Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Lap leader charts[edit]

During the GA review of 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, the reviewer Saskoiler suggested a caption to be added for the lap leader chart. I do not really consider this necessary and I also do not know if it is technically possible, so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, why would we need a caption? The "Lap Leader" title I think makes it clear enough, we'd just be repeating that surely? CDRL102 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables.[edit]

I would like to propose for us to reinstate the system we used for our constructors' standings tables until 2013. Prior to 2014, our constructors' tables would have two rows per constructors regardless of the amount of drivers they used in a season. Since 2014 however we started giving a row to each driver in the constructors' table as well. The sole explanation I can find for that is that since that year every driver use a different number. But I feel this unnecessarily blows up the constructors' table. And with a team now contracting four different drivers in 2017, it also makes things unnecessarily confusing. Just like before 2014, the constructors can only score two results per race and I think we can show all of that in just two rows. The individual driver results belong in the drivers' table. It doesn't matter to the constructors' championship who scored the points. A win by say Lewis Hamilton has just as much value for Mercedes' constructors points as one by Valtteri Bottas. This is is evidenced by the way the governing body FIA list the standings themselves. To illustrate with an example, I propose that the following table (taking from the 2016) championship be changed from:

Pos. Constructor No. AUS
Australia
BHR
Bahrain
CHN
China
RUS
Russia
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
EUR
Azerbaijan
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
HUN
Hungary
GER
Germany
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
MAL
Malaysia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points
1 Germany Mercedes 6 1 1 1 1 Ret 7 5 1 4 3 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 765
44 2 3 7 2 Ret 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 Ret 3 1 1 1 1
2 Austria Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer 3 4 4 4 11 4 2 7 7 5 4 3 2 2 5 2 1 6 3 3 8 5 468
26 DNS 7 3 15
33 1 Ret 4 8 2 2 5 3 11 7 6 2 2 Ret 4 3 4
3 Italy Ferrari 5 3 DNS 2 Ret 3 4 2 2 Ret 9 4 5 6 3 5 Ret 4 4 5 5 3 398
7 Ret 2 5 3 2 Ret 6 4 3 5 6 6 9 4 4 4 5 Ret 6 Ret 6
4 India Force India-Mercedes 11 13 16 11 9 7 3 10 3 17† 6 11 10 5 8 8 6 7 8 10 4 8 173
27 7 15 15 Ret Ret 6 8 9 19† 7 10 7 4 10 Ret 8 8 Ret 7 7 7
5 United Kingdom Williams-Mercedes 19 5 8 6 5 8 10 Ret 10 20† 11 18 Ret 10 9 12 13 9 7 9 Ret 9 138
77 8 9 10 4 5 12 3 6 9 14 9 9 8 6 Ret 5 10 16 8 11 Ret
6 United Kingdom McLaren-Honda 14 Ret 12 6 Ret 5 11 Ret 18† 13 7 12 7 14 7 7 16 5 13 10 10 76
22 14 Ret 13 10 9 9 Ret 11 6 12 Ret 8 Ret 12 Ret 9 18 9 12 16 Ret
47 10
7 Italy Toro Rosso-Ferrari 26 10 Ret 12 Ret Ret 10 16 15 14 Ret 9 14 13 11 18 13 Ret 63
33 10 6 8 Ret
55 9 Ret 9 12 6 8 9 Ret 8 8 8 14 Ret 15 14 11 17 6 16 6 Ret
8 United States Haas-Ferrari 8 6 5 19 8 Ret 13 14 13 7 Ret 14 13 13 11 DNS Ret 11 10 20 DNS 11 29
21 Ret Ret 14 17 11 11 13 16 11 16 13 11 12 13 11 Ret 20 Ret 19 Ret 12
9 France Renault 20 12 11 17 7 15 Ret 16 14 14 17† 15 16 Ret 17 10 Ret 14 12 17 14 Ret 8
30 11 DNS 22 13 13 Ret Ret 15 12 Ret 12 19 15 Ret 15 10 12 13 14 Ret 17
10 Switzerland Sauber-Ferrari 9 Ret 12 16 14 12 Ret 15 17 15 Ret 20 18 Ret 16 17 12 15 14 11 Ret 15 2
12 15 14 20 16 14 Ret 18 12 13 15 17 Ret 17 Ret 13 Ret 19 15 15 9 16
11 United Kingdom MRT-Mercedes 31 16 18 18 16 21 18 21 12 13 1
88 Ret 17 21 Ret 17 15 19 18 16 Ret 21 20
94 16 13 18 18 16 14 17 Ret 10 Ret 19 17 Ret Ret 16 15 22 17 Ret 15 14
Pos. Constructor No. AUS
Australia
BHR
Bahrain
CHN
China
RUS
Russia
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
EUR
Azerbaijan
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
HUN
Hungary
GER
Germany
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
MAL
Malaysia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points
Source:

to:

