Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

RFC: FP1 drivers

I've put this here to try and stimulate some discussion on the above.

This issue relates to the presence of the FP1 drivers in the team and driver table of season articles, such as 2014 Formula One season. The question is to whether or not they should continue to be included.

The arguments for are as follows:

  • FP1 drivers participate in sessions officially sanctioned by the FIA as part of a Grand Prix weekend.
  • FP1 drivers play a vital role in carrying out a team's pre-race testing procedures.

The arguments against are:

  • FP1 drivers only take part in a single session of a weekend (and sometimes they only take part for 30 minutes). No championship points are offered for this.
  • In order to enter a race, a driver must either take part in FP3 or qualifying, as per the sporting regulations. Drivers who only enter FP1 cannot enter the race unless they are designated race drivers by the team, in which case they would be included under the "race drivers column".
  • FP1 drivers cannot affect the championship outcome unless they are redesignated as race drivers. Their participation would therefore be better suited to team, car, race and personal articles rather than season articles.
  • Although FP1 drivers do play a role within a team in establishing car set-up, this role cannot be quantified. FP1 drivers also take part in sessions for different reasons; an example of this is Max Verstappen, who is driving to gain experience in a Formula 1 car.

I will leave it to proponents in favour of keeping the column to outline their arguments more fully. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:05, 30 September 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.

Yes. Free practice drivers should be listed. Both points 'for' the idea are sufficient; if not obvious reasons. It's been a common practice to add FP drivers to the table for years and personally I find it very informative and interesting when chain viewing yearly articles. I mean I did not realize that Jules Bianchi TD for Force India of all teams!.

I don't understand why there has been such a discussion for this to be honest. oh well... *JoeTri10_ 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No FP drivers should not be included. 2014 Formula One season is a summary of the season, which is a tally of the seasons results. FP drivers do not appear in those results. They do not participate in the races that make up the season. Their contributions is at the races and it is in the race report article; eg 2014 Australian Grand Prix, where their contributions, if any beyond attendance can be quantified via sources, should be documented. --Falcadore (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The presence of the Free Practice drivers crowds an already crowded table. Free practice drivers are listed on the teams page, and can be explained on the drivers pages themselves. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Really poor argument. Nothing else than WP:IDONTLIKEIT

Yes The scope of the table is to show which teams and drivers (now matter what their role is) take part in the grand prix weekends during the season, and not to show how its content determined the outcome of the season. That's what the result matrices are for, and there the FP drivers are quite rightly not mentioned. This combined with the two points provided in favour in the description above and the many arguments similarly in favour added in the discussion below, is more than enough to justify their inclusion. There should have never been such a long winded discussion over something which' inclusion was already agreed upon by the community 18 months ago. Tvx1 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thought about this long and hard. This RfC would be a clear no outcome, if the discussions were referring to the race results because the FPs don't figure in the race. But they do figure in the event. Our article says "A Formula One Grand Prix event spans a weekend" so yes, to me they should be recorded in this more comprehensive table. Moriori (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No This discussion refers to the season article. As FP1 drivers have no affect on the season, they are of minor importance to a summary of the season. They can be mentioned elsewhere when such information is more useful, such as team and driver summaries, and race weekend reports. The359 (Talk) 00:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No I cannot imagine the average user gaining much value from the inclusion of this information or attempting to find such information in this place even were they attempting to discover it. Their relevance and or/importance to the overall race season is minimal. MichaelProcton (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

In this subsection you can have a more in-depth discussion on the matter should you wish to do so.

