Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

I reordered the drivers within each team so that within each team, the first car (according to FIA [1]) is also first in our entrant list. Earlier, the entrants were ordered by entrant number, which for some teams placed the team's second car first in the entrant list. Which one is the team's first car is important information, since it among others allows one to easily recognize the cars on the track: the second car of each team has a yellow sticker in the camera mount above the roll hoop, whilst in the first car the camera mount is black.

In earlier seasons, entrants were naturally ordered first car first by just ordering them by entrant number, because FIA gave each team's first car the lower entrant number. But now that the car numbers are chosen by the drivers, ordering by car number does not necessarily place the team's first car first. However, I think the most logical way of ordering the cars in the entrant list is by actually having each team's officially "first" car first. --hydrox (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What you think is most logical isn't necessarily what other people agreed upon. There was a lot of discussion about this and a consensus was finally agreed after much deliberation. If you want to suggest any further changes, great, but the article will stay at the consensus version until any new idea is agreed upon. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know this had been discussed before. Editor just said in the edit summary that my edit was undone because it was not clear how I had ordered the cars.

I do still think the first car/second car is an important information and we should somehow convey this information, such as by bolding the first car/entrant within each team. --hydrox (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, whoever reverted you should have mentioned the weeks of discussion we had over it! I'm not against your idea being implemented in some way, let's see what others think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well it invalidates the sortable compromise doesn't it? Not point in having a sortable option via race number (the traditional method) if the lower race number isn't listed first.

You have to remember most wikipedia readers do not know the much about motor racing and would have no idea about "team first drivers". --Falcadore (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree to put them in order of official "first" rather than by car number, as this is more relevant to viewers of both Wikipedia and the race. I am also in favour for putting back the 2013 position column, as it gives an indicator of where the teams rank, previously seen with the old car numbers. It's odd that I have somehow managed to miss most of this previous discussion :S SAS1998―Talk 23:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the sortable compromise doesn't really work that well anyway, as there are two completely different numbers in there anyway. And yes, most Wikipedia readers won't know much / be bothered about it, there are many on this page who will, and to those who don't understand it, a footnote would cover it fine. SAS1998―Talk 23:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have seen the official entry list (FIA document), I think it would make sense to put both teams and drivers in the "official order". Anti-lag (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not immediately clear as to why the drivers are arranged like that. Sometimes they go alphabetically, and other times they go numerically. There needs to be one rule applied equally, and it needs to be obvious. The entry list might present the drivers in a particular order, but we are not under any obligation to recreate it perfectly - provided that we present all of the information that is given, then we are free to arrange it as we see fit in the interests of clarity.

I am vehemently opposed to any method of arranging the table that would require a reader to go outside Wikipedia just to understand why the table is arranged that way. It is bad editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

To SAS1998 & Anti-lag: how do readers know what the "official order" is? Most don't know a thing about Formula One and just do not have the knowledge to understand what you and I know implicitly. You have to remember that the target audience of wikipedia is people who do not know about a subject and are coming here to find out. Anything that is in any form of code (like constructors order or team order or FIA order) should be avoided as it needs explanation to the novice. No number order needs no explanation. Since everyone were children its been understood the racing cars have numbers. Everyone gets that.

Keep it as simple and as jargon free as possible. --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The ability to sort drivers by number brings little value to readers. I honestly looked at the entrant table multiple times during Australia, and never understood how the drivers were sorted within each team this year on Wiki – my hunch was that the first driver (the one with the black camera mount on roll hoop) was first like last year, but I then noticed that was not the case. Then I just assumed they were in some random order. Only after I started editing the list to put them in the natural (first driver, second driver) order, I realised they were previously ordered numerically. But this makes little sense to me, since the numbers this year are "random", except for the defending world championship.

What comes to concern of the "FIA ordering" being too complex for readers, nothing says we couldn't explain the situation in a few words in a note to the entrant list – maybe even with a photo illustration like the one I've attached on right. --hydrox (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you order it by numbers it doesn't need explanation at all. Anyone who can count understands number order. You say 'official order or constructors order' like it means something, when all it is was an indication of how drivers performed the previous season - something which has no meaning in this article, or an order perscribed by the teams, which perhaps might be on a whim if they believe their team has no #1 driver. So again it means nothing in the context of a 2014 season article. Everyone understands that 1 coes before 2 in nuerical order. It is not dependant on what happened the previous year, it does not depend on a decision a team prinicpal makes.

That is the crux of the argument. Sort the table via a method that needs explanation and is based on events which did not occur within the scope of this article and is not easily understood just by looking at it, or sort by an order very easily understood (currently alphabetical team names). --Falcadore (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

May I add that if the drivers are not ordered in numerical order within their teams, then the sortable function on the numbers will not work as intended. —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The status quo is not much better: if I want to find out who is driver #44, I would expect him to be at the bottom when sorted. But actually he is at the top, because he is in the same team with #6, which pre-empts #44 in the sort. I would suggest leaving out the numerical sort altogether for this year's entrant table, because there is no correct technical way for doing it without splitting each team to two rows. --hydrox (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "no correct technical way"? Numerical order is the way every season preceeding this one has been done. And that is numerical order, not constructors order. --Falcadore (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This was about the table sort function. I just pointed out, that currently the sorting function leads to confusing results, too. Please re-read my comment in that light, so maybe you will understand what I was saying. --hydrox (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first / second car ordering is not decided by the previous year's performance, but internally within the teams. For example, in 2013 Nico Rosberg was the first driver at Mercedes, although Hamilton performed better in 2012 at McLaren – maybe they wanted to give Rosberg the symbolic "first driver" on merit of seniority at the team, even though Lewis seemed like their real primary contender.