Pos. Constructor No. AUS
Australia
BHR
Bahrain
CHN
China
RUS
Russia
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
EUR
Azerbaijan
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
HUN
Hungary
GER
Germany
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
MAL
Malaysia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points
1 Germany Mercedes 6 1 1 1 1 Ret 7 5 1 4 3 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 765
44 2 3 7 2 Ret 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 Ret 3 1 1 1 1
2 Austria Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer 3 4 4 4 11 4 2 7 7 5 4 3 2 2 5 2 1 6 3 3 8 5 468
26/33 DNS 7 3 15 1 Ret 4 8 2 2 5 3 11 7 6 2 2 Ret 4 3 4
3 Italy Ferrari 5 3 DNS 2 Ret 3 4 2 2 Ret 9 4 5 6 3 5 Ret 4 4 5 5 3 398
7 Ret 2 5 3 2 Ret 6 4 3 5 6 6 9 4 4 4 5 Ret 6 Ret 6
4 India Force India-Mercedes 11 13 16 11 9 7 3 10 3 17† 6 11 10 5 8 8 6 7 8 10 4 8 173
27 7 15 15 Ret Ret 6 8 9 19† 7 10 7 4 10 Ret 8 8 Ret 7 7 7
5 United Kingdom Williams-Mercedes 19 5 8 6 5 8 10 Ret 10 20† 11 18 Ret 10 9 12 13 9 7 9 Ret 9 138
77 8 9 10 4 5 12 3 6 9 14 9 9 8 6 Ret 5 10 16 8 11 Ret
6 United Kingdom McLaren-Honda 14/47 Ret 10 12 6 Ret 5 11 Ret 18† 13 7 12 7 14 7 7 16 5 13 10 10 76
22 14 Ret 13 10 9 9 Ret 11 6 12 Ret 8 Ret 12 Ret 9 18 9 12 16 Ret
7 Italy Toro Rosso-Ferrari 26/33 10 6 8 Ret 10 Ret 12 Ret Ret 10 16 15 14 Ret 9 14 13 11 18 13 Ret 63
55 9 Ret 9 12 6 8 9 Ret 8 8 8 14 Ret 15 14 11 17 6 16 6 Ret
8 United States Haas-Ferrari 8 6 5 19 8 Ret 13 14 13 7 Ret 14 13 13 11 DNS Ret 11 10 20 DNS 11 29
21 Ret Ret 14 17 11 11 13 16 11 16 13 11 12 13 11 Ret 20 Ret 19 Ret 12
9 France Renault 20 12 11 17 7 15 Ret 16 14 14 17† 15 16 Ret 17 10 Ret 14 12 17 14 Ret 8
30 11 DNS 22 13 13 Ret Ret 15 12 Ret 12 19 15 Ret 15 10 12 13 14 Ret 17
10 Switzerland Sauber-Ferrari 9 Ret 12 16 14 12 Ret 15 17 15 Ret 20 18 Ret 16 17 12 15 14 11 Ret 15 2
12 15 14 20 16 14 Ret 18 12 13 15 17 Ret 17 Ret 13 Ret 19 15 15 9 16
11 United Kingdom MRT-Mercedes 31/88 Ret 17 21 Ret 17 15 19 18 16 Ret 21 20 16 18 18 16 21 18 21 12 13 1
94 16 13 18 18 16 14 17 Ret 10 Ret 19 17 Ret Ret 16 15 22 17 Ret 15 14
Pos. Constructor No. AUS
Australia
BHR
Bahrain
CHN
China
RUS
Russia
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
EUR
Azerbaijan
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
HUN
Hungary
GER
Germany
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
MAL
Malaysia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points
Source:

