This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
There seems to be some confusion as to whether the Mexico City Grand Prix should be covered in
Mexican Grand Prix or
Mexico City Grand Prix (Formula One race) (Mexico City Grand Prix is already taken as a badminton event). Back when it was announced
Mclarenfan17 said that it should be in the same article as it was effectivly the same as a sponser change (
this edit) however earlier today
Speedy Question Mark created the article
Mexico City Grand Prix (Formula One race) . Which approach do we want to take while we wait for some sort of official indication (if we get one at all)?
SSSB (
talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
McLarenfan17's argument is fair. A minor change for marketing didn't need a new article with the Malaysian Grand Prix, and the even bigger change of Grand Prix de l'ACF to the Grand Prix de France, which had a bigger reason behind it, is all covered on one page. Unless most sources start treating the "Mexico City Grand Prix" as a new race (which I can confidently say they won't), there's no reason to split the article. QueenCake ( talk) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear from this discussion that there is no consensus for the article as yet. If, closer to the 2020 date, more information becomes available that demonstrates the race is significantly different to the existing race, we can always revisit the issue. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:2019 Spa-Francorchamps FIA Formula 2 round about what to do with results tables in the event a race is abandoned before a result is cancelled that might be of relevance to the WikiProject. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 09:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The constructors championship table seems to be arbitrarily arranged into "two rows per team with the highest place car entered in each race the first row and the other chassis the second row". But you can only work that out by referring back to the drivers table.
If the current format based on cars is to be retained it should be one row per chassis, irrespective of where that chassis finishes relative to the other from the same team. If the team introduces a new chassis then the team should gain an extra row per chassis.
Currently the granularity of how each constructor arrived at their points tally is lost. Renders the table useless from a team analysis perspective. Examples below referencing the format comparisons at /info/en/?search=User:DH85868993/comparison
- the current format for 2017 masks the effort the Toro Rosso team went to in choosing drivers to collect points. - in 2016 only one driver / car scored points for Haas which is lost in the current format table as you can't tell which car / driver scored them. - the current format for 2016 Red Bull Racing masks the introduction of Max Verstappen to the Red Bull team, scoring their first winning constructor's points and therefore the first constructor's trophy for that season.
Similarly, in the 2019 season, currently the Haas team are running different spec cars for their drivers. GRO in Australia spec, MAG in updated specification. Someone who was aware of that fact (i.e. from another source or especially if the season summary mentions it) should be able to review the comparison (if any) in the constructor's table.
The constructors table should help tell the story of the constructor's season which it does prior to 2014 but is lost by the lack of granularity shown (especially irritating when the information is available).
I therefore suggest the introduction of one row per chassis per team indicating each result per chassis or a reversion to the driver centric style of previous years. Ei2g ( talk) 09:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The last sentence or 2 above is a fair point. In all honesty I think these fairly reguaurly comments of the table is wrong
(or variants there of) partially stems from the fact we jumped from one row per car to showing the results from best to worst for each team for no obvious reason (I do know and understand the reason but to me it doesn't justify a new system for only post 2014 articles just because drivers choose a number for their whole career). If there is no change in how points are awarded then (in my opinion) it makes no sense to alter the way we present the constructores table. Therefore I have 2 proposals which I think we should apply from all articles from 1980 (as this is when the current method for calculating the constructors championship started (as defined
here)). I'm going to {{
ping}} some editors who recently comlained about our system. @
Bretonbanquet:, @
Ei2g:.
All articles from 1980 adopt the current format of best result before worst result. (shown here)
All articles from 1980 adopt the system used pre 2013, one row per car. However its important to note that it is not necessary to specify which number(s) the results below to. (shown
here but my proposal doesn't include the number column)
SSSB (
talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Although using unofficial flags, such as the EU for European Grands Prix would be wrong, if a race is name after a country, surely it must be the right thing to use the flag of that country in the season reports regardless of which side of the border the race was actually held in? After all, San Marino is a sovereign state in its own right, the automobile association of which it was affiliated to under the FIA the formal host of the Imola races, whereas Europe or the city-name Grands Prix in the United States are not. It is a very special case to be honest and as such, I definitely think it is the only flag able to depict what a San Marino Grand Prix is, regardless of whether it is held on Italian soil or not. I would not touch any of the European Grand Prix flags even if members of the EU at the time, but keeping San Marino, Switzerland 1982 and Luxembourg 1997-98 is important since those races were affiliated to a foreign country rather than the countries in which they were ran.
Glottran ( talk) 21:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The 2021 championship article is currently in draft form. Some time ago (though I am having some trouble tracking down the the discussion) we flagged the publication of the 2021 regulations as the time to publish it. However, the full regulations have repeatedly been delayed and the draft currently has over 40 references so I feel that it has more than enough content to justify publications. I have requested publication (rather than just do it myself) because creating future articles can be controversial. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 05:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It has been proposed that 2007 Formula One espionage controversy be moved to Spygate (Formula 1). Interested editors are welcome to participate in the move discussion.
It has been proposed that Renault Formula One crash controversy be moved to Crashgate. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the move discussion.
DH85868993 ( talk) 11:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
At the 1960 USA GP Pete Lovely drove a Cooper-Ferrari. At the moment wiki list the car as a Cooper T45. The OldRacingCars website states this: Delivered to F Armbruster (USA) according to the Cooper Register. Since they state the Cooper was a T51 I certainly think the car was the T51 and not the T45.
There is some mystery behind the Ferrari engine of the Cooper T73 Chris Lawrence drove at 2 GP's in 1966. OldRacingCars says the car was fitted with a 250 GTO V12 engine (Ferrari Tipo 168 3.0 V12). The F2Register also list the car with that engine at the 1966 International Gold Cup. Same goes for StatsF1
An article about J.A. Pearce Engineering in RTLGP Magazine ( No. 4 2013) states the car was actually powered by a V12 engine from Rob Walker's Ferrari 250 GT SWB Berlinetta (Ferrari Tipo 125 3.0 V12). Something Lawrence only figured out in 2001. The Berlinetta that was bought from Rob Walker was fitted with a Drogo body from the 250 GT (long before it was sold to J.A. Pearce Engineering). The J.A. Pearce Engineering crew was not aware of this and thought the car was a 250 GTO as well as the engine.
Any input would be greatly appreciated. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that
Vietnamese Grand Prix be moved to
Vietnam Grand Prix. Editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion at
Talk:Vietnamese Grand Prix#Requested move 7 October 2019. Thank you.
SSSB (
talk) 11:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't the FIA realise how much work it creates for us when they disqualify people? :-) I think all the relevant articles have now been updated. Well done team. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that "Driver of the Day" be added to {{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}}. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we create an infobox for engine manufacturers. It would make seeing how successful an engine manufacturer has been easier, and people could easily see and compare their statistics, instead of having to find them somewhere from the article, if they even are there. Teams, constructors and nationalities already have infoboxes, so I think engine manufacturers should too. Here is an example. Carfan568 ( talk) 19:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC) For manufacturers like Renault it could be used in addition to the team infobox, like the constructor infobox is used in Team Lotus for example. Carfan568 ( talk) 12:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll create the infobox since nobody seems to be against it. Carfan568 ( talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Some questions which came to my mind:
Shouldn't Scuderia Alpha Tauri be given a separate article as it's confirmed to be a new Constructor? Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#FAC reviewing of sports articles if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack ( talk) 09:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on the 2019 talk page about changing the format of entry tables that has gained some traction recently. This seems like the more appropriate venue for the discussion. The proposal would see the current entry table:
Entrant | Constructor | Chassis | Power unit | Race drivers | Free Practice drivers | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Driver name | Rounds | No. | Driver name | ||||
Alfa Romeo Racing | Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | C38 | Ferrari 064 | 7 99 |
Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi |
1–14 1–14 |
— |
Modified to become a simplified version:
Constructor | Chassis | Power unit | Race drivers | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Driver name | Rounds | |||
Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | C38 | Ferrari | 7 99 |
Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi |
1–14 1–14 |
The idea is that everything which has been omitted would be better-suited to prose. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 02:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Feel like I should explain what the proposal cuts and why:
Probably should have put that at the start. Sorry about that. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 03:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I support this proposal with one modification (see below), for the following reasons:
The one modification I would make concerns an additional simplification. I would merge the chassis and engine fields in some way (this is just an example):
Constructor | Chassis / power unit | Race drivers | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Driver name | Rounds | ||
Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | C38 / Ferrari | 7 99 |
Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi |
1–14 1–14 |
Mercedes | F1 W10 EQ Power+ / Mercedes | 44 77 |
Lewis Hamilton Valtteri Bottas |
1–14 1–14 |
-- Scjessey ( talk) 13:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Constructor | Power unit | Race drivers | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Driver name | Rounds | ||
Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | Ferrari | 7 99 |
Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi |
1–14 1–14 |
Mercedes | Mercedes | 44 77 |
Lewis Hamilton Valtteri Bottas |
1–14 1–14 |
Oppose I've said it before when this discussion came up earlier. I am not a fan of merging the entrant and constructor columns, since it does not reflect the reality of the sport, especially in seasons where customer cars were allowed. And I am all for consistency within all season articles. I know, many of you have a different opinion on that, but I wanted to state mine again. As for the simplicity argument: Let's not treat the readers like children, these tables can be a little extensive, the most important thing is that the information is portrayed correctly. I also feel strongly that the chassis needs to remain in the table because it gives a quick overview over which cars were used in which season, something I find myself looking up fairly often. If they are not in the season report anymore, where am I supposed to look? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This hasn't been discussed in a while but as its so long I think it best if we summarise and I'm doing it now otherwise this discussion will be archived in the next couple of days.
As far as I can tell, there is a consensus to remove the FP drivers from the entry table (only to detailed in prose) and to remove the specific engine name (can be speified in car articles). However, as I see it there is either no consensus or a consensus against the other proposed changes and those areas should therefore be left as is.
SSSB (
talk) 12:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Reviving this discussion was unnecessary.
The specific engine designations mean nothing to the average reader, so unless it's a notable engine like the Cosworth DFV, you're suggesting adding things for the sake of it.
Actually, it's preferred. Tables are meant to support prose, not replace it.
As SSSB pointed out, the discussion had naturally run its course. Forming a consensus was the next natural step. If you missed the original discussion, that's your problem and it doesn't invalidate the consensus. You don't own the article and we don't need your permission to form a consensus. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 11:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No, there was NOT consensus.- let's agree to disagree. I read that thread, considered the opinions raised ( Wikipedia:Consensus is not a vote) and that was the conclusion I reached. I may have misinterpreted the discussion, however, if you believe this to be the case you go to a higher person, perhaps dispute resolution. It is not your place to unilaterlly decide that my conclusion was wrong, espically one month after a close on a highly viewed page and it most certainly is not your place to make bad faith accusations that I am ignoring other editors (accusation on my talk page), its time you assumed good faith something you have failed to do here and on my talk page. If I was ignoring other editors (something you accused me of on my talk page) don't you think I would have declared a consensus for the entrant column to be removed as well, given that's what I argued for? What stands out to me most is that you are the only editor in the month that has passed who seems to think that I amade the wrong conclusion, among many highly respected editors who are not afraid to get their elbows out (and before you start, thats a compliment). Now to get to what you said more recently
This discussion is not being revived, it is being continued because it ended without clear consensus.- discussions don't need to end on a clear consensus. WP:CLOSING states you can close a discussion
When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing., this discussion was stable when I made my closing statement, with no one contributing to it for over a month. Nowwhere does it state there has to be a consensus for the discussion to close. The discussion was therefore closed and you are therefore reviving (i.e. unclosing) it.
I will give you one last chance to agree to move forward- we have agreed to move forward, McLarenfan17 has stated why he believes the information should stay of of the table, it is now up to you to respond. Failure to do so may (and by me will) be interpreted as you not having a rational for your opinion in which case the consensus (above) won't be overturned. p.s. you may want to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and the relevant pages that link from it.
