Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship/Archive 5

World Constructors' Championship standings
Can't edit it, but on constructors standing two "Ret" must be for Hulkenberg rather than Sainz. Macaldo (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Constructors’ standings aren’t tied to the drivers. They just list the constructors’ results in ascending order. For the drivers' results, please refer to the drivers' table.Tvx1 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Change the layout of the matrices", you said. "It won't be confusing", you said. And even when WP:F1 formed a consensus to revisit those changes, you rejected them and insisted that it wasn't a problem. Yet here we are with another editor who doesn't understand the layout of the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The design of the Constructors' standings table is an absolute fucking omnishambles, to be honest. Why bother to break it down into separate cars and have all that extra information? All that matters is how many points the constructor scored in each race, because all the other information is available in the Drivers' standings table. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The other user has kindly been explained how it works. It's much easier this way once replacement drivers start coming in. Tvx1 15:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Any system that needs "explanation" from other editors is broken. Please consider a new design. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because one editor makes a mistake we don’t have to overhaul said section. Otherwise we’d constanter be overhauling these articles. That’s knee-kerk reacting and is the exact opposite of how we should act.Tvx1 20:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Macaldo, Prisonermonkeys and I all think the current table needs to be changed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; common sense says as much. But Tvx1 has been insisting for months that a) this is the best way forward and b) given enough time, people will get used to it (which clearly hasn't happened). He refuses to even allow the possibility of reviewing the changes at WP:F1, much less revert them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This format was properly and thoroughly discussed at the WikiProject. The discussion was closed with a consensus in favor of the change by an uninvolved person. This all went through the correct process. It works perfectly on four of the five articles it is used on. And it does on the articles of other Motorsports season articles which have a similar stance towards the constructors/manufacturers championship. 2018 Formula One World Championship is literally the only article where there is some minor trouble. But it isn't serious at all. There were just three relevant edits last month. That's nothing meriting such a hysterical overreaction again. One user posted a question, received a kind answer and has not made any further complaint since. Stop making such a drama out of this. For every person making a relevant edit, there are 8 000 visitors to the article who understand everything just fine.Tvx1 15:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem in linking the two rows to the two cars (no matter who drives them), then you get a quick look on how the two cars performed over the season and you can see if the "second" car outperformed the favorite car (like MAG/GRO and RIC/VER) Tuelund (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "This format was properly and thoroughly discussed at the WikiProject."

No, it wasn't. A group of editors wanted to review its effectiveness and you refused to even entertain the idea.
 * "For every person making a relevant edit, there are 8 000 visitors to the article who understand everything just fine."

Where is your evidence of that? A lack of edits does not mean that it is automatically understood. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many people just view and don't edit. You lose a good view of the performance between the two cars when best result is always first. I use the old format a lot to have a good view of the battle between teammates. That is gone now. It also had the start number in the constructor results in the past. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Formula_One_World_Championship#Results_and_standings for instance. Much better than the current layout (adding numbers to the drivers standings would be prefered) Sjon 25-6-2018

