Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Test Drivers

With teams now confirming that test drivers will be appearing in the practice sessions of this weekend's Grand Prix, I think it's time we settle on how to present them in the article. Will we add a column to the "Teams and Drivers" table? Or should we use the separate, collapsible table that's already present hidden in the article's code. Or does anyone has an even better proposal? Tvx1 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a hidden table under the drivers table that has the test drivers. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that. In fact, I mentioned it as one of the options in my initial question. The discussion that led to the hidden inclusion of the table is now archived and seems to have been archived without reaching a consensus. That's why I decided to raise the issue. To be certain that everybody's happy with the way the Test Drivers are included in the article. Tvx1 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to start using a new table. Include drivers who take part in a practice session in a column on the teams and drivers table, as we came to a consensus to do last year. QueenCake (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea of using a second table was floated because race drivers and test drivers are not the same thing. Race drivers qualify the car and compete in the race; test drivers drive part-time in a non-competitive timed session, and not every team uses them. They are not as important as race drivers, and so probably should not be included in the same table. A collapsible table was used as it provides the information separately and in a non-intrusive way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It also adds a whole extra table to the page, for something you quite rightly state isn't that important. The long and arduous discussion last year produced the current column, which is unobtrusive and simple to understand. As we formed the established consensus relatively recently, I don't think you should break it without forming it for this change. QueenCake (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that almost entirely, save for the fact that there is one important change since that consensus was formed. In-season testing, along with its test drivers, has returned from this season. So that is something we should consider. Tvx1 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We have never really dedicated any space to in-season testing, even when it was unrestricted. I see no reason to start now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2014

Teams and drivers who took part in Free Practice 1 sessions
Nat.	Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Nat.	Drivers	Rounds
	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham-Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	46		Robin Frijns	3
	Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	36		Giedo van der Garde	3
	Williams Martini Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	40		Felipe Nasr	3
Sources:

Officially Mr X (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Naturally, it should replace the table which is currently hidden on the actual article. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

We're discussing on how to present the test drivers on two headlines above this one and some users opposed to using a separate table, so there is no agreement to use it yet. Furthermore, the heading of your proposed table is not entirely accurate. From this season on, test drivers are no longer limited to practice 1 but can be used in both Friday (or Thursday) practice sessions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 4 April 2014‎

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Also, the use of {{citation needed}} on the last row does not satisfy WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've added a source, but that only solves the lesser of the two issues. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is an issue at all, really. Race drivers and test drivers are not the same thing. Race drivers will qualify the car and race it; test drivers take part in free practice sessions on a part-time basis. They are notable in that they have taken part in a Grand Prix weekend, but as they have taken part in the least important part of said weekend, their presence is supplementary at best, and they could reasonably be removed from the article altogether without problem (after all, we do not cover free practice anywhere else in the article, unless something drastic happens). Therefore, they should not be included in the team and driver table, as that implies that they are of similar importance. So what, then, to do with them? The answer was to include them in a collapsible table: the information is available to readers who want it, but in a way that is unobtrusive and does not overstate their role. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Links

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

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)

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)

Teams&Drivers table

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

So would the general preference be to remove the top line altogether then?Tvx1 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say leave it as is. There is no pressing need to change it, and change for the sake of change does not achieve much. Especially when there are other issues that we can expend our energy on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Penalty points

I recently added this section, explaining which drivers were carryiong penalty points and why. Hunocsi reverted it 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Kanoch (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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. Kanoch (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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. Kanoch (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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:JohnMcButts, User:QueenCake, User:GyaroMaguus; do you have any insights that you would like to offer? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added this section back, with substantial changes, here: Penalty Points. I agree with Hunocsi's point of view that there's "No need for positions, it isn't a competition". For the same reason I also believe that this information does not belong in Results and Standings section, but instead as a subsection of Season report. On another note I think it's very interesting that, to my knowledge for the first time, results from a previous season can affect a future season. This is because penalty points last for 12 months, not until the end of a season. It would be great if someone could find an article about this and include it in this section. Kanoch (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How about you wait until the penalty points have an actual impact on results before you include them?