@Joetri10:, you say they should be included on the back of the two "for" arguments, but how do you explain the importance of FP1 drivers to the season as a whole considering that they do not qualify, race or score points—and in some cases, they only drive for 30 minutes? Similarly, how do you quantify the role that they play within the team? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A test driver still gives valuable feedback to the team. How long they drive is irrelevant to us. their positioning within the chart is not to highlight any championship positioning but to simply showcase their validation as an F1 official driver as well as their placement with the program. They took part in the F1 2014 season and therefor should be noted so *JoeTri10_ 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, how do you quantify that? You say "a test driver provides valuable feedback to the team", but that suggests that said driver is specifically put into the car to gain feedback as if they have some special skill in that area, which you would need to demonstrate. Look at Max Verstappen—he is driving at Suzuka this weekend, which is a circuit he has no experience of, and he's driving a 2014 car, which he again has no experience with. Toro Rosso openly admit that he is there to get experience in the car first and foremost, so how can you justify saying that he is there to gather feedback when feedback is clearly not his priority?
Likewise, you say that FP1 drivers take part in the season. But what is the season? It's 19 Grands Prix. Not 19 practice sessions. If a practice session wasn't in the formal definition of a Grand Prix, FP1 drivers would not be included. Even the FIA say that the only way to enter a race is to take part in FP3 or qualifying first. I'm yet to hear an argument that addresses this, except "but they drive the car". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be under the illusion that only one person eats a cake leaving not a single slice left. Yes, The primary goal is for Verstappen to gain experience but there is certainly no scale so one sided that it ever would enforce the notion that Toro Rosso (or any team for that matter) would not gain 'any' information during. He may be there to test new parts that don't relate to 'speed' or maybe he is there to test tires for the run up to a test Q time for FP3?. Ask anyone and they will say FP1 is most important for set-up work than for anything else. That being said however, it is still completely irrelevant to us. He can do little or he can do a lot but the result is still the same; he has then taken part in a race weekend just like everybody else.
To your question about what "makes" a season. That is the same as asking what "makes" a team. Is it the driver? Is it the mechanics? Sponsors, Development team, management?. A race weekend is made up of multiple small and large parts. Free Practice, Qualifying, the race on Sunday. Even the press conference on Thursday and Friday. The table is to clearly demonstrate who of the contracted drivers took part in the practical form of the weekend; practical being driving. Also your statement issued by the FIA is incorrect. They state that the only way to qualifying FOR the race is to set a time 108% within the pole lap, this can be done during either your FP3 run or in qualifying. The logical reason behind it being in FP3 is because that is when most teams are likely going for a simulated qualifying lap. At the end of the day friend, the only argument I have is and will mostly likely always be that of "because they drive the car". It seems to come down to personal preference on what Free Practice means in the grand scheme of things and that should not be the case. *JoeTri10_ 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, so let's consider what free practice is. Participation in FP1 is not required to enter a race. There are no rules on what teams can or cannot do with their time; they can run constantly or sit on their backsides for 90 minutes, or anything in between. Likewise, the only rule on who they can run in that session is that the driver must hold a valid superlicence. Their reasons for running vary greatly; Verstappen is there to get experience, Stevens to inject money into the team, Pic and van der Garde to maintain a presence in the sport, and so on and so forth. Free Practice is just that - free. The teams can do as they please, and you cannot quantify the effect that they have on the team, nor on the performance of the car once it is returned to its regular driver. So you are right: this boils down to "they drive the car". My question is whether or not driving the car in FP1 is enough to merit inclusion in the article. Since their impact cannot be quantified, and because FP1 does not have the implications for the season that qualifying and the races do, I don't think they do merit inclusion. I do think it feels a bit like RECENTISM - sure, it's a session in a Grand Prix meeting, but articles should be written with a mind to what they will look like when they are finished. And when the season is over, will it really matter that Charles Pic drove in free practice at Monza, or that Will Stevens did so at Suzuka? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
FP is the same scenario as the once participated In Season Testing. I just told you what the possible benefits are for the team and you dismissed them on your stubborn notion/opinion that FP1&2 has no significance on the race the following Sunday. This page is not just about the races on Sunday but the entire event. Please stop trying to derail the purpose towards that one thought. Do you got to the team's garages and see what information they collect? In fact do you follow any social media at all? As a follower of Force India, I can report and even quote to you many a time where the team has discussed in snippet the work they carried out and information they collected with the importance of Saturday and Sunday. However STILL I feel the need to remind you, the table is not about any of this, it's about which drivers take part in the event. Whether they can score points or how long they sit in the car, it's all total irrelevance so please stop trying to quantify it when it's not important anyway. As for the finished page? I have looked through many f1 season pages and I always find it fascinating with drivers TD for whom in that current year. If you don't feel that way then that's not our problem. *JoeTri10_ 10:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep talking about "possible" benefits. That sounds like CRYSTAL to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This provides back up for both our points. On my side; it displays their intent for the FP Sessions in regards to Ericsson. On yours; the intent for Merhi (which was indeed for him to gain experience driving the car). Disregarding both facts now as trivial due to the basis of opinion, it should not in any way deter Merhi's placement as a TD as again, it is an official documented event held during the race weekend timeplan. *JoeTri10_ 13:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
And contrary to what you seem to believe, they have the potential to affect the outcome. If they crash the car it can affect the race drivers' ability to compete in the rest of the weekend, and, due to the rules limiting the amount of some parts that can be used during a season, they can even provoke a driver penalty for the race driver. Tvx1 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
You keep talking in terms of "if", "might" and "could". All of which is speculation.
As for the Caterham link, that's hardly definitive proof—all I see is Ericsson describing the use of the new front wing and Merhi mentioning getting his mileage up and learning the circuit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Judging by that, you have nothing left of relevance to say. The page stays the way it does and we will continue to update FPD's until a better valid argument comes fourth.
For future reference can we please focus on new content to this page and not trying to lose stable existing content. We seem to be in a loop of someone doing something by accident which then quickly derails into such obscurity that for random reasons the aspect is then under scrutiny of existence. I ask of you PM to please stop doing this. Same to you TVX1. That's enough now *JoeTri10_ 00:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't just arbitrarily declare that a decision has been taken simply because you feel one argument has no merit. We've been down that road before. And if you look above to the survey section, you will see that other users are still contributing their opinions.