Anyhow, your claims that the first/second driver ordering is meaningless and has no scope within this article are just plain incorrect. As I have already explained, the official ordering decides the colouring of roll hoop camera structure and serves with the team livery as one of easiest ways to identify drivers on the track. This clearly has relevance to the readers following the 2014 season. --hydrox (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How so? Does the "lead driver" get some kind of advantage? No. All he gets is a different colour camera mounting and a different position within the garage. And that has no bearing on the season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Some teams don't even have a lead driver. We don't know the motives behind the order of every teams camera colour – and because it is not logical to the reader, it would require a note, something I was told some time ago was not an option. Ordering drivers numerically within their teams is logical to the untrained eye – seeing a series of numbers in an even worse order than before is not good. What we have is the best compromise option and I have yet to see a change that improves the status quo. —Gyaro–Maguus— 04:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not that the practice is not an option, but rather that it is a bad choice. We are quite capable of showing all of the relevant information in a self-contained table. Changing the order of the table to the point where it needs a footnote to explain its order is unnecessary and overly complicated.

I find it bizarre that with one breath, editors can claim that arranging the table numerically is confusing because the numbers are "random", but with the next breath, extoll the system of arranging based on coloured camera mountings, which is extremely confusing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I give up. I have always thought that the first / second driver bore (at least a symbolic) significance in the sport. Maybe I am just mistaken. I guess there is then no point in proposing that we communicate the first / second driver arrangement is some other way apart from table ordering (like bolding the first driver) either.. --hydrox (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Those designations mean nothing. Arranging the drivers based on who has "first driver" status implies that that driver has some added advantage, which he does not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Might I also add that teams have not always put the number one in the lower-numbered car (e.g. Mercedes last year). —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Prisonermonkeys, if you actually read what I wrote in the comment that you replied to, I was not suggesting rearranging the cars, but communicating this information in some other manner. I am already well aware of your opinion regarding arranging the cars by this status, and was seeking feedback on another compromise. To avoid clutter, please avoid restating your own opinion over and over again in different words when it is already well known. Thanks, hydrox (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Race numbers have never been assigned in the manner you describe, User:hydrox. The FIA assigned each team two race numbers each year until this one, it was then up to the teams to decide who got which for whatever reason they chose. --Falcadore (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and the first car always got the lower race number and the second car the higher one. Or can you cite an example of contrary? --hydrox (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes last year. Ferrari 2010. Piquet in his Benetton years. McLaren used to hold number order (Häkkinen ahead of Coulthard, Coulthard ahead of Räikkönen) despite WDC order. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukyo Katayama was given #3 instead of #4 because of the Japanese bad luck superstition surrounding the number four. --Falcadore (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing #1 contender with FIA sanctioned "first driver", which can be different. So for example Mercedes last year: although Hamilton was their #1 contender, he actually drove the second car (look at this image – Hamilton is the one with the yellow hoop camera). His number was also the higher one of the numbers assigned to Mercedes. So no, this example on the contrary only confirms the thesis (that teams always assign the higher number to the second car).

Ferrari 2010: Again, Alonso was probably their #1 contender but drove the second car and had the higher entrant number (#8 for Alonso vs. #7 for Massa). This is too reflected in the hoop camera colouring (image). So no, this again only confirms the thesis.

Piquet: drove only before the coloured hoop cameras, that were introduced in 2003.

I checked 2003–2004 images of McLaren cars and they all abide by the rule: the first car has the lower number and the brightly coloured hoop camera (trivia: originally, the first car had the brightly coloured hoop camera, and the second car had the black one. Then they went: first car has a bright red camera, second car has a bright yellow camera. And in 2013 they went: first car has a black camera, second car has a bright yellow camera.) --hydrox (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. But to implement your system will require an additional column into the table, because it is not obvious to the eye – I doubt everyone, including fans of F1, are completely familiar with the camera hoop colours. That is the main issue with your proposal. While according to the FIA, it is the best solution, it is not obvious to the average reader, and we don't have to follow exactly what the FIA does – the F1 website typically makes mistakes we have to account for, for example. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, adding the second/first driver information does not require adding any new columns. Here is how it could be done by colour coding:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Nat.	Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Nat.	Drivers	Rounds
	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9		Marcus Ericsson	1
						10		Kamui Kobayashi	1
	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7		Kimi Räikkönen	1
						14		Fernando Alonso	1
	Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11		Sergio Pérez	1
						27		Nico Hülkenberg	1
	Lotus F1 Team	Lotus–Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8		Romain Grosjean	1
						13		Pastor Maldonado	1
	Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4		Max Chilton	1
						17		Jules Bianchi	1
	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20		Kevin Magnussen	1
						22		Jenson Button	1
	Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6		Nico Rosberg	1
						44		Lewis Hamilton	1
	Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1		Sebastian Vettel	1
						3		Daniel Ricciardo	1
	Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21		Esteban Gutiérrez	1
						99		Adrian Sutil	1
	Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25		Jean-Éric Vergne	1
						26		Daniil Kvyat	1
	Williams Martini Racing	Williams–Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19		Felipe Massa	1
						77		Valtteri Bottas	1