Any thoughts?Tvx1 21:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem in the second table is that it's not clear which car scored which results. And I would dispute the idea that it is unnecessarily confusing. It's very clear as to which entry scored which results at which rounds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's the whole point. It doesn't matter for the constructors' table which entry scored which result at which round. There is reason why the FIA does not split them up in their standings. For the exact same reason we did not split the entries prior to 2014 either. As for which car, there are still two rows and the numbers that were used by the particular cars are still appended to that row. And even that information is of low importance. We don't make that distinction in our GP3 Series articles and it works just fine.Tvx1 22:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The GP3 Series uses a different scoring system. Teams may enter four cars, but only the top three can score points. Thus, you can have a team fill out the top four positions, but the team that finished fifth will be classified as finishing fourth.
The other issue you have is that it's still unclear. McLaren had three separate entries in 2016, with Vandoorne completing one race. Under your proposed version, it's not clear how many rounds he entered or which rounds he entered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the version that we have in the article at the moment is better as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Prisonermokeys, it doesn't matter how many or which rounds Vandoorne entered and how many Alonso entered for the constructors' table. We're discussing the constructors' standings here. Vandoorne's entries are accurately listed in the drivers' standings. Take a look at the 2013 season's article. Lotus' had three distinct entries during that season, yet the constructors' standings do not show us how many races Räikkönen entered and how many Kovalainen entered. And the reason is because it just doesn't matter for that table. We've used that system for all constructors' championships before 2014 (which dates back to 1958) and nobody ever complained about that? So why is suddenly so vital since 2014 to list how many entries each driver made in a constructors' championship table??? Zwerg Nase, why do you think the current version is better? We need more arguments than I like it/I don't like it. I find it weird that you prefer the current version given that you're German and the [Formel-1-Weltmeisterschaft_2016#Konstrukteurswertung German Wiki] uses roughly the version I'm proposing here.Tvx1 09:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I think PM has pointed out all the necessary points, I did not mean to be redundant in writing them down again. Also, the German Wikipedia is of no concern to me, I don't like the way they do things. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
What points by PM do you mean? That the second table does not split up per driver? Something we never did prior to 2014? So you genuinely object because the second table does not list information that does not matter in any way??
Things have changed since 2013. Permanent race numbers give us the chance to tell our readers which driver scored which points. Also, please note, that this way has also been used in older season articles where it can apply. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
But why on earth should we tell our readers which driver scored which points in the constructors' championship?? It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever for the outcome of the constructors' championships. Surely telling which driver scored which points is something for the drivers' championship. And those tables do tell that information. Why is it so vital we do this when even the FIA does not make that split themselves?? In fact, no source whatsoever makes that split, so WHY is so vital we do???Tvx1 10:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "The FIA does it, so we should do it, too" argument holds no water. We, as editors, are free to make decisions as to how to best represent content in the article, even if that diverges from how the FIA represents that content. Case in point, the entry lists published by the FIA list the drivers in no apparent order; Mercedes would list Hamilton (#44) before Rosberg (#6). While this is seemingly alphabetical, Force India would list Pérez (#11) before Hülkenberg (#27), which is apparently numerical. So we devised a system of representing the entry list in a manner that was consistent from team to team, even if it did not perfectly recreate the appearance of the entry list.

Given the size and the complexity of the results matrices, it is in our interests to have as much correlation between the two tables to aid readability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Correlation is not the same as making an identical copy. And the constructors' table should first and foremost show who won the championship and how. Which exact driver achieved which specific result is of no importance there. No matter what the identity of the driver was the points and positions are equally valid. The correlation is still there in my proposal. The numbers are retained and are still as clickable as before. Moreover, every single result is retained from the drivers' table. They are just not spread beyond multiple rows. It is still beyond me why utterly unimportant information which never included before 2014, the absence of which no-one ever complained about, has suddenly become so vital since 2014. And it's quite amusing that suddenly the "The FIA does it, so we should do it, too" argument is suddenly invalid when I propose something, but at the same time is literally the sole argument you have brought to justify having FIA in our season article names. Regardless I didn't only mention the FIA. I have clearly explained that NO source actually makes this split. We are literally the only one who do so and so far I have not seen any justification to do so.Tvx1 15:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"the constructors' table should first and foremost show who won the championship and how"
It does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't, it first and foremost show which driver scored which results where (which is actually the duty of the drivers' table). The second does foremost what the constructors' table should do and what it actually did do in our articles before 2014.Tvx1 12:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I like this proposal. Since they introduced the driver numbers I have found the constructors table to be too scattered and unnecessarily difficult to read. This proposal irons out the problem. If you want to know which individual driver scored the points, then there is a drivers table that has otherwise exactly the same information on it, and I found no problem doing this before 2014. I would suggest (although MOS:SLASH is unclear) having spaces between the numbers and the slash, so "26 / 33" rather than "26/33", but it's quite a minor thing. Sr88, talk. 19:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Happy to see that I'm not the only one to find our current constructors' tables unnecessarily difficult to read.Tvx1 00:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I see a problem. If we will use proposed format on table where the team will have three driver changes per one car than the number column will be unnecessary wide. Probably we will see second Toro Rosso with 55/39/10. IMHO, numbers should be removed from constructors'standings table at all. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Funnily enough I was just about to suggest the same thing, there isn't really a great need for numbers, in fact, a lot of the team's results pages don't feature car numbers. Sr88, talk. 10:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How, exactly, are you going to organise this format? The matrix is quite complex—there are over two hundred individual cells for results, and that's before you take into account the colour-coding, the cross-referencing with the table outlining the points and the way the FIA regards the team that wins the race to be the winning constructor rather than the team that scores the most points. If nothing else, the number column introduces a logical order to the matrix, which leads me to conclude that this proposal is motivated by editors not liking the abundance of empty squares in the 2017 WCC matrix, which is an issue limited to the 2017 matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is one of logical orders. If we drop number column we can use the first line for the highest finishing positions and the second line for the lower results like in 2017 Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, good. You fixed one problem. What would you do in the case of 2011, where Sauber entered three cars for one race? Pérez was concussed after his Monaco accident, and took part in FP1 in Montreal, but withdrew because he was feeling ill. Sauber entered de la Rosa alongside Kobayashi. Do you just omit Pérez from that matrix? You cannot do that because the team and driver table is for races entered, not races completed. Thus, if a driver entered a race, they contributed to a team's WCC campaign, even if—as in the case of Pérez in Montreal in 2011, Wehrlein in Melbourne this year and Massa in Hungary this year—they only took part in a single session. The entire justification for changing the table is to simplify it, but doing so disregards a long-standing consensus that is largely regarded as inviolate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you even bother to look at the 2011 article before posting this? If you had, you would see that that article already incorporates a solution since back then our WCC tables never split up per drivers in the first place. Sauber never entered three cars for that weekend. They entered two car #16 and car #17. They just switched the drivers for one car later on. While occasionally team can enter more than two drivers during a weekend, the FIA never credits more than two cars with a result for the WCC. Pérez's result belongs in the WDC table.Tvx1 11:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Except now we're in a position where we treat them as separate entries in the driver table, even if it's an unintended consequence of the numbering system. Once again, this whole proposal is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It causes more problems than it solves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
As correctly noticed Tvx1, Perez is already omitted from the constructors' standings matrix and it will be fine for both Wehrlein & Massa. We don't have to cover all of the entered drivers in the constructors' standings, as it is not the purpose of the table and their withdrawal doesn't count to constructors' championship. We need to cover how the constructors got their place in the standings and amount of points. Easy. P.S. It is no a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as we can use suggested 2017 Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0-like system which you prefer to ignore. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It's definitely WP:IDONTLIKEIT because the only thing the proposal is trying to "fix" is the abundance of white spaces in the table. There is nothing that the proposed version does that the current version does not already do. Arguably it makes things more confusing because it's a solution in search of a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
How on earth is say the 2011 version more problematic than what we use now? It‘s no merely a case of “fixing an abudant amount of white space”. It’s a proposal to remove an unnecessary overcomplication which we created without any good reason or justification in the WCC tables in 2015. You’re the only one using WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments here. So far, you have not presented any coherent argument as to why it has suddenly become vital in 2015 to list which driver scored which points in the WCC tables.Tvx1 01:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I also like the proposal. I would prefer to retain the "car numbers" column simply for the ease of reference & jumping back to the WDC table. cherkash (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Cherkash — if you keep the column but cut the white space, it's confusing as to which car scored which result(s) for the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not: the "car numbers" column would allow one to easily jump to the WDC table and find out. cherkash (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Or, instead of relying on the reader to follow the link in order to make that distinction, you could make it explicit by leaving the empty spaces in the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Or you could finally accept that it just doesn’t matter to the WCC which driver scores which points. Most of the people in this discussion have replied that the propsal is better. As to which car scored the point, that would still be there as each team will retain two rows and the numbers are still attributed to the specific rows.Tvx1 12:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
And now we have a situation were the same number was actually used by different cars of one team in one season. This shows even more how senseless it is to split WCC results solely based on numbers.Tvx1 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Only if you're making a physical distinction between the cars and suggesting that the result achieved in the second car #26 would not have been achieved had the driver been in the first car #26. It's a distinction without a difference.

