Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 8

Drivers' Table
Hello all, I've been looking at the drivers' table on the article and the discussion on the talk page about the table, and although I agree with the way it's organized, I think that the fonts and the flags are a bit small. Compared to other seasons, the flags are much larger compared to this season. Various test edits (through the "preview" option) yield nothing different, so I was wondering if there was any way to largen the flags and text in the table. Many thanks, Aerospeed (Talk) 01:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The flags have to be sized that way to ensure that the flags and the driver names align properly. The only way to increase the size of the flags is to increase the font size accordingly.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 01:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned that Aerospeed, not sure why it was made so small and the above makes no sense to me so I've fixed it in accordance to previous charting and I hope it is to your liking. (*That being said, I have kept the font the same size as I see no problem) Joetri10 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * PM here (I'm posting from a public terminal, so I haven't logged in) - I have restored the smaller flag sizes. Making them bigger has pushing things out of alignment in a mobile browser. 116.50.58.180 (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Correction; 'your' mobile browser. I just checked on 3 different mobile devices and all is well. You seem to have multiple issues with Wikipedia on your phone, I suggest you fix that problem before blaming Wikipedia. Joetri10 (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. You cannot support edits that you *know* make the table difficult to read for some readers, especially when the alternative does not make the table difficult for you to read. Nor can you justify that decision with "it is just you bad luck if you cannot read it". I have checked my mobile device several times in the recent past - when we were trying to iron out the kinks in the sortable table. There is nothing wrong with it. I have tried looking at the page with other phones that are the same model as mine, and the problem persists. All of the evidence suggests the issue has to do with the model of phone itself, which is not something that we can correct, other than to take it into consideration in the coding.


 * So what is more important: bigger flags in the table for some people, or a table that is readable for others? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are going to the increase the flag sizes of one part, then you would need to increase the flag sizes of the other part too. So, Joetri, the table looked odd on my computer with the lack of consistency with flag sizes (and definitely not an acceptable change).  In designing the table, I recall looking at it on my phone with flags not of the same size – and the table had issues that affected the readability (good-sized inconsistent gaps between drivers in individual cells).  You can still see the flags clearly enough.  This is a technical issue rather than an aesthetic one.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 12:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So lets nutshell this. You spent 4 months trying to create a table that has since now features little change yet created for consistency however you managed to fuck up a simple icon sizing that actually is on 'every other page!', why aren't you crying about that PM?. These icons being this size make it look ugly and I seriously want to know what sort of potatoes you're using because I also looked at it with two of my friends phone and I still saw no problem. Now I did notice when changing the coding that the table has been coded different because ???? (profit?) so that is probably your issue. And also "lack of consistency with flag sizes", Is that some kind of joke? That sounds like a direct opinion on your preference of symmetry. I've never know something to get fucked so badly. Congratulations! Have a golden star because you guys clearly have no idea what you're actually doing. Joetri10 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You did not increase all the flag sizes, and hence, the table looked unbalanced. I do prefer symmetry, because it makes things look balanced and organised.  The table is consistent within itself and, across Wikipedia, sizes of flags is not and never will be a topic for major concern.  And I think it looks more organised with the flags this size, as the flags are aligned heightwise with the text.  The only way to increase the flag size properly is to increase the font size accordingly (which I am okay with), otherwise the table will look odd, especially on mobiles (with an issue either you cannot see or do not find to be an issue).    — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 15:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * On what Wikipedia site is this table consistent with all the rest? Ignoring the babble about correct listing methods, no other F1 table features a sortable function. What I did with the flags is what has been the norm before. Each flag on this page has the coding flagicon|***|size=18px whereas on the others the 'size' is not present. What I did was delete that value reverting it back to the default size across the other pages. The only change that I made was on the SUI flag which I valued at 19px because of shape difference (It looked too far apart from the word). If doing that is what made it off balanced then that can be fixed much easier then reverting completely.
 * There is absolutely nothing consistent technical/coding related here in regards to other years and having the flags at such a dimension still kept symmetry (If not better) You are ignoring absolutely everything that has happened previous because of complete pure opinion. It's not even me that brought up this problem to begin with. Also make everything you want to say to me public or don't say it at all. Joetri10 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because being shouty and righteous doesn't work as well unless you have an audience :)
 * Getting back to the original point and leaving out the backstory being dragged in - is there a significant problem with increasing the font size of the table to match larger flags? --Falcadore (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with increasing the font size, but it might take a few attempts to get it right. But then Joetri will probably complain that the font sizes on different tables do not match and that it is inconsistent and whatnot (that was a joke, don't take it seriously). Anyway Joetri, this table is an individual table. The flags need to be the same size within the table because otherwise it looks unbalanced (I can't tell whether you understood that or not) (also, yeah, the Swiss flag is a pain). We haven't yet got round to changing any other tables. Whether we will is a different question entirely and not one to be discussed here. — Gyaro –  Maguus — 19:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is why do larger flags require larger font when in every page previous it's been accepted and again I reiterate, why is this table coded differently then the others aren't because that could be the reason why even the slightest change puts it all in whack?. Again, I'm not the one who brought up the issue in the first place. Joetri10 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * With larger flags the lines become misaligned (as in the flags of the drivers and the drivers themselves won't line up properly). With a larger font size, the lines would be realigned properly.  Due to the way the table is constructed, on mobiles, changing the flag sizes of the constructors alters the top lines of the drivers cells – so that quarter-line-breaks appear.  This is why all the flags are the same size at the moment.  These issues are not found in the old tables because the old tables do not contain line breaks.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 22:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then fix that instead? Joetri10 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't you think we have tried? When the sortable table was created, it went through several drafts to try and sort out the issues that arose. The problem with the line breaks was one of the bigger ones that needed to be fixed.