I gave the second car drivers within each time a slightly yellow-lime-ish bgcolor, just like the roll hoop camera. In this compromise, the sort is better functional than the current one, and within each team the cars are ordered by entrant number. --hydrox (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, that destroys the usable-ness of the sortable function. But maybe the driver number could be shaded instead (a piece of text can be added to the tooltip). —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For me, the sort in the above table works just perfectly – when selecting sort by driver number it correctly breaks the teams to two rows – screenshot. I am using Firefox 28, maybe it's a browser issue? --hydrox (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What you got in that screenshot is what we don't want to happen, and was why the table was designed the way it is. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And why is that? --hydrox (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you try and sort the table back into alphabetical order, it doesn't go back into its original formatting, and doubles all the information. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Nat.	Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Nat.	Drivers	Rounds
	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9 10		Marcus Ericsson Kamui Kobayashi	1 1
	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7 14		Kimi Räikkönen Fernando Alonso	1 1
	Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11 27		Sergio Pérez Nico Hülkenberg	1 1
	Lotus F1 Team	Lotus–Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8 13		Romain Grosjean Pastor Maldonado	1 1
	Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4 17		Max Chilton Jules Bianchi	1 1
	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20 22		Kevin Magnussen Jenson Button	1 1
	Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6 44		Nico Rosberg Lewis Hamilton	1 1
	Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1 3		Sebastian Vettel Daniel Ricciardo	1 1
	Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21 99		Esteban Gutiérrez Adrian Sutil	1 1
	Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25 26		Jean-Éric Vergne Daniil Kvyat	1 1
	Williams Martini Racing	Williams–Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19 77		Felipe Massa Valtteri Bottas	1 1

How about this compromise? The sorting works without row splitting, but second driver is still visible by a slight shading in the driver number's background. (This is actually adopted from a previous proposal by Prisonermonkeys in the original discussion.) --hydrox (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks okay, but doesn't the first driver get the coloured camera hoop? That lime colour looks close to yellow, the colour of the camera hoop. It might confuse some readers if the near-yellow colour is on the driver who doesn't have the yellow bit. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

On the opposite: since 2013 the first car gets a black hoop camera, and the second car gets a yellow one (see image – Webber, in Red Bull's second car with the yellow camera mount, is on the right-hand side). Pre-2013 the first car too had a special coloured camera (fluorescent red), but now it's just black. So the colouring is in tune with the camera mounts' colours. --hydrox (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, then we have an agreeable solution. We must wait for the others though. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Cluttering up the table with yet another thing is bad enough, but this doesn't have even a modicum of relevance to the season. Not every single conceivable thing has to be included in this article. QueenCake (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have already numerous times explained, this has much relevance to the season, because it allows for the easy identification of the cars by the color of the roll hoop camera mount. --hydrox (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No that has absolutely zero relevance to the season. The colour of the roll hoop is the very definition of trivia. QueenCake (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not true. The color is meant to make car identification easy. It's not trivia – it's helpful and crucial information for car identification.^[2] The policy you linked to is against creating lists of miscellaneous tidbits of information. It has no relevance to the matter at hand, whatsoever. --hydrox (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You know what else makes identification easy, and does not require special knowledge? A race number! --Falcadore (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet, we don't have people claiming that the car numbers are trivia and should be removed because they help car identification, which is evil, as telling two cars of the same team apart "doesn't have even a modicum of relevance to the season". --hydrox (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The car numbers are unique to each car; they need no further explanation. But there are eleven red and eleven yellow camera mountings up and down the grid, which would require further explanation and even then, they do not identify the individual drivers. Right now, you are throwing around solutions to a problem that does not exist, much less need to be solved. It's time to drop the stick and back away. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There are this year (and previous year) only cars with yellow mountings (second cars), first cars have black mountings. Geez, well apparently people really don't care about those mountings as much as I do. I noticed immediately when they dropped the red mountings already in 2013. I couldn't watch F1 without knowing them, because it's how I know cars apart from each other on track, and that's also why I have been so insistent about having them included in this article. --hydrox (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The coloured roll hoop is meant to help identify the car on the circuit. It does nothing to help readers identify the cars in the article. Any addition of colour to the table will require an explanation of what function that colour performs. But the table works just fine without it, which makes the addition of the colours and explanation unnecessary. Those colours add nothing to the article, especially when it comes to helping the reader understand the sport. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is already there. If you hover your mouse over the "No." column header, the tooltip says "team second car shaded lime". No additional texts are necessarily required.