Look at some of the arguments that have been made—for example, that an FP1 driver might crash during practice, affecting a regular driver's ability to compete. That's pure speculation, and not an argument to keep the FP1 drivers in place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no speculation by any means. They have that potential. I just gave an example. And you yourself have stated that having the potential is enough to warrant inclusion. And the user that has added their opinion in the survey is no shock to me. That user has stated their dislike for their inclusion on multiple occasions. In fact, it was considered in the original discussion 18 months ago and a consensus to keep them was achieved nevertheless. Tvx1 (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It's absolutely speculation, because by including them, you're suggesting that they WILL affect the season, not that they CAN affect it. All of this boils down to what they MIGHT do, which you're using as a substitute for demonstrating what they ACTUALLY do.
So please, show me a conclusive example of where an FP1 driver has positively or negatively changed a driver's performance in a race in 2014. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys please, this is over. Do not derail this into another lengthy argument over nothing. Boy am I myself tired of being in them. *JoeTri10_ 14:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Frankly, all of this has been happily and constructively dealt with eighteen months ago and now one user goes on a crusade not wanting to accept anything else but removal of the content the user doesn't like, hiding behind the argument that consenus can change. Prisonermonkeys, I don't have to show you anything. Nobody has to seek personal justification for the inclusion of content with you. You are not the owner of this article. Tvx1 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. On the 2015 season article, you have been insisting that people provide sources to demonstrate the content they are changing. Why, then, don't you have to provide sources to demonstrate what you are saying? You keep talking about how FP1 drivers play an important role within the team, but you haven't backed that up with anything. All I ask is that you adhere to the same standards that you ask of everyone else. As User:Falcadore pointed out, FP1 drivers do not appear in results matrices, and their presence is more appropriate elsewhere. I don't know how you can declare that the discussion is over without having addressed those points at all. And then you accuse me of owning an article when all I have done is ask you to prove what you are saying. Since the idea that FP1 drivers can affect the outcome of a race is key to your argument for their continued inclusion, you absolutely need to prove what you are claiming, because if you can't prove it, the content has to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
"FP1 drivers do not appear in results matrices, and their presence is more appropriate elsewhere"; You're right there. This is the results table. This is not the results table. If you look just a little bit under the heading for said table you will notice it says "The following teams and drivers are taking part in the 2014 season"; FP is part of the season and these drivers are contracted as part of the team. No where does it state that the page for the season has to only show results otherwise the calendar, driver changes, regulation changes, etc would need to be removed also. Therefor Falcadore's vote is invalid. Also once again, FP is recognized by the FIA as part of the 2014 season. There are no ifs or buts unless you want us to take this to the FIA?. Please remember WP:YESPOV *JoeTri10_ 01:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I would contend that they are part of the Grand Prix but not of the season. Their contribution exists only of the Friday or races and does not go further. The events that make up the season occur on Saturday and Sunday. --Falcadore (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Invalid? Really? You would not consider that calendar, driver changes etc would not be explanatory prose of the events of the season? Or are you one of these misguided editors that believe that tables explain everything. I find your conclusion invalid and frankly nonsensical. --Falcadore (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Where is it written that we have to do absolutely everything the way the FIA does it? The team and driver table is currently lusted alphabetically by constructor, with each team's drivers in numerical order. But the FIA does not publish entry lists like that.
Likewise, you still haven't demonstrated the effect FP1 drivers have on regular drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, Where is it written that we have to do absolutely everything the way you want to do it PM? Is this going to be another toys out the pram scenario from you? We have given you evidence and you ignored it. We told you what affect Friday has on the weekend and you called it a concoction of if's and buts when in actuality we; or at least myself never used an 'if'.
Falc, you completely misunderstood the context of my point. Also: "events that make up the season occur on Saturday and Sunday", That's your opinion. Honestly right now it feels like you guys are simply trolling because I know from experience that you guys are clearly smarter than this. This feels like yet another case of ownership over the page, pioneered once again by Prisonermonkey. This info does not "Have to go" just because you're unable to grasp the concept of Free Practice. That is not our fault, but instead yours to deal with. What I do find very amusing however is this absolute beautiful tactic of telling me that FP is not part of the weekend and then giving it some reinforcement by stating we should not have to do everything the FIA does. What's even better though! is the example you used in regards to the listing of Driver Names because you know damn well why it is the way it is so don't even dare try and use that card *JoeTri10_ 03:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
No I don't believe it did. No where does it state that the page for the season has to only show results otherwise the calendar, driver changes, regulation changes, etc would need to be removed also. Therefor Falcadore's vote is invalid. I think I responded to that interpretation of what I said with reasonable precision. The Formuloa One season is the world drivers' championship. It is supposed to summarise the events of the season. That is essentially the points allotted from the race results but more broadly includes also the races and the major events of the season which occur off track. What occurs in Friday practice is part of the season but it is both inconsequential and very difficult to quantify if it has any real consequence at all. Anything beyond that is opinion, whether it is yours, mine or the drivers. It has much the same influence as for example as a boxer's sparring partner, or a footballer who is part of a team's squad, but who is not selected to play in the games. Why should we highlight a FP1 driver when in similar articles sparring/training partners and non-selected team members are not? An FP1 driver might have some influence over the course of some races, but over the season as a whole their involvement is negligible and certainly considerably smaller that a lot of team personnel like the pitstop crew, strategists, team managers and car designers to name a couple of dozen.