 * I do not understand why it is so important that the flags should appear larger in the table. It is a purely cosmetic issue, and edits should not be made on the basis of aesthetics alone - especially when doing so will make the table unreadable for some users. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You were the ones screwing around trying to make a simple table complicated. Don't yell at me for wanting something to look nice and consistent when you was the one who for some reason felt having a sortable table was the correct way to go. I'd rather just have the damn thing in order of numbers than the mess you have created due to your major BRRR affiliated thoughts.  *Joe Tri  10_  03:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It works but I don't like it. It looks... wrong. (On PC anyway. On mobile it looks fine.)  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 02:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks wrong to me too, I personally don't like fixing the issue with even more breakage of reasoning. I'd rather we fix the construction of the table then make the font bigger but if PM is going to cry about it then seriously, I'll forget it. This was Aerospeeds request to begin with and he seemed to have fled.  *Joe Tri  10_  03:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not "having a cry about it" - just arguing that having a table that works for everybody is a higher priority than having a table that looks pretty for most people. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And all I'm saying is that what we work so hard on should look respectable and consistent but fine, whatever.  *Joe Tri  10_  03:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Respectable"? How on earth does having smaller flags prevent the article from looking "respectable"?


 * You regularly argue in favour of these entirely subjective qualities when putting forward your case, but you have not once given any way of measuring them. Here, you ask for "respectable" edits, but you do not tell us what you would consider a "respectable" edit to be. Likewise, when we were trying to resolve the ordering of the table, you kept calling for "responsible" and "professional" edits without describing either. And then, when the edits that are made are not to your satisfaction, you become disruptive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I consider respectable, responsible and professional edits as that which gives consistency to design, opinion and the presentation of relevant information. respectable in the sense that it follows the previous, something we can be proud of that hasn't been too forced with subjective opinion that otherwise results in moving further away than the original simplistic idea of the matter. Responsible for representing the sport and Wikipedia in the upmost best way we can, having a page that one can come too and gather as much information as they may require; small or otherwise. Professional in the ideal that all that is done has purpose other than opinion, something that has an underline meaning, a reasoning, a more serious purpose then a latter and the consistent of said purpose.
 * I think the table has been poorly designed, I think it was done to make people feel like progress was made when in reality it wasn't and I feel like it has then broken certain aspects that otherwise had no problem to begin. I was not the one who brought up the issue of the flag icons and this has not been the only page I have edited that has featured such discussion. The table is doing the most underline purpose it is supposed to, it shows the team information/drivers and whilst that is fine, I'd find that other sites have a much better representing manner giving more easier to understand information. Whether that matters to you such Wikipedians is your choice. The flag issue may seem small and silly and that's because it is but again I reiterate, I am not the one who brought it up, I recall seeing it being brought up whilst doing the tables and I doubt it will be the last. I am not to blame here for your own problems. The table would break? give yourself a cookie because that's your doing. To actually realize that you guys are the ones complaining about the flags being bigger because of your own breakage is laughable when this was never an issue at all in every page before. I see a molehill, go make it a mountain.  *Joe  Tri  10_  15:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no perfect design. The one we've got is the best we can do. Any changes to it disrupt it and make it look broken or even further out of place than it does already. It looks respectable enough to me, flag sizes don't change that. I think if the flags were not consistently sized, or if the flags make the table look broken, it won't look respectable. — Gyaro –  Maguus — 12:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say that in the current sizing the Malaysian flag looks all blurry. Tvx1 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Joetri10, but I think you are setting a standard that is way too high when you are behaving as if an article that has full-sized flags is professional, responsible and respectable, but a subsequent article that is identical in content, presentation, and purpose is not professional, responsible or respectable simply because it uses flags that are slightly smaller than those used in the previous article.