BTW back in January you were yourself proposing using the camera mountings as a visual guide in the table. Is it so that now you are categorically against this, and don't see any way we could incorporate this information to the article? --hydrox (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Something perhaps I should have asked earlier, what exactly is the "team second car"? --Falcadore (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The one with the yellow roll hoop camera mounting. See this image – Webber (on right) drives the Red Bull's second car. --hydrox (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean the physical evidence of its presence. What purpose does it serve? What is it used for? --Falcadore (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Before 2014, the second driver would get the higher of the two entrant numbers handed to the team (now numbers are arbitrary). And the roll hoop camera colour. That's all. Specifically, there's no sporting advantage in the regulations for the first driver, in case you meant that. --hydrox (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

So it serves no purpose. There is no reason whatsoever to highlight it. Wikipedia should be culling the minutiae from it's articles and presenting what is significant. I see no reason to mention it in the article at all, if that is all it is. --Falcadore (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That argument has already been explored. It's not a straightforward matter that car identification is a minute or insignificant detail, but I respect your opinion. --hydrox (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We have a race number that has been in use since the beginning of the sport. Anything else is just redundant. --Falcadore (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I guess there was then no reason whatsoever why FIA introduced the coloured roll hoop cameras in 2003 in the first place. I guess it was just because they wanted to do more random FIA things, annoy the teams and add red tape to the sport, because that's what sporting authorities do, right? Seriously though, it's not redundant – most of the time the (TV) camera shots are from such angle that the car number is not visible. I guess this is also the reason why the FIA introduced the secondary, easier system of car identification (you can identify any car on the track by just recognizing the team and whether it's the second or first car of the team from the high-visibility roll hoop camera mount). No need to learn driver helmets or other minute details to recognise which Red Bull or Merc is this and that car. --hydrox (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I would also like to add further counter argument to that first/second driver choices are "insignificant". In addition to the second car getting the higher entrant number and the yellow mountings, the first / second car choices the team makes almost always reflect the team's primary and secondary "contender" for that year, which actually carries quite a big symbolic meaning, I guess. Generally, there exists an overall opinion of which of every team's drivers has a better chance of finishing higher in the championship – and each team's better driver usually gets the first car and the lower entrant number.

However, this is of course highly qualitative (we can only predict which driver will fare better pre-season) and team internal politics may come into play. So, yes there are a few exceptions to the rule (Merc in 2013 had Rosberg in the first car, while press generally agreed that Hamilton was their primary contender, and in 2010 Ferrari has Alonso in the second car, although he finished higher than Massa in 2009.) But in the vast majority of the cases, the first / second car choices the team makes accurately reflect their idea of which one of their drivers is the "primary" one – which is actually quite significant! --hydrox (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth I never use the camera mountings to identify drivers. I identify them by their helmets an through their numbers. I don't know all helmet designs by heart, but all drivers, except Vettel who changes designs every race, have some primary color in their helmet design by which you can easily distinguish teammates. For instance, Massa is the yellow-helmeted Williams, whereas Bottas is the blue-helmeted one and Alonso is the yellow&blue-helmeted Ferrari and Räikkönen is the red-helmeted one and so on.

Regarding the "primary contender" claim. This is an entirely subjective matter and it's just impossible to implement that as a general rule. For instance, can you tell me which one of the Caterham drivers is the "primary contender" and which one of the Marussia drivers? And I wouldn't want to pick which one of the McLaren, Mercedes, Williams and Ferrari drivers is the "primary contender" either. And while we're at it, let's look back some decades and try to find out which one of the late 80s McLaren drivers (Prost en Senna) was their "primary contender", because after 25 years I still have no idea who it was. Tvx1 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well happily enough, we won't have to decide this (who is the "primary contender" in each team), because the teams have already done that, by the selection of their first and second car drivers. What I am arguing here for, is the inclusion of this information in the article.
To answer your question, here are the first car drivers (≈primary contenders) by team, from the above table: McLaren – Button, Mercedes – Hamilton, Williams – Massa, Ferrari – Alonso. --hydrox (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that the "information" serves no real purpose. The teams might use those colours to differentiate their cars, but it does not help the reader understand anything any better than other methods currently in use. All of this is based on the assumption that the numbers are too confusing for readers to understand - but I direct your attention to the MotoGP, IndyCar, WRC, V8 Supercars and NASCAR season pages, all of which arrange their tables like this, and none of which have the problems that you claim exist to the point where this article is broken.

I think it is quite obvious that you are not going to form a consensus on this. Everything that can be said has been said, and now we are just running around in circles. It is time to stop beating the dead horse. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

All of this is based on the assumption that the numbers are too confusing for readers to understand No, not really. The first/second car system is a concurrent way of identifying the cars, and definitely not mutually exclusive with the car numbers, but rather complementary to it. By not incorporating this information, we are definitely missing out useful information to at least some readers. Whether we should still include it – if it's too technical or of little significance to most readers – I do admit opinions can vary. Most of the discussion has been about correcting people who apparently do not even understand the first car / second car system. If there was some initial motion for this information being incorporated, it's long since been buried deep in this seemingly endless thread. So yes, I do agree there's little chance of this ever achieving any consensus. --hydrox (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that there is little chance for a consensus being formed, then why are we still having this discussion? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume that is a rhetorical question. --hydrox (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