Also, just because something is properly sourced, that does not mean its continued inclusion in the article is guaranteed. I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:3RR before you start restoring content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Objective, relevant, properly cited facts merit inclusion in an article. The table lists 5 specific drivers, and their associated number of penalty points. This is interesting, encyclopaedic information. In light of Maldonado's comments, isn't it interesting to see that he has accrued 3 penalty points? Isn't it interesting to see who the "troublemaker's" or "careless" drivers are? Just watching the Sky coverage right now, Martin Brundle quizzing Bernie Ecclestone on the penalty points subject, the former stating confidently "someone's going to get disqualified this year". It's clearly a hot topic right now. In terms of WP:BRD and WP:3RR, I believe there is some consensus between myself, Hunocsi and Mjroots on the inclusion of this information in the article. Of course the more opinions we can get, the better. Kanoch (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've registered an account so it's easier to have this discussion. Kanoch (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There are two problems with your statement:

First, it might be interesting, but being interesting does not make it relevant. If and when it impacts upon somebody's ability to compete in a tangible way - for example, with a race ban - then some degree of coverage is justified.

Secondly, you call it "a hot topic right now", but that is WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting does not make it relevant, the fact that it indicates precise, factual information about the "incidents" which have occurred this season makes it relevant. As noted by Maldonado, Kravitz+Croft, and Brundle+Ecclestone, it is and will impact driver's ability to compete in all races including China. The second paragraph about driver's opinions on the subject could fall under WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, but the first paragraph and the table to not. Please suggest what you think should be done to improve this (changes or removal of the 2nd paragraph?). Kanoch (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:RECENTISM, doesn't the main body of Season report fail this test? "Nico Rosberg currently leads", "Mercedes, are leading", etc. Shouldn't these be written in the past tense, e.g. "Following the Bahrain GP, [this was the state of affairs]". Kanoch (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixing the problem is easy - get rid of it entirely. Come back to it if and when a driver gets a ban. The penalty points do not impact upon a driver's ability to compete until they get a ban. If they choose to moderate themselves to avoid a further penalty, then that is their choice. If it happens, then it will affect individual drivers differently. It is entirely subjective, intangible and unquantifiable. Furthermore, it puts undue weight on minor infractions that would never normally be covered, like speeding in pit lane.

In the event that a driver gets banned, look no further than 2012 Formula One season for how it should be handled. Romain Grosjean got banned from the Italian Grand Prix, which is reflected in the team and driver table and the mid-season driver changes section.

In short, the section seems to have been included for the sake of inclusion, under the assumption that because it happened, then it automatically merits inclusion, with the section padded out with opinions on the merits of the rule change - something that has never been included for any rule change in the past, much less having an entire sub-section dedicated to it.