Consensus can change, and it clearly needs to because a majority of editors here have expressed confusion and/or a dislike of this system. In the Constructors Championship, the driver of the cars is irrelevant. All that matters is the total number of points scored by the team at a given race, and whether or not the constructor won a given race. All the other stuff in the table is confusing crap that largely replicates what it says in the Drivers Championship table. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; a few weeks ago, a group of editors wanted to review the changes to the matrix in light of a series of edits that suggested readers did not understand the new format. Despite having the numbers to start a review discussion, Tvx1 denied that there was any need for such a discussion and it never happened. He treats a consensus like an annoying inconvenience if he disagrees with it. I fully expect the same thing to happen here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, I didn't understand the matrix either and was convinced that there was a embarrassing mistake in the results, it is not intuative. Tuelund (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please change the table to reflect which drivers scored the points for the team. I don't edit this page but I use it from time to time as reference (for non-Wikipedia related hobby thingies). The table is next to useless in its current state. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC) So there seems to be a considerable call to change the system of the table. Although I'm utterly confused with 's stance. They say. "All that matters is the total number of points scored by the team at a given race, and whether or not the constructor won a given race." Well, that's exactly all that the current version includes with the addition of the important fact which position the constructors achieved in the championship. So what are they so frustrated about then? The change implemented at the start of the season exactly fixed what they complained about. The constructors table focussing to much on the drivers. So what's the problem then. Anyway, back when I proposed a change, I did so because I felt that the constructors tables were deviating from their purpose when more and more rows kept being added with for each and every driver make even a single entry resulting in the table being blown up unnecessarily and getting incredibly confusing. Last year's table had five rows for Toro Rosso alone, two of which were for one and the same driver (as can be seen ). So I'm convinced that we can find a compromise whereby we tied the results to the cars (but not the drivers or indeed their numbers without creating a new row for each driver. I proposed something to that effect when I proposed the change but the discussion rather quickly settled on listing the results in ascending order. My initial proposal would be indentical to the one the German wiki uses without complaint.Tvx1 19:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be quite happy with Tvx1's original proposal from October (i.e. 2 rows per constructor with a number column) - it avoids unnecessary "bloat" but still makes the order of the table immediately obvious. (The main reason I proposed a reversion to "one row per driver/car number" back in May was that it was easier to implement, i.e. a simple reversion to an old revision of the article - I would also have been happy with Tvx1's original proposal from October). DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ''"Last year's table had five rows for Toro Rosso alone, two of which were for one and the same driver"
 * Which was an unusual situation to say the least. Having five rows to the Toro Rosso results was awkward, but reacting to that and that alone was a mistake. Especially since the system we now have arguably has issues throughout it. In a perfect world, we would have a solution that was easy to read and concise&mdash;but we have to accept that that may not be/probably is not possible, so we have to look to alternatives. Having one matrix with an awkward (albeit still clear) entry beats having dozens of confusing matrices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn’t react to that alone and I never claimed so. It was just the final straw mich made me decide to propose a change. As I pointed out, there are still alternatives which are not what we currently have and which do not have the unnecessary extra rows.Tvx1 00:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you share some examples? I know you linked to the German Wikipedia, but you say there are several alternatives?


 * Also, could you please post the examples directly into this discussion (or at WT:F1)? That way people don't have to go off-wiki to evaluate them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for more than two rows. A team never has more than two cars in a race. Last year Renault changed PAL for SAI midway, but SAI just overtook that PALs car and you could clearly see that the car suddenly made points. Tuelund (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for more than one row. In the Constructors' Championship, the only things that matter are the net number of points achieved by the two cars in each race, and whether or not one of the cars won. All the other details are only relevant to the Drivers' Championship table. I don't understand the need for all this complexity. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s not quite true. The actual positions can determine the WCC positions in case of tie.Tvx1 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But that information is already in the drivers' table. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The WCC can be decided on countback independently of the WCC results. You're assuming that because the information is in the driver matrix, it's redundant to have it in the constructor matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both tables are shite, to be honest. Have you seen them on mobile? You have to horizontally scroll for miles, including (most ridiculously) to see the legend - a thing I've complained about before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is primarily a desktop site. Perfection is impossible. One cannot simply read the constructors' positions from the WDC table. More often than not constructors use more than two drivers and, like the last couple years, drivers can drive for more than one constructor during a season. It is not clear from the WDC table which positions belong to which constructors whence we need them in the WCC table as well.Tvx1 16:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A simplified table like this seems to be sufficient for formula1.com. The current level of complexity is confusing everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Only the 2014-2018 tables are causing confusion. Nobody else has reported being confused by the 1979-2013 tables, which are very similar, apart from the significant difference of having a "car number" column, which instantly indicates how the table is ordered. DH85868993 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I checked with the editor who closed the October discussion and it was his view that there was consensus for Tvx1's original proposal in that discussion, i.e. "two rows per constructor with a number column", not what was implemented, i.e. "two rows per constructor, no number column, ordered by result". Would people be happy to try the original proposal (which is essentially the same as the 1979-2013 format) and see how it goes? DH85868993 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That has the same problem (albeit not to the same extent) as the current format&mdash;it's not immediately obvious how the results are arranged. Readers would have to compare the constructors' matrix to the drivers' matrix in order to understand it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly obvious that the table is ordered by the "Pos." column then by the "No." column. For clarity, here are the first few rows of the 2016 table using the format I'm proposing (copied from the October discussion):