hydrox, my previous reply was directly aimed at your argument that the first car driver is automatically the "primary contender". I'll cite you're argument in full: I would also like to add further counter argument to that first/second driver choices are "insignificant". In addition to the second car getting the higher entrant number and the yellow mountings, the first / second car choices the team makes almost always reflect the team's primary and secondary "contender" for that year, which actually carries quite a big symbolic meaning, I guess. Generally, there exists an overall opinion of which of every team's drivers has a better chance of finishing higher in the championship – and each team's better driver usually gets the first car and the lower entrant number. In each of the examples I cited I strongly doubt the ones you named are the "primary contenders" or even the better drivers. As far as I can see the ones you treat as "secondary drivers" are currently given at least equal treatment to their teammates. Ironically enough three of the four drivers you named are actually trailing their "secondary" teammates in the championship. And you cleverly ignored Caterham, Marussia and Prost/Senna which I cited as well. Your claim that the first car driver is synonymous with "primary contender" is just not applicable as a general rule. There are just to many examples of the contrary. Tvx1 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed that the first car driver was automatically the primary contender. How do you even make that up from that citation? I said exactly that it signifies the primary contender in most situations, and I cited myself several exceptions. Of course, many team do not have a primary contender, too – then it seems to be mostly decided by seniority within the team and then by seniority in F1. Mostly.

You can look the drivers I omitted in the table yourself if you like, I wasn't trying to deceive or anything like you seem to insinuate when I left Caterham and Marussia out (I just forgot to type them out for you, but I trust you are perfectly capable of looking it up for yourself.)

Obviously, the teams use some logic to name the first and second car drivers – it's not arbitrary, don't you agree? What is the logic they use is not for us to say, but since they make this decision and it helps car identification, I think we should include this info in the article. But as has already been said, this discussion has ran its course, as no one else seems to think this is important information and should be in the article, and I have utterly failed to persuade anyone to the contrary. --hydrox (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given this more thought and considered the words of my fellow editors. It is apparent that the idea is not even obvious to those who follow the sport strongly enough to edit about it, and to those whom it is, it is not considered relevant enough. In other words, it might not even be clear and obvious to the reader and they probably are not even looking for it anyway. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hidden at the moment, but with the advent of double points in Abu Dhabi, I have made some changes to the resultsame mmary table, results matrices, and results tables on car articles, which add a coloured background to theeven les (I wanted a solution that was easy to add, but which would not create complications if double points are abandoned).

I actually think it works quite well - certainly better than I expected it to - but now that we are a week out from the first race, I would like some feedback to try and fine-tune it. While I like the concept, I have some concerns about the colour being used, and I am wondering if there is some room for improvement.

The colour in question is a rather bold, bright orange. I deliberately chose it for three reasons:

1) I did not want a colour that could be confused with any existing colour in the results matrix.

2) The font in links is blue, and when observed on a colour wheel, orange is opposite blue, so I felt there was no risk of the text being lost in the background colour.

3) I am red-green colour blind, and so wanted something that would not deter readers.

But now I am wondering if there is a better colour that could be used, especially when looking at the results summary table, where non-bold font might be a little hard to distinguish. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is unneccessary. It is only the final race, so as long as it is explained in text in rule changes then that is all it needs.

Why does it need to be highlighted in the first place? How many readers will be hand calculating the point score off the matrix? The purpose of the results matrix is the give the results of all the races in one hit. It isn't supposed to be pointscore breakdown. If it was, we'd have the points in the matrix rather than the finishing position. --Falcadore (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that the season has started and the results tables are appearing I think we should discuss this further. I too think this is unnecessary, especially in the season overview table. I agree entirely with Falcadore's comments. Tvx1 (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If we do not mark the double points race as being worth double points, then that implies that the race is worth the same number of points as every other race, which we know to be untrue. The shaded box is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, and to supplement the text in the article (and there are literally dozens of changes this year; it is a lot to take in) rather than replace it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed my point here. I did not say whe shouldn't mark a double points race at all. I think it's unnecessary to mark them with a special coloured background. It's just to visually distracting. When I look a the season overview table the first thing that catches my eye is the coloured Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. That shouldn't be the case. Furthermore the colour causes problems with the flags. Just take a look at this:

Round	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
19	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Fernando Alonso	Pastor Maldonado	Nico Hülkenberg	Force India	Report

Besides, we don't mark races where half points are awarded with a special colour either. Take a look at the 2009 season page for instance. The Malaysian Grand Prix isn't marked in the season overview table at all and there is a marker with a footnote for each of the results matrices. I think we can deal with races where half point are awarded and races where double points were awarded in the exact same manner.

I only chose orange because I wanted something bold. I experimented with pink, but I felt it was not different enough compared to the other cells around it.

And if we are not marking races where half points are scored, then maybe that is something we should consider doing. After all, there is nothing in the table to indicate that points are awarded differently, and different points allocations definitely affect the championship. If naming the sponsors of races is considered important enough for the article, then we should absolutely be marking the races where points were awarded differently.

As for the summary table, maybe we could just shade the "Round" cell, as in the results matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I remind editors we do have accessibility guidelines to follow, specifically WP:Colour. Table colouring should only be used sparingly, where there is a clear benefit in doing so, and with a key stating what the colour means. At the moment there is simply some garish orange bar randomly highlighting the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, and that is no help to anyone. In this case there is already a clear explanation that the last race will be worth double points, so there is no reason to further mark this. We don't need to mark every single thing possible with colouring, a symbol or a tool tip - some of the tables are already getting overloaded with information as it is. QueenCake (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a double points indicator in the points scale between the summary table and results matrices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't obvious until it was unhidden today. The orange shading currently on the result matrices is just about tolerable, but I removed it from the summary table. The points system has no relevance there, so double points does not need to be marked. QueenCake (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If we do not mark the double points race as being worth double points, then that implies that the race is worth the same number of points as every other race - I don't see that at all. Races are treated differently for a large variety of reasons. Giving Abu Dhabi this colour weighted place in the table I feel gives undue weighting to the scoring variation.