"Nowhere does it state there has to be a consensus for the discussion to close."is not my stating that there was no consensus. It is me stating that HAD there been no consensus this is still you reviving a discussion, not continuing it. I admit the consensus isn't clear but i still beleive that consensus is there and the other editors who frequent this page will have seen my closing statement and this discussion even if they don't watch every edit at 2020. Please read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (and you may want to read the rest of the page as well) and follow the instructions there then you will find out why we are not going to revert the above consensus (which you disagree with), I said it before and I will say it again, it is not up to you, an inexpirenced editor, to unilatelly decide that my closing statement was innaccurate. Further you have shown no evidence of ever showing good faith here, on my talk page nor on Mclarenfan17's talk page. I have intrepeted your insistance of reverting back rather than arguing for its inclusion as a sign that you have no rational, is this true?
If you truly believe you are correct [...] we can reach that consensus the proper way.- I might say the same thing to you. Follow the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you want and in the meantime argue your point, otherwise there is no point of reviving the discussion at all.
This hasn't been discussed in a while but as its so long I think it best if we summarise and I'm doing it now otherwise this discussion will be archived in the next couple of days.in late October. Lazer-kitty has simply decided that it not good enough for her
As far as I can tell, there is a consensus to remove the FP drivers from the entry table (only to detailed in prose) and to remove the specific engine name (can be speified in car articles). However, as I see it there is either no consensus or a consensus against the other proposed changes and those areas should therefore be left as is.
Really unimpressed by SSSB prematurely declaring consensus and...to the notice of the now void dispute resolution, remebering to keep my response to carfan which is hidden somewhere in the middle. Also note that I continue to reject that the closure was premature or that I was purposefully biased when doing so, though I admit I should have requested closure.
@
Lazer-kitty: Given McLarenfan17 also argued against it, it would be recommended to wait and see how he respondes, also At the moment I cannot re-add the Renault engine designation as I believe it would count as a third revert in 24 hours
, state that it comes after a discussion and it would be overlooked, the
WP:3RR is designed to avoid edit warring, given I have conseded that my informal close was inssufient after a discussion it would be all right as editwarring would have been avoided, but like I said I would recommend waiting to see Mclarenfan17's response to avoid the conflict between the 2 of you escalating.
SSSB (
talk) 16:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Formula_One_World_Championship Lazer-kitty ( talk) 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Lazer-kitty: you claim that the consensus was not formed properly, so I'm curious ... what do you think the proper procedure for forming a consensus is? Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 22:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
ensure as many interested editors as possible are involved when making a significant change.- which is why the discussion took place here and was moved from Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship.
It's one that should require proactively reaching out to other editors- no discussion requires that, it is your responsibility to keep an eye on pages of interest and it is not our responsibility to contact specific editors who may be interested.
but these are things that you should do, simply because they are the right thing to do.- I disagree, if you have an interest in F1 put this page on your watchlist and check up on it every few days, that way you won't miss anything as discussions don't get archived for a month. As i hinted at above it is your responsibillity and yours alone to find discussions you want to contribute to. Saying I wasn't there so the discussion was invalid is not suffiecent.
But by removing that information you have robbed everyone of it.- no we haven't, its still in the articles for the cars.
I know of no other resource that can provide that same information to me so easily and so quickly.- I do, ( https://www.statsf1.com/en/2017/modeles.aspx) but we are not a stats site. Lazer-kitty, your arguement falls into the category of WP:ILIKEIT which is not a valid argument for inclusion.
we should provide those people with as much information as we can- but that is not what wikipedia is about. I just don't feel that including the engine specification is useful for a season report, which should be trated as a stand alone from reports about previous and future season
we have already established and agreed that there was not consensus to change the article in the first place- untrue, we agreed that I should not and was not in a position to have determined the consensus, I still believe that the consensus was there.
You link WP:INDISCRIMINATE and yet I have been explicitly clear that I am not suggesting this page should be an indiscriminate collection of all possible information.I am merely pointing out that in my opinion adding engine specs would constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I am not suggesting that you support indiscriminatly adding information, unfortantly the point at which encylopedic becomes indisrciminate is down to discretion.
I have given clear examples of why engine designations are useful to have collated in a single location for easy access and comparison- I have rebutted them, I will also throw additional rebuttals in there.
I have not seen one single argument from any of you that actually attempts to explain how these articles become better by removing information from them- that's because it on you to justify them staying. I'm not arguing that removing the information improves the article, but rather that including the information doesn't imporve the article and therefore the information should not be included at all.
You should not dictate what other people see- And you should dictate? This discussion is to determine if engine specifications are useful for readers to see should they want to read about the season, they can still see the engine specification in results matrixes for engine manufactors/teams or on stats sites or fan sites but it is not a useful thing to specify in a season report where engine names don't change. I'm not trying to dictate anything, but you were on my talk page, here and on Mclarefan17's talk page when you insited engine specs were readded before starting to discuss.
I wish you could discuss this without lying and misrepresenting my arguments.- thats ironic considering you just did exaclty that.
It has been explained. Look at my post from 15 September and Scjessey's post on 23 September. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 21:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
You're eintire argument is based off of "I think this is useful" - perhaps I should have linked to WP:INTERESTING instead which is an equally invalid argument. we should provide those people with as much information as we can - but that is not what wikipedia is about. I just don't feel that including the engine specification is useful for a season report, which should be trated as a stand alone from reports about previous and future season
— User:SSSB 4 December 2019 14:26 (UTC)
Okay, I think this has gone far enough. Lazer-kitty, whatever your concerns about the original discussion, it's quite clear that you're alone on this for now and the comments are starting to get personal. If you want to change it back, your best course of action would be to leave this discussion alone, re-open the subject further down the page, and try to form a new consensus—but you need to remember that people might disagree with you and a new discussion might not yield the result that you want. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 23:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
As explained [...], merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ...I have justified why that applies. You have not, in my view, adaquatly expalined why it doesn't, had you adaquatly explained then I might have changed my stance on the matter. But as Scjessey points out this discussion is circular and getting nowwhere. We either need an RfC or some kind of admin close of which I prefer the latter.
I have justified why that applies.No, you haven't. You have asserted that WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply because you think the information is not useful. This is WP:IDL.
You have not, in my view, adequately explained why it doesn't.Yes, I have, on multiple occasions. You have ignored them or handwaved them away.
And I'm not sure what you expect DRN to do.Resolve this dispute, maybe? Lazer-kitty ( talk) 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, what? If I understand you correctly, you want Scjessey to cite a specific Wikipedia policy that says the tables used by a particular WikiProject contain too much information? Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Policies apply to all WikiProjects in equal measure. The site does not single out any one partucular WikiProject in its policies. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not.
prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context
There's a discussion in progress at Talk:1972 Monaco Grand Prix regarding whether Peter Gethin's result should be listed as "Ret" or "DSQ". Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Larrousse was in 1992 "Venturi" (as mentioned on the official website). I think you should change "Larrousse" to "Venturi" in the Grand Prix in that season. What do you think? Thanks. -- Adriel 00 ( talk) 17:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
As I've mentioned here: Template_talk:F1_Drivers_Standings#Fastest_Lap_Indicator, is there any interest in changing the fastest lap indicator to something other than italics? Italicized numbers are not very easy to discern. Here are some alternative ideas:
Pos. | Driver | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | R9 | R10 | R11 | R12 | I1 | I2 | I3 | U1 | U2 | U3 | S1 | S2 | S3 | A1 | A2 | A3 | B1 | B2 | B3 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | no marker | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 9 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 6+ | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 0 |
1 | italics | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 9 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 1* | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 1 |
2 | underline | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 6 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 9* | 9 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 9• | 3 | 2 |
3 | asterisk | 1* | 2* | 3* | 4* | 1* | 2* | 3* | 4* | 1*† | 2*† | 3*† | 4*† | 9 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 8+ | 2 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 3 |
4 | addition | 1+ | 2+ | 3+ | 4+ | 1+ | 2+ | 3+ | 4+ | 1+† | 2+† | 3+† | 4+† | 6 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 8* | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 9• | 4 | 4 | 4 |
5 | bullet | 1• | 2• | 3• | 4• | 1• | 2• | 3• | 4• | 1•† | 2•† | 3•† | 4•† | 4 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 9+ | 3 | 3 | 2• | 5 |
Races R1 to R12 are just a comparison of the alternatives with how they would look with the various background colours and other markers present. Following that, races I1 to B3 have one of the 6 drivers in every race randomly given the fastest lap; I1 to I3 using italics, U1 to U3 by underlining, S1 to S3 with an asterisk, A1 to A3 using the addition symbol, and B1 to B3 using a bullet.
My opinion is that italics and even underlining is not very clear (cf. races I1 to U3). Using an addition symbol (my preference), asterisk or bullet will potentially look uglier when the dagger is present, but I think it would not be the end of the world (especially seeing as they are unlikely to both be present together). Any suggestions?
Related to this is the present key: the markers should be incorporated into the table (especially the dagger marker -- there's no need for it to be separated from the other entries). How about this:
Key | |
---|---|
Colour | Result |
Gold | Winner |
Silver | 2nd place |
Bronze | 3rd place |
Green | Other points position |
Blue | Other classified position |
Not classified, finished (NC) | |
Purple | Not classified, retired (Ret) |
Red | Did not qualify (DNQ) |
Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ) | |
Black | Disqualified (DSQ) |
White | Did not start (DNS) |
Race cancelled (C) | |
Light blue | Practiced only (PO) |
Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards) | |
Blank | Did not practice (DNP) |
Excluded (EX) | |
Did not arrive (DNA) | |
Withdrawn (WD) |
Key | |
---|---|
Marker | Description |
(bold) | Pole position |
+ | Fastest lap |
† | Driver did not finish, but was classified as they completed 90% of the race distance |
(Somebody could maybe optimize the way I've formatted the tables; I've rather hacked it together...)
Comments? Krea ( talk) 23:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Pos. | Driver | Race1 | Race2 | Race3 | Race4 | Race5 | Race6 | Race7 | Race8 | Race9 | Race10 | Race11 | Race12 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | italics | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 1 |
2 | dutch | 1P | 2P | 3F | 4F | 1PF | 2PF | 3PF | 4PF | 1†PF | 2†PF | 3†PF | 4†PF | 2 |
3 | dutch-mod | 1P | 2F | 3PF | 4†PF | 1PF | 2†PF | 3PF† | 4C | 1CPF | 2PFC | 3†PF | 4PFC | 3 |
My idea was to change the current championship table, and then work backwards. If it is necessary in one place, it certainly is necessary everywhere else too. I suppose the point you're making is that the effort should be made to implement the changes everywhere, and not just here, which I appreciate is correct to point out.
The racer pages have a slightly different format for the tables. Either we carry through the changes there as well, or choose a different option (or leave everything as they are). I can see the argument that using the dutch system for the driver-page tables would make them look ugly, especially with the colours clashing. The only clean-looking alternative to the dutch system that I can think of, besides using italics, is to underline the numbers. This didn't stand out too well in the above tables (1, 2, ...), but using a border is a lot better (1, 2, ...). Finally, the racer-page tables use italics on the race name abbreviations and not on the race finish numbers; and italics works much better on strings of letters than on a single number. Since those tables don't actually change the format of the numbers at all, but instead only change the formatting of the race names, the other option for those tables is to not touch them at all since the information they are trying to express is already clearly discernible. This would, however, introduce a formatting inconsistency between those tables and the tables on the other pages.
Here is a quick comparison between the suggestions I just made (on a row from the table on Lewis Hamilton's page). First row is the table as it is: formatted race names, unformatted numbers (and small font size for some reason). Second row is the current (modified) dutch proposal. Third row is the dutch proposal without colours. Last row uses an underlining scheme instead.