 * I still think there is value in having separate rows for separate entries within a team. The whole purpose of the matrix is about more than just showing the final result. It's about showing how the teams got that final result. We already acknowledge as much considering that the shows how a countback applies. There are countless examples of how a team's WCC campaign changed when they swapped drivers, but for some reason people insist that each constructor must be limited to two rows for now better reason than to minimise the amount of empty spacd in the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This has all already been explained in the discussion last October. The WCC table is not a catch-all solution intended to tell the season's whole story. We have a season report to tell the stories of driver swaps and their performances. It's also not a provable fact that a driver swap alone affected a constructors' campaign. There are many other factors which affect that as well. (Failed) Updates to the cars or power units. Reliability issues. A string of (un)favorable events in consecutive races. Reliability issues of other constructors, etc. Those are the exact reason why we have a season report. That's where we can tell the story and give context. The WCC table's sole intent is to list the physical outcome of said championship with only the vital information. The things that are actually use to determine the outcome. These are the constructors, their points and the positions they achieved. The drivers' individual results belong in the WDC table. There was never any request to split out the Drivers' individual results in the WCC table prior to 2014, so I can't see at all why it would be vital to do so now.Tvx1 11:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On a side note, out of respect I'm going to ping everyone who participated in the discussion from last October, which resulted in the current system, who has not yet contributed here. Myself, Prisonermonkeys and DH85868993 are already here, so that leaves, , , and .Tvx1 12:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "The WCC table is not a catch-all solution intended to tell the season's whole story."
 * And yet by virtue if its design, that's exactly what it does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

So, are we doing something about this or what? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure - see proposal below. DH85868993 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: update the 2014-2018 Constructors' Championship tables as per the resolution of the October discussion
i.e. implement Tvx1's original proposal from the October discussion = "two rows per constructor, with a number column", e.g. the first few rows of the 2016 table would look like this: noting that the editor who closed the October discussion was of the view that there was consensus for Tvx1's original proposal (pictured above), not the last option discussed ("two rows per constructor, no number column, ordered by result"), which is what was implemented.

Survey

 * Support, as proposer. DH85868993 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle; I don't like the current system but have concerns about the implementation as this is what we will wind up with in the 2017 article:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;text-align:center"

!style="vertical-align:middle"|Pos. !style="vertical-align:middle"|Constructor !style="vertical-align:middle"|No. !AUS 🇦🇺 !rowspan=2|2
 * -style="vertical-align:middle"
 * rowspan=2 style="text-align:left; padding-right:24px"|🇦🇹 Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer
 * 3
 * style="background-color:#DFFFDF"|4
 * 10/26/28/39/55
 * style="background-color:#DFFFDF"|4
 * }
 * "Messy" doesn't even begin to describe it. Having a separate row for each number might have its issues, but at least it's clear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; I've played around with it and I have a mock-up of an alternative format here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your alternative format would still end up with 4 rows for Toro Rosso in 2017, wouldn't it? Toro Rosso in 2017 (= the worst case) can be represented like this:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;"
 * Your alternative format would still end up with 4 rows for Toro Rosso in 2017, wouldn't it? Toro Rosso in 2017 (= the worst case) can be represented like this:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;"