Queencake's point about sparing the use of colour is important, as someone who is colurblind Prisonermonkeys, this policy was written specifically with readers like yourself in mind. The point of the policy is to not create work-arounds by using different colours, but to say colour highlighting should not be done at all.

Colour highlighting is unneccessary, is against policy, gives undue weighting to a technical point, and ignores that tables should not be performing the function of what text performs. The results matrix is NOT a catch-all solution for describing all of the championships idiosyncracies. --Falcadore (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely just a simply note, indicated with a ‡ or a §, will suffice? —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, not keen on the whole colour idea, especially that colour ;) The double points debacle is explained in the text AFAIK so a simple indicator per Gyaro should do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. I already stated my opinion that a marker with a footnote is more than enough and I stand by it. In addition to the arguments presented above it would mean we would continue dealing with races where the standard points system wasn't used (e.g. half points) in the same manner as we have always done. Tvx1 (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, you are awfully quick to introduce some of these changes to an article considering that you go around telling people to form a consensus before adding changes. Right now, I would say the consensus agrees that there should be some way of recognising when points are awarded differently, though the exact method of doing that has not been settled as yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Awfully quick?? I waited 12 days since the discussion started to make an edit based on it. Whereas you first edited dozens of pages and then started a discussion to see if you proposition is a good one. Which everyone has told you it isn't. Everybody has agreed that a marker with a foot note is the best option. We don't need your personal permission to implement that. You're not the owner around here. Tvx1 (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Having thought a bit more on this matter I now wonder whether it's necessary to put a note in already claiming that the double points WILL be awarded. It think this actually is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know for sure these double points will be awarded in Abu Dhabi and we won't be until at least 75% of the race has been completed. Tvx1 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no opposition here. Is it okay then if I remove the notes until the double points have actually been awarded? Tvx1 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a rule that has been approved and introduced by the FIA. Removing it on the grounds that "it might not happen" is a violation of CRYSTAL. It is the same as if you removed details of a new race from the article because the circuit might not be built in time, even though a contract existed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Stating that it will happen when we're not certain of that is even more a violation of WP:Crystal. Tvx1 (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Under that concept we might as well remove all the future races this season because including them when they could all potentially not happen. Imagine, an earthquake could hit Japan a week before the race, which would cancel the Japanese GP. Surely then including the Japanese GP is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL? Back to the double points. One to two months ago, I would have agreed with you. But now, there is no foreseeable way that the double points system could be removed. Hence, to not include it is to intentionally hold back useful information. So it needs to be there. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. That's a fair argument. Tvx1 (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Subj. Official table - http://www.formula1.com/results/team/

10 Caterham-Renault 0

11 Marussia-Ferrari 0

Done Tvx1 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the introduction of double points for the last race of the season is pretty darn significant. If it sticks, readers will want to know that this was the year it was introduced. If it fails, readers will want to know that this is was the year it was tried. Either way, they will want to know why it was done, and that a lot of people are very angry about it. For the life of me, I cannot understand this edit summary: "putting too much emphasis on double points - we don't prioritise the content based on what is most topical." Who is "we", and what do we prioritise on? I am restoring my edits, and I think a better-thought-out justification is needed for reverting. Scolaire (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL. You said it yourself: if it succeeds, and if it fails. "If" is the operative word here - you cannot predict the outcome because it has not had an outcome yet. That is CRYSTAL. Putting that much emphasis on it, particularly alongside the substantial technical and calendar revisions is UNDUE, because on the one hand we have a complete overhaul of the engine format, and on the other, we have a change to the sporting regulations that may or may not affect the outcome of one or both title fights. And finally, we do not document the reception to the other regulation changes - like the complaints about the sound - so we should not do it here; that's RECENTISM. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, the reactions would be better-suited to the race report article. While double points might affect the championship, they will affect the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No, they won't. The race will take place regardless, and it will finish as it finishes. Double points will not move cars around the grid, or change their positions at the chequered flag. They will have no relevance until the championship tables are updated after the race is over. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL? WP:RECENTISM says "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" The answer, as I said above, is an emphatic "yes". 2003 Formula One season has the change to the scoring system in the lead, with the explanation that it was introduced "in an attempt to make the title contests closer", so there's the proof of the ten-year rule right there (I don't recall anybody being "disgusted" on that occasion, so reaction is not relevant to that article). Whether the double points rule stays or goes, in ten years time readers will still want to know that it was in the 2014 season that it was introduced, why it was introduced, and that it was unpopular. Incidentally, I bumped this up not because I saw it in the news, but because I didn't see it in the news, so when I saw the footnote at the bottom of the Standings table saying "Double points will be awarded at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix", I tried to find out what that was about, and it took me half the day before I found that tiny sentence – that didn't even have "Abu Dhabi" in it – at the bottom of the very long Regulation changes section.