If you're so concerned with fixing the issues with the matrix, why aren't you looking at the other problems? For one, it lists the pole-sitter and the car that achieved the fastest lap, neither of which contribute to the WCC. Secondly, it lists the result achieved by each entry, but the WCC is based on the points score—wouldn't the matrix be better-served listing the points scored? After all, you're assuming that the reader knows the points value of each position (or is willing to scroll back up to the points overview) and you're asking them to take it on faith that everything adds up correctly. Something like this is what I am envisioning:

Pos. Constructor No. AUS
Australia
BHR
Bahrain
Points
1 Germany Mercedes 6 25 25 83
44 18 15
Pos. Constructor No. AUS
Australia
BHR
Bahrain
Points

This is much more user-friendly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No it's not a distinction without a difference. Different cars have different power unit quota. So yes, different results could be achieved depending on which car carries the #26. Anyway, I like your proposal, but I will note that results do matter to the WCC as well. In case of tie on points, the exact number of times a certain position is achieved determines the outcome.Tvx1 15:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
That's pure speculation. You have no way of knowing how Kvyat's results would have been affected by driving the other car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, if taking a penalty meant that different results were achieved than if there was no penalty, then surely a mid-season driver change would affect the team's potential to get a result. After all, Toro Rosso replaced the established Kvyat with the rookie Gasly in Malaysia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The obvious idea to me is to have the top row for the team's official number 1 car (always distinguished by the black T-cam and, if I'm not mistaken, being on the right hand side of the garage), and the team's official number 2 car (distinguished by the yellow T-cam), as classified by the FIA. For example, from this:

Pos. Constructor No. AUS
Australia
CHN
China
BHR
Bahrain
RUS
Russia
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
AZE
Azerbaijan
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
HUN
Hungary
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
MAL
Malaysia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points
6 Italy Toro Rosso 10 14 13 53
26 9 Ret 12 12 9 14dagger Ret Ret 16 15 11 12 12 Ret 10
39 13
55 8 7 Ret 10 7 6 Ret 8 Ret Ret 7 10 14 4 Ret Ret

To this:

Pos. Constructor AUS
Australia
CHN
China
BHR
Bahrain
RUS
Russia
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
AZE
Azerbaijan
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
HUN
Hungary
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
MAL
Malaysia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points
6 Italy Toro Rosso 8 7 Ret 10 7 6 Ret 8 Ret Ret 7 10 14 4 Ret Ret 10 53
9 Ret 12 12 9 14dagger Ret Ret 16 15 11 12 12 Ret 14 13 13