!style="vertical-align:middle"|Pos. !style="vertical-align:middle"|Constructor !style="vertical-align:middle"|No. !AUS 🇦🇺 !CHN 🇨🇳 !BHR 🇧🇭 !RUS 🇷🇺 !ESP 🇪🇸 !MON 🇲🇨 !CAN 🇨🇦 !AZE 🇦🇿 !AUT 🇦🇹 !GBR 🇬🇧 !HUN 🇭🇺 !BEL 🇧🇪 !ITA 🇮🇹 !SIN 🇸🇬 !MAL 🇲🇾 !JPN 🇯🇵 !USA 🇺🇸 !MEX 🇲🇽 !BRA 🇧🇷 !ABU 🇦🇪 !style="vertical-align:middle"|Points !rowspan=5|7 !rowspan=2 style="text-align:center"|53
 * -style="vertical-align:middle"
 * rowspan=5 style="text-align:left;"|🇮🇹 Toro Rosso
 * 26/10
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|9
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|12
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|12
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|9
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|14†
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|16
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|15
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|11
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|12
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|12
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|14
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|13
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|10
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|13
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|12
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|16
 * 55/39/28
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|8
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|7
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|10
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|7
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|6
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|8
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|7
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|10
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|14
 * style="background-color:#dfffdf"|4
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|13
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#efcfff"|Ret
 * style="background-color:#cfcfff"|15
 * }
 * which I don't think is too bad. DH85868993 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still confusing. Why are the numbers not arranged sequentially? Why does it contradict the driver table, which treats #26 as two separate entries? And I don't see what the issue with four rows is except trying to minimise vertical space. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The numbers could be arranged sequentially. Personally, I don't have an issue with four rows (you may recall that my proposal back in May would have meant a return to five rows for Toro Rosso in 2017), but others seem to find that unpalatable. DH85868993 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; which I supported at the time. Arguably we had a consensus for change back then, but it never happened because certain people opposed it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The numbers could be arranged sequentially. Personally, I don't have an issue with four rows (you may recall that my proposal back in May would have meant a return to five rows for Toro Rosso in 2017), but others seem to find that unpalatable. DH85868993 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; which I supported at the time. Arguably we had a consensus for change back then, but it never happened because certain people opposed it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there is no need to break what works fine. It is just matter of a time till the current format will become a habit. GP3 Series since arrival of the fourth car for some teams in 2016 hasn't any issues with the same format which sorts by best results like we have in F1 now. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; for one, GP3 uses a different scoring system where only the top two cars score points. But more importantly, the matrix here is clearly an issue since so many people are having trouble with it even six months after its introduction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, top three cars, and secondly and the most important that the current format universal for different scoring systems (when one, two, three cars counts towards constructors'/manufacturers'/teams' championship), while the format with numbers doesn't. And it seems that for almost two weeks and two races of the triple header there aren't any troubles. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problems have been happening intermittently since the matrix was changed. Don't assume that stability means the problem has been resolved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You may call it the problem, but the proposed solution carries more troubles. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain them? Because right now, the current system is causing mass confusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "10/26/28/39/55" (or 26/10 and 28/39/55) are non-encyclopedic mess, which will confuse more than the current format which doesn't confuse me at all. Your proposal slightly better, but it is still more a trivial than a necessary function which expands table which already quite large. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not unencyclopaedic at all. They're directly linked to the entry list and when used properly, clearly show which entries scored which results, which directly addresses the issues people are having with the matrix. But for some insane reason we're limited to two rows for each entrant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle It should be a row for each number entered for that constructor. The only reason why this is a mess, is because of the personal driver numbers we didn't have before 2014. That is why nobody complains about the old format and it was clear as day which car scored best, because drivers replacing injured drivers had no seperate number. I don't see the point in limiting the constructor to two lines only. There isn't a puppy killed for every line made. ;-). Moreover you shouldn't rule by exception (80-20 rule). The Toro Rosso <> Renault mess from last year is very rare. Accept that it can happen and move on. Sjon 3-7-2018 Edited 09:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It's much clearer and easier to read. More importantly it separates which drivers scored or didn't score points in races. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Still confusing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: between this discussion and previous ones, I think there is a clear consensus for change. What form that change takes remains to be seen. At this stage, I suggest we implement the proposed changes but continue the discussion with a view to fine-tuning the final matrix. I know there is still some opposition out there, but if I am reading the comments correctly, it's more opposition to the detail rather than opposition to the idea of change. Given the ongoing problems with the format, I think it's imperative that we make the change now. We can worry about the specifics later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are free to interpret any way you want, but we don't have a clear consensus for change. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the only person who is opposed to any change. The only other person who has expressed opposition is @ and I don't think he's opposed to change in general, just the particular proposal. Consensus does not need to be unanimous to be valid, simply because you'd get one person voicing opposition and using it to thwart the consensus from being reached. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should not assuming for ? I am pretty sure that he doesn't delegated authority to conduct a discussion on his behalf. The last time the change of the format was performed after the discussion was closed by neutral person. You are involved in the dispute, so you can't just pronounce a consensus when it wasn't actually reached. And only two days passed since start of the survey. So it is clear that not all users who may be interested in the survey have expressed their thoughts. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my views about the tables are more or less in line with those of . I confess I am having trouble articulating exactly what I want to see in a table, except that the matrix needs to be simplified to make it easier to understand. The fact that several have expressed confusion makes it clear we need to work on it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But you expressed your opinion that the WCC table should only list points? That‘s quite far away from what Prisonermonkeys wants.Tvx1 15:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I support change because I think anything is better than the current system. I'm not a fan of the proposal to keep using the number column, but limit each constructor to two rows&mdash;I think it's unnecessary, restricting and has the potential to cause confusion of its own kind&mdash;but even that is better than what we have now. I think we could reasonably change it to the current proposal, but continue the discussion to fine-tune the format. Fix the big problem first, then worry about the little one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, it works fine and displays all the information relevant to the WCC. The FIA has been using this format for many years as well, without any obvious need or desire to change it, as again, to state the obvious, this reflects everything there is to reflect about the WCC. cherkash (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: we're constantly getting complaints about it; the first part of this discussion is testament to that. That suggests that it does not "work fine". And just because the FIA do it, that doesn't mean we're obligated to do it that way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the FIA should be regarded highly in the 'make things clear' department while their own rulebook is as clear as mud. Sjon 9 July 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.12.33 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: PM here, posting from an IP address. We need to do something about this. 1.144.106.92 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Things have been stable for three weeks. No complaints for roughly two weeks. There is no clear "need" to do something. The discussion has divided opinions. Stop trying to bludgeon through a change.Tvx1 13:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't complained lately because I cannot think of an alternative that will satisfy my concerns, while being palatable to the editors who prefer the status quo, but I still think what we have is incomprehensible to the layman. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad a minority of editors can effectively hold an article hostage by dragging a discussion out. 1.129.110.42 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty stupid and inflammatory comment. This discussion is about whether or not to change a thing, and the "minority" you speak of is seeking the change. Since the minority cannot win a consensus for a change (we can't even decide what form that change should take, in fact), the article will remain the same and the majority prevails. Ergo, nobody is holding the article hostage, FFS. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; far from it. There are some people (and I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, just across Wikipedia) who believe that because consensus is not a vote, the only legitimate way to achieve consensus with a unanimous and unilateral agreement; in other words, every single person in the discussion must agree to it, and if there is any dissent&mdash;even one in s hundred or one in a thousand&mdash;the consensus is invalid. These people then use that belief to deliberately force a WP:NOCONSENSUS by opposing changes they dislike. Reading over this discussion, there is a clear appetite for change. However, to deny that appetite for change simply enables people who rort the system. 1.144.110.202 (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am one of the people who thinks consensus is not about voting. I would expect each "voter" to express reasons for their vote, or it would certainly carry far less weight. But I am definitely not a person who thinks consensus should be unanimous. That's a totally unworkable standard. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Which is my point&mdash;people abuse the system to prevent changes they don't like. Reading this discussion, there is a clear desire for change; however, failing to act on that desire only enables those who abuse the system. 1.129.106.52 (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said though, there's disagreement about what form that change should come in. Until we can work out a good solution, it makes sense for the current version (which has been relatively stable) to remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; the problem is that the current version is the worst possible version and despite the obvious appetite for change, nobody seems to be inclined to do anything about it. 1.129.109.150 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose an alternative. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is there is no clear consensus at all in favor of any change. A number of people stated an appetite for a change. An equal number stated their appetite not to change anything. That's the clear example of a divided opinion. Meanwhile things have stabilized again. No complaints for a weeks and stability on the template for a month. The only person who has actually been constantly complaining about the change even before it was implemented was you. You just never wanted it, and once it was implemented you have jumped at every opportunity to try and force a reversal through. You have never even considered giving it a fair chance. The reality is that other people think otherwise and at Wikipedia the community decides. And here the community is divided at the moment.Tvx1 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it still works fine. It has been stable again for a month now. While I have no prejudice to implementing the original proposal from last fall, I would currently prose to keep the current system with a moratorium on further discussing it, for the sake of stability, until the end of the season and make a proper evaluation, if required, thereafter.Tvx1 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the "stability" is a function of talk page indecision. Only edit-warring douchebags would dick around with the existing table in the absence of a solid consensus for change. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He's also perfectly well aware that the stability is a result of the matrices being in a template rather than the article itself, an approach that was introduced years ago to keep the matrices stable. To suggest the article is somehow more stable now is a misrpresentation. And Tvx1 is very good at misrepresenting things. 1.144.111.231 (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the article, not the editor. Casting aspersions like that is not acceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The template wasn't stable at all. The bouts of edits to it were what resulted to this discussion in the first place. These edits have subsided and there is utter stability right now. Regardless, it's my good right to state my opinion of being opposed to a change.Tvx1 13:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Little suggestion: May be it will be a good idea to add a note above or below the standings table, that all rows are sorted by best results? Corvus tristis (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem there is that the matrices already have notes attached to them. We shouldn't be relying on notes to explain the format of the table, especially when we can solve the problem by formatting the matrices properly. 1.144.111.110 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't rely on it. It's just an extra courtesy to the readers. I think it's a reasonable proposal.Tvx1 11:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an extra courtesy. It's needing to explain something that should be obvious from looking at the matrix, which makes it a case of poor design. 1.144.106.222 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a courtesy because it isn't necessary for the table to exist. Even without it is clear where which constructors stands in the championship and how they got there.Tvx1 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? 1.144.106.214 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ evidently thinks it's a problem. I don't see how you can blindly deny that it's an issue given the wealth of evidence that clearly demonstrates the issue. 1.144.106.214 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, one edit in more that a month. That's a real drama. And there issue wasn't even with which constructor stands where, the table's sole purpose. Others clearly don't think it's a problem. It's time you stop denying them. TTvx1 20:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And what about the stesdy stream of IP editors and registered users who have all voiced their concerns since your system was introduced? Are you just going to deny them, too? 1.144.105.135 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the editors who would like to see a change, but until we can come up with a better solution we should just leave it as it is. Perhaps we can create a sub page to explore new ideas? In the meantime, you need to stop hassling Tvx1. It is bordering on harassment at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion. Instead of a results matrix - when results are already well covered in the drivers table - why not transform it into a points matrix? Then the problem is solved completely. --Falcadore (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In case of tie on points, a certain position (not amount of points) is achieved determines the outcome, so your suggestion is totally irrelevant. Clear example: Caterham vs Marussia in 2012. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's something that could reasonably be annotated. I like the idea. 1.144.106.222 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it is not irrelevant, don't be so over-dramatic. You just have to consider the basic question what is the more important aspect of the table, points scored or race result achieved? If the table exists to detail the Constructors championship, then points is the obvious method as the race results do not indicate points. A reader has to calculate the points themselves. We should not be using tables as a replacement with narrative. If there is a tie in points you should explain that with text in the body of the article. Using a table does not do that adequeately as you have to know what the tie-breaking mechanism is in order to read that in a list of numbers. We cannot assume a reader knows this. It is a basic principle of Wikipedia editting. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and not everyone speaks "table". --Falcadore (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, every constructor has scored points this year. We only need the more complex table if we have a tie breaker situation, otherwise a simple points table will be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The tie-breaker rules don’t only apply when multiple constructors fail to score points. They also apply when two more constructors score the same amount of points. And our readers don’t have to calculate anything. We provide the totals for them. Neither do they need any prior knowledge. The tie-breaking is explained directly above the table.Tvx1 13:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Right now, the table has lots of redundant info that makes it harder to comprehend. We only need to show data related to tie breaks at the end of the season, and only if it is needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyway the point was it is an option that fixes the problem. Remembering that tables are addendum to the text, not the other way around. --Falcadore (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly how it functions. The season reports gives the detailed story, the table gives the simple outcome of the championship. It just lists where which constructors finished. We're really speculating a problem into existence here.Tvx1 00:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