WP:UNDUE says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." My edit did not introduce or expand on any view whatever, never mind a minority view. It relates to a fact. Whether one fact is of more interest to the reader than another is purely subjective, and not a policy-related question. But I for one consider any change to the points system to be as significant as regulations regarding mid-season testing, pit-lane speed limits etc. (the overhaul of the engine format is in a separate subsection, so that is a red herring), and a particularly controversial change to be more significant. And as regards weight, I added 13 words to an already existing statement; that hardly changes the balance of the whole article!

WP:CRYSTAL says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable", so (a) it applies to articles, not article content, and (b) it applies to anticipated events. The change in the scoring is not anticipated; it has occurred and has been announced. I was very careful in my edits not to say anything about the possible effect of this actual, present rule change on future events.

Again this mysterious "we" don't "document the reception to the other regulation changes - like the complaints about the sound" Why not? Where was it discussed? I'm not going to go off and find material on the complaints about the sound for the sake of adding it, but I would have no problem if somebody else did.

I don't like edit-warring, but neither do I like being handed down edicts that purport to come from some governing body. It seems to me that you are speaking for yourself only. If so, the correct thing would be to open an RfC. Scolaire (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the correct thing to do would be to write the article consistently. Your edits prioritised the points changes on the basis that they were unpopular with fans and drivers - but do you see any other reactions to any of the other rule changes? No. So why is this one important enough for something as subjective as the reactions, and why is only one side of the reaction given? There was a clear bias in the wording that made the rule out to be a bad rule. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My edits prioritised the points changes on the basis that they are significant, not on the fact that they are unpopular. If you think the wording was biased, that is something we could talk about, but changes to the points system are always significant, as the 2003 (and 2010) article shows. My edit to the lead said nothing about people's reactions, it merely put a fact of interest up front where it would be seen. Scolaire (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it significant? All we have so far is a significant amount of conjecture. If a driver manages to wrap things up early (as happens more often than not) then it will have no affect at all. All the double points does is shift the early wrap up point. To wrap up early this year is the equivalent of wrapping up two races early last year. Nothing else has changed.

So what are you really writing about, the new point scoring twist, or the increased amount of speculation? --Falcadore (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you read my edits, you will see that there is no speculation in them, and nothing in them about speculation. What points who scores at what stage of the championship has nothing to do with the plain fact that the points scoring system has changed. Any and all changes to the points scoring system are inherently interesting. They don't need to be described as "twists". They're in the 2003 article, they're in the 2010 article, they even have their own page. I think possibly a desire not to get into the realm of speculation has led people to play down what is to anyone interested in the sport an interesting and significant development in F1, and I think it is to the detriment of this article. Scolaire (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

But it is just a twist, like all of the other variations used over the years, like points for fastest laps in the 1950s, like dropping your worst score(s), then splitting the season in half and forcing dropped scores to come from each half of the season thus reducing the value of a winning streak at the start or end of a season (like Jones in '79), like front-ending the points in the 1990s by making a win the equal of a second and a third (which promted race winners like Senna over accumulators of points like Prost), to devaluing those wins in the late 2000s after too many years of Schumacher dominating season. By making the suggestion that this is any more significant than the others you are making a jump in logic not supported by anything other than your own opinion and the conjecture mentioned previously. --Falcadore (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the new engine regulations have had a MUCH greater impact on the season. The order of the teams has been completely upset. --Falcadore (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

But I'm not suggesting that you take anything away from the content about the new engines! Nor have I said anything about the relative importance of previous scoring changes. I'm simply saying that such changes have previously been mentioned in the lead of the article on that season (they're not in the lead of the 1979 article but in my opinion they should be). The "jump in logic" is the don't mention the war attitude that because some people (actually a lot of people) have made a fuss about it we should hide it away in the bowels of the article where only the most determined reader will see it. Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. An article lead is a summary of its contents and its most important issues. With so much going on in 2014, we have to decide what the most important issues are - even if it means excluding items that might have been included in other, quieter seasons. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So, again, there are thirteen bullets in the section – can you tell me how they are prioritised, and what makes the points changes the least important of them? Obviously you have criteria, going by what you just said. And assuming that the lead contains everything you thought needed to be included, where does that need to "exclude items that might have been included in other, quieter seasons" arise? The lead is by no means too long, and my edit only added a very few more words. Scolaire (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The bullet points are, or at least they should be, arranged in the order in which those changes were announced by the official instances. I must say that I feel like my colleagues here, that the double points isn't one of the most important changes for the season. As pointed out we don't know wether the double points will affect the outcome of the season at all. Furthermore some of the publications we use as sources here have made the calculation on whether or not double points would have produced a different outcome to the season and found that only in a minority of them double points would have actually produced a different World Champion. Tvx1 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, whether they will affect the outcome, or they would have produced a diferent world champion in a previous season, is in the realm of speculation, and I have no interest in speculation. You don't think it's one of the most important changes. What, apart from the engines, are the most important changes, and how have you ranked them? Why are none of them are in the lead, if they're so important? I will concede that it is not the most important change, since it's now three to one against me, but I still feel as a reader and a fan that it's important enough to merit a brief mention in the lead, and that the article as it stands gives the appearance of trying to hide the information away. Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Because the lead is the summary of the article. So the lead should describe what the topic (a sporting event of a particular type) and who won it with a short summary of the season's results.