Year | Entrant | Chassis | Engine | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | WDC | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport | Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ | Mercedes M08 EQ Power+ 1.6 V6 t |
AUS 2 |
CHN 1 |
BHR 2 |
RUS 4 |
ESP 1 |
MON 7 |
CAN 1 |
AZE 5 |
AUT 4 |
GBR 1 |
HUN 4 |
BEL 1 |
ITA 1 |
SIN 1 |
MAL 2 |
JPN 1 |
USA 1 |
MEX 9 |
BRA 4 |
ABU 2 |
1st | 363 | |
2017 | Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport | Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ | Mercedes M08 EQ Power+ 1.6 V6 t |
AUS 2P |
CHN 1PL |
BHR 2L |
RUS 4 |
ESP 1PL |
MON 7 |
CAN 1PL |
AZE 5P |
AUT 4L |
GBR 1PL |
HUN 4 |
BEL 1P |
ITA 1P |
SIN 1L |
MAL 2P |
JPN 1P |
USA 1P |
MEX 9 |
BRA 4 |
ABU 2 |
1st | 363 | |
2017 | Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport | Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ | Mercedes M08 EQ Power+ 1.6 V6 t |
AUS 2P |
CHN 1PL |
BHR 2L |
RUS 4 |
ESP 1PL |
MON 7 |
CAN 1PL |
AZE 5P |
AUT 4L |
GBR 1PL |
HUN 4 |
BEL 1P |
ITA 1P |
SIN 1L |
MAL 2P |
JPN 1P |
USA 1P |
MEX 9 |
BRA 4 |
ABU 2 |
1st | 363 | |
2017 | Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport | Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ | Mercedes M08 EQ Power+ 1.6 V6 t |
AUS 2 |
CHN 1 |
BHR 2 |
RUS 4 |
ESP 1 |
MON 7 |
CAN 1 |
AZE 5 |
AUT 4 |
GBR 1 |
HUN 4 |
BEL 1 |
ITA 1 |
SIN 1 |
MAL 2 |
JPN 1 |
USA 1 |
MEX 9 |
BRA 4 |
ABU 2 |
1st | 363 |
On the championship table, the comparison is:
Pos. | Driver | Race1 | Race2 | Race3 | Race4 | Race5 | Race6 | Race7 | Race8 | Race9 | Race10 | Race11 | Race12 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | colours | 1P | 2P | 3P | 4P | 1L | 2L | 3L | 4L | 1PL | 2PL | 3PL | 4PL | 1 |
2 | no-colours | 1P | 2P | 3P | 4P | 1L | 2L | 3L | 4L | 1PL | 2PL | 3PL | 4PL | 2 |
3 | borders | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 3 |
Accessibility is an important consideration. I've increased the size of the letters in the dutch system by 110%, but I've also changed the fastest lap indicator from "F" to "L". For small letters, "P" and "F" can be difficult to distinguish, whereas for "P" and "L" the shapes are clearly different, and so easier to distinguish. I've also shown what it would look like without colours. Do any of these new suggestions fare any better for you?
As always, the alternative is to leave the tables as they are. You implied that you could not see the letters "P", "F" or "C" very clearly; can you see the italicized numbers any better? If an argument against adopting the dutch system is that it is not very clear, then is it not unreasonable to suggest that a visitor would find the current system unsuitable by the same argument? I think it's important to not forget the frustration a visitor might have in trying to read information from a table that is distinctly difficult to read information from.
The argument made so far for keeping with the current italics convention is that it would be too much effort to change all the tables, or otherwise there would be inconsistencies between them. I appreciate that this is a consideration, but it's not an important one, and certainly I don't think it is more important than using a formatting convention that a user can actually see, even if it means not every table is yet using that convention. The priority ought to be to adopt a better system going forwards, and then to change the existing tables, even if it is done so gradually. It has to be done thus, otherwise no change to the format of the tables could ever be implemented.
In any case, if it is decided that we should implement a change, I will make an effort to go around and change all the tables. It would be a good idea to template the change (like our dutch colleagues have done); I'm thinking something like this: {{race position|1|pole=1|fastestlap=1}}. In the future, any changes to the convention that are decided upon would then only need to be made on the template page and we will not need to go through this difficulty again.
(And I apologize for the length of these replies; I'm just trying to be thorough...) Krea ( talk) 16:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ SSSB: OK, with the template, I've made a prototype that works as follows:
Some points to note:
Once we sign off on the mechanics of this template, we can move it to the main namespace and start using it straight away. Then, as you said, we can make any changes we may decide across many pages all at once. I suggest we spend not too long on this, but we should definitely iron out major objections before we start making changes because this template will be used everywhere and it will be a pain to make corrections (like renaming the template) after we've already started to use it. Krea ( talk) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll give it a week or so and then I'll make the template official and we can start using it. Krea ( talk) 21:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
ALL of these ideas (including the existing methods) are poor for accessibility. I wish there was a way to do these things semantically, instead of visually. Imagine trying to understand a tenth of these tables if you are relying on a screen reader because of a visual impairment. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Pos. | Driver | Race1 | Race2 | Race3 | Race4 | Race5 | Race6 | Race7 | Race8 | Race9 | Race10 | Race11 | Race12 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | italics | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 1 |
2 | dutch | 1P | 2P | 3F | 4F | 1PF | 2PF | 3PF | 4PF | 1†PF | 2†PF | 3†PF | 4†PF | 2 |
3 | dutch-mod1 | 1P | 2F | 3PF | 4†PF | 1PF | 2†PF | 3PF† | 4C | 1CPF | 2PFC | 3†PF | 4PFC | 3 |
4 | dutch-mod2 | 1P | 2F | 3PF | 4†PF | 1PF | 2†PF | 3PF† | 4C | 1CPF | 2PFC | 3†PF | 4PFC | 4 |
5 | dutch-mod3 | 1P | 2L | 3PL | 4†PL | 1PL | 2†PL | 3PL† | 4C | 1CPL | 2PLC | 3†PL | 4PLC | 5 |
With the drivers it is the 3 letter race code which is bolded or italicised to reflect if the driver got pole/fastest lap. (see
Kimi Raikkonen#Complete Formula One results for example). Whilst this is not a problem for the template discussed above I am worried that the proposed system of letters (or any of the other proposed systems) wouldn't look right if we put them next to the the race code. I would therefore propose that we instead format the result in these tables rather than the race code as I think it looks and works better, and that it is also more consistent with other types of results matrices.
SSSB (
talk) 10:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
If I don't hear anything back I will (due to this being a highly vistited page) assume unanimous support.
SSSB (
talk) 09:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
As for the driver results table, I would argue that it works OK as it is. The 3-letter abbreviations for the race work OK with bold/italics (but not brilliant); adding the P/L markers would clutter the table up. The downside is that it introduces an inconsistency. The only solution that I have for that is maybe to consider using bold/underline instead of bold/italic or the proposed P/L markers:
Pos. | Driver | Race1 | Race2 | Race3 | Race4 | Race5 | Race6 | Race7 | Race8 | Race9 | Race10 | Race11 | Race12 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | bold/underline | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 3 |
Year | Entrant | Chassis | Engine | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | WDC | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 | Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro | Ferrari F2007 | Ferrari 056 2.4 V8 |
AUS 1 |
MAL 3 |
BHR 3 |
ESP Ret |
MON 8 |
CAN 5 |
USA 4 |
FRA 1 |
GBR 1 |
EUR Ret |
HUN 2 |
TUR 2 |
ITA 3 |
BEL 1 |
JPN 3 |
CHN 1 |
BRA 1 |
1st | 110 |
This is a solution that I would not be against. It does help spot the fastest laps a bit better than italics alone. As for accessibility, however, it probably won't help the situation, although the tables possibly already have a problem in that regard anyway. I don't have an answer to that problem, unfortunately. Krea ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I will make the proposed changes that were broadly agreed on to the 2019 page so that people can judge the proposal in a live setting. However, I don't regard the issue as settled yet since there are still concerns that a few people have flagged so far, accessibility included. So, as always, comments and suggestions are welcome. Krea ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, a few days ago
RJFJR made
this edit at
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix placing the by year section into chrolological order i.e. 2009 first (which was leter undone by
Mcbjmund with
this edit), just wondering is either side supported by convention/policy or is it just down to personally taste? If it is down to personal taste would it be worth making this
WP:F1 convention?
SSSB (
talk) 10:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It has been over a week now, and as there have been no objections, and it is supported by policy ( WP:CHRONO), I think all Grand Prix articles should be changed to (oldest at top) chronological order, and perhaps this should be listed in the WP:F1 conventions also. Unless there are last minute objections I will implement this later today (or unless someone else does it first). A7V2 ( talk) 02:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
There WAS a stipulation to use reverse chronological order for these lists (see [1]). I have changed this policy to reflect the consensus here and to reflect WP:CHRONO. I've also changed most articles to have the list of winners in chronological order. I would have done it earlier but it was actually a lot more needing to be done than I had thought! In the end I wrote a computer program to do it for me, but I still had to manually fix the rowspans and the 19xx-19yy for when a race had a gap. Anyway, if anyone sees any long tables that I missed which should be reversed and you can't be bothered doing it yourself manually let me know (on my talk page I suppose) as I can do it reasonably quickly (especially if there's no rowspans or gaps!) A7V2 ( talk) 04:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources differ regarding Mike Fisher's result at the 1967 Mexican Grand Prix:
Lang says "Only 18 cars faced the starter on Sunday afternoon for during the warm-up lap Fisher's Lotus-B.R.M. was found to have a fault in the fuel-injection system, so he had, reluctantly, to withdraw at the last moment." What result should we go with? (I'm leaning towards "Did not start"). DH85868993 ( talk) 10:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I've split McLaren Grand Prix results into subsections based on decade to show what it would look like. Normally I'd do it in my sandbox, but it's too big for that. I haven't totally changed everything so that the article can be reverted easily if we decide against it. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing disucussion at
Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map about whether our maps should use
de facto or
de jure borders.
SSSB (
talk) 13:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The current article for Renault F1 team is simply Renault in Formula One, which includes sections on Équipe Renault Elf (1977-85), Renault F1 Team (2002-2010), Lotus Renault GP (2011), and Renault Sport Formula Team/Renault Formula 1 Team (2016 - Present), as well as Renault's involvement as an engine supplier throughout the years.
Would it not be much clearer to have 5 pages overall:
4 sporting pages: - Renault Elf (1977-85) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Renault Formula 1 Team (2002-2010) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Lotus Renault GP (2011) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Renault Formula 1 Team (2016 - Present) in the style of a current F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc.
- Renault in Formula One, an overview from a more business point of view, describing Renault's investment in 4 of its own f1 teams, and its role as an engine supplier.
This would be far clearer, and makes a lot more sense. There is currently no article for the current team known as 'Renault Formula 1 Team', instead it occupies a small section in a much bigger, convoluted article. This is ludicrous. One of 10 current constructors should have its own page. There is very little continuity between the 1977 French team and the 2019 British/French team, beyond the fact that they were both invested in by the same massive manufacturer.
The teams should each have their own page, I think it would be much clearer. What do you think?
Achilles' Wrath ( talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Renault-branded teams since 2002, which ran under a British license- this is not correct, since 2002 all entrants with Renault in their name have run under the french with the exceeption of 2011 when Lotus ran the team and Renault only built the chassis (as explained at Renault in Formula One#Lotus Renault GP (2011)).
a French Flag there or a British one- French because Renault is a French company or both as they had a chassis entered under the British flag when they collaborated with Lotus in 2011 or French as this is the flag the team currently race under (this is how the issue has been dealt with at Alfa Romeo in F1 but I think this rationale violates WP:RECENTISM)
why are there not sections on Benneton and Lotus F1 in the 'Renault in F1' page- because that falls outside of the scope of the article, a simply sentence is all that is needed to say that Renault bought the team from X and sold it to Y, stating anything more about X and Y would be inappropriate and would, in my opinion, constitute WP:UNDUE
Renault in 1977 was a different team to Renault today.- you keep stating this but you have provided no reliable sources which list them seperatly, something you acknowledge when you say
I understand that a lot of sources have them as the same team. A failure to provide sources to assert this claim constitutes WP:OR.
I understand that a lot of sources have them as the same team, but there is some ambiguity there as well. For example on the year by year profile on F1.com, it considers the team in its current incarnation to have begun in 2012 as Lotus, then officially changed its name in 2016.- this may be true but the number of sources which contradict this view point by far outnumber those that agree, ([ https://www.statsf1.com/en/renault.aspx see Renault's profile on StatsF1 for example) and F1.com still consider the Renault team from 2002 to be the same as the Renault team today criditing today's F1 team with 2 F1 championships.
What do you suggest to help clear issues like the flag up, if you don't want separate pages?- I have made 2 suggestions on how I think we can deal with the flag problem you raised but I think the other issues you talk about have been dealt with sufficently in the article as is. Clearly you disagree but I think the best way for you to try and fix the problems you raised would be by WP:BRD. I also think that this discussion is actually better suited to Talk:Renault in Formula One as this thread is specifically about Renault and doesn't touch on anything else (i.e. a WP:CENTRALIZED discussion here is unnecessary).