Sr88, talk. 22:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

We've always tended to shy away from emphasising the T-cam colours. While it is an "official" designation, a lot of teams tend to treat both cars equally, so emphasising the T-cam colours has led to concerns that we over-state or misrepresent a team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Sr88, it doesn't really matter which car scored which results. They are all equally valid. Thus it would be much simpler to simply list their best result in the first row and their other result in the second row per race. Like this:
Pos. Constructor AUS
Australia
CHN
China
BHR
Bahrain
RUS
Russia
ESP
Spain
MON
Monaco
CAN
Canada
AZE
Azerbaijan
AUT
Austria
GBR
United Kingdom
HUN
Hungary
BEL
Belgium
ITA
Italy
SIN
Singapore
MAL
Malaysia
JPN
Japan
USA
United States
MEX
Mexico
BRA
Brazil
ABU
United Arab Emirates
Points
6 Italy Toro Rosso 8 7 12 10 7 6 Ret 8 16 15 7 10 12 4 14 13 10 53
9 Ret Ret 12 9 14dagger Ret Ret Ret Ret 11 12 14 Ret Ret Ret 13
Tvx1 00:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Or you could stop looking for a problem to fit your solution and leave it as it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems that you are the only one here who rooting for the pointless number column which makes wide table even more wider. Which driver scored certain result doesn't matter much to the general purpose of the table. Last Tvx1 proposal will be a great solution. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that, as pointed out, a driver change has the potential to affect a team's championship campaign. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any point in your last comment Prisonermonkeys: we are talking about the results (i.e., what happened), and not about any interpretation on what might have happened under different circumstances, etc. So would you care to explain what you meant? cherkash (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Still assuming bad faith, eh? I'm not looking for a problem for my solution. There is a problem and I have started a discussion to solve that problem. During that discussion multiple users have acknowledged that the problem does exist and a solution would be welcome. So it would most respectful now if you'd stop accusing other of bad faith and if you'd start collaborating to find a solution instead of behaving like you're the one who decides what happens and what not.Tvx1 16:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have already found a solution: doing nothing. The problem is overstated. And you still haven't addressed my point that a mid-season driver change has the potential to alter a team's championship. Your solution removes the visual representation of that change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Prior to 2014 we also haven't a visual representation of the driver change. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Given that multiple contributors agree with me, the problem isn't overstated at all. As for your second point. The current table does not give a visual representation of the potential of a driver change to alter the WCC. It's shows one took place, but that really belongs in other tables, not how it was different than had the original driver kept driving the car. The table should focus on what happened, not what might have happened. The only important information is which result they achieved at each race (not who scored those results for them) and in which position they finished the championship.Tvx1 13:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree. The discussion on "what might have happened" sounds like a red herring to me. It has absolutely no bearing on what this table does and/or is intended to represent: what actually happened in the WCC, without any speculation or consideration of what might have been.
I actually like the simple format of having two lines per team, with the two cars' results sorted in the order of their finishing positions. Coincidentally, this is the format FIA uses in their official "Constructors' Championship" sheets they publish after every GP. And although I don't want to use this as an argument to support our choice (I personally don't like argument of the type "the FIA does it this way"), it seems streamlined and logical to me, and so I think it's a good way for us to present the material in this table as well. cherkash (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I never intended to use the FIA as an argument either. I just mentioned it as an indication as to how important the real world considers the information who scored which points for the WCC. The only other source I have found that has a complete WCC matrix doesn't split for all the drivers either.Tvx1 15:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
And now we have a situation were the same driver actually used different numbers during a season. This would essentially mean that in the current system we would end up making a split solely on numbers and not merely the drivers. That to me is just a pointless overcomplication to include information which is trivial to the WCC.Tvx1 20:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
In this isolated incident, yes. But I don't think we can disregard the effect that a driver change has on a team. Especially when we take the trouble to detail the changes in the entry table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
But the effect of a driver changes isn't shown in any way in the WCC be with or without the split on numbers. The WCC just lists bare results. And it isn't an effect you can quantify. There is absolutely no way to tell whether a team would have achieved better results had they not have to change drivers. It's pretty lame excuse to block a change of the WCC table. Any information on driver changes should be in the prose not in the WCC table.Tvx1 13:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I would dispute that entirely. Renault replaced Palmer with Sainz in Austin; Sainz finished seventh, for which he scored six points and Renault passed Haas in the WCC standings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
So yes, this is what happened. No one contests this. How is this related to the actual changes to the format of the table that are proposed here? cherkash (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Because the matrix is a visual representation of a team's championship campaign. A driver change fundamentally affects that. When Sainz replaced Palmer, he immediately scored enough points to see the team pass Haas in the WCC standings. If the table is limited to two rows, the driver change is unclear and thus its effect on the team's WCC campaign is lost. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that is a completely wrong synthesis by you. You are concluding that certain events result from one change only, when there is actually no way to know that. You have not demonstrated in any way that it was merely the driver change which allowed the team to score those points and not, for instance, the events in the race. How on earth do you now for certain that they would not have been able to score those points if Palmer had still been in the car? It's simple you don't. The WCC does not in any way give a visual representation of "a potential to score better results through a driver change". The impact you keep referring to is purely hypothetical. We just don't know whether the team would have scored worse results if they hadn't changed driver. And it's not the WCC matrix' duty to provide hypothetical information. If you want to discuss Sainz' performance with Renault, that should be done in the prose. Right now it's dead obvious that you are literally the only person considering this split to be vital. You are really clutching a straws to prevent this change and I think it's high time for you to acknowledge the real world's view on this information.Tvx1 12:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Well said, Tvx1. cherkash (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
And you would be the "real world"? You, who selectively applies his own arguments? You, who ignores sources that are inconvenient when they are pointed out to you? You, who goes out if his way to shut discussions down? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Pot, black, kettle...Tvx1 12:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tvx1, it seems your proposal has received sufficient support, is logical, and (also importantly) the single opposing opinion is relying on synthesis which is not really supported by sources. Would you care to go ahead and start implementing it? cherkash (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.Tvx1 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Aye, no point dragging another discussion out. Consensus is with the change. QueenCake (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I know I am late to this discussion, but I also support Tvx1's proposal. It is clear from reading through this discussion that this is the consensus, so may I ask why this change hasn't yet been implemented on the 2017 F1 article? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipediaeditperson Doesn't happen magically - someone will have to do it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter, I understand that. My point was that there were several editors who have taken the time to support this idea, and yet none of these editors have made changes to the current articles. I was merely interested to know whether;
a) There was some other reason why we cannot yet make these edits, and if not;
b) Will this be the favoured approach for future articles.
Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipediaeditperson Tvx1 appeared to be waiting for a close on WP:ANRFC - I pinged him saying that he could do it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I give it about six months before we're reverting the changes. After all, nobody has addressed the problem with rearranging the matrix. Tvx1's proposal orders the results based on the best result first for each round. So if Car A finishes 7th and Car B 8th in round one, Car A's result is listed first for round one. But if Car A finishes 9th in round two and Car B is 6th, Car B's result is listed first. So the top row for the team will be 7th and then 6th, while the bottom row will be 8th and then 9th when the actual results were 7th and 9th and then 8th and 6th.