If we continue including this, then where does it end? Next we will be naming the fastest driver in each practice session. Or adding a table showing testing mileage per driver, car and engine. Or describing when and where each team changed one part of their power unit. We could include all of those, and more, but we do not, because there comes a point where we weigh the article down with minutiae. All of those things happened, yes, but they have no impact on the season as a whole. So, in a year from now - or five, or ten - will anyone care about Bottas getting two penalty points for speeding in pit lane? And if the answer is no, then the question becomes "why did we include it in the first place?" Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion that they have no impact on the season is not supported by citations, whereas the opposite case is supported by citation. The case of "Next we will be naming the fastest driver in each practice session" is not applicable, because if that were to be recorded then it would go in the individual GP articles and not the season article. "So, in a year from now - or five, or ten - will anyone care about Bottas getting two penalty points for speeding in pit lane?" will anyone care that Mercedes were leading the championship after the third round? You could ask that question about anything. Kanoch (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion however is based on the assuption that a driver will receive a penalty. That is speculatory. --Falcadore (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made no assumptions here, my assertion is based a cited source, that's not speculation. link Kanoch (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And the citations provided only demonstrate that penalty points were given. I am not denying that penalty points were given; I simply dispute the idea that they are notable enough for inclusion because they were given. Penalty points do not impact upon a driver's ability to compete until they record twelve points. If they choose to back off to avoid getting a further penalty, then that is their choice, and not a direct result of the penalty. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A large number of sports employ a points based system for use in judiciary hearings, most notably a large number of football codes. Wikipedia records none of them. It is an unneccasary detail and it is a detail that will not become notable until a penalty is created. But like any other occassion in other Formula One articles, the mode and/or mechanism of suspension is not detailed until an actual suspension occurs. There are a very large number of rules and regulations in motor racing, listing them all is not even remotely important until those regulations are enacted, creating an outcome in a race. Anticipating a future outcome is speculation no matter which way you cut it. We don't for example, record the number of times drivers cut chicanes. We don't record the numbers of engines or gearboxes a driver has used during the season, even though the outcome of violating those limitations also brings forth penalties and trackable performance implications. We don't track the number of tyres used in each race even though the possibility exists if you change enough tyres you will have to put a tyre back on the car that has been used too much.

Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, perhaps this detail could be better recorded at the specific Formula One Wikia? --Falcadore (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Discipline from football codes is reported on Wikipedia. 2013–14_Premier_League#Discipline, 2013–14_Manchester_United_F.C._season#Squad_statistics, 2013–14_Liverpool_F.C._season#Disciplinary_record, I'm sure I could find many others. Kanoch (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think the fact that the penalty points exist on the driver's license for a calendar year (not just the season) mean it is probably not best to list it on season articles. Maybe on the FIA Super Licence article notable occurrences should be noted (nor what incursions get what punishments) or on a new article that lists the penalty points incursions. Also, it is on the F1 Wiki. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That could be handled by adding two columns to the table, and listing the awarding of points individually instead of cumulatively. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Listing the points individually in another column (in addition to cumulatively) would be useful. Kanoch (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that if this content is going to be included on Wikipedia, then it is going to be in another article. Does anyone have any objections to its removal? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Prisonermonkeys and Falcadore. Compiling penalty points is just unnecessary minutia, no different to tracking engine usage or counting free practice laps. That level of detail is beyond what we need to include on Wikipedia. To repeat what I have said before, if a driver should find themselves suspended because of this rule, then it can be stated in the text. I did notice that people have made a link between penalty points and the pole trophy. Now while the latter is a bit of a gimmick, it remains a separate award issued by the FIA, and is not that different from the old Colin Chapman trophy. QueenCake (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is just a case of people making the mistake of assuming that because something happened, it should be included, and that "interesting" and "useful" are the same thing as "relevant". The whole thing is padded out with reactions from drivers and commentators to make it look like there is more content than there actually is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If I might make the suggestion - instead of finding new ways to tabulate minuatae, how about working on the season in review section? That is just about the most important bit of the article at the moment. The description of who is winning and how they came to be winning. That would be so much better to put effort into. --Falcadore (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Penalty points can be issued for anything a driver can be referred to the stewards for, including minor things like speeding in pit lane or blocking in qualifying. I don't think that in-depth coverage of these minor details should be included in any article, but I would consider moving it elsewhere as a compromise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Grands Prix table at end of season

Well, the table could actually be looking like this.

Round	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
1	Australian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Nico Rosberg	Nico Rosberg	Mercedes	Report
2	Malaysian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Lewis Hamilton	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes	Report
3	Bahrain Grand Prix	Nico Rosberg	Nico Rosberg	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes	Report
4	Chinese Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Nico Rosberg	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes	Report
5	Spanish Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
6	Monaco Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
7	Canadian Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
8	Austrian Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
9	British Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
10	German Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
11	Hungarian Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
12	Belgian Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
13	Italian Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
14	Singapore Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
15	Japanese Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
16	Russian Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
17	United States Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
18	Brazilian Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report
19	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix				Mercedes	Report

StandNThrow (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the point of this? *JoeTri10_ 16:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the meaning of this either. Tvx1 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