But the question is whether or not it carries out that function as effectively as it can. Countless editors, both registered an IP alike, have voiced displeasure with the current system. More than enough to justify changing it, but you have either dismissed, ignored or explained them away and insisted that there is nothing wrong with the current system. @ has a point: the matrix requires the reader to cross-reference the results with the points summary table and manually add everything up to understand how the championship played out&mdash;and that doesn't sound terribly intuitive to me. 1.129.110.245 (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's just not true. No one has to cross-reference of manually add up anything. We provide the points total for them in the column labeled "points". The table perfectly shows where which constructors stands as per its purpose. For the story on how the championships panned put we have a season report. Championships tables are only intended to show the outcome of the championship and they currently do so perfectly.Tvx1 13:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: points-based matrix
Illustrstion of @'s proposal for a points-based matrix:

Apologies for any errors&mdash;I had to do the mock-up quickly. 1.129.110.245 (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

And another version, limited to one line:

I prefer the first version myself. 1.129.110.245 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. This is just a solution looking for a problem. The result's tables have are only intended to show the outcome of the championships and they do so perfectly. The points column shows the points totals thereby explaining the vertical order and the race positions are there because they, and not points, are used as tiebreakers. We have used positions for well over a decade and our readers have not been troubled, let alone complained, over it at all.Tvx1 13:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this has to be a results matrix and not a points matrix? Despite points being the primary function of this table. Just so you understand the contradiction. --Falcadore (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally Constructors championship is about results achieved by the team, not by the individuals. By splitting it into the results of the drivers it represents the results of the two drivers, not the constructor. The constructors trophy is not awarded to Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas, it is awarded to Mercedes. --Falcadore (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; I believe "strong opppose" (or "strong support") is a case of "I want my opinion to have more weight than someone who merely supports/opposes a proposal". 1.144.107.168 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Falcadore, as I explained before these individual positions can decide the outcome of a championship. Not through who achieved them, but through which position was achieved. The is evidenced by Caterham vs Marussia vs HRT in 2012. The system of listing the positions has been used universally for over a decade over all wiki's without any discussion. I don't know this came to be discussed.Tvx1 14:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but why must every year conform to the unusual situation we had in 2012? Why don't we simplify the matrix as discussed, and then only revert back to its current form in the event a similar situation arises? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not only, , , , , and many many more years had similar situations where the positions decided the outcome. It's not that unusual. We have been using this system since way before 2012 and it's used universally across all wiki's. It's all very applicable to 2018 as well. In only requires Ferrari to outscore Mercedes by ten points (for instance Ferrari finish 1st and 3rd with Mercedes 2nd and 4th) at the next race to leave us with a situation where the positions decide the championship standings. Changing the constructors' table to a points table primarily leaves us with a situation where we risk having to change the table's system after every race. No-one is served by such a situation.Tvx1 17:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that tables supplement prose. They don't replace it. If championship standings are decided on countback, the article should detail how that was calculated in the prose before the reader gets to the matrix. Your argument is as hollow as your belief that by stating that you strongly oppose something, it somehow carries more weight than if you simply opposed it. 1.129.105.84 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And you know perfectly well that is already the case. The tie-breaking prodecure has been explained above these tables since long before I joined wikipedia. You are complaining about a problem that just doesn’t exist.Tvx1 03:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: your argument is that a switch to a points-based matrix is a bad idea because readers won't understand it despite the explanation which apparently doesn't present any problems for a results-based matrix? 1.129.105.199 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, you read strange things it seems. My argument is that no change is needed at all. The present position-based matrix shows the standings/outcome perfectly, is supplementary to the prose and does not need to be changed every time a tie occurs and than again disappears afterwards.Tvx1 12:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that a dozen or so people have pointed out the flaws with the current model, it would seem that your argument is completely invalid. Yet despite two separate consensuses for change, you end up getting your way. Again. 1.129.105.199 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose And so what? What it is wrong with a result matrix? "Constructors championship is about results achieved by the team". It is correct. The current format hasn't any connection of the rows to drivers, it only shows the best two results achieved by each constructor. It is a consensus format which supported by both editors and readers for years (I have seen for the plenty of times that different social network and forum users screen the standings from Wiki). The primary function of the table to present the standings in the most understandable way. The proposed format cuts off any possibility to show tiebreakers. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As there is an explanation of the tie-breaker procedure provided, it does not need to be shown. Constructors' championship is derived from points gained, not from race results achieved. There is a connection definately however it is being being portrayed accuretly. You do not finish a race in 1, you finish in 1st. So the table as presented doesn't even get the terminology correct. --Falcadore (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And the relevant points are provided in the points column. We don't need to provide the points per individual race. And as explained before. The championship IS decided through both points gained AND positions achieved.Tvx1 16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another nonsense by Falcadore. It is a table, not a line from a dictionary, there is no necessity for ordinals. Hope you will be fine, when you visit FIA, F1, or any other motorsport site with standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