The problem is that the WCC matrix is constructed exactly the same as the WDC matrix, but in Tvx1's proposal the implication is that the WCC is scored differently to the WDC when it is not. The advantage of keeping the car number column is that it clearly indicates which car scored which results and it keeps the two matrices consistent. As Tvx1 said in his very opening comments, 2017 saw a team contract four different drivers, which makes it "unnecessarily confusing". However, this completely contradicts his argument at a long-running debate on the 2017 talk page. When Kvyat rejoined Toro Rosso halfway through 2017, he did not drive his original car; he drove Carlos Sainz Jr's car as he inherited Sainz Jr's engine allocation.

The rules clearly separate the cars into two distinct entities so at the very least, the results matrix should, too, lest we contradict other parts of the article and imply the WCC is scored differently. I'm betting none of this came up at ANFRC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

None of what you complain about affects the WCC. The discussion on the 2017 talk page deals with drivers, not constructors. Multiple users have explained you countless of times that it just doesn’t matter to the WCC which driver scored which exact result. The issue was more than adressed, you just don’t want to accept it. Also both championships ARE scored seperately (e.g. in 2007 McLaren did not receice any WCC points in Hungary, while their drivers did for the WDC and 1997 Michael Schumacher’s results only counted towards the WCC). Lastly, WP:AN/RFC is not a venue for discussion but merely for posting a neutral request to close a discussion.Tvx1 02:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say "separately". I said "differently". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Really? You’re going to reduce this to semantics now? I can do even better then. You didn’t say anything, because we didn’t speak with each other. You only typed some words. Anyway, name it what you like the championships are not scored in the same way (save for the points allocation for the positions). In the WDC, every entrant gets one result per race and a total of all those results is made at the end of the season. In the WCC, each entrant gets two results per race with a total of all those pairs of results is made at the end of the season. Moreover during the sport’s history there have been seasons where not all the race results counted towards the championship. And as I explained before, there have been cases of certain results not counting towards the WDC or the WCC.Tvx1 02:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Indication of point for fastest lap[edit]

As noted above, a consensus should be found how to indicate a WC point given to a driver for the fastest lap of the race in the period when this was the case (1950-1959). So far, the point simply appears in the result table in the race reports, without a specific note. Formula E articles (such as 2015 Berlin ePrix) have a note added, explaining which points were awarded for what. I feel that it would be a good idea to add this to F1 articles as well in order to avoid confusion (such as my confusion with 1950 British Grand Prix noted above). Thoughts? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