All it shows is the awful flag repetition we have in these tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I presume it was a light-hunted comment on the current advantage Mercedes are enjoying. :) I've never really spoke against the flags before, but now you mention it the flags are perhaps a little overwhelming. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the drivers and constructors, given how we have already established their nationality in the tables above and below. QueenCake (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem with this is that it's a rather unfortunate coincidence more-so then anything else. although I have to be in agreement above in that the flags are a little unnecessary when we already have them featured in the driver table. *JoeTri10_ 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Makes more sense when you delete the chapter headings so it does not make it look like a seperate discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've restored one heading, because I believe it was intended as a separate discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Team related to Lewis Hamilton (Picture)

I understand this is rather nit picking at the current system we have as a whole here but since we updated the winning driver (Nico To Lewis), we now have an outdated situation happening. Lewis's attire in the picture is showing he is still with McLaren and as we know this is now not the case. I suppose my actual question is why are we keeping outdated pictures on these pages and is it necessary to follow suit into other pictures as I just find it rather odd to see Lewis still shown in McLaren or Perez still shown in Sauber. Not a big deal in the slightest but just something that got my slight OCD buzzing. *JoeTri10_ 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a Mercedes photo of Hamilton? Is it of decent quality? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Of what qualifications does it need to match? I know it cannot be of copyright (I think?). I'm not familiar. *JoeTri10_ 15:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First, the picture needs to be available. Secondly, it needs to be free. And third, it needs to be of decent quality, with his face clearly visible. It might be slightly anachronistic to have a picture of Hamilton in McLaren garb, but if there is no free image of him in Mercedes colours, then there is nothing we can do about it. Since Vodafone no longer sponsor any teams, it is not really a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed the same problem with this inaccurate pictures before. For instance the 1994 season article contains an image of Michael Schumacher in Ferrari attire. If there is no picture at all available of Lewis in Mercedes attire that we are allowed to use (which I strongly doubt) than we obviously have no alternative but to use a McLaren picture. However, at the very least the caption should make clear it's not a depiction of his current situation like in the 1994 example I cited. Tvx1 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a frequent problem with no real solution as there is not an unlimited cache of photos to cover every eventuality. Wishing that there is a better photo available does not make it so. If you dislike it, then replacing it is largely something that the user providing the feedback will have to attend to themselves. Image work is a thankless and often labour intensive task. It can be easier to travel to somewhere and take the photo yourself. --Falcadore (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

How about File:Lewis Hamilton 2013 Britain.jpg, which is used on the year (not season) article 1985 and on a fair few foreign language Wikipedias? —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a crop to more head and shoulders would be appropriate, but yes, that seems to work. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That went pleasantly well and quickly. Thank you all and I shall remember the rules on pictures so many thanks there PM. *JoeTri10_ 02:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the quality and clarity is a given; it's no use having a picture of the back of his head while he is in a crowd. The big issue is the need to have images that are freely available under the Creative Commons, as it is a copyright issue, and that is taken very seriously (and rightly so). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, That was my main concern on the issue but I just wanted to make double sure that I wasn't missing something else. *JoeTri10_ 18:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: double points in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)
• 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)

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)

• • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
• Comment: I have an interest in NASCAR racing, but little specific knowledge of other forms of worldwide auto racing. On first glance, I imagined that this points change would have been considered drastic and received poorly by fans, similar to NASCAR's recent shakeups of its championship scoring system. However, upon doing a little research on the change's announcement, there appeared to be little uproar or consternation in relation to the decision. I would not feel that the article was lacking without an immediate mention of this rule change in the lede.MichaelProcton (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Circuit locations