I am not that involved in the arguement though. I do not care greatly as to the result of this RFC. I was asked my opinion and I responded. My opinion only has the power you give it. Ownership? That's up to you, I'm not going to make any edits. --Falcadore (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That "evidence" was just the Caterham drivers describing what they did in practice. In the case of Merhi, it amounted to "I got as much mileage as I could". But that was not what I asked for—I asked you to provide me with evidence that a driver taking part in free practice in lieu of a regular driver had a positive or negative effect on that regular driver's ability to compete, since that's what your argument is based on: that FP1 drivers should be included because they affect the regular driver's ability to compete. Is it really too much to ask that you actually support your claims with evidence? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Just driving the car itself helps the cars original driver. Many a time TD have been appointed to test the car in any way it needs to be. The evidence I showed you also gave a quote from the team in the matter of the amount of data they gathered from both Ericsson and Merhi. That alone is helping the team help Kobayashi in that car. *JoeTri10_ 03:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I only see quotes on the data Ericsson gathered. Nothing in Merhi. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's a similar report to the one *JoeTri10_ posted before. This one, which is from Italy, clearly quotes team principal Albers commenting on the plentiful of data gathered from "all three" of the friday drivers. And here's one from Force India as well. I'll be happy to provide many more if deemed necessary. I'm utterly puzzled regarding your argument on the sourcing that I highlighted should be provided for the other article. The contents of the sources we used here, on the previous season's article and on next season's article is identical. It states that the party involved (team, driver, engine supplier, tyre manufacturer,..) has a contract to fulfill the role it is credited with in the table. The sources currently used for the Free Practice Drivers oblige to that definition just as any other ones. We have NEVER requested that the supplied sources quantify the party's effect in the outcome of the season by any means. I'd really wish you'd drop the authoritative attitude you keep displaying here. Throughout this discussion you act like you are going to decide what's going to happen based on the arguments provided for and against. That's no how wikipedia consensus discussion works. And it's about time that you stop ignoring that a community-wide consensus has been achieved to list them. Basically, you're declaring it to be invalid simply because consenus can change. Tvx1 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you even read the sources you are providing? There is nothing in the one from Caterham on the data Merhi gathered in Monzs - just a note that Ericsson did most of the work.
And once again, you miss the point. I'm not asking you to find sources showing that FP1 drivers gather data. I'm asking you to find evidence that a race driver's performance in the race was directly affected by another driver being in the car. Demonstrating that they gather data is not enough, because, as evidenced by the quotes from Caterham in Suzuka, data can be shared.
In other words, I want you to show that a race driver's performance in the race would have been different if they had taken part in FP1. I don't know why you don't understand this, given that it is key to your argument.
Also, take a look back at the survey section. You will see a minor consensus in favour of removing FP1 drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A minor consensus for removal? There are barely three reactions. What is in the survey sections does not outweigh the existing consensus, which has a much, much wider input, but which you rather predictably consider to be irrelevant. And somehow my opinion, The359 's and —Gyaro–Maguus—'s have apparently become irrelevant. All in all, over the course of the discussion four users have stated that the information can stay while three have stated they want it removed. That is not "a minor consensus for removal" by any means. Tvx1 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see you have completely neglected to address the actual point - namely that you are yet to actually prove what you are claiming. Show me an example if a race driver's performance being a direct result of an FP1 driver in their car. How many times do I have to ask you to do this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And how many times do I have to repeat that I don't have to prove you anything. Consensus is not unanimity. We don't need you personal approval to keep this content. You are not the one who decides whether or not content can stay. Tvx1 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, you know you can't prove it, but you won't admit it because it will undermine your argument.
Also, I suggest you avoid arguments like "you are not the one who gets to decide", since you are doing exactly that - you're deciding that the old consensus still stands. You haven't even addressed User:Falcadore's point that FP1 drivers do not appear in results matrices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not read this argument (for I wish not to lower my IQ) and overall I have been attempting to avoid this because I want to keep the column, but for the most part only under WP:ILIKEIT and the fact that including FP1 drivers in the table was an idea I introduced, which means I do not have an argument to give unless I decided to put some thought behind it.
So I now have, and actually, I think we need to think about the impact of the drivers on the sport. They appear on TV, in commentated, live events. They (somewhat often) gain media coverage (e.g. Verstappen, Sirotkin, Rossi, Stevens). They appear in official documents. They are also included in what is the best equivalent of the entry list. All these appear to me to be strong arguments for their inclusion within the table. Whether they actually do any useful work for their teams is irrelevant. It is the wider impact that is important. And they have that. Also, to combat Falcadore's point, it is quite easy to tell that these are not race drivers, and hence they do not need to appear in the matrices. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely their contribution to the team is the most important aspect of their presence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