We probably should have a footnote. I'm not fussed whether we use a numeric indicator (like the Formula E articles) or just an asterisk. Noting that the Formula E articles need to use numeric indicators because there are usually at least two footnotes (one for pole position and one for fastest lap), whereas in the Formula One articles there will usually be only one. DH85868993 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Some additional info: we typically use numeric indicators for footnotes in modern race result (and qualifying) tables - see 2017 United States Grand Prix, but we have used symbols (e.g. an asterisk) in some older races - see 1958 Italian Grand Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
My suggested format for the footnote is "Includes 1 point for fastest lap" or appropriate variant thereof, e.g. "Includes ​17 point for shared fastest lap" in 1954 British Grand Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Pyrope 15:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. It looks like there's consensus for the footnotes to be added. I'll probably do it some time over the weekend (unless someone else beats me to it). With regard to indicator format, I'll probably go for numeric indicators, for consistency with the modern race report articles. DH85868993 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. DH85868993 (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the teams and drivers table of post-2013 season articles[edit]

For post-2013 articles, should each unique entry in the Teams and Drivers table be defined as a driver/team/number/car combination or as a driver/team/number combination? FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

For this purpose, car is defined as the entity that receives allocations for power units, gearboxes, and tyres. This question has arisen from the series of driver replacements at Toro Rosso in the latter half of the 2017 campaign. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

I am in support of an entry being defined as simply a driver/team/number combination. My reasoning behind this is that in pre-2014 articles, drivers were only listed twice if they changed number or team. Admittedly it could be argued that in pre-2014 articles, numbers were synonymous with cars. However, in 2002, the power unit and gearbox regulations did not exist, yet as you can see from the table below, each unique table entry is based on a unique driver/team/number combination (Alex Yoong is only listed once);

Italy KL Minardi Asiatech Minardi-Asiatech PS02 Asiatech AT02 M 22 Malaysia Alex Yoong 1–12, 15–17
United Kingdom Anthony Davidson 13–14
23 Australia Mark Webber All

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

So ... what, if anything, changes? You've given us half of what we need. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you are misunderstanding that example and I have already explained that to you. The way drivers were listed pre-2013 had nothing to do with numbers. You are putting way too much emphasis on these numbers. Even if your above example didn't contain any numbers the drivers would still be presented like they are right there. We have always preferred to provide our readers a full chronology of the driver changes using the rounds column as the differentiator. Also it's not up to us to define an entry. That's up to the sport's governing body.Tvx1 15:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
On the official F1 entry list, the FIA make no mention of cars, so clearly their definition of an entry does not involve cars. The entry list does contain headers for the driver number, driver name and team name (as well as chassis and engine name), so the entry will remain unchanged unless one of these change, hence supporting the driver/team/number combination. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The FIA entry list does not list in-season replacements, so it is of no value to our argument. And you're making your own synthesis of what you think an entry is. What we in reality should do is look wat the regulations define as an entry. But as I have explained before multiple times I doesn't even matter. Even if we answer this question it does still not help us to decide how we should present our content to our readers. Even if the official definition does not include a car it does not forbid us to group drivers by who they replaced and when. The real question we have been debating about is how do we most accurately and clearly tell our readers who replaced whom and where during the course of the season in question.Tvx1 16:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The official FIA entry list is changed each race to incorporate any changes, but the point I was trying to make was that the only thing that differentiates one entry from another is the driver/team/number combination, and this was in response to your comment that "it's not up to us to define an entry", hence why I used the official FIA entry list as an example. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't and it doesn't yield us any helpful information. I don't know where you get that idea.This is how it looked during the Hungarian GP weekend. No sign of Lance Stroll on the official entry list. The official entry list merely lists the entries at the start of the season and isn't changed at all once the season is underway. You're just synthesizing what you think it tells us an entry us. One could easily think the number column away and you'd still have the same entry list with the same amount of content in the same order. Most importantly, the FIA entry list NEVER includes the whole set of drivers and their in-season replacements. As a result, it does not help us any way with regards to our tables which do include those whole sets. As I said countless times before, the definition of an entry doesn't matter to our problem.Tvx1 15:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Tvx1, I believe that Wikipediaeditperson is referring to the entry lists for individual races, such as this document published before the 2017 United States Grand Prix, and not the season entry list. This document does show Hartley's entry. However, due to the short notice on which he raced, the entry list for the 2017 Hungarian Grand Prix does not show Paul di Resta as an entrant. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@FactualCollector7d1, I was actually referring to both entry lists - as you can see from this updated entry list from September, it has Gasly at Toro Rosso, and as you say the entry list for each race shows much the same. @Tvx1, I fear you may have misunderstood the question being asked at this RFC - we are not discussing what defines an entry into the F1 championship, the question is actually asking what defines a unique entry to the 'Teams and Drivers' table. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Jesus, you're still debating this? It's been three months! You're running the risk of a knee-jerk reaction (albeit the slowest recorded reaction) to a very unusual situation and one with the potential to affect dozens of articles. All of the fears of an unreadable table, drive-by edit wars and mass confusion have amounted to nothing. Just leave it as it is because if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As I already stated at the 2017 article's talk page, the question posed here is not the issue that was discussed over there.Tvx1 21:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to see some kind of outline as to how the proposed changes would affect articles so that people actually know what they're discussing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Four wheel steering on the Benetton B193[edit]