Lately, there has been a bit of activity in the calendar, particularly concerning the location of particular circuits. For example, even though the Sochi circuit is named for Sochi, it is actually some thirty kilometers away in Adlersky City, which is a satellite city of Sochi. Likewise Interlagos, which is listed as being in Sao Paulo - one of the largest cities in the Southern Hemisphere, if not the world. So, too, Austin; there are probably two dozen towns named Austin in the USA. I think that we can be a little bit more specific in this area, and so to that end, I propose separating the circuit column into two columns: one for the circuit itself, and one for the location. This will allow us to be more specific, but without including too much information in one column. However, the question becomes one of where we draw the line. For example, do we use "Adlersky District, Sochi", or "Adlersky District, Krasnodar Krai"? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to Sochi Prisonermonkeys because absolutely no one has a clue where "Adlersky District" is. Sochi is the recognised location of the Grand Prix according to everyone who mentions the event, and is a location familiar to millions of readers thanks to Sochi's hosting of the Winter Olympics (which would be in Adlersky too, but good luck trying to change that.) In addition, according to information on here Adlersky is just a subdivision of Sochi, so it is factually correct to use Sochi anyway.

I don't want to see another column added just when we've removed one pointless one. It's a common practice for things to be referred after locations they aren't actually part of (see virtually every major airport), so let's just focus on giving locations that aid the reader and not give a lecture on administrative subdivisions. QueenCake (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why has this proposal been implemented without awaiting the reaction of other contributors? I largely agree with QueenCake. Wether or not a location is part of a city or not is not decided by distance, but by legal status. Adlersky City is legally a part of the city of Sochi, so there is no factual problem with writing Sochi here. Likewise Interlagos. I do think it is a good thing to mention the state in addition to Austin, because there are indeed two dozen of those in the United States. There's absolutely no general system whatsoever for the information in the new location column.The formulas now used are: name of the park where the circuit lies, city; name of subdivision, name of city; name of city, name of state; name of city, name of county, name of city; name of prefecture, name of city, name of community and even name of island/bay, name of city. I think this awfully confusing and goes unnecessarily into detail. The table layout was good as it was. The only thing I would have changed is adding Texas to Austin. Tvx1 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that all edits needed your approval before they could be introduced to the article. As to why it was done, I suggest you go and read WP:BEBOLD. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would note a large change like that should require at least a bit of discussion and agreement, however, this is an F1 discussion, it is best to skip the discussion part. I for one now think the table is organised better. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are issues with the way the "Location" column is organised, we can sort that out. But I do not think that some inconsistency immediately discredits the idea.

Take, for example, Sydney Motorsport Park. Going by its name, it is in Sydney. And it is in the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Region - but in reality, it is in Prospect, a suburb in the Blacktown area, some thirty kilometres from Sydney.

I think it is important to make the distinction of where a circuit is located in the table. Kuala Lumpur, Sao Paulo, Shanghai and (in 2015) Mexico City are some of the largest cities in the world. Saying that Interlagos is in Sao Paulo is not enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I never said it needed my personal approval. You started a discussion before you made the change, so you should have at least waited for an answer. I don't think we should go in that much detail on a season article. As Falcadore has said so many times, a season article should concentrate on who competes and on how it was won. It's really irrelevant to the season wether the start-finish line of a circuit lies in Buckinghamshire or in Northamptonshire. If you want to provide detail for all the locations you can do that on the grand prix or the circuit articles. Not here!Tvx1 (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of you. PM, you should have waited, but I feel the change improves the article. Before we chucked the circuit location under the circuit column and limited this location to just one subdivision; which, as we can see with Austin, is problematic. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this information is irrelevant to this article. It is definitely important in the circuit article but not to the F1 season. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not important to make a distinction here. If you want the exact municipality the circuit is located in click on the circuit article. Here, it's good enough to stick to common sense and put the city everyone mentions when talking about the race - ie. Sochi, Budapest, Sao Paulo, etc. Putting Austin, Texas is a good idea, but otherwise stick to one location. QueenCake (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel people have missed the purpose of existence here. The column we initially had featured the circuit name and it's rough location (Used generally by the FIA). I understand there are multiple cases of similar name but tooting the same horn as months ago, this extra information belongs on the races subsequent pages. I find it highly ironic that 'we' spent so long trying to 'clean up' the table only to add even more bulk months later. This information in regards to previous ruling puts this at a stand point that this information is irrelevant and does not belong here. We must follow our own conduct *JoeTri10_ 23:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Tables are not meant to be catch-alls for all kinds of data. They should contain the information relevant to the purpose of the table only and not become a vehicle (sic) for stats creep. A calendar should contain information relevant to that, date, round number, location, race name. It's doesn't need a street address, simple location is fine. If someone wants more specific information than that, then that is what the wikilink is for.

