I think that this is the best way of representing it, especially in the event of mid-season driver changes:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds	No.	Free Practice drivers
Manor Marussia F1 Team	Marussia-Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	28 98	Will Stevens Roberto Merhi	2—9 2—9	—
Manor Marussia F1 Team	Marussia-Ferrari	MNR1	Ferrari 059/3	P	28 51 98	Will Stevens Rubens Barrichello Roberto Merhi	10—11 12—19 10—19	—

Yes, it involves doubling up on some information, but I think that this is the clearest representation that we can have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's also consider that Manor may stuff a 2015 power unit in the new car. That too would need it's own cell. Twirlypen (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see the necessity for this. All the other 9 cars used by the other teams have been subjected to the exact same FIA procedures. It's simply a team introducing their current season car after a few races instead of at the start of the season like anyone else. You are literally the one turning this into a unique and important event. Per the sources, however, it's hardly a notable occurrence. T v x1 13:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

How can I make this any clearer? The two chassis are recognised as being two completely different cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is nothing unique. Again, you are making this into a special event. T v x1 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's nothing unique, why are there only a handful of instances of it happening in the modern version of the sport? And why does it mean that the chassis should be listed without context, rather than the table rewritten to show when the new car was introduced? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Regulations, I think. Context can be given in the prose (e.g. season report). Tables aren't catch all solutions. T v x1 22:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly — the regulations limit the ability of teams to introduce entirely new cars during a season, which means that when teams do introduce a new car, it represents a major change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't act like we're suggesting the information to be left out entirely. If and when Manor introduce a new chassis we will include the information. I just don't think it's that important to include it in the manner you demand it to. We won't leave that information entirely out of the wiki either. You'll be able to find it in the team's article. T v x1 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Going a bit offtopic, but shouldn't Stevens and Merhi entries in the table say they took part in rounds 1-3 because they technically did take part in the Australian race. The results table also indicates that they did take part. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think DNP means much taking part. T v x1 19:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But the drivers were there and their cars was approved by the stewards. If DNP doesn't count, how about DNQ, DNPQ, etc, where is the line that the drivers have taken part in the weekend? I would understand taking part means that the drivers took part in the weekends event (which Stevens and Merhi did). Or is requirement that they take part in the "competetitive" parts of the weekend? Also afaik in other season pages DNPs have counted as taking part. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see how just physically being there constitutes taking part. They didn't even come close to spending even one second on track. They line shpuld be there right between DNP and DNQ/DNPQ. And yes, that's exactly how we have done it before. See for instance Mastercard Lola in 1997.T v x1 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This argument look like it died but, but Prisonermonkeys, can you explain what you mean about the MNR1 being "recognized by the FIA as a completely different chassis" and this being somehow "unique" in the annals of Formula 1? I don't see how this should be any different from a team introducing a B-spec chassis. The only difference here would be that the new chassis will use a different engine. That's one extra cell than usual. Eightball (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys is currently blocked so will not be able to answer. I think what they meant is, contrary to a B-spec, the new chassis would have to be subjected to mandatory crash test before being approved. This is however not different to previous instances of teams debuting their new season's cars a few races into it (e.g. Ferrari F2004M&F2005, STR2B&STR3,...) and thus nevertheless nothing unique. T v x1 13:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What you say would mean that a B-spec is not subject to a crash test, but they are. Toro Rosso wanted to introduce a new spec of their current car in Barcelona which had a shorter nose just like the Red Bull, but they failed their new crash test and were unable to do so... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Prisonermonkey's comments made me believe the opposite. That's interesting because that reduces the uniqueness of Manor's car usage even more. T v x1 19:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for the additional info. Eightball (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hamilton's car number

Isn't Hamilton's car number #1 this year, as reigning champion? Not the #44 of last year? Note how Vettel has #1 on last season's page. Not really familiar with F1 page standards, though... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 13:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Buttons to Push Buttons: Been discussed before, his number is #44. The reigning champion can choose car #1, but don't have to use #1. Hamilton has decided he wants to use #44 rather than #1, see [3] and [4]. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah right, somehow had failed to notice he wasn't actually using #1... :) Thanks. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, here is a recent picture of him using 44. T v x1 14:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking

I'd just like to take a moment to tip my hat to everyone in keeping up with the overlinks. With as many editors as this article has had and will have, it'd be easy to let it get carried away and deal with it later. But we are saving ourselves a LOT of tedious work in the long run if we choose to pursue a FA status for this article in the future. So once again, great work everybody. Twirlypen (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Power Unit allocation

With Max Verstappen and Jenson Button now incurring penalties for using fifth new power unit components, I hope this can now put an end to the speculation that the power unit components allocation would have been raised to five for this season.T v x1 20:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Manor/Marussia/Manor Marussia

Given the backstory to Manor Marussia for 2015, their former name of Marussia in 2014, and Manor Marussia's official chassis on the 2015 FIA entry list as Marussia, I feel that some premptive concensus may be in order. This may be a little confusing... but, because Manor Marussia (15) was formed from the remains of Marussia (14), Marussia (14) and their resurrection is detailed. However, in order to claim the prize money Marussia (14) earned, Manor Marussia (15) had to retain the Marussia (15) name for their chassis. So, in a sense, we would now have an article where we could reasonably have the term Marussia refering to 2 different entities/chassis. So I propose this:

Marussia: use in this article to refer to the 2014 team.
Manor Marussia: use in this article to refer to the 2015 team AND the 2015 chassis despite the name Manor not appearing on the FIA entry name for the chassis, not unlike how we do with Force India, Red Bull, and Toro Rosso.