Changing course slightly, I've noticed that articles like McLaren Grand Prix results (I assume there's one for Renault, too) are basically one giant table. Would it be better to break these up into several smaller tables, say by decade? Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 01:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
As most of you know, I browse and edit Wikipedia almost exclusively on the mobile site. Lately, however, I've been doing a bit of browsing on the main site and I have noticed a bit of a problem: results matrices—in season, car, team and driver articles—are getting to be pretty big. With 21 races in 2019, 22 in 2020, and the sporting regulations now allowing up to 25, I think the problem is only going to get worse.
When I say the tables are getting big, I mean that they're getting pretty wide—so wide that they exceed the width of the article and the reader is either forced to side-scroll to see the whole table, or read a small-print version of the article because the browser forces the whole article to be shown at once. I find both these solutions to be far from ideal, so I'm starting this discussion to see if we can find another way. I think there are two options (but am open to more):
class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;", but we can change this. Supercars have run as many as 38 races in the recent past, and so their articles—such as Scott McLaughlin—use
class="wikitable" style="font-size: 75%;"for their tables. This is probably the easiest way to fix the problem, but I have reservations about making the font too small.
Anyone? Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 00:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so here's what I'm thinking for the WCC/WCM matrices in championship articles:
We can see how that goes and take it from there. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Key | |||
---|---|---|---|
Colour | Result | Colour | Result |
Gold | Winner | White | Did not start (DNS) |
Silver | 2nd place | Light blue | Practiced only (PO) |
Bronze | 3rd place | Friday test driver (TD) - 2003-2007 only | |
Green | Points finish | Blank | Did not practice (DNP) |
Blue | Non points finish inc. non classified finish | Injured or ill (inj) | |
Purple | Did not finish (Ret) | Excluded (EX) | |
Red | Did not qualify (DNQ) | Did not arrive (DNA) | |
Black | Disqualified (DSQ) | Withdrew entry before the event (WD) |
There's a discussion in progress at Category talk:Formula One championship-winning cars regarding the scope of the category, i.e. whether it should only include cars which won the Constructors' Championship, or whether it should also include cars which won the Drivers' Championship. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has recently added "career summary" tables to a number of F1 driver articles - see here for a list. Unfortunately, the tables don't conform to the WP:MOTOR standard format. I'm planning to reformat the tables when I have time, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone wants to help out. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 21:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Driver | Status |
---|---|
Alex Ribeiro | table removed |
André Ribeiro (racing driver) | table removed |
Ayrton Senna | (table has been removed) |
Chico Serra | table removed |
Didier Pironi | table removed |
Elio de Angelis | table reformatted |
Gilles Villeneuve | table removed |
Gunnar Nilsson | table removed; similar, partially improved table added by an IP; table reformatted |
Jo Siffert | table removed |
Marco Greco | table needs reformatting |
Nelson Piquet | (table has been removed) |
Patrick Depailler | table removed |
Paul Stewart (racing driver) | table needs reformatting |
Renzo Zorzi | table needs reformatting |
Roger Williamson | table updated to WP:MOTOR standard format; now erased by 'creator' |
Roland Ratzenberger | (table has been removed) |
Tommy Byrne (racing driver) | table needs reformatting |
Tony Brise | table needs reformatting |
Hello all, I've started a discussion at Talk:Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit regarding moving the article to either Albert Park Circuit or Albert Park Grand Prix Circuit and invite interested editors to participate there. Thanks. A7V2 ( talk) 00:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
A Request for Comment has been posted at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#RfC about the map in the calendar section to seek additional input about a world map showing Grands Prix locations. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@ MatteoNL97: has recently made many additions to the sponsors section of Grand Prix articles (for example [2]) and in the process has changed most of the headings from something along the lines of Sponsors to Official names and sponsors. Maybe there were others but at least on Vietnamese Grand Prix, @ Mclarenfan17: changed it back, giving the reason as "convention". I don't see anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One#Grands_Prix about this section heading so I think something should be added. Personally I very much dislike calling the section just "sponsors" since whether or not a long time ago that's all that was included, in practice these sections always seem to list the official names, so I think we should establish a new convention of calling these sections "Official names and sponsors" or something along those lines, but I wonder what others think? A7V2 ( talk) 11:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The Vietnamese race may have a sponsor for now but this is meant for the long term
if they possibly lose a sponsor
it becomes more clear and avoids confusion
Like I said, I am going to name all mentioned races the same, even if they only have a sponsor list and not just some, and will include all previous names (so also names without sponsors)
I can live with the proposal of @A7V2- what are you on about, that was my propsal. Anyway, thats not the point, what do you mean by
I do not agree that the category should be named by the sponsor name, seeing how some often change sponsor by year and the affromentioned Wiki's I edited are too broad to just be named by one sponsor.- what categories are you talking about, and what affromentioned Wiki's, you haven't mentioned any other wikis. Please clarify that statement.
what are you on about, that was my propsal.- Uh no, that was the proposal of AV72, but I digress.
what do you mean by "I do not agree that the category should be named by the sponsor name, seeing how some often change sponsor by year and the affromentioned Wiki's I edited are too broad to just be named by one sponsor." - what categories are you talking about, and what affromentioned Wiki's, you haven't mentioned any other wikis. Please clarify that statement.- what you mentioned in your last reply, basically. The "X Grand Prix" pages, which lists all the GPs a nation has ever hosted, should not be named by the current year sponsor, purely because it covers too many races for that to be allowed. Renaming the individual race wiki names wouldn't be an option either, seeing how some names are non-English and it would cause big confusion on the English Wikipedia. I think the way the official names are mentioned in the individual race articles are fine as is, honestly. MatteoNL97 ( talk) 10:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Firstly I would to clarify what I meant by them all being official names. In 1974, the official name of the British Grand Prix race (in general) was the John Player Grand Prix, while now, in 2020, the official name of the race (in general) is the Pirelli British Grand Prix, but of course for the individual years they have their own official names. But anyway, I will restate, for claritiy (and having read the opinions above) that I propose we change the section title to Official names, and also (as a separate, definitely unbundled proposal!) to include in the leed something along the lines of "The British Grand Prix (currently known for sponsorship reasons as the Pirelli British Grand Prix) is...", per WP:OFFICIAL. A7V2 ( talk) 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
And I recognise that the first part is what SSSB already suggested! A7V2 ( talk) 12:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
But, are you happy for those section to be renamed to Official namesYes, I am fine with this. The reason I changed these sections to begin with was because I expanded it to older names that did not have any sponsorship, so this change would reflect on all these sections in a more neutral way IMO. MatteoNL97 ( talk) 14:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has created
2022 Formula One World Championship which at this stage is comprised of a list of driver/circuit contracts. If anyone knows of any additional content which can be added please do so. Also note that I have started an AfD for this article.
SSSB (
talk) 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has proposed adding a "website" field to {{ Infobox F1 driver}}. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I have not bean that active on wikipedia the last couple of months. Today I went through the Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results page and to say is was quite surprised would be an understatement. I went through the WP:F1 talk page to see how a consensus was reached to change the indicators for the pole position and the fastet lap. I understand some of the accessibility issues but I don't understand how this change is an improvement. I have multiple issues with the new indicators.
I always thought the main point of the F1 result tables was to display the results. So first and foremost the most important thing is the display of the actual result of a driver/team. I'm not saying displaying the PP and FL is not important but it's just a detail. Using symbols for the PP and FL clutters up the results tables and I have real trouble to read the tables properly now. Especially with successful teams like Ferrari and Mercedes the result table are impossible to comfortably navigate. So I feel like the new symbols harm the actual goal of these result tables. Not to mention that a lot of result are not centrally displayed anymore as the FL and PP symbols clutter up the table. We already use a symbol to indicate a driver DNF the race but was classified as he competed 90% of the race. And very infrequently we use a symbol to indicate that half points were awarded as less than 75% of the race distance was completed. Two symbols in one result box is already very uncomfortable to read but in very rare cases there are even three. I feel like we are losing touch of what these result tables are meant for.
I also have a real problem with the lack of consistency this is creating. I always felt the WP:F1 community got their stuff together with the result tables as everything looked very uniform. This is certainly not helping. For whatever reason the interest in the WP:F1 or the number of people that actively participate in this wiki project has decreased over the years (including me). In the past when a major change was about to be made we used to vote about this stuff. This has not been done now and it bothers me.
These changes not only create inconsistencies within the WP:F1 pages but also all the other result tables that fall within WP:Motorsport. I think the best thing to do is revert back to the previous system and when an actual solution with the accessibility issues is found we can think of a change. Now we are just moving the problems around. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 21:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there any particular consensus on whether to use
debut or
début? This doesn't seem consistent across the project.
5225C (
talk) 11:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
ú
. I can't then umalat it. alt gr.+e gives the same accent but on the e instead. Thanks anyway.The Arbitration Committee has accepted arequest for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports regarding two users contributing to this project. If anyone wishes to add evidence for arbitrators to consider, you can add it to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. T v x1 23:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, apologies if it has. I think we should replace Template:Ref with Template:Efn on the individual Grand Prix articles, in the qualifying and race results tables. In each article we could create a section titled Notes above the References section containing Template:Notelist. Using Template:Ref is no longer recommended, Template:Efn functions better overall, looks neater, is easier to use, and uses unique letters instead of numbers – all much better for these purposes. Sr88, talk. 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Pos. | No. | Driver | Constructor | Qualifying times | Final grid | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | |||||
1 | 33 | Max Verstappen | Red Bull Racing- Honda | 1:08.242 | 1:07.503 | 1:07.508 | 1 |
2 | 5 | Sebastian Vettel | Ferrari | 1:08.556 | 1:08.050 | 1:07.631 | 2 |
3 | 44 | Lewis Hamilton | Mercedes | 1:08.614 | 1:08.088 | 1:07.699 | 3 |
4 | 16 | Charles Leclerc | Ferrari | 1:08.496 | 1:07.888 | 1:07.728 | 14 [a] |
5 | 77 | Valtteri Bottas | Mercedes | 1:08.545 | 1:08.232 | 1:07.874 | 4 |
6 | 23 | Alexander Albon | Red Bull Racing- Honda | 1:08.503 | 1:08.117 | 1:07.935 | 5 |
7 | 10 | Pierre Gasly | Scuderia Toro Rosso- Honda | 1:08.909 | 1:08.770 | 1:08.837 | 6 |
8 | 8 | Romain Grosjean | Haas- Ferrari | 1:09.197 | 1:08.705 | 1:08.854 | 7 |
9 | 7 | Kimi Räikkönen | Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | 1:09.276 | 1:08.858 | 1:08.984 | 8 |
10 | 20 | Kevin Magnussen | Haas- Ferrari | 1:08.875 | 1:08.803 | 1:09.037 | 9 |
11 | 4 | Lando Norris | McLaren- Renault | 1:08.891 | 1:08.868 | N/A | 10 |
12 | 3 | Daniel Ricciardo | Renault | 1:09.086 | 1:08.903 | N/A | 11 |
13 | 99 | Antonio Giovinazzi | Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | 1:09.175 | 1:08.919 | N/A | 12 |
14 | 27 | Nico Hülkenberg | Renault | 1:09.050 | 1:08.921 | N/A | 13 |
15 | 11 | Sergio Pérez | Racing Point- BWT Mercedes | 1:09.288 | 1:09.035 | N/A | 15 |
16 | 26 | Daniil Kvyat | Scuderia Toro Rosso- Honda | 1:09.320 | N/A | N/A | 16 |
17 | 18 | Lance Stroll | Racing Point- BWT Mercedes | 1:09.536 | N/A | N/A | 17 |
18 | 63 | George Russell | Williams- Mercedes | 1:10.126 | N/A | N/A | 18 |
19 | 88 | Robert Kubica | Williams- Mercedes | 1:10.614 | N/A | N/A | 19 |
107% time: 1:13.018 | |||||||
DNQ | 55 | Carlos Sainz Jr. | McLaren- Renault | No time | N/A | N/A | 20 [b] |
Source: |
Comment - I do think that its worth pointing out that
WP:NOTBROKEN applies here.
SSSB (
talk) 10:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
So I take we are all happy to use {{
efn}} from Australia onwards?
