Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship

Different table looks in different browsers

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

in Firefox:

in Safari:

and in mobile Safari:

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

and in mobile view:

The FIrefox version is what I think the IP was complaining about in the above section. Given that the redesigned version looks so different in Firefox I think it's better we reinstate the original version. That was already executed in this article, but many articles still contain the redesigned version. Prisonermonkeys made most of the conversions, so I'm going to tag them here because they'll know best in which articles the conversion has been executed. Tvx1 02:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I see what you mean. The borders qre there though. They just have a lighter color on mobile and are therefore much much more difficult to see. Tvx1 05:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

How it looks like in Firefox. See my picture above. And here is how the result matrix would look like in Firefox: Tvx1 05:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm not the one who complained about it and certainly not who changed it back. That would have been Elk Salmon. Tvx1 06:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

That's because you didn't include the parameter which makes it sortable. Tvx1 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

That means you didn't use the correct parameter. By the way, I thought sorting didn't even work on mobile? Tvx1 07:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Another colour issue — the world map

How does everybody see this image?

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

It looks exactly like it's described in the caption in the article to me and the pink actually sticks out quite clearly. It probably appears different to you due to your red-green colorblindness. Tvx1 23:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think we could indeed do with a past host-less version of the map in the season articles, but the map with past hosts is useful for articles such as List of Formula One Grands Prix. Tvx1 09:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Good lord, no! That color is way, way to bright. The green was much better. Tvx1 12:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've been thinking about this and it seems what we want to achieve is more contrast between former host countries and countries that have never done anything regarding F1 races. So I was wondering if instead of meddling with the color of the former host countries, we could leave that a lone a make the color of the countries that have never done anything lighter to increase the contrast? Tvx1 13:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manor or Marussia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did notice that the onscreen graphics put them as Marussia-Ferrari. Tvx1 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see why we would have to duplicate driver information if a team uses more than one chassis during a season. We have never done that. See for instance Toro Rosso in 2008. Furthermore it's simply not compatible with the sort function. Tvx1 11:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I too do not understand why there seems to be two separate parts for the Chassis... Many pages in the past have never been like this even though different engines have also been used in the past. Try not to break the system. *JoeTri10_ 23:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

That's nothing new and we have never done so in any previous case. And as I have stated before, it doesn't work with the sorting. Tvx1 12:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think you are massively overrating the importance of the event here. Your WRC example doesn't relate to this situation either because that's an example of a driver changing constructors during the season, which is something we do acknowledge in Formula 1 articles as well by listing the driver in question with each constructor they competed with. Tvx1 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Were not talking about a change of constructor names or power unit manufacturers here. Were simply talking about a constructor debuting their current season car during the season, rather than at the start of it. It's exactly the same situation as Toro Rosso debuting their 2008 STR3 a couple of races into the season, using the Toro Rosso STR2B for the first few races or Ferrari using the F2004M to start the 2005 season, while debuting the F2005 a couple of races later. I really can't see why we can treat the current season in the exact same way as these previous examples. Tvx1 18:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The STR3 was a completely different car than the STR2 (and it's evolution STR2B). The F2005 was a completely different car than the F2004 (and it's evolution F2004M). The Minardi PS05 was a completely different car than the PS04 (and it's evolution PS04B). Nothing unique. Exactly the same as in the past. Tvx1 19:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

That doesn't work. If you add rowspan to even one cell, the entire table is affected. Not just the column in which it is contained. We have these situations before and we have perfectly dealt with them and no one complained. We would be the ones who making this event notable. Notability is not made up by the editors but by the sources. I really don't see why we would have to change the system now. Tvx1 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

That could work actually:

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

Tvx1 21:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

What's wrong with that? Tvx1 22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still don't see the necessity for this. All the other 9 cars used by the other teams have been subjected to the exact same FIA procedures. It's simply a team introducing their current season car after a few races instead of at the start of the season like anyone else. You are literally the one turning this into a unique and important event. Per the sources, however, it's hardly a notable occurrence. Tvx1 13:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Which is nothing unique. Again, you are making this into a special event. Tvx1 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Regulations, I think. Context can be given in the prose (e.g. season report). Tables aren't catch all solutions. Tvx1 22:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Don't act like we're suggesting the information to be left out entirely. If and when Manor introduce a new chassis we will include the information. I just don't think it's that important to include it in the manner you demand it to. We won't leave that information entirely out of the wiki either. You'll be able to find it in the team's article. Tvx1 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I don't think DNP means much taking part. Tvx1 19:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I really don't see how just physically being there constitutes taking part. They didn't even come close to spending even one second on track. They line shpuld be there right between DNP and DNQ/DNPQ. And yes, that's exactly how we have done it before. See for instance Mastercard Lola in 1997.Tvx1 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Engine allocation

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

Ferrari's 2015 power unit name

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

Do any of them come from Ferrari themselves? Tvx1 23:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The Italian wiki article might be more detailed, it's certainly not better. There is literally no reference in the entire article. So everything, including the power unit designation, is unsourced and we can't use anything of it. The only link it has is to the SF15-T presentation page, which only includes four videos. As far as I can find while googling, the 2015 power unit has been nicknamed 059/4 by some journalists who simply counted forward from last year's designation. Nothing official has emerged though. Tvx1 14:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Pole Trophy table

Are we doing this?

Pos.	Driver	Team	Poles
1	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes	2

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

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

Going from last year's experience I don't think a table is really necessary. It doesn't seem to get much coverage anyway and we seemed to be the only a site to be keeping those standings (in contrary to the Fastest Lap Award), which is not actually an acceptable practice. Tvx1 03:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am back...

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