That's only your opinion what is most important aspect. Tvx1 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
PM, you have a source for that? —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
What's more important - that they contributed, or that their presence got media coverage? Including them simply because it's a news item breaks NOTNEWS.
All I want is for someone to demonstrate that FP1 drivers contribute to the team in such a way that it has a tangible impact on the regular driver's race performance. After all, that's the linchpin of Tvx1's argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all, that second point was not for a news item. I provided sources to back up my case and I said general media. As for your contribute wants, I specifically recall Heikki Kovalainen's FP1 drives in 2013 were done specifically because he was an experienced driver and thus, the regular drivers' performance was enhanced. Of course, there is absolutely no way to definitively prove this argument for each and every driver, but then again, why is this concept so vital to the inclusion of the column? Why does this need to proven?
I am putting forward a new argument – one that reinstates their value to the F1 world. If they were so pointless and unnecessary, then why would they be included in official documentation? Why would the media report on them as much as they do? Why would drivers with little or no importance on occasion be the focus of the TV cameras (re Merhi's spin in FP1). On the subject of Merhi, he nearly accidently caused Bottas and Williams to have an issue, but Bottas managed to avoid the Spaniard. This pointless, unimportant driver, nearly affected the outcome of the race in an indirect fashion. Your move. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Nearly affected". Not "did affect". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gyaro, if we were to use the fact that a team member appears "on TV, in commentated, live events." Then why should we not include Team Principles? Car Designers? They(somewhat often) gain media coverage (e.g. Allison,Newey, Brawn, Horner) While they don't (to my knowledge) appear in official documents, they DO have an effect on the team, and therefore the season. It has been widely reported that Adrian Newey was a major reason for four consecutive championships that Red Bull won. I would argue that team principles, car designers, etc. can have more of an impact on the season then practice drivers. I would not however, argue that they merit inclusion on the table. They should be included in the relevant pages, regarding the team, practice driver, team principle, etc.
What this whole (very lengthy) argument boils down to, is what we feel is most relevant to the readers and how best to convey that. You can shout WP:IDONTLIKEIT at me if you want, but I just don't believe that the Free Practice drivers make a significant enough impact on the season to warrant their inclusion in a very crowded table. I'm not arguing that they don't participate in the season, just that their impact is minor. Finally, its late and I need sleep. I'll make sure that this was legible in the morning. JohnMcButts (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a "Teams and drivers" table, not a "Teams, drivers and personnel" table. FP1 drivers are drivers, and they have participated in events. Personnel, who I would also include if width was not an issue, are not drivers and the table does not cater to the them under the current format. I have really said all that I have to say on the relevance side, so I will not go further there. And PM, what if Bottas did hit Merhi? You missed my point. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
If Bottas had hit Merhi to the point where it totally compromised his weekend, then I imagine it would go in the season report section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
And hence, his participation would have relevant. This could happen at any time during an FP1 session. They have the potential to affect the season directly. (I know and understand this violates WP:CRYSTALBALL). —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
How, exactly, does including him in the table effectively represent his impact on the season? Especially considering that Caterham is listed at the top of the table, and Williams at the bottom? Surely a line like "while Valtteri Bottas' weekend was ruined after colliding with Roberto Merhi in free practice" in the season report section would be much more appropriate and much more effective. Where is the pressing need to include Merhi in the driver table? And what do you do if it's the only notable incident involving an FP1 driver all season? Wouldn't including all of them with no context imply that they all have an equal impact? And if an FP1 driver does nothing, why is the context needed? The only coverage of FP1 drivers that we give in the prose are the notable ones—like former drivers demoted to FP1 roles, or Susie Wolff being the first female driver in twenty years. Is knowing that Robin Frijns did two FP1 sessions really key to understanding the season? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys, your insistence that every fibre of information in the teams and drivers table must have a tangible effect on the outcome of the season is utterly unfounded and is not supported by the community, as proven by the multiple users disagreeing with it in this discussion and by the existing consensi (including one for Free Practice drivers) for the inclusion of these informations in the table. Please explain to me how the fact that Mercedes' engine is named PU106A Hybrid affects the outcome of this season? How does the fact that Caterham's 2013 was named CT3 affect the outcome of the 2013 season? They don't. Pure and simple. Why are they included in this table then? Because the community thoughtabout it and came to the consensus that they merit inclusion. And they did exactly the same regarding the FP drivers eighteen months ago. Back then, there was no unanimous agreement either. But the party which was in favour of removing them (which was Falcadore by the way) accepted and respected that the general opinion was in favor of keeping them. Tvx1 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus, as you have pointed out, can change. And here, I have proposed a viable alternative that not only addresses all of the issues, but better represents the contributions of FP1 drivers ... and you completely ignore it?