This proposal would be for disambiguation and clarity for the casual reader. Thoughts? Twirlypen (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Driver number sort values

McLaren's sort value is 14, which should list Fernando Alonso first. However, despite my efforts (changing sort values to 3 digits, etc.), it continues to list Kevin Magnussen ahead of him when using this function. Any ideas how this can be fixed? Twirlypen (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The data-sort-value function determines the order between cells, not within cells. As 20 appears before 14 in that cell, it will always do so regardless of the data-sort-value. The only way to fix it would be to return to splitting each driver into a separate row, but then that causes the rowspan="2" cells to split when the sort function is used. ^Kytabu _Talk 11:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that'd do it. Also aside from putting Alonso first in the cell, which we already have a clear concensus against doing due to the timeline of rounds. Or, we could just eliminate the sort function for the column altogether, since it is fairly useless if it's not going to work as intended... Twirlypen (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Or if you really must, you could change McLaren's sort value to 20, so that all the cells are sorted on the number on top of the cell. Nevertheless, it doesn't really bother me that the 14 does not appear on top op the cell when sorting. T v x1 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the entire point of having a sort function in the first place to list the team's lowest number first? Twirlypen (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really, it is to sort by the team's lowest numbers, irrespective of their position in the cells. T v x1 20:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

European rounds

@Twirlypen:, maybe the report about Austria is a little too detailed? Also, is capitalize OK with WP:POV? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I really like the summary so far. This is a very minor complaint, but Canada is not really part of Europe. I know that F1 fans have traditionally called the Spain-Italy part of the season the 'European Rounds' but it might be better to have the subheading as "Rounds 5-8", or perhaps "Spain-Austria". JohnMcButts (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, Canada is not in Europe. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be born in mind that this is a summary of the Formula One season - not a race-by-race summary. Individual race reports have their own articles. A season summary section will need to be re-written after each race as each race affects the whole season not just a little piece of it. --Falcadore (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Like how I wrote the "Opening rounds" portion of the article? I can see that. As far as Canada not being in Europe, that's fairly obvious. But let's look at the options:

Get rid of the subsections altogether, so that the season summary is one giant mess of a prose like it was last year and the year before. Note, those both have tons upon tons of overlinks that also make it difficult to read, which I have been proactively keeping out of this season's article.
Add a subsection just for Canada, which to me seems silly and unnecessary. (Opening rounds (1-4), Opening European rounds (5-6), Canada (7), Closing European rounds (7-12), and Closing rounds (12-19) just seems excessive and messy.)
Keep it the way it is with the three subsections (which, I am bias towards since I implemented it). To me, it's the easiest way for the casual reader to find the portion of the season they want to read about.

If we feel that the casual reader will get hung up on Canada not being in Europe, we can note that in the prose or something. As far as the style of the prose, I kind of got into the habit of doing a round by round summary as the European rounds unfolded, as the style of prose in the Opening rounds section, while more intuitive to the style we ultimately want, is harder to manage. It was my intention to rewrite the European rounds section once it was over. I understand this is a work in progress, and mistakes will be made. Twirlypen (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, thank you for the feedback on this. I had no idea which way the community was leaning towards my contributions. Twirlypen (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Option D. If it's a Giant Mess of Prose(TM), make it less giant and less messy. --Falcadore (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Which I've done by subsectioning portions of the season and keeping overlinks nonexistant. And as far as the style the European portion of it is written, let me copy & paste this in case it was passed over the first time: "It was my intention to rewrite the European rounds section once it was over." That meant I was going to rewrite it from the round-by-round summary it's currently in to a more overall season summary like the Opening rounds section is. Subsectioning it dissuades the 25-30 line long paragraphs (even on 1366x768 full screen resolution) for each team like 2014 is.

I have literally been the only one making any attempt at keeping the season report current. I didn't even do Spain (so far the most boring race of 2015 IMO), and only added content after Monaco. I welcome comments and suggestions regarding content, but if anyone thinks this is aesthetically worse than 2014 or 2013's summaries (which definately fall under the GMoP(TM) guidelines), then they should just stick to the numbers and charts. Twirlypen (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No need to get personal with each other here. I think it looks great and is not to lengthy at all. The only thing we need to do is find a more suitable tile for the "European rounds" section. We don't need to change the structure. T v x1 14:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I added "and Canadian" to the section title. Sometimes the obvious fix is also the easiest. My apologies for my short temper. We had a storm roll through my area of New Jersey the other day and I've been without power (and AC) for 2 days now. Twirlypen (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

New regulations

Wording these aren't my forte.. but this (and probably other sources) is it. Twirlypen (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Disregard. Didn't see that these still have to go through the WMSC meeting next week. Twirlypen (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)