Wikilinking was specifically invented so related topics with greater detail could be investigated with just a single mouse click. Let's not render that process irrelevant when we do not have to. KISS principle applies to table writing don't you think? --Falcadore (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Realistically, our two options are to keep the extra column or write "Austin, TX" instead of just "Austin". While I do like the extra column because it solves the issue at hand, I have to state that it also solves problems that both did not exist nor needed solving. —Gyaro–Maguus— 10:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already added texas, so that's no longer a problem. I don't see any other problems for the other 18 races that desperately need solving. Tvx1 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've found another issue. The location of the circuit de spa-francorchamps. I have already raised that on the Project's Talk Page, since it affects more than this season's article alone. Tvx1 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FP1 driver order

At the risk of re-firing an old debate, I am wondering how we should go about arranging the FP1 drivers. The reason I say this is because Robin Frijns drove car #46 at round #3, while Alexander Rossi drove car #45 at round #7. If we arrange that section by car numbers, the rounds will be out of order; conversely, if we arrange by rounds, the car numbers will be out of sequence. We obviously cannot have both, so what should the priority be: car numbers, or participation?

Personally, I feel that it should be participation. The drivers are only taking part in the one practice session, and since teams with more than one FP1 driver are using sequential numbers, I am not convinced that the numbers are the drivers' own, the way the regular drivers' numbers are. And in the event that a regular driver is replaced by a driver with a lower number, the previous consensus was that rounds should take priority. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Tvx1 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We should use the same system for both for consistency. If we use rounds as priority on the race drivers, we should do likewise on the test drivers. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. There just hasn't been a driver replaced yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Caterham F1 Sale

In a joint discussion with the 2015 page. The news about Caterham being sold has been confirmed [1]. How about it for this article is beyond my level of handling however I expect we have to do something. *JoeTri10_ 15:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A sentence or two in the season summary section or the team changes section will suffice. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Grid penalties carrying over

The regulation changes section of this article states that from this season onwards when a driver receives a grid penalty which would push that driver beyond the last starting place, the number of positions the driver would be pushed past that last place would be carried over to that driver's next race. However this hasn't been applied this season so far. For instance, Kamui Kobayashi qualified 20th and received a five-place grid penalty at the Canadian Grand Prix, but simply started 21st and won't drop any places in Austria this weekend. So I was wondering what the deal with these penalties carrying over really is. Tvx1 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue we have here in regards to what rules/regulations the FIA decide to impose is that when they are 'invented' before the new season begins, sometimes these rules can just as quickly be refuted and scrapped. An example I can give is one that I just yesterday fixed over on the 2015 page. The FIA decided against the use of heated tire blankets for 2015 and therefor it made news and we got a subsequent source. However it was revealed during the most recent press conference (in which I cannot seem to get the damn date right on ((19-06-2014) Race 08)) that the FIA later scrapped this rule. We had no announcement to my knowledge that they decided against it and if it wasn't for Checo getting asked about it, we would never have known. This may be of similar case where it was initially created for the season but later was refuted and dropped. I guess seeing as this has never been imposed this season, we might as well delete the information. *JoeTri10_ 00:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It is possible that this is a misinterpretation of the rules. I suspect the carry-over will apply to parts penalties, rather than driving infringements. Parts penalties now compound, to stop teams from changing multiple power unit components at once; you get ten places for the first change, and five for any additional changes. But with 22 cars on the grid, you would have to qualify in the top seven to feel the full bite. We have not seen any engine part penalties, so I think it is a little premature to remove the content just yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems apparent I've failed to acknowledge the entire context of what it was explaining (Due to TVX1 doing the same and what happened yesterday). My apologizes. However I have moved the source that backs this claim up from the main bullet to the sub bullet as the source attached to the end of the sub bullet does not refer to the change at all. *JoeTri10_ 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know what you meant - I made the same mistake myself; I thought the carry-over applied to all penalties when it was first announced. But it remains to be seen whether it applies to parts penalties. Personally, I doubt it, because grids are going to be an absolute mess late in the season, but I expect it will be less of a problem once reliability is sorted out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It does seem a bit harsh to screw around with Q placements. Vettel to name one is on the cuff with the maximum allowed engines if I recall correctly and we're only on race 8. Although one can hope they have sorted out reliability with the car, I doubt Vettel would happily sit and take grid drops like that and neither would RedBull. If that time comes and it does happen then gezz, but otherwise I expect a simple fine instead. We will certainly have to wait and see I suppose. Otherwise it's up in the air for us. Well hopefully this little mess has answered Tvx1's problem, haha. *JoeTri10_ 04:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea is to stop teams from changing an entire power unit because one component needs replacing, taking the hit for one penalty, but getting the advantage of a fresh engine. Although the teams are limited to five, they can get new ones, and the FIA wants to stamp out the possibility of strategic engine changes. It might create silliness now, but once reliability is sorted, it should not be a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