Frankly any regulation change is window dressing outside of describing who is the champion (or leading the championship) and what the championship is.

By going on and on about regulation change you are taking away the focus from what the article actually is, a professional sporting contest with winners and losers. --Falcadore (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the language that's being used here that bothers me. "Going on and on about regulation change": mentioning double points will increase the size of the lead from its current 288 words to 306 - a whopping 18 words! In what universe does that amount to "going on and on"? Currently, 32 of the 288 words are given over to what countries will not host a Grand Prix in 2014. How exactly does that "describe who is the champion (or leading the championship) and what the championship is"? And does it really take 44 words to say that Sebastian Vettel and Red Bull began the season as champions? I've gone through the article and I can't see the part that that paragraph summarises. On the other hand, the double points is in the article. There's a clear inconsistency between the inclusion criteria and the exclusion criteria. It seems to me that neither keep the focus on what the article actually is, a professional sporting contest in which the winners are the ones with the most points at the end of the season.

Or is it me here on the talk page that's "going on and on"? If so that's unfair. I started out by stating an opinion, and I've had to defend it against some pretty aggressive attacks. Scolaire (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a good section of the lead describing changes to the calendar. But I think you will agree that four changes - India and Korea out; Austria and Russia in - in the space of a single year is a significant change. It is certainly worthy of inclusion in the lead. And as for the paragraph about Vettel and Red Bull; yes, it could be shortened to "Vettel and Red Bull are champions", but it needs to be expanded out explain which title they won.

All of this, however, ignores the main issue. By putting something in the article lead, we are putting weight on it - highlighting it as one of the most significant points in the article. Obviously, the engine change deserves to go here; Mark Webber described the sport as having gone from technology ten years out of date to technology ten years ahead of its time, while David Croft likes to re-tell an analogy he heard from an engineer likening the sport from having gone from vinyl music to digital and skipping CDs. The problem that you face is that by making mention of double points in the lead, you are putting the same weight on them as the engine changes, which is not the case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That just proves my point about inclusion and exclusion criteria. You think I will agree that four changes to the calendar is significant, but you apparently don't think that by making mention of them in the lead, you are putting the same weight on them as the engine changes. You think that the story of how Vettel and Red Bull won the 2013 championship "needs to be expanded out", but you don't offer any rationale for that. I think that the double points are significant enough to go in the lead – not in the same part of the paragraph or at the same length as the engine changes – but you oppose it strenuously because that, you say, puts the same weight on them. It's totally arbitrary. And it's not even the case. Here is my version. the double points carries hardly any weight at all! It's just a small sentence added to the end of the paragraph. I've never read a more harmless little sentence in all my time in Wikipedia. It could even be shortened, by omitting the last five words, and it would be even less weighty. How you think it's going to draw the readers' attention away from the engine changes, or make them forget about them, I just cannot imagine. Scolaire (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think regulation changes should go in the lead at all, beyond saying there were a lot of them this year. If someone wants to read more about regulation changes we have a paragraph about that. I'm even less enthusiastic about calendar changes, particularly amongst the younger GPs which seem to come and go with little real impact. --Falcadore (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

When I talk about weight, I do not mean the amount of coverage in the lead. Simply being in the lead at all gives it more implied importance over any other issue - like penalty points, or changes to the curfew. Maybe double points is more important than those issues, but it is not as important as the engine changes. But by putting it in the lead, you are implying that it is as important as the engine changes, which is untrue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. Putting a fact in the lead means that you think it is important/significant/interesting. It implies absolutely nothing about the relative importance of other facts in the lead.

However, I have a proposition for you. After the sentence about the revised engine formula, we add another sentence: "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." It's still concise: very little increase in word count. It means the lead summarises the article better than it does at present. It doesn't single out double points, it puts it after the two that you think are of comparable importance. And it makes it crystal clear that the changes are secondary in importance to the engine changes.

@Falcadore: I know you say that regulation changes should go in the lead at all, but that is in direct conflict with your statement that "the lead is the summary of the article". If regulation changes are in the article, there should be some attempt to address them in the lead, and not just "there were a lot of them this year". Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. For that to be true then the regulation changes would have to be one of the most important things about the 2014 Formula One season and that is blatantly wrong. You, and I suspect others, need to take a big step back and look at the article as a whole. It is a sporting event. Who won it is the single most important fact about the 2014 Formula One season. The article lead should be focussed on who won it (or is leading it) and how they won it. First we define what it is simply, then describe who won it. Regulation changes are the surrounding minuatae.

I have a suspicion that some of us see writing this article it needs to be important to distinguish this season as being different from other Formula One seasons, which would be the correct way to write it if this was a Formula One wiki, but it is not. This is a general purpose encyclopedia so the expectation that readers should be familiar with Formula One does not exist. The assumption is that reader knows little if anything about F1. So Nico Rosberg leading the championship after winning in Australia and second in Malaysia is front of house, not that there is a small scoring variation in eight months time. --Falcadore (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I think the engine changes definitely merit inclusion in the lead. The engines themselves were in development for three years before the race, and has been pointed out in the paddock, represent the single biggest change to the sport in sixty-odd years. As for the calendar, it is more of a secondary point, but when was the last time the sport had four changes to the calendar in a season? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

2012 Tvx1 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is your last word, I will proceed to an RfC. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)