 * It is somewhat ironic that you think this way, given that by restoring the flags to their full size, you created a situation where the table was unreadable for some people, and you were quite happy to let this continue on the basis that it must be their problem and that they should just live with it, even though edits that would make the table readable for that minority would not break the table for you. This attitude is not professional, responsible or respectable, much less all three.


 * And blaming everybody else for forming a bad consensus simply because you disagreed with said consensus will get you nowhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of that said problem until you mentioned it, I was hesitant in belief because I remember your past notices on how your phone acts on Wikipedia. I have used many phones to check the condition if my edit was used and I found no issue. You and Maguus however do and now obviously it's your own doing as the table is coded differently then the past so no, I was not "quite happy" in keeping it that way, I just wanted more objection then from one person who's already expressed issue on mobile devices. In-fact I can remember previously that I defended the argument of looking after the page for mobile device users. I'm not going to sit here and call myself the best or even better then you at knowing how Wikipedia's coding works however blaming me for something that you originally created is something I'm not going to hold my hands up for. My direction of reasoning behind Wikipedia has always been to be as helpful as possible whilst also for it looking in good standard. I'm also not going to claim that my attitude is that of the white knights however I find you out of everyone the most difficult to work with. at least people like Maguus explain(ed) things in more detail, something you never do.
 * Everyone but about 2 people even including yourself at one point disagreed with our now consensus and the only reason we have it is because there was no way of ending the discussion with agreements. I'm very happy to sit and say that this is your fault because no one asked for this formatted table. This is certainly not my problem. *kudos on ignoring Tvx1 also.  *Joe Tri  10_  01:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess we now know what this is really about. I suggest you stop beating the dead horse, then drop the stick and walk away. Wikipedia is not a battleground. So do whatever you need to do, and tell yourself whatever it takes to convince yourself to move on. You are holding up the article, and rather than working on improving it, we are forced to run around in circles while you raise hell over the tiniest and least-significant details of the content, all because you are sour that you did not get your way when the table order was being discussed. I strongly suspect that this whole sorry affair never would have happened if the issue of how best to arrange the table had never been brought up and the table simply added to the article.