SSSB (
talk) 09:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Guenther Steiner was recently moved to Günther Steiner. There is a discussion in progress at the article's talk page regarding the spelling of his first name. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
There seems to be some confusion as to whether the Mexico City Grand Prix should be covered in
Mexican Grand Prix or
Mexico City Grand Prix (Formula One race) (Mexico City Grand Prix is already taken as a badminton event). Back when it was announced
Mclarenfan17 said that it should be in the same article as it was effectivly the same as a sponser change (
this edit) however earlier today
Speedy Question Mark created the article
Mexico City Grand Prix (Formula One race) . Which approach do we want to take while we wait for some sort of official indication (if we get one at all)?
SSSB (
talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
McLarenfan17's argument is fair. A minor change for marketing didn't need a new article with the Malaysian Grand Prix, and the even bigger change of Grand Prix de l'ACF to the Grand Prix de France, which had a bigger reason behind it, is all covered on one page. Unless most sources start treating the "Mexico City Grand Prix" as a new race (which I can confidently say they won't), there's no reason to split the article. QueenCake ( talk) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear from this discussion that there is no consensus for the article as yet. If, closer to the 2020 date, more information becomes available that demonstrates the race is significantly different to the existing race, we can always revisit the issue. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:2019 Spa-Francorchamps FIA Formula 2 round about what to do with results tables in the event a race is abandoned before a result is cancelled that might be of relevance to the WikiProject. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 09:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The constructors championship table seems to be arbitrarily arranged into "two rows per team with the highest place car entered in each race the first row and the other chassis the second row". But you can only work that out by referring back to the drivers table.
If the current format based on cars is to be retained it should be one row per chassis, irrespective of where that chassis finishes relative to the other from the same team. If the team introduces a new chassis then the team should gain an extra row per chassis.
Currently the granularity of how each constructor arrived at their points tally is lost. Renders the table useless from a team analysis perspective. Examples below referencing the format comparisons at /info/en/?search=User:DH85868993/comparison
- the current format for 2017 masks the effort the Toro Rosso team went to in choosing drivers to collect points. - in 2016 only one driver / car scored points for Haas which is lost in the current format table as you can't tell which car / driver scored them. - the current format for 2016 Red Bull Racing masks the introduction of Max Verstappen to the Red Bull team, scoring their first winning constructor's points and therefore the first constructor's trophy for that season.
Similarly, in the 2019 season, currently the Haas team are running different spec cars for their drivers. GRO in Australia spec, MAG in updated specification. Someone who was aware of that fact (i.e. from another source or especially if the season summary mentions it) should be able to review the comparison (if any) in the constructor's table.
The constructors table should help tell the story of the constructor's season which it does prior to 2014 but is lost by the lack of granularity shown (especially irritating when the information is available).
I therefore suggest the introduction of one row per chassis per team indicating each result per chassis or a reversion to the driver centric style of previous years. Ei2g ( talk) 09:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The last sentence or 2 above is a fair point. In all honesty I think these fairly reguaurly comments of the table is wrong
(or variants there of) partially stems from the fact we jumped from one row per car to showing the results from best to worst for each team for no obvious reason (I do know and understand the reason but to me it doesn't justify a new system for only post 2014 articles just because drivers choose a number for their whole career). If there is no change in how points are awarded then (in my opinion) it makes no sense to alter the way we present the constructores table. Therefore I have 2 proposals which I think we should apply from all articles from 1980 (as this is when the current method for calculating the constructors championship started (as defined
here)). I'm going to {{
ping}} some editors who recently comlained about our system. @
Bretonbanquet:, @
Ei2g:.
All articles from 1980 adopt the current format of best result before worst result. (shown here)
All articles from 1980 adopt the system used pre 2013, one row per car. However its important to note that it is not necessary to specify which number(s) the results below to. (shown
here but my proposal doesn't include the number column)
SSSB (
talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Although using unofficial flags, such as the EU for European Grands Prix would be wrong, if a race is name after a country, surely it must be the right thing to use the flag of that country in the season reports regardless of which side of the border the race was actually held in? After all, San Marino is a sovereign state in its own right, the automobile association of which it was affiliated to under the FIA the formal host of the Imola races, whereas Europe or the city-name Grands Prix in the United States are not. It is a very special case to be honest and as such, I definitely think it is the only flag able to depict what a San Marino Grand Prix is, regardless of whether it is held on Italian soil or not. I would not touch any of the European Grand Prix flags even if members of the EU at the time, but keeping San Marino, Switzerland 1982 and Luxembourg 1997-98 is important since those races were affiliated to a foreign country rather than the countries in which they were ran.
Glottran ( talk) 21:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The 2021 championship article is currently in draft form. Some time ago (though I am having some trouble tracking down the the discussion) we flagged the publication of the 2021 regulations as the time to publish it. However, the full regulations have repeatedly been delayed and the draft currently has over 40 references so I feel that it has more than enough content to justify publications. I have requested publication (rather than just do it myself) because creating future articles can be controversial. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 05:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It has been proposed that 2007 Formula One espionage controversy be moved to Spygate (Formula 1). Interested editors are welcome to participate in the move discussion.
It has been proposed that Renault Formula One crash controversy be moved to Crashgate. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the move discussion.
DH85868993 ( talk) 11:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
At the 1960 USA GP Pete Lovely drove a Cooper-Ferrari. At the moment wiki list the car as a Cooper T45. The OldRacingCars website states this: Delivered to F Armbruster (USA) according to the Cooper Register. Since they state the Cooper was a T51 I certainly think the car was the T51 and not the T45.
There is some mystery behind the Ferrari engine of the Cooper T73 Chris Lawrence drove at 2 GP's in 1966. OldRacingCars says the car was fitted with a 250 GTO V12 engine (Ferrari Tipo 168 3.0 V12). The F2Register also list the car with that engine at the 1966 International Gold Cup. Same goes for StatsF1
An article about J.A. Pearce Engineering in RTLGP Magazine ( No. 4 2013) states the car was actually powered by a V12 engine from Rob Walker's Ferrari 250 GT SWB Berlinetta (Ferrari Tipo 125 3.0 V12). Something Lawrence only figured out in 2001. The Berlinetta that was bought from Rob Walker was fitted with a Drogo body from the 250 GT (long before it was sold to J.A. Pearce Engineering). The J.A. Pearce Engineering crew was not aware of this and thought the car was a 250 GTO as well as the engine.
Any input would be greatly appreciated. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that
Vietnamese Grand Prix be moved to
Vietnam Grand Prix. Editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion at
Talk:Vietnamese Grand Prix#Requested move 7 October 2019. Thank you.
SSSB (
talk) 11:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't the FIA realise how much work it creates for us when they disqualify people? :-) I think all the relevant articles have now been updated. Well done team. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that "Driver of the Day" be added to {{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}}. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we create an infobox for engine manufacturers. It would make seeing how successful an engine manufacturer has been easier, and people could easily see and compare their statistics, instead of having to find them somewhere from the article, if they even are there. Teams, constructors and nationalities already have infoboxes, so I think engine manufacturers should too. Here is an example. Carfan568 ( talk) 19:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC) For manufacturers like Renault it could be used in addition to the team infobox, like the constructor infobox is used in Team Lotus for example. Carfan568 ( talk) 12:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll create the infobox since nobody seems to be against it. Carfan568 ( talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Some questions which came to my mind:
Shouldn't Scuderia Alpha Tauri be given a separate article as it's confirmed to be a new Constructor? Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#FAC reviewing of sports articles if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack ( talk) 09:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on the 2019 talk page about changing the format of entry tables that has gained some traction recently. This seems like the more appropriate venue for the discussion. The proposal would see the current entry table:
Entrant | Constructor | Chassis | Power unit | Race drivers | Free Practice drivers | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Driver name | Rounds | No. | Driver name | ||||
Alfa Romeo Racing | Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | C38 | Ferrari 064 | 7 99 |
Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi |
1–14 1–14 |
— |
Modified to become a simplified version:
Constructor | Chassis | Power unit | Race drivers | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Driver name | Rounds | |||
Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | C38 | Ferrari | 7 99 |
Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi |
1–14 1–14 |
The idea is that everything which has been omitted would be better-suited to prose. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 02:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Feel like I should explain what the proposal cuts and why:
Probably should have put that at the start. Sorry about that. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 03:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I support this proposal with one modification (see below), for the following reasons:
The one modification I would make concerns an additional simplification. I would merge the chassis and engine fields in some way (this is just an example):
Constructor | Chassis / power unit | Race drivers | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Driver name | Rounds | ||
Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | C38 / Ferrari | 7 99 |
Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi |
1–14 1–14 |
Mercedes | F1 W10 EQ Power+ / Mercedes | 44 77 |
Lewis Hamilton Valtteri Bottas |
1–14 1–14 |
-- Scjessey ( talk) 13:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Constructor | Power unit | Race drivers | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Driver name | Rounds | ||
Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | Ferrari | 7 99 |
Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi |
1–14 1–14 |
Mercedes | Mercedes | 44 77 |
Lewis Hamilton Valtteri Bottas |
1–14 1–14 |
Oppose I've said it before when this discussion came up earlier. I am not a fan of merging the entrant and constructor columns, since it does not reflect the reality of the sport, especially in seasons where customer cars were allowed. And I am all for consistency within all season articles. I know, many of you have a different opinion on that, but I wanted to state mine again. As for the simplicity argument: Let's not treat the readers like children, these tables can be a little extensive, the most important thing is that the information is portrayed correctly. I also feel strongly that the chassis needs to remain in the table because it gives a quick overview over which cars were used in which season, something I find myself looking up fairly often. If they are not in the season report anymore, where am I supposed to look? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This hasn't been discussed in a while but as its so long I think it best if we summarise and I'm doing it now otherwise this discussion will be archived in the next couple of days.
As far as I can tell, there is a consensus to remove the FP drivers from the entry table (only to detailed in prose) and to remove the specific engine name (can be speified in car articles). However, as I see it there is either no consensus or a consensus against the other proposed changes and those areas should therefore be left as is.
SSSB (
talk) 12:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Reviving this discussion was unnecessary.
The specific engine designations mean nothing to the average reader, so unless it's a notable engine like the Cosworth DFV, you're suggesting adding things for the sake of it.
Actually, it's preferred. Tables are meant to support prose, not replace it.
As SSSB pointed out, the discussion had naturally run its course. Forming a consensus was the next natural step. If you missed the original discussion, that's your problem and it doesn't invalidate the consensus. You don't own the article and we don't need your permission to form a consensus. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 11:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No, there was NOT consensus.- let's agree to disagree. I read that thread, considered the opinions raised ( Wikipedia:Consensus is not a vote) and that was the conclusion I reached. I may have misinterpreted the discussion, however, if you believe this to be the case you go to a higher person, perhaps dispute resolution. It is not your place to unilaterlly decide that my conclusion was wrong, espically one month after a close on a highly viewed page and it most certainly is not your place to make bad faith accusations that I am ignoring other editors (accusation on my talk page), its time you assumed good faith something you have failed to do here and on my talk page. If I was ignoring other editors (something you accused me of on my talk page) don't you think I would have declared a consensus for the entrant column to be removed as well, given that's what I argued for? What stands out to me most is that you are the only editor in the month that has passed who seems to think that I amade the wrong conclusion, among many highly respected editors who are not afraid to get their elbows out (and before you start, thats a compliment). Now to get to what you said more recently
This discussion is not being revived, it is being continued because it ended without clear consensus.- discussions don't need to end on a clear consensus. WP:CLOSING states you can close a discussion
When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing., this discussion was stable when I made my closing statement, with no one contributing to it for over a month. Nowwhere does it state there has to be a consensus for the discussion to close. The discussion was therefore closed and you are therefore reviving (i.e. unclosing) it.
I will give you one last chance to agree to move forward- we have agreed to move forward, McLarenfan17 has stated why he believes the information should stay of of the table, it is now up to you to respond. Failure to do so may (and by me will) be interpreted as you not having a rational for your opinion in which case the consensus (above) won't be overturned. p.s. you may want to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and the relevant pages that link from it.
"Nowhere does it state there has to be a consensus for the discussion to close."is not my stating that there was no consensus. It is me stating that HAD there been no consensus this is still you reviving a discussion, not continuing it. I admit the consensus isn't clear but i still beleive that consensus is there and the other editors who frequent this page will have seen my closing statement and this discussion even if they don't watch every edit at 2020. Please read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (and you may want to read the rest of the page as well) and follow the instructions there then you will find out why we are not going to revert the above consensus (which you disagree with), I said it before and I will say it again, it is not up to you, an inexpirenced editor, to unilatelly decide that my closing statement was innaccurate. Further you have shown no evidence of ever showing good faith here, on my talk page nor on Mclarenfan17's talk page. I have intrepeted your insistance of reverting back rather than arguing for its inclusion as a sign that you have no rational, is this true?