But the penalties that have been issued so far and that should have carried over, but haven't, weren't for driving infringements. They have been issued for car parts changes. The Kobayashi example I referred to in my original question was for an unscheduled gearbox change. Why would they carry over for one sort of part change and not for another. This way, a driver who has qualified 21st can still change his gearbox and still lose just the one grid position. Anyways, Gutierrez has now received a ten-place grid penalty for the next race, so we are bound to see whether it are only ten-place penalties carry over next time around. On a side note, it is no surprise at all to me that the tire blanket ban has, yet again, been dropped. The FIA has announced to implement that ban for every of the last five (and probably even more) seasons. I don't know why they never push through with it. It's just like with the "Global Cost Cap" which they have failed to introduce on every attempt thus far. Tvx1 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The misconception you're getting is what the penalty is for. The carry over penalties are applied if the driver goes above the allowed amount of power units for one season. Kobayashi may have gotten a new gear box but he is not over the limit. If say it was his sixth gear box change then the rule would be applied. *JoeTri10_ 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would they apply the carry-over to engines, but not to gearboxes?

Because the engine regulations have changed and the FIA want to regulate their use.

You are trying to prove that the rule has been abandoned on the grounds that it has not been applied to a particular part, but if you read the reference given, there is no evidence that it was going to be applied to that part in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoted from source:

"28.4 a) Unless he drives for more than one team (see 28.4(d) below), each driver may use no more than five power units during a championship season.

b) For the purposes of this Article 28.4 the power unit will be deemed to comprise six separate elements, the engine (ICE), the motor generator unit-kinetic (MGU-K), the motor generator unit-heat (MGU-H), the energy store (ES), turbocharger (TC) and control electronics (CE). Each driver will therefore be permitted to use five of each of the above six components during a championship season and any combination of them may be fitted to a car at any one time.

c) Should a driver use more than five of any one of the elements a grid place penalty will be imposed upon him at the first Event during which each additional element is used. Penalties will be applied according to the following table and will be cumulative"

Thinking about it now, I'm not sure the gearbox even applies to this rule. Searching more i found the F1 official site giving more information on it [2]. So I think the initial argument here has become invalid as PM has said. *JoeTri10_ 21:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, it appears to be a power unit system. It is a complex set of rules because of the way engines are divided up. If it becomes a regular thing, we may even need to find some way of representing it in qualifying tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I see an additional source regarding this matter has been added combined with some extra explanation. It's much clearer now. Thanks for that. Tvx1 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)