 * I strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to editing and what the purpose of collaborative editing is. You are arrogant, aggressive, argumentative, prone to angry outbursts when you do not get your way, deliberately prevent progress from happening in discussions, and hold grudges weeks and months after the fact. If you are going to continue with this kind of behaviour, there is no place for you here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So let me get this right just for my understanding. You ask me what encourages my intent and then you flip it to accuse me of disruptive original content? and who's holding up the article? This is a cosmetic discussion about flag icons which features the (unfortunate) underlined cause of a different codded chart to past articles and has been created through abnormal expression (of fix). "Reconsider your approach to editing and what the purpose of collaborative editing is" - So you dismiss my views as progressive disruption whilst ignoring Tvx1 and Aerospeeds involvement and otherwise not collaborating with Maguus's expressions that involve descriptive expression on points of purpose by instead shoving even more hotlinks in my face and calling me an outcast quite frankly.
 * I'm not sure what you think we're discussing because if a conversation about flags is your idea of "holding up an article" then that is a serious one track mind and I'm not sure what your game is but don't ask me questions and then flip it on it's head. I never meant to hold up the original discussion to create the table but I knew if I let it go then it would turn out basically like it is now. I was just simply one who didn't leave or flip-flop.
 * And honestly if you think I somehow devised a plan to get someone to comment about flags, then for me to act like a dumbass about mobile device resolution problems, cause a stir to get people involved to explain specifically why it broke (Yet somehow knowing prior the root cause) the table only to finally get another relevant chance to whine that I didn't get my way months before then it's no wonder you were paranoid enough to start an investigation against me of being a sock of some random person. I'm rather quite bemused right now
 * To be fair, instead of complaining about why and how, one of us could have changed the coding of the chart and made the flags bigger therefor solving both issues. Yes I would be aware that then the sortable option would be problematic but it's already by default listing them in your original desired way anyway so every party wins but no instead you just call me an asshole and to gtfo instead.  *Joe Tri  10_  04:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay you two, calm down. Take a day off this discussion (it worked for me amazingly in the discussion that lead to the table being formed as it is (here is the full explanation of why I did that)). If need be, come back tomorrow and discuss again with a clear head. Joetri, from my view as co-designer of the current table, meddling with it will either disrupt the table so it would look wrong on some devices, or it will straight-up make it look bad (like the example in my sandbox). That is why I am against the changes you want, and also why PM and Falcadore are as well. Tvx1 has made a good point, but until a better solution comes along than increase the flag sizes and/or increase the font sizes, it is not fixable. Also, PM, well done for dragging this argument down into an explanation of why Joetri is a disruptive editor. Your last post didn't actually further the discussion in the slightest and you really ought to try to ensure your arguments are not hypocritical (I admit, I am a good hypocrite myself). What you wrote was only going to get the response that Joetri gave you. And to be fair Joetri, you aren't exactly helping the situation yourself. Be more inventive and try to come up with more innovative solutions to the problem at hand. But, as I said, not today, both of you, I advise a short wikibreak. — Gyaro –  Maguus — 15:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How is this for compromise? It's not sortable but it shouldn't break with the big icons, it's in constructer order which was defaulted in the discussion before and it looks better (Opinion). It's also in the style of previous table's (Missing free practice drivers/can be added) so it keeps with consistency. Whilst doing this I found the older tables construction suffered breakage when viewed in a smaller window even with smaller flags (I get what you mean now regarding mobile devices) So any consideration or have I wasted my time? (*I am well aware it is missing the hidden table containing information regarding reserve drivers, that obviously needs adding)

 *Joe Tri  10_  23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, it is exactly what we had two months ago? Fantastic - after everything we went through to try and get a resolution, we are now back at square one so that we can have larger flags in the table. Because that's the priority.


 * I am opposed to the above because I think it needlessly abandons the sortable function, which I think certainly adds value to the article (it is even something I would add to previous articles; I think it is that useful). I think the above is a solution that is trying to create a problem that needs solving. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What an absolute shocking and unexpected answer. You are against something that otherwise fixes more problems then the previous has created. Weren't you one who was against the sortable function to begin with anyway when I originally mentioned it before anyone else? Oh but wait, that's because I brought it up didn't I, Hahaha oh silly foolish Joe. You then again was apposed to it when burgring brought it up so why are you even complaining, this table was YOUR IDEA to start with. I admit I'm reverting my own opinion previous but only to fix issues that Tvx1 and areospeed noted.  *Joe  Tri  10_  00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What problems does it fix? A consensus you don't like and flags that are too small?


 * Yes, I originally supported the idea of the above table. But I was subsequently convinced by other editors that a table with a sortable function was a better way forward. Once again, you fail to recognise that other editors can persuade us to change our minds. For some reason, you seem to think that the only way to get anything done is to rigidly stick to your position and browbeat everyone into submission.