If you truly believe you are correct [...] we can reach that consensus the proper way.- I might say the same thing to you. Follow the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you want and in the meantime argue your point, otherwise there is no point of reviving the discussion at all.
This hasn't been discussed in a while but as its so long I think it best if we summarise and I'm doing it now otherwise this discussion will be archived in the next couple of days.in late October. Lazer-kitty has simply decided that it not good enough for her
As far as I can tell, there is a consensus to remove the FP drivers from the entry table (only to detailed in prose) and to remove the specific engine name (can be speified in car articles). However, as I see it there is either no consensus or a consensus against the other proposed changes and those areas should therefore be left as is.
Really unimpressed by SSSB prematurely declaring consensus and...to the notice of the now void dispute resolution, remebering to keep my response to carfan which is hidden somewhere in the middle. Also note that I continue to reject that the closure was premature or that I was purposefully biased when doing so, though I admit I should have requested closure.
@
Lazer-kitty: Given McLarenfan17 also argued against it, it would be recommended to wait and see how he respondes, also At the moment I cannot re-add the Renault engine designation as I believe it would count as a third revert in 24 hours
, state that it comes after a discussion and it would be overlooked, the
WP:3RR is designed to avoid edit warring, given I have conseded that my informal close was inssufient after a discussion it would be all right as editwarring would have been avoided, but like I said I would recommend waiting to see Mclarenfan17's response to avoid the conflict between the 2 of you escalating.
SSSB (
talk) 16:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Formula_One_World_Championship Lazer-kitty ( talk) 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Lazer-kitty: you claim that the consensus was not formed properly, so I'm curious ... what do you think the proper procedure for forming a consensus is? Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 22:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
ensure as many interested editors as possible are involved when making a significant change.- which is why the discussion took place here and was moved from Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship.
It's one that should require proactively reaching out to other editors- no discussion requires that, it is your responsibility to keep an eye on pages of interest and it is not our responsibility to contact specific editors who may be interested.
but these are things that you should do, simply because they are the right thing to do.- I disagree, if you have an interest in F1 put this page on your watchlist and check up on it every few days, that way you won't miss anything as discussions don't get archived for a month. As i hinted at above it is your responsibillity and yours alone to find discussions you want to contribute to. Saying I wasn't there so the discussion was invalid is not suffiecent.
But by removing that information you have robbed everyone of it.- no we haven't, its still in the articles for the cars.
I know of no other resource that can provide that same information to me so easily and so quickly.- I do, ( https://www.statsf1.com/en/2017/modeles.aspx) but we are not a stats site. Lazer-kitty, your arguement falls into the category of WP:ILIKEIT which is not a valid argument for inclusion.
we should provide those people with as much information as we can- but that is not what wikipedia is about. I just don't feel that including the engine specification is useful for a season report, which should be trated as a stand alone from reports about previous and future season
we have already established and agreed that there was not consensus to change the article in the first place- untrue, we agreed that I should not and was not in a position to have determined the consensus, I still believe that the consensus was there.
You link WP:INDISCRIMINATE and yet I have been explicitly clear that I am not suggesting this page should be an indiscriminate collection of all possible information.I am merely pointing out that in my opinion adding engine specs would constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I am not suggesting that you support indiscriminatly adding information, unfortantly the point at which encylopedic becomes indisrciminate is down to discretion.
I have given clear examples of why engine designations are useful to have collated in a single location for easy access and comparison- I have rebutted them, I will also throw additional rebuttals in there.
I have not seen one single argument from any of you that actually attempts to explain how these articles become better by removing information from them- that's because it on you to justify them staying. I'm not arguing that removing the information improves the article, but rather that including the information doesn't imporve the article and therefore the information should not be included at all.
You should not dictate what other people see- And you should dictate? This discussion is to determine if engine specifications are useful for readers to see should they want to read about the season, they can still see the engine specification in results matrixes for engine manufactors/teams or on stats sites or fan sites but it is not a useful thing to specify in a season report where engine names don't change. I'm not trying to dictate anything, but you were on my talk page, here and on Mclarefan17's talk page when you insited engine specs were readded before starting to discuss.
I wish you could discuss this without lying and misrepresenting my arguments.- thats ironic considering you just did exaclty that.
It has been explained. Look at my post from 15 September and Scjessey's post on 23 September. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 21:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
You're eintire argument is based off of "I think this is useful" - perhaps I should have linked to WP:INTERESTING instead which is an equally invalid argument. we should provide those people with as much information as we can - but that is not what wikipedia is about. I just don't feel that including the engine specification is useful for a season report, which should be trated as a stand alone from reports about previous and future season
— User:SSSB 4 December 2019 14:26 (UTC)
Okay, I think this has gone far enough. Lazer-kitty, whatever your concerns about the original discussion, it's quite clear that you're alone on this for now and the comments are starting to get personal. If you want to change it back, your best course of action would be to leave this discussion alone, re-open the subject further down the page, and try to form a new consensus—but you need to remember that people might disagree with you and a new discussion might not yield the result that you want. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 23:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
As explained [...], merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ...I have justified why that applies. You have not, in my view, adaquatly expalined why it doesn't, had you adaquatly explained then I might have changed my stance on the matter. But as Scjessey points out this discussion is circular and getting nowwhere. We either need an RfC or some kind of admin close of which I prefer the latter.
I have justified why that applies.No, you haven't. You have asserted that WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply because you think the information is not useful. This is WP:IDL.
You have not, in my view, adequately explained why it doesn't.Yes, I have, on multiple occasions. You have ignored them or handwaved them away.
And I'm not sure what you expect DRN to do.Resolve this dispute, maybe? Lazer-kitty ( talk) 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, what? If I understand you correctly, you want Scjessey to cite a specific Wikipedia policy that says the tables used by a particular WikiProject contain too much information? Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Policies apply to all WikiProjects in equal measure. The site does not single out any one partucular WikiProject in its policies. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not.
prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context
There's a discussion in progress at Talk:1972 Monaco Grand Prix regarding whether Peter Gethin's result should be listed as "Ret" or "DSQ". Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Larrousse was in 1992 "Venturi" (as mentioned on the official website). I think you should change "Larrousse" to "Venturi" in the Grand Prix in that season. What do you think? Thanks. -- Adriel 00 ( talk) 17:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
As I've mentioned here: Template_talk:F1_Drivers_Standings#Fastest_Lap_Indicator, is there any interest in changing the fastest lap indicator to something other than italics? Italicized numbers are not very easy to discern. Here are some alternative ideas:
Pos. | Driver | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | R9 | R10 | R11 | R12 | I1 | I2 | I3 | U1 | U2 | U3 | S1 | S2 | S3 | A1 | A2 | A3 | B1 | B2 | B3 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | no marker | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 9 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 6+ | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 0 |
1 | italics | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 9 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 1* | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 1 |
2 | underline | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 6 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 9* | 9 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 9• | 3 | 2 |
3 | asterisk | 1* | 2* | 3* | 4* | 1* | 2* | 3* | 4* | 1*† | 2*† | 3*† | 4*† | 9 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 8+ | 2 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 3 |
4 | addition | 1+ | 2+ | 3+ | 4+ | 1+ | 2+ | 3+ | 4+ | 1+† | 2+† | 3+† | 4+† | 6 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 8* | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 9• | 4 | 4 | 4 |
5 | bullet | 1• | 2• | 3• | 4• | 1• | 2• | 3• | 4• | 1•† | 2•† | 3•† | 4•† | 4 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 9+ | 3 | 3 | 2• | 5 |
Races R1 to R12 are just a comparison of the alternatives with how they would look with the various background colours and other markers present. Following that, races I1 to B3 have one of the 6 drivers in every race randomly given the fastest lap; I1 to I3 using italics, U1 to U3 by underlining, S1 to S3 with an asterisk, A1 to A3 using the addition symbol, and B1 to B3 using a bullet.
My opinion is that italics and even underlining is not very clear (cf. races I1 to U3). Using an addition symbol (my preference), asterisk or bullet will potentially look uglier when the dagger is present, but I think it would not be the end of the world (especially seeing as they are unlikely to both be present together). Any suggestions?
Related to this is the present key: the markers should be incorporated into the table (especially the dagger marker -- there's no need for it to be separated from the other entries). How about this:
Key | |
---|---|
Colour | Result |
Gold | Winner |
Silver | 2nd place |
Bronze | 3rd place |
Green | Other points position |
Blue | Other classified position |
Not classified, finished (NC) | |
Purple | Not classified, retired (Ret) |
Red | Did not qualify (DNQ) |
Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ) | |
Black | Disqualified (DSQ) |
White | Did not start (DNS) |
Race cancelled (C) | |
Light blue | Practiced only (PO) |
Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards) | |
Blank | Did not practice (DNP) |
Excluded (EX) | |
Did not arrive (DNA) | |
Withdrawn (WD) |
Key | |
---|---|
Marker | Description |
(bold) | Pole position |
+ | Fastest lap |
† | Driver did not finish, but was classified as they completed 90% of the race distance |
(Somebody could maybe optimize the way I've formatted the tables; I've rather hacked it together...)
Comments? Krea ( talk) 23:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Pos. | Driver | Race1 | Race2 | Race3 | Race4 | Race5 | Race6 | Race7 | Race8 | Race9 | Race10 | Race11 | Race12 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | italics | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 1 |
2 | dutch | 1P | 2P | 3F | 4F | 1PF | 2PF | 3PF | 4PF | 1†PF | 2†PF | 3†PF | 4†PF | 2 |
3 | dutch-mod | 1P | 2F | 3PF | 4†PF | 1PF | 2†PF | 3PF† | 4C | 1CPF | 2PFC | 3†PF | 4PFC | 3 |
My idea was to change the current championship table, and then work backwards. If it is necessary in one place, it certainly is necessary everywhere else too. I suppose the point you're making is that the effort should be made to implement the changes everywhere, and not just here, which I appreciate is correct to point out.
The racer pages have a slightly different format for the tables. Either we carry through the changes there as well, or choose a different option (or leave everything as they are). I can see the argument that using the dutch system for the driver-page tables would make them look ugly, especially with the colours clashing. The only clean-looking alternative to the dutch system that I can think of, besides using italics, is to underline the numbers. This didn't stand out too well in the above tables (1, 2, ...), but using a border is a lot better (1, 2, ...). Finally, the racer-page tables use italics on the race name abbreviations and not on the race finish numbers; and italics works much better on strings of letters than on a single number. Since those tables don't actually change the format of the numbers at all, but instead only change the formatting of the race names, the other option for those tables is to not touch them at all since the information they are trying to express is already clearly discernible. This would, however, introduce a formatting inconsistency between those tables and the tables on the other pages.
Here is a quick comparison between the suggestions I just made (on a row from the table on Lewis Hamilton's page). First row is the table as it is: formatted race names, unformatted numbers (and small font size for some reason). Second row is the current (modified) dutch proposal. Third row is the dutch proposal without colours. Last row uses an underlining scheme instead.