The problem with the FP1 drivers is that they exist in the table without context. Their role within their teams is variable and their contributions are entirely subjective. Let's say, hypothetically, that Merhi and Bottas had collided at Suzuka, ruining Bottas' race. That's a fair case for his inclusion. But what about Robin Frijns, who drove in two sessions without incident or impact on the season, and yet is represented in the table in the same way? Without any context to their participation, you could be forgiven for thinking that they contributed equally when in fact they did not. And yet they appear in the driver table without any context.

So, I would propose cutting FP1 drivers from the table, and instead mentioning them—and putting them into context—somewhere else, like the season report. If their contribution is so great that they can affect the outcome of races, then that absolutely needs to be put into context, which cannot be done in the table. If they do not contribute anything beyond completing a test programme, then they probably don't rate a mention either.

The table us only there as a visual representation of the teams. Given that the definition of what an FP1 driver does at a Grand Prix is much broader than that of a race driver, the table is an inappropriate place for them to be listed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not ignored your "viable" alternative. Me and a vast number of other editors do not think that it is a better way of presenting things. You keep trying to force the definition, that the content of the teams and drivers table must show how it affected the outcome of the season, through despite it not being endorsed by the community. That is not the scope of that table, that is what the result matrices are for. After all, you still haven't explained to me how engine names, chassis names or even driver numbers affect the outcome of the season. And we don't highlight the world champions in that table either, do we? In fact, it is easier to find out who the defending world drivers' champion is, than who won the championship in the season the article deals with through the teams and drivers table. The teams and drivers table is there to list which teams and drivers (no matter in which role) participated during a grand prix weekend during the season in question. No more, no less. The context is provided by listing them in the article for the season they participated as a Free Practice Driver. That should be enough really. But if you want more context, maybe we should return their rounds column. I asked wether it should be kept because we didn't require such a column during the previous seasons either. But if it provides more context, I have no problem with returning it and adding it for the previous seasons. But that the table is an inappropriate place for those drivers to be listed at all is purely your personal opinion which is not even shared by the majority of the contributors.Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone should not have to read multiple articles in order to understand the context—and doubly so when those articles aren't being updated. Look at the Japanese GP article; last time I checked, it didn't cover Merhi's participation. If readers do have to read multiple articles, it is an example of poor writing. It's a basic rule of academic writing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
{{replyto|Tvx1—can you please address the above issue? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll try that one again and tag @Tvx1: properly this time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
And that's why we want to keep them in the teams and drivers table. Your alternative is the one that would cause our readers to have to read multiple articles to understand the context. In your proposal they would have to stroll trough Team, Driver, and Grand Prix articles while they are all nicely in the season articles now. The fact that they are listed in the Free Practice Drivers column in the article dealing with the season they took part in is the context. If you want more context I'll be happy to return the rounds column in your version. Those who wan't to find out more in-depth info about the drivers in question can do so by virtue of a simple click on the drivers' names. After all, that's what the internal link was invited for. Putting that aside, I don't know why I have to personally answer every argument that has been presented. After all, I'm not the owner of the articles.Tvx1 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not context. It's a list. Like I said, it makes no distinction as to the extent of their contribution.
If I ask for your thoughts, it's because a) you're the one making the bulk of the arguments, and b) I want to understand your thought process a little more. You claim you don't own the article, but refusing to answer questions that address the issues born out of your arguments makes you come across as if you think you do.
And you are also neglecting to address the concerns of people opposed to their continued inclusion. Even if there is no new consensus, more people are voicing opposition to their inclusion. You cannot disregard that because it's inconvenient. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What will it take for you to understand that Team&Drivers table does not make any distinction as to the extent of the contribution of anything included in it. Not for the teams, not for the drivers, not for the teams, not for the chassis, not for the tyres, not for the constructors, not for the engines. It's jus a list. They are listed alphabetical, and numerical. Results don't even remotely into equation in this table. That's for the result matrices. And they are no listed in them. You keep forcing trying to force this requirement for inclusion through despite it clearly not being endorsed by the community. Tvx1 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Racing teams and drivers have a much narrower definition than FP1 drivers. Whatever happens, they are there to race, and their performance will affect the championship. FP1 drivers are there for all sorts of reasons - to get experience, to maintain a presence in the sport, to keep the team afloat, to kick start a career in Formula 1, and so on and so forth - and their actual impact is much more subjective. A simple list is not enough to provide context to their presence.
And considering that four or five editors are opposing their inclusion, I don't think you can really disregard them much longer. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one that has to disregard opinions or not. The policy is crystal clear. If a Request for Comment does not yield a clear outcome, we make a request for closure 30 days after it was initiated and an uninvolved and (hopefully) neutral administrator assesses the discusion and makes a decision on the outcome. But if I have to regard them, Id like to point out that a consensus is based on the merit of the arguments and not on the numbers first. And if I have to look at the arguments for removal, I will point out that one user's opinion is, as already stated, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, another is the opposing party from the original discussion just restating their opposition from eighteen months ago (Falcadore) and the remaining two are based on the same misconception, which I already have explained is wrong, that the "Teams and Drivers" table has to provide context so as to the effect on the season outcome by the list's content. There, now you can't say that ignore them anymore. But then again, you'll never accept me as an neutral analyzer, will you? Tvx1 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, your arguments are no more than ILIKEIT. I have repeatedly asked you to prove your claims the way you would in an article; you refused. I have asked you to show context to their inclusion; you have insisted that it is not needed. I have provided a solid argument for their removal based on their inability to score points; you have not directly addressed this, and have instead referred back to an old consensus. And I have pointed out the growing trend of opposition to the idea, which you have barely even acknowledged, and have instead moved to shut the conversation down. I shouldn't be surprised - this is the way you always conduct yourself in these debates. Rather than actually addressing the issue, you rely on policies and are always the first to accuse someone of OWN or IDONTLIKEIT.