Our article on the Benetton B193 has a paragraph on its use four wheel steering. However it's rather confusing and does not quite supported by the sources which are cited. Two sources are being cited. One from Motorsport Magazine and one from F1 Fanatic. The Motorsport Magazine article claims it was used during the last four races (one of which was won by a B193 driven by Michael Schumacher) of the 1993 season, while the F1 Fanatic source claims it wasn't used in any race at all. Our own article morphs this into a third version where the system was used during the last two races of that season. The sources also contradict each other with regards to Schumacher's thoughts about the system. F1 Fanatic claims he didn't think it brought a benefit while Motorsport Magazine claims he thought it did. So what happened in reality?Tvx1 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

British Formula One Series[edit]

Back in April 2016, the "19YY British Formula One season" articles were moved to "19YY British Formula One Championship", as part of a general "xxx season" to "xxx Championship" migration. But the main article for the series is still at British Formula One Series. Does anyone have any good evidence that "Series" was part of the official name of the championship? Motor Sport suggests that the overall name of the series was the "(Aurora AFX) British F1 Championship" - see 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982 (and they don't just call everything "Championship" by default - the "Other 1980 Championships" list contains "1980 Campeonato de Espana Turismos Series", for example). In the absence of any good evidence that "Series" was part of the official name, I propose the following renames:

Any objections? DH85868993 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"Championship" seems to be the best name to use by default since it most accurately reflects the structure of the competition. I've only ever seen "Series" used instead of "Championship" when it is incorporated as part of the competition name, such as 2016 GP2 Series. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, if there are no objections within the next 12 hours, I'll make the moves. (I realise this discussion has only been open for a couple of days and some interested parties may not have seen it, but I think they're fairly uncontroversial moves, and easily undone if someone objects later). DH85868993 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that it’s New Year’s eve, don’t you? During the next twelve hours Wikipedia will probably see its lowest activity of the year.Tvx1 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did realize it was New Year's Eve. DH85868993 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The article has been moved. The category has been listed for speedy renaming and should be moved within the next 48 hours or so. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The category has now also been moved. DH85868993 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Results matrix templates[edit]

I've just put all the infrastructure needed for the upcoming championship at F1 2018. To do this, I needed to copy and paste the matrices from Template:F1 Drivers Standings and Template:F1 Constructors Standings into F1 2017, and then replace the templates with blank matrices that I made a few days ago. This required me to move roughly 45,000kB of data, and since I edit from a mobile device, I barely made it (though I appreciate that desktop users would have a much easier time). Having done this, I am left asking why we bother. The template system is a good system—it prevents drive-by edits designed to vandalise the matrices. But why do we then edit the matrices directly into and article once the year is out and replace the template with a blank one? Surely the most straightforward thing to do would be to create one or two templates for each year. Instead of having Template:F1 Drivers Standings we would use (something like) Template:2017 F1 Drivers Standings and then when the year is done create a new template with blank matrices at (again something like) Template:2018 F1 Drivers Standings. That way, we only ever edit one template and save all the mucking about at the end of the year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a much much easier way to move the content from the template to the article. Substituting the template.Tvx1 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, if we have separate templates for every season, then we would end up with a series of templates, each of which are only transcluded in a single article, which would probably eventually lead to someone nominating them for deletion. The main (only?) justification for the current season tables to be in templates (which are only transcluded in a single article) is to minimize vandalism - previous season's results tables are vandalized at a vastly lower rate than the current season's tables were before we moved to using templates. DH85868993 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Formula One" "Grands Prix"[edit]

We have discussed quite a lot about naming conventions in season articles lately. I am surprised to see that apparently no one has ever raised the question if the list List of Formula One Grand Prix winners should get a different name. The Indy 500 winners from 1950 to 1960 are listed here. However, as probably all of you know, the Indy 500 was never a Formula One race and never a Grand Prix. It was simply part of the World Championship for Drivers. My stance on this: Changing the name of the list (which is a featured list no less!) might be too confusing for lesser informed readers. Omitting the Indy winners also seems strange. How about adding information about this in the lead and adding a source? Speaking of sources, how is this a featured list even though practically none of the statistics have a source to go with them? I will try to get to work on that bit asap... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We could make the name somewhat more accurate (and not too much longer/more confusing imo) by changing it to "List of Formula One World Championship race winners", where "Formula One World Championship" is shorthand for "the championship which has been called the Formula One World Championship since 1981 but was called the World Championship for Drivers from 1950 to 1980". Whether or not we rename the article, the scope should definitely be identified in the lead. The same issue also applies to numerous other "List of Formula One xxx" articles, although I agree it's more acute for this article due to the inclusion of the words "Grand Prix" in the title. DH85868993 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have expanded the lead for now to include some more context. If someone can find a better source for the last claim of the lead, please add it, wtf1.com is certainly not the best of sources... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)