Year | Entrant | Chassis | Engine | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | WDC | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport | Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ | Mercedes M08 EQ Power+ 1.6 V6 t |
AUS 2 |
CHN 1 |
BHR 2 |
RUS 4 |
ESP 1 |
MON 7 |
CAN 1 |
AZE 5 |
AUT 4 |
GBR 1 |
HUN 4 |
BEL 1 |
ITA 1 |
SIN 1 |
MAL 2 |
JPN 1 |
USA 1 |
MEX 9 |
BRA 4 |
ABU 2 |
1st | 363 | |
2017 | Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport | Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ | Mercedes M08 EQ Power+ 1.6 V6 t |
AUS 2P |
CHN 1PL |
BHR 2L |
RUS 4 |
ESP 1PL |
MON 7 |
CAN 1PL |
AZE 5P |
AUT 4L |
GBR 1PL |
HUN 4 |
BEL 1P |
ITA 1P |
SIN 1L |
MAL 2P |
JPN 1P |
USA 1P |
MEX 9 |
BRA 4 |
ABU 2 |
1st | 363 | |
2017 | Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport | Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ | Mercedes M08 EQ Power+ 1.6 V6 t |
AUS 2P |
CHN 1PL |
BHR 2L |
RUS 4 |
ESP 1PL |
MON 7 |
CAN 1PL |
AZE 5P |
AUT 4L |
GBR 1PL |
HUN 4 |
BEL 1P |
ITA 1P |
SIN 1L |
MAL 2P |
JPN 1P |
USA 1P |
MEX 9 |
BRA 4 |
ABU 2 |
1st | 363 | |
2017 | Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport | Mercedes AMG F1 W08 EQ Power+ | Mercedes M08 EQ Power+ 1.6 V6 t |
AUS 2 |
CHN 1 |
BHR 2 |
RUS 4 |
ESP 1 |
MON 7 |
CAN 1 |
AZE 5 |
AUT 4 |
GBR 1 |
HUN 4 |
BEL 1 |
ITA 1 |
SIN 1 |
MAL 2 |
JPN 1 |
USA 1 |
MEX 9 |
BRA 4 |
ABU 2 |
1st | 363 |
On the championship table, the comparison is:
Pos. | Driver | Race1 | Race2 | Race3 | Race4 | Race5 | Race6 | Race7 | Race8 | Race9 | Race10 | Race11 | Race12 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | colours | 1P | 2P | 3P | 4P | 1L | 2L | 3L | 4L | 1PL | 2PL | 3PL | 4PL | 1 |
2 | no-colours | 1P | 2P | 3P | 4P | 1L | 2L | 3L | 4L | 1PL | 2PL | 3PL | 4PL | 2 |
3 | borders | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 3 |
Accessibility is an important consideration. I've increased the size of the letters in the dutch system by 110%, but I've also changed the fastest lap indicator from "F" to "L". For small letters, "P" and "F" can be difficult to distinguish, whereas for "P" and "L" the shapes are clearly different, and so easier to distinguish. I've also shown what it would look like without colours. Do any of these new suggestions fare any better for you?
As always, the alternative is to leave the tables as they are. You implied that you could not see the letters "P", "F" or "C" very clearly; can you see the italicized numbers any better? If an argument against adopting the dutch system is that it is not very clear, then is it not unreasonable to suggest that a visitor would find the current system unsuitable by the same argument? I think it's important to not forget the frustration a visitor might have in trying to read information from a table that is distinctly difficult to read information from.
The argument made so far for keeping with the current italics convention is that it would be too much effort to change all the tables, or otherwise there would be inconsistencies between them. I appreciate that this is a consideration, but it's not an important one, and certainly I don't think it is more important than using a formatting convention that a user can actually see, even if it means not every table is yet using that convention. The priority ought to be to adopt a better system going forwards, and then to change the existing tables, even if it is done so gradually. It has to be done thus, otherwise no change to the format of the tables could ever be implemented.
In any case, if it is decided that we should implement a change, I will make an effort to go around and change all the tables. It would be a good idea to template the change (like our dutch colleagues have done); I'm thinking something like this: {{race position|1|pole=1|fastestlap=1}}. In the future, any changes to the convention that are decided upon would then only need to be made on the template page and we will not need to go through this difficulty again.
(And I apologize for the length of these replies; I'm just trying to be thorough...) Krea ( talk) 16:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ SSSB: OK, with the template, I've made a prototype that works as follows:
Some points to note:
Once we sign off on the mechanics of this template, we can move it to the main namespace and start using it straight away. Then, as you said, we can make any changes we may decide across many pages all at once. I suggest we spend not too long on this, but we should definitely iron out major objections before we start making changes because this template will be used everywhere and it will be a pain to make corrections (like renaming the template) after we've already started to use it. Krea ( talk) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll give it a week or so and then I'll make the template official and we can start using it. Krea ( talk) 21:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
ALL of these ideas (including the existing methods) are poor for accessibility. I wish there was a way to do these things semantically, instead of visually. Imagine trying to understand a tenth of these tables if you are relying on a screen reader because of a visual impairment. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Pos. | Driver | Race1 | Race2 | Race3 | Race4 | Race5 | Race6 | Race7 | Race8 | Race9 | Race10 | Race11 | Race12 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | italics | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 1 |
2 | dutch | 1P | 2P | 3F | 4F | 1PF | 2PF | 3PF | 4PF | 1†PF | 2†PF | 3†PF | 4†PF | 2 |
3 | dutch-mod1 | 1P | 2F | 3PF | 4†PF | 1PF | 2†PF | 3PF† | 4C | 1CPF | 2PFC | 3†PF | 4PFC | 3 |
4 | dutch-mod2 | 1P | 2F | 3PF | 4†PF | 1PF | 2†PF | 3PF† | 4C | 1CPF | 2PFC | 3†PF | 4PFC | 4 |
5 | dutch-mod3 | 1P | 2L | 3PL | 4†PL | 1PL | 2†PL | 3PL† | 4C | 1CPL | 2PLC | 3†PL | 4PLC | 5 |
With the drivers it is the 3 letter race code which is bolded or italicised to reflect if the driver got pole/fastest lap. (see
Kimi Raikkonen#Complete Formula One results for example). Whilst this is not a problem for the template discussed above I am worried that the proposed system of letters (or any of the other proposed systems) wouldn't look right if we put them next to the the race code. I would therefore propose that we instead format the result in these tables rather than the race code as I think it looks and works better, and that it is also more consistent with other types of results matrices.
SSSB (
talk) 10:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
If I don't hear anything back I will (due to this being a highly vistited page) assume unanimous support.
SSSB (
talk) 09:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
As for the driver results table, I would argue that it works OK as it is. The 3-letter abbreviations for the race work OK with bold/italics (but not brilliant); adding the P/L markers would clutter the table up. The downside is that it introduces an inconsistency. The only solution that I have for that is maybe to consider using bold/underline instead of bold/italic or the proposed P/L markers:
Pos. | Driver | Race1 | Race2 | Race3 | Race4 | Race5 | Race6 | Race7 | Race8 | Race9 | Race10 | Race11 | Race12 | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | bold/underline | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1† | 2† | 3† | 4† | 3 |
Year | Entrant | Chassis | Engine | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | WDC | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 | Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro | Ferrari F2007 | Ferrari 056 2.4 V8 |
AUS 1 |
MAL 3 |
BHR 3 |
ESP Ret |
MON 8 |
CAN 5 |
USA 4 |
FRA 1 |
GBR 1 |
EUR Ret |
HUN 2 |
TUR 2 |
ITA 3 |
BEL 1 |
JPN 3 |
CHN 1 |
BRA 1 |
1st | 110 |
This is a solution that I would not be against. It does help spot the fastest laps a bit better than italics alone. As for accessibility, however, it probably won't help the situation, although the tables possibly already have a problem in that regard anyway. I don't have an answer to that problem, unfortunately. Krea ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I will make the proposed changes that were broadly agreed on to the 2019 page so that people can judge the proposal in a live setting. However, I don't regard the issue as settled yet since there are still concerns that a few people have flagged so far, accessibility included. So, as always, comments and suggestions are welcome. Krea ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, a few days ago
RJFJR made
this edit at
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix placing the by year section into chrolological order i.e. 2009 first (which was leter undone by
Mcbjmund with
this edit), just wondering is either side supported by convention/policy or is it just down to personally taste? If it is down to personal taste would it be worth making this
WP:F1 convention?
SSSB (
talk) 10:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It has been over a week now, and as there have been no objections, and it is supported by policy ( WP:CHRONO), I think all Grand Prix articles should be changed to (oldest at top) chronological order, and perhaps this should be listed in the WP:F1 conventions also. Unless there are last minute objections I will implement this later today (or unless someone else does it first). A7V2 ( talk) 02:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
There WAS a stipulation to use reverse chronological order for these lists (see [1]). I have changed this policy to reflect the consensus here and to reflect WP:CHRONO. I've also changed most articles to have the list of winners in chronological order. I would have done it earlier but it was actually a lot more needing to be done than I had thought! In the end I wrote a computer program to do it for me, but I still had to manually fix the rowspans and the 19xx-19yy for when a race had a gap. Anyway, if anyone sees any long tables that I missed which should be reversed and you can't be bothered doing it yourself manually let me know (on my talk page I suppose) as I can do it reasonably quickly (especially if there's no rowspans or gaps!) A7V2 ( talk) 04:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources differ regarding Mike Fisher's result at the 1967 Mexican Grand Prix:
Lang says "Only 18 cars faced the starter on Sunday afternoon for during the warm-up lap Fisher's Lotus-B.R.M. was found to have a fault in the fuel-injection system, so he had, reluctantly, to withdraw at the last moment." What result should we go with? (I'm leaning towards "Did not start"). DH85868993 ( talk) 10:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I've split McLaren Grand Prix results into subsections based on decade to show what it would look like. Normally I'd do it in my sandbox, but it's too big for that. I haven't totally changed everything so that the article can be reverted easily if we decide against it. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing disucussion at
Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map about whether our maps should use
de facto or
de jure borders.
SSSB (
talk) 13:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The current article for Renault F1 team is simply Renault in Formula One, which includes sections on Équipe Renault Elf (1977-85), Renault F1 Team (2002-2010), Lotus Renault GP (2011), and Renault Sport Formula Team/Renault Formula 1 Team (2016 - Present), as well as Renault's involvement as an engine supplier throughout the years.
Would it not be much clearer to have 5 pages overall:
4 sporting pages: - Renault Elf (1977-85) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Renault Formula 1 Team (2002-2010) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Lotus Renault GP (2011) in the style of a former F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc. - Renault Formula 1 Team (2016 - Present) in the style of a current F1 Constructor, with its own infobox, results page, etc.
- Renault in Formula One, an overview from a more business point of view, describing Renault's investment in 4 of its own f1 teams, and its role as an engine supplier.
This would be far clearer, and makes a lot more sense. There is currently no article for the current team known as 'Renault Formula 1 Team', instead it occupies a small section in a much bigger, convoluted article. This is ludicrous. One of 10 current constructors should have its own page. There is very little continuity between the 1977 French team and the 2019 British/French team, beyond the fact that they were both invested in by the same massive manufacturer.
The teams should each have their own page, I think it would be much clearer. What do you think?
Achilles' Wrath ( talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Renault-branded teams since 2002, which ran under a British license- this is not correct, since 2002 all entrants with Renault in their name have run under the french with the exceeption of 2011 when Lotus ran the team and Renault only built the chassis (as explained at Renault in Formula One#Lotus Renault GP (2011)).
a French Flag there or a British one- French because Renault is a French company or both as they had a chassis entered under the British flag when they collaborated with Lotus in 2011 or French as this is the flag the team currently race under (this is how the issue has been dealt with at Alfa Romeo in F1 but I think this rationale violates WP:RECENTISM)
why are there not sections on Benneton and Lotus F1 in the 'Renault in F1' page- because that falls outside of the scope of the article, a simply sentence is all that is needed to say that Renault bought the team from X and sold it to Y, stating anything more about X and Y would be inappropriate and would, in my opinion, constitute WP:UNDUE
Renault in 1977 was a different team to Renault today.- you keep stating this but you have provided no reliable sources which list them seperatly, something you acknowledge when you say
I understand that a lot of sources have them as the same team. A failure to provide sources to assert this claim constitutes WP:OR.
I understand that a lot of sources have them as the same team, but there is some ambiguity there as well. For example on the year by year profile on F1.com, it considers the team in its current incarnation to have begun in 2012 as Lotus, then officially changed its name in 2016.- this may be true but the number of sources which contradict this view point by far outnumber those that agree, ([ https://www.statsf1.com/en/renault.aspx see Renault's profile on StatsF1 for example) and F1.com still consider the Renault team from 2002 to be the same as the Renault team today criditing today's F1 team with 2 F1 championships.
What do you suggest to help clear issues like the flag up, if you don't want separate pages?- I have made 2 suggestions on how I think we can deal with the flag problem you raised but I think the other issues you talk about have been dealt with sufficently in the article as is. Clearly you disagree but I think the best way for you to try and fix the problems you raised would be by WP:BRD. I also think that this discussion is actually better suited to Talk:Renault in Formula One as this thread is specifically about Renault and doesn't touch on anything else (i.e. a WP:CENTRALIZED discussion here is unnecessary).