So please, do what you should have done a week ago, and actually address the issues with content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This all boils down to the misconception you are unwilling to admit to yourself to that everything that is listed in the teams and drivers has to have "the ability to score points" which multiple users have repeatedly pointed out to you is not the scope of this table. This table is not by any means concerned with points. That's why we have RESULTS MATRICES. What will it take you to grasp that? I don't know why you claim I haven't addressed the so-called "solid" argument that they are unable to score points. If have stated repeatedly that this is irrelevant to the teams and drivers table. That's not what it's designed for. And I have given you your context as well. They are listed as FREE PRACTICE DRIVERS in the article for the 2014 FORMULA ONE SEASON. That's more than enough context for a teams and drivers table which is not concerned with the outcome. I have even given the option of returning the rounds column in your version to give the more context. And I don't understand why you accuse me of trying to shut this discussion down, when I literally stated that I'm not in a position to determine the outcome. You accuse us of not addressing your issues, while myself, *JoeTri10_, —Gyaro–Maguus— have done more than that. If has become increasingly clear to me that you and me trading replies is leading nowhere, especially since you are clearly unwilling to be convinced and to accept any other outcome than the one you wish. That's why I suggested we let this RFC be dealt with in the way it's designed for and let it run its default time (does it ring a bell to you a why there is this default 30 days running time in the first place) and allow as much users as possible to find about it, come here and post their opinions, instead of trying to force your consensus through based on three editors out of 71927 wikipedia contributors voting no. That's another thing you very obviously need to learn to have: patience! I'll remind you that consensus is not unanimity as well. Tvx1 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I myself personally would like to know why exactly they must have context in regards in their inclusion and why they must affect the season in some way to be included in the table that as far as I am concerned is meant to represent the entry list (which I will add, FP1 drivers are on). —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Because one of the primary arguments in favour of keeping them is their potential to affect the season. If this is true, then context will explain how they affect the season—and it is needed because they can all affect the season differently, but if they simply appear as a list in the table, then the reader could conclude that they all affect the season equally.
One of the most fundamental aspects of academic writing is the need for logic and cohesion in an article. Someone with no knowledge of the subject should be able to read an article and understand not only it but how the author(s) came to the conclusion that they did. As it stands, there is nothing explaining the role and function of the FP1 drivers (much less the individual impact of drivers, which has yet to be demonstrated beyond "they might affect it"); they simply exist as a list. And that is where the context is needed—to make it clear to the reader what role they play.
That may be the problem here. You're writing as a follower of the sport, which is great because it means you have informed knowledge of the subject and can build the article. But at the same time, you have forgotten your audience, and your audience includes people with limited or no knowledge of the sport. You can't make assumptions or generalizations like that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Limited or no knowledge, and complete idiots I assume you meant to add?. I cant imagine many people looking at a title that states "The following teams and drivers are taking part in the 2014 season", Seeing a column listing "Free Practice Drivers" and then all of a sudden start to convulse on the floor because their brain cant handle such a complex portion of the chart which for some reason seems to represent the world of F1 and therefore must have a 10 page discussion behind it's purpose even though we gave you 1 clear reason 9 pages ago!.......
You are clearly trying to exhaust everything you can possibly think of now to get us to agree with you once again and lucky for some TVX1 has the patience to deal with this nonsensical babble. *JoeTri10_ 11:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it was you guys who made the argument that FP1 drivers should be included because they affect the season. I'm just pointing out that despite this assertion, you provide no evidence of it in the article. Objectionable assertions should always be supported with evidence, which is again a cornerstone of academic writing.

If so then we shall source their inclusion with the direct team articles that report their results/conclusions (The ones we have used previously in this discussion for example). That should warrant their inclusion in accordance to what you're asking. *JoeTri10_ 01:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You need to demonstrate the impact they have in the article. A source is necessary as supporting documentation, but it is not enough. Context must be given. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It does. *JoeTri10_ 03:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

How?

Like I said, a reader should not have to go to another article or another site in order to understand something that should be explained in the article. If the justification for including FP1 drivers is that FP1 drivers can affect the outcome of a race or a season, then it absolutely needs to be explained in the article. The sources are presented as evidence the content is accurate; they are not a substitute for content.

I will also point out once more that some of the evidence you have supplied—namely Caterham's summary of Monza FP1—does not describe the effect Merhi had on their performance; if anything, they pointed out that Ericsson gathered most of the data they used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

All what your a providing are no arguments for removal, but for adding a sentence or a footnote or so to point out their role. That's no problem for me. In fact, now that you mention it, there's not really anything in any season article giving a basic overview of what constitutes a Formula One season. So maybe we could add a (sub)section that very briefly outlines the structure of a season and its events, the same way any FIFA World Cup article has a format section. I think it would be an improvement if I read the presented concerns. Tvx1 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The only potential problem with adding context to FP1 drivers is that it puts undue weight on them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry really but is that some kind of joke or are you at this point just trolling? You can't ask of us to give context to something and then tell us adding said context would be impractical for the page. Essentially you have now done: Asked for proof of purpose/context=Ignored. Polled everyone=Ignored. Suggested we don't follow the FIA. Suggested we now add the previous ignored context=>then suggested it would put undue weight. Your argument is based on an opinion; one that does not fall in line with Wikipedia terms and you continue find a baseless argument for whatever we put fourth in the hope that we'd get bored basically. It's VERY easy to see that to you, it's remove them by all means necessary. I actually honestly think after these past two years (I have been here) that you're clearly joking here. Every discussion I remember has been the same, it's nothing more than a merry go round of us trying to fetch you answers and reasons that you anyway dismiss time and time again, yet we forget anyway that you're not the one we should be answering to anyway... This is clearly a joke or a manifestation or someone who clearly feels they are more important than they are.
The poll YOU asked for has spoken, 3 said no, 3 said yes. As per that result the original consensus will remain and this stupid trolling argument can finally cease.*JoeTri10_ 14:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
If you dedicate an entire section to them, yes. If you give them a minor sentence in a section that is dedicated to other aspects as well, no. Tvx1 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked for proof that, by participating in a session, an FP1 driver altered the outcome of a session. The evidence that I was given contained a quote from the team principal that clearly said the other regular driver did most of the work. That evidence disproved your case and proved mine. This is about the fourth time I have pointed this out.