 * My support of the sortable table over yours has nothing to do with the fact that you proposed this table, and everything to do with the merits of it. The sortable table is better in every way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you went with it because it was happening anyway. I like having a sortable table, I think its a cool idea but it causes problems that others have mentioned. You seem to be ignoring the 100th time that I have mentioned that this isn't my original idea. If we could fix the issues with the sortable option then I'd fully support it  *Joe Tri  10_  01:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Optimizing teams and drivers table
Hi. I noticed that, in the "Signed teams and drivers" section, you're using no-breaking spaces to make sure the table doesn't have any line breaks. It works as intended, but it makes it look a little messy and more difficult to edit in source mode, so I was wondering if the use of  had been considered. I've tested it, and it works as all the no-breaking spaces do, in that it prevents the table from having any line breaks. Is there a specific reason we're not using that style, or should I go ahead and change it? --User: Kris159 (talk – legacy) 13:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The no-breaking spaces were used because nowrap didn't work properly on mobiles in way we were trying to use them at the time, while simple no-breaking spaces worked perfectly (the nowrap around the MP4-29 works as intended though). There were two issues, both concerning the mobile view of the table – the flags didn't obey the nowraps (sorted out by placement in own columns) and, more crucially, that the nowrap meant that the text in the columns overlapped into other columns.  This is why only a single nowrap appears in the table – on the MP4-29 cell – where the text would not overlap into another cell.  I don't know whether what you are doing would solve the issue, but bare in mind, both official names of Force India and Mercedes have a single nsbps intentionally left out to decrease the width of the mobile table.  So you would have to work around that.  Feel free to test it again, but this time in a sandbox that shows you how it looks on mobile view.  If it works and decreases the byte size of the table, then great, put it in; if not, leave it be.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 18:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken boxes
While we are on the subject of broken table codes, the season template at the very top of the page does not appear properly on mobile devices. The template and the link to the F1 Portal are supposed to be contained within a box, but the left margins cross over. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously a nowrap issue again. Enough to go to WP:VPT (or better) about?  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 22:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The results matrices also do it, with the top of the matrix forced down the page to line up with the adjacent infobox showing the key. But I do not know enough about the problem to go to VPT - I can only describe what I see. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've also found that transparent or 0px-width cell borders do not work on mobile. That may be the issue on the matrices.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Scrap that, it is flags that are the problem on mobile. Considered to have a 1 px width if in a column without text, if my eyesight is correct.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 23:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's certainly enough to go WT:VPT. There clearly is a bug with the flags. Unfortunately I have to admit I'm not sure I can accurately (specifically the technical part) describe the problem either. Tvx1 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I might do it tomorrow or the day after. There are actually two things to say; the flags and the nowraps.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 00:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

DRS change
I cannot find any mention of the increased size of the DRS slot. Looking at the official regulations I think I see that it is a maximum of 65mm but I'm no expert at reading and understanding those things. I know it is bigger because my eyes have seen it, the commentary briefly mentioned it, and the official F1 website says "The DRS slot is also bigger than in 2013".

Anyone care to add something with a definite number to the page? Thanks. --SmartShark (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It would need a reference, plus a justification (ie why it was changed). And, like you sat, a definite number, as we would need to know the dimensions in 2014 compared to 2013. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Maldonado didn't qualify
Maldonado didn't qualify. He wasn't inside the 107% rule nor set a time. His result in the driver championship should indicate so, just like with HRT in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Formula_One_season

Bytas (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, seems like the FIA decided differently here. Bytas (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * They usually do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Bytas, the 107% rule is used to weed out cars that simply cannot compete. In the case of HRT, neither car set a lap time within 107% of the fastest time in any session, and the stewards refused to let them race. As for yesterday's race, Grosjean qualified within 107% of Ricciardo's time in Q1, and so it was felt that the car was capable of getting within 107%, even if Maldonado did not set a time himself. Plus, the FIA have said they will be lenient on the 107% rule at the start of the season because of the engine rules.

The difference between a DNQ and a DNS is that under a DNQ, a car did not start the race because it did not qualify. Under a DNS, a car qualified, but did not start for some other reason - like a technical problem or a driver falling ill. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bytas: In short, don't make stuff up yourself. Wait until official confirmation. --Falcadore (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can understand why he thought Maldonado failed to qualify, especially if he is new to the sport. It is an easy enough mistake to make - after all, Maldonado did not set a time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it is understandable, but it comes back to the race to publish. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wait until its confirmed, then publish. --Falcadore (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there's no hurry at all to update race articles. Easy to wait for our usual sources to publish the facts, then we can follow suit. With regard to the 107% rule, generally if a driver has recorded a time within 107% during any of the practice sessions, that's usually enough to qualify him even if he doesn't manage 107% during qualifying itself. If he was too slow in all sessions, then the 107% rule can be invoked to exclude him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did any of you actually notice that Bytas postes his question AFTER the race. This is not a case of jumping the gun, it's just a misunderstanding of the 107% ruling. The explanation why Maldonado is not put as DNQ is because he was allowed to take part in the race despite not setting a qualifying time. A DNQ is used for driver's who didn't post a time within 107% of the fastest time during Q1 and is not allowed to take part in the race as a result of that. Tvx1 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)