Changing course slightly, I've noticed that articles like McLaren Grand Prix results (I assume there's one for Renault, too) are basically one giant table. Would it be better to break these up into several smaller tables, say by decade? Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 01:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
As most of you know, I browse and edit Wikipedia almost exclusively on the mobile site. Lately, however, I've been doing a bit of browsing on the main site and I have noticed a bit of a problem: results matrices—in season, car, team and driver articles—are getting to be pretty big. With 21 races in 2019, 22 in 2020, and the sporting regulations now allowing up to 25, I think the problem is only going to get worse.
When I say the tables are getting big, I mean that they're getting pretty wide—so wide that they exceed the width of the article and the reader is either forced to side-scroll to see the whole table, or read a small-print version of the article because the browser forces the whole article to be shown at once. I find both these solutions to be far from ideal, so I'm starting this discussion to see if we can find another way. I think there are two options (but am open to more):
class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;", but we can change this. Supercars have run as many as 38 races in the recent past, and so their articles—such as Scott McLaughlin—use
class="wikitable" style="font-size: 75%;"for their tables. This is probably the easiest way to fix the problem, but I have reservations about making the font too small.
Anyone? Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 00:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so here's what I'm thinking for the WCC/WCM matrices in championship articles:
We can see how that goes and take it from there. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Key | |||
---|---|---|---|
Colour | Result | Colour | Result |
Gold | Winner | White | Did not start (DNS) |
Silver | 2nd place | Light blue | Practiced only (PO) |
Bronze | 3rd place | Friday test driver (TD) - 2003-2007 only | |
Green | Points finish | Blank | Did not practice (DNP) |
Blue | Non points finish inc. non classified finish | Injured or ill (inj) | |
Purple | Did not finish (Ret) | Excluded (EX) | |
Red | Did not qualify (DNQ) | Did not arrive (DNA) | |
Black | Disqualified (DSQ) | Withdrew entry before the event (WD) |
There's a discussion in progress at Category talk:Formula One championship-winning cars regarding the scope of the category, i.e. whether it should only include cars which won the Constructors' Championship, or whether it should also include cars which won the Drivers' Championship. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has recently added "career summary" tables to a number of F1 driver articles - see here for a list. Unfortunately, the tables don't conform to the WP:MOTOR standard format. I'm planning to reformat the tables when I have time, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone wants to help out. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 21:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Driver | Status |
---|---|
Alex Ribeiro | table removed |
André Ribeiro (racing driver) | table removed |
Ayrton Senna | (table has been removed) |
Chico Serra | table removed |
Didier Pironi | table removed |
Elio de Angelis | table reformatted |
Gilles Villeneuve | table removed |
Gunnar Nilsson | table removed; similar, partially improved table added by an IP; table reformatted |
Jo Siffert | table removed |
Marco Greco | table needs reformatting |
Nelson Piquet | (table has been removed) |
Patrick Depailler | table removed |
Paul Stewart (racing driver) | table needs reformatting |
Renzo Zorzi | table needs reformatting |
Roger Williamson | table updated to WP:MOTOR standard format; now erased by 'creator' |
Roland Ratzenberger | (table has been removed) |
Tommy Byrne (racing driver) | table needs reformatting |
Tony Brise | table needs reformatting |
Hello all, I've started a discussion at Talk:Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit regarding moving the article to either Albert Park Circuit or Albert Park Grand Prix Circuit and invite interested editors to participate there. Thanks. A7V2 ( talk) 00:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
A Request for Comment has been posted at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#RfC about the map in the calendar section to seek additional input about a world map showing Grands Prix locations. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@ MatteoNL97: has recently made many additions to the sponsors section of Grand Prix articles (for example [2]) and in the process has changed most of the headings from something along the lines of Sponsors to Official names and sponsors. Maybe there were others but at least on Vietnamese Grand Prix, @ Mclarenfan17: changed it back, giving the reason as "convention". I don't see anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One#Grands_Prix about this section heading so I think something should be added. Personally I very much dislike calling the section just "sponsors" since whether or not a long time ago that's all that was included, in practice these sections always seem to list the official names, so I think we should establish a new convention of calling these sections "Official names and sponsors" or something along those lines, but I wonder what others think? A7V2 ( talk) 11:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The Vietnamese race may have a sponsor for now but this is meant for the long term
if they possibly lose a sponsor
it becomes more clear and avoids confusion
Like I said, I am going to name all mentioned races the same, even if they only have a sponsor list and not just some, and will include all previous names (so also names without sponsors)
I can live with the proposal of @A7V2- what are you on about, that was my propsal. Anyway, thats not the point, what do you mean by
I do not agree that the category should be named by the sponsor name, seeing how some often change sponsor by year and the affromentioned Wiki's I edited are too broad to just be named by one sponsor.- what categories are you talking about, and what affromentioned Wiki's, you haven't mentioned any other wikis. Please clarify that statement.
what are you on about, that was my propsal.- Uh no, that was the proposal of AV72, but I digress.
what do you mean by "I do not agree that the category should be named by the sponsor name, seeing how some often change sponsor by year and the affromentioned Wiki's I edited are too broad to just be named by one sponsor." - what categories are you talking about, and what affromentioned Wiki's, you haven't mentioned any other wikis. Please clarify that statement.- what you mentioned in your last reply, basically. The "X Grand Prix" pages, which lists all the GPs a nation has ever hosted, should not be named by the current year sponsor, purely because it covers too many races for that to be allowed. Renaming the individual race wiki names wouldn't be an option either, seeing how some names are non-English and it would cause big confusion on the English Wikipedia. I think the way the official names are mentioned in the individual race articles are fine as is, honestly. MatteoNL97 ( talk) 10:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Firstly I would to clarify what I meant by them all being official names. In 1974, the official name of the British Grand Prix race (in general) was the John Player Grand Prix, while now, in 2020, the official name of the race (in general) is the Pirelli British Grand Prix, but of course for the individual years they have their own official names. But anyway, I will restate, for claritiy (and having read the opinions above) that I propose we change the section title to Official names, and also (as a separate, definitely unbundled proposal!) to include in the leed something along the lines of "The British Grand Prix (currently known for sponsorship reasons as the Pirelli British Grand Prix) is...", per WP:OFFICIAL. A7V2 ( talk) 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
And I recognise that the first part is what SSSB already suggested! A7V2 ( talk) 12:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
But, are you happy for those section to be renamed to Official namesYes, I am fine with this. The reason I changed these sections to begin with was because I expanded it to older names that did not have any sponsorship, so this change would reflect on all these sections in a more neutral way IMO. MatteoNL97 ( talk) 14:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has created
2022 Formula One World Championship which at this stage is comprised of a list of driver/circuit contracts. If anyone knows of any additional content which can be added please do so. Also note that I have started an AfD for this article.
SSSB (
talk) 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has proposed adding a "website" field to {{ Infobox F1 driver}}. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I have not bean that active on wikipedia the last couple of months. Today I went through the Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results page and to say is was quite surprised would be an understatement. I went through the WP:F1 talk page to see how a consensus was reached to change the indicators for the pole position and the fastet lap. I understand some of the accessibility issues but I don't understand how this change is an improvement. I have multiple issues with the new indicators.
I always thought the main point of the F1 result tables was to display the results. So first and foremost the most important thing is the display of the actual result of a driver/team. I'm not saying displaying the PP and FL is not important but it's just a detail. Using symbols for the PP and FL clutters up the results tables and I have real trouble to read the tables properly now. Especially with successful teams like Ferrari and Mercedes the result table are impossible to comfortably navigate. So I feel like the new symbols harm the actual goal of these result tables. Not to mention that a lot of result are not centrally displayed anymore as the FL and PP symbols clutter up the table. We already use a symbol to indicate a driver DNF the race but was classified as he competed 90% of the race. And very infrequently we use a symbol to indicate that half points were awarded as less than 75% of the race distance was completed. Two symbols in one result box is already very uncomfortable to read but in very rare cases there are even three. I feel like we are losing touch of what these result tables are meant for.
I also have a real problem with the lack of consistency this is creating. I always felt the WP:F1 community got their stuff together with the result tables as everything looked very uniform. This is certainly not helping. For whatever reason the interest in the WP:F1 or the number of people that actively participate in this wiki project has decreased over the years (including me). In the past when a major change was about to be made we used to vote about this stuff. This has not been done now and it bothers me.
These changes not only create inconsistencies within the WP:F1 pages but also all the other result tables that fall within WP:Motorsport. I think the best thing to do is revert back to the previous system and when an actual solution with the accessibility issues is found we can think of a change. Now we are just moving the problems around. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 21:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there any particular consensus on whether to use
debut or
début? This doesn't seem consistent across the project.
5225C (
talk) 11:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
ú
. I can't then umalat it. alt gr.+e gives the same accent but on the e instead. Thanks anyway.The Arbitration Committee has accepted arequest for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports regarding two users contributing to this project. If anyone wishes to add evidence for arbitrators to consider, you can add it to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. T v x1 23:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, apologies if it has. I think we should replace Template:Ref with Template:Efn on the individual Grand Prix articles, in the qualifying and race results tables. In each article we could create a section titled Notes above the References section containing Template:Notelist. Using Template:Ref is no longer recommended, Template:Efn functions better overall, looks neater, is easier to use, and uses unique letters instead of numbers – all much better for these purposes. Sr88, talk. 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Pos. | No. | Driver | Constructor | Qualifying times | Final grid | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | |||||
1 | 33 | Max Verstappen | Red Bull Racing- Honda | 1:08.242 | 1:07.503 | 1:07.508 | 1 |
2 | 5 | Sebastian Vettel | Ferrari | 1:08.556 | 1:08.050 | 1:07.631 | 2 |
3 | 44 | Lewis Hamilton | Mercedes | 1:08.614 | 1:08.088 | 1:07.699 | 3 |
4 | 16 | Charles Leclerc | Ferrari | 1:08.496 | 1:07.888 | 1:07.728 | 14 [a] |
5 | 77 | Valtteri Bottas | Mercedes | 1:08.545 | 1:08.232 | 1:07.874 | 4 |
6 | 23 | Alexander Albon | Red Bull Racing- Honda | 1:08.503 | 1:08.117 | 1:07.935 | 5 |
7 | 10 | Pierre Gasly | Scuderia Toro Rosso- Honda | 1:08.909 | 1:08.770 | 1:08.837 | 6 |
8 | 8 | Romain Grosjean | Haas- Ferrari | 1:09.197 | 1:08.705 | 1:08.854 | 7 |
9 | 7 | Kimi Räikkönen | Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | 1:09.276 | 1:08.858 | 1:08.984 | 8 |
10 | 20 | Kevin Magnussen | Haas- Ferrari | 1:08.875 | 1:08.803 | 1:09.037 | 9 |
11 | 4 | Lando Norris | McLaren- Renault | 1:08.891 | 1:08.868 | N/A | 10 |
12 | 3 | Daniel Ricciardo | Renault | 1:09.086 | 1:08.903 | N/A | 11 |
13 | 99 | Antonio Giovinazzi | Alfa Romeo Racing- Ferrari | 1:09.175 | 1:08.919 | N/A | 12 |
14 | 27 | Nico Hülkenberg | Renault | 1:09.050 | 1:08.921 | N/A | 13 |
15 | 11 | Sergio Pérez | Racing Point- BWT Mercedes | 1:09.288 | 1:09.035 | N/A | 15 |
16 | 26 | Daniil Kvyat | Scuderia Toro Rosso- Honda | 1:09.320 | N/A | N/A | 16 |
17 | 18 | Lance Stroll | Racing Point- BWT Mercedes | 1:09.536 | N/A | N/A | 17 |
18 | 63 | George Russell | Williams- Mercedes | 1:10.126 | N/A | N/A | 18 |
19 | 88 | Robert Kubica | Williams- Mercedes | 1:10.614 | N/A | N/A | 19 |
107% time: 1:13.018 | |||||||
DNQ | 55 | Carlos Sainz Jr. | McLaren- Renault | No time | N/A | N/A | 20 [b] |
Source: |
Comment - I do think that its worth pointing out that
WP:NOTBROKEN applies here.
SSSB (
talk) 10:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
So I take we are all happy to use {{
efn}} from Australia onwards?
SSSB (
talk) 09:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Guenther Steiner was recently moved to Günther Steiner. There is a discussion in progress at the article's talk page regarding the spelling of his first name. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)