I'm beginning to think that the only way to resolve this is to do it the same way we sorted out the race title issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No it didn't, you blatantly ignored what we tried to point out to you multiple times. *JoeTri10_ 15:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Read it again. Please tell me exactly where someone describes Merhi's contributions and the lasting impact on the team's ability to compete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
PM, we have pointed out time and time again that it's outside of the scope of the table whether each individual affected the outcome of the season or not. IT'S NOT A RESULT MATRIX! In fact you yourself, when questioned about other content in said table that obviously didn't affect the season outcome, have stated that they don't have to have affected it but just have to have the potential to do so. But apparently only the content you want to get rid of has to fulfill the extra condition you invented of having effectively affected the season. Furthermore I have repeatedly posed you an important question, how egine names, chassis names and driver numbers affect the season's outcome, which you have consistently ignored/refused to answer, which is behavior you are accusing us of. Then, we provide options to give them the context they're missing (returning the rounds column, adding some prose/a footnote), and you either ignore them completely or instantaneously declare it to give them undue weight (just how much weight does one sentence in 114,834 bytes long article really give?). This situation is crystal clear to me. You are not going to accept any outcome beside the course of action you demand, you are utterly unavailable for reasoning, you are utterly unwilling to collaborate with the other users in a constructive manner to improve the article by addressing your own concerns and your argument are entirely based on your opinion of the meaning of the table, which is wrong and utterly unendorsed by the project's community as I have pointed out and which is proven by the number of users who disagree with you now as well as back when the consensus was achieved to list them. Furthermore, you accuse us of disregarding three users "voting" no while you yourself ignore the users who have no problem with listing them and their arguments.
I have stated to you how this can be solved several times but, unexpectedly, you ignored that as well. Unless the participants come to a clear consensus, which is currently not the case obviously, a RFC runs for 30 days after which a Request for Closure is made and an uninvolved administrator reads the entire discussion, considers the presented arguments and determines the outcome. It really strikes me that you post a RFC, but than act completely oblivious as to how these are dealt with. They have a manual, you know. Tvx1 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious we're not going to sort this out on our own. The RfC is good for another two or three weeks, so let's wait for some more input from non-regular editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-reading the above, there has been no real progress on the RfC. However, there has been some support both from within the regular F1 editors and outside that I don't think you can really ignore it, @Tvx1: and @Joetri10:. Sure, a consensus is not a vote, but you cannot use that as an excuse to disregard the input of others. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what you consider to be progress. Likewise to the support you claim, there is an equal amount of support for keeping them and a pre-existing consensus you can't ignore. And what counts is not the numbers, but the merit of the arguments. But most importantly, it's not my duty to (dis)regard opinion anyway. I'm just an editor who has posted their opinion for one side of the argument backed by many arguments. Tvx1 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, you're not going to address any issues that have been raised so long as you're getting your way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Your entire argument hinges on a weak modal verb: might, as in "an FP1 driver might affect the season". If any of my students made an argument as committed as yours that was as reliant on a weak modal verb the way yours is, they would probably get a mark of about 15% for it. You haven't conclusively demonstrated the need for their inclusion, and you haven't even bothered to address the concerns raised by outsiders in thus RfC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Save that we are not your students and you aren't the teacher around here. We don't have to present our work to you after which you will grade it. Contrary to what you seem to believe your opinion, and mine, has exactly the same value as any other opinion presented in this RFC. I don't know why you keep claiming we haven't addressed the issues you and your supporters have voiced. We have done so time and time again. Them having a tangible affect on the outcome of the season is outside of the scope of this table. Your view regarding the scope of this table is wrong. And that is proven by many, many users disagreeing with the requirement you are trying to impose. And utterly ignoring this and claiming time and time again that we allegedly haven't responded to your questions is not going to change the facts that we have done so at all. Tvx1 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, you ignore the issues! I'm not trying to make out that I am your teacher and you are my students - I am trying to point out that your entire argument hinges on a weak modal verb: that FP1 drivers might affect the season. I have asked you time and time again to show evidence that they will affect the season, and all you produce is a statement from Caterham which doesn't even do what you say it does. And then when we don't accept that argument, you say you have adequately proven your point. Meanwhile, you make an issue out of the 2015 article reflecting what the sources say. So which one is it going to be? Why is it okay for you to make the case for articles reflecting their sources on one talk page, but on another talk page, you are allowed to present a source as evidence of something that it clearly doesn't say? And then you wonder why people don't think that you have proven your case. You're contradictory at best, and hypocritical at worst, but neither attitude served the interests of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
What you want us to prove is NOT in the scope of this table. You are WRONG. You are the one ignoring things. Tvx1 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Your entire argument has been that the scope of the table is people who have taken part in the season. Your justification for this has been that FP1 should be considered part of a Grand Prix weekend because events in FP1 might affect the race. I'm not challenging your concept; I'm challenging your thesis and the faulty evidence you used to support it. And I am challenging it on the grounds that you're being speculative by way of said weak modal verb. You're anticipating that, at some point during the season, something that happens in FP1 will affect the season, but you haven't demonstrated the certainty of this, or provided evidence in support of it having happened. This is, quite literally, the only element of any Formula 1 article that hinges on the possibility of something happening. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
And that's where you are wrong. My argument is that Free Practice is part of Grand Prix because it is considered so by the rules. I even provided a link to the rule book which literally states that. It is till present somewhere in this discussion. We have stated time and time again that the question wether or not they physically impacted the season is IRRELEVANT to this table. Tvx1 (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You are desperately trying to force a PERSONAL REQUIREMENT to this table which has been clearly REFUTED. PLEASE STOP IT!Tvx1 (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it has been refuted. If you had refuted the point, I would be agreeing with you. I'm not, so you clearly haven't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_15&oldid=1112869038"