At-a-glance standings
The more I think about it, the more I am persuaded that Tvx1's preferred standing matrices (what we currently have) are necessary to give a complete picture; however, there's little doubt that many visiting readers are confused by the complexity. I would like to propose that we add highly simplified, at-a-glance standings to the existing arrangement. Something along these lines:

(I just did the first 5 rows for speed)

Readers will be able to quickly see what the title situations are, and refer to the more complex matrices for the complete picture. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That just adds two additional, redundant tables to the article. 1.144.107.168 (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If readers are coming to the article to view the standings and then getting confused by the complicated nature of the results matrices, these two extra tables will immediately eliminate that confusion. We already have some redundancy in that the drivers' and constructors' tables have duplicate information, so it's not like it is unprecedented. Think of the two extra tables as an abstract to give the reader a quick overview. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The confusion does not stem from an inability to understand the table as a whole. It comes from an inability to understand how the results are arranged within it. Your proposal does nothing to fix that. 1.144.107.15 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps we are talking about two separate areas of confusion, because I'm trying to make it easier for readers to immediately grasp the standings situation in both championships. If you go to the very top of this thread, you will find comments from editors (including me) to that effect. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That can be achieved by looking at the current matrix. Your propossl does not do anything that the current system does not already do. 1.144.107.15 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have said that already. Nevertheless, I maintain at-a-glance tables will be useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither does your proposal of converting to points standings.Tvx1 14:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)}
 * My professor once told me, that any statistics that needed special instrutions to read, were useless. If you're adamant on having two fields per team for constructors championship, atleast make them distinguishable in such a way debaters doesn't have to explain in their debate contributions, how the wiki page doesn't show the results right in the constructors table. This is a perfect example of why "serious" sites still state that you can't rely on wikipedia to supply with verifiable data. I've NEVER seen a table in an encyclopedia like this, with a PERFECT opportunity to actually display the correct data, going so much out of it's way to not do that. Who cares if there's 7 or 8 lines per constructor, it will show verifiable data that people can actually rely on. It will show that "This specific driver actually scored ALL the points for the team this year", and not like now when it just says "Oh yeah, this team had some driver who actually scored points", which you'd have to spend time figuring out - right - who actually drove for Force India this year. In place of an accurate table, you force readers into doing two more lookups for data that could have been added AUTOMATICALLY as well, in the correct order under the correct constructor. That's so counter productive it borderlines stupid. Eidodk (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not question of being adamant of having "two fields per constructor". It's just the basic working of this sport that each constructor is credited with two results per race. And that's how we reflect it in the WCC table. No matter how they arranged, it's perfectly correct and verifiable that these constructors achieved the listed results at the indicated Grands Prix. If you want to know the drivers' results, look at the WDC table. And if you want to know which driver drove for which constructor there is a teams and drivers table which includes all the driver line-ups (including for the two incarnations of Force India). That table is actually the first and foremost table of these articles. If provides our readers with all the essential information on how the championship was set up. If you go to a F1 season article and the first spot you go to is the WCC table, ignoring all the rest of the article, and you expect to find every sort of tidbit of information over there, then the problem lies with you and not with the way this article is built up. You're expecting things from this table that are just beyond its scope.Tvx1 19:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're actively defending that you'll have to do three consecutive lookups, to get the full picture of a drivers season with a certain constructor. Like someone said earlier, it's not like a puppy is killed everytime something is added to a page, and even if that WAS the case, with a properly ordered constructors table, you could almost remove the driver lineup table completely. All by handing a line to a certain driver in the constructors table, under the constructor they drove for this season. All i can see when i peruse F1 forums, is that the constructors table on the wiki page is used wrongly in 9 out of 10 cases, yet people here defend the format as if it's the best since sliced bread.  It's not.Eidodk (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Force India column
I am not 100% certain what's been going on here, I've briefly read all the above and whilst i don't want to reignite the flames of hell. In the Force India column, there are several footnotes, all but one of which do not relate to the team. These footnotes not only do not belong in the column but also stretches the table and deforms it tremendously. I do not know how to edit this, but it needs to be fixed so these footnotes appear at the bottom outside the table.  *Joe Tri  10_  13:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. OZOO (t) (c) 13:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone had vandalized the template.Tvx1 18:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)