Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 33

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix - Peer Review
Hello all, I have nominated 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix for peer review here. Please take a look at the article and comment on it if you have a moment.-- Midgrid  (talk)  13:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

classification
Sorry - I know this is an old chestnut. I've just noticed that a lot of the older season articles have been 'updated' to give championship positions to drivers who did not score points. (See 1994 Formula One season, for example). I think I'm remembering correctly that this was not contemporary practice until the 2003 season, and that we've previously agreed not to reflect the official F1 page practice of retrospectively awarding championship positions. Can someone with a better memory than me confirm this? And if so, I think there's some work to do tidying up. If I'm wrong, please shoot me down! 4u1e (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From the last post on this, (which I remember starting) it was some time in the late 1990's when positions started to be officially awarded to non-point scorers. The season 1994-1998 are all like this, so I'd imagine there has been some uncertainty from editors over when exactly to show positions in the championship. If I recall correctly, pre 1996 definitely did not classify non-point scorers. QueenCake (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the last discussion we had on the subject, if that helps :) Schumi  555  22:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One editor has been retrospectively classifying non-scoring drivers and adding the F1.com stats to the external links, citing them as absolutely correct. These should be removed really, as even if F1.com want to retrospectively change the rules, we cannot. I've reverted up to 1997, but I'm sure it was 2003 when this practice was first actually followed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

On F1 related articles
While looking through some of the references on your articles, I noticed that all refs from autosport.com are unavailabe to viewers that are not subscribed to them in thirty days. From August 17, 2009 to the present day, all articles located at autosport.com are duplicated at inracingnew.com. Those artices may not be archived in the close future, so you may decide to reference from inracingnew.com instead of autosport.com. ~  Nascar  1996   04:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * References from Autosport are still usable, even if from a subscription service. Also, if a pressing need exists for the full article, the Internet Archive will suffice.  The359  ( Talk ) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A reference note is always valid even if it is hard to reach the source for the information. Think of all the printed media used as sources throughout Wikipedia. -Ulla — 13:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Very large new tables in season articles
An editor has added a very large table to 1961 Formula One season consisting of each driver's non-championship results. For some seasons, these tables would be enormous, and I don't really see what is achieved by them. A tabular format is fine for listing the World Championship order, for example, but the point of the non-championship version escapes me. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary, but you've got to admire the commitment. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough, but then it's just a regurgitation of all the non-championship race articles that I wrote. Links to those articles in the N-C table are enough, in my view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this information should be kept somewhere, even if you decide to remove them from the present place in the season articles. -Ulla — 13:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Circuit template
I recently removed the Iloilo and Sochi articles from the Formula One circuits template, for the simple reason that the articles themselves contain either one sentence, or no information at all on Formula One motor racing. These templates that collect various articles on a similar subject should contain articles which have information on the subject conerned. Russian Grand Prix would be a more appropriate link than to the city of Sochi, because the RGP article actually has motor racing information on it.

I believe the links added should be appropriate to the subject, not just because you can link it. --Falcadore (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was hesitant to create a page on the Sochi circuit because the race won't be until 2014. That said, we do have a circuit plan and a couple of deatils of the project; certainly moreso than we did when Austin was created, and the consensus where was that once we had a circuit plan, the page could be built (true, we did it a little early). A Russian Grand Prix certainly seems more likely than Rome - there haven't ben any doubts raised about it - so if consensus is there, I can create a page on it. As for Iloilo City, this was the first I've heard of it. I've heard Venezuela, France, Argentina, South Africa, Thailand and Mauritius all mentioned in some capacity - even the meanest rumour - but nothing on the Philippines. I have no idea where it came from, and there were no references, so it never should have been there to begin with. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Matra's logo in the wiki article about Matra
[transferred from Talk:Formula One by DH85868993]:

I have tried to insert a logo of Matra company in Matra article but I do not know how to insert pictures into wiki articles. Could you help me and make the article about Matra better ? Thank you. The logo may come for example from: http://auta5p.eu/katalog/matra/matra.htm I would like at least all F1 constructors which won constructor´s championship to get their logos in the wiki articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You should upload an image to Wikimedia Commons and then link it to the Wikipedia article. The image must be free for use according to the normal Wikipedia rules. John  Anderson   (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, wrong info for logos. Logos are never free use, they always require a "fair use" summary and so cannot be uploaded to Commons. They must be uploaded here and must have an individual, fully-formatted fair use summary for every article in which they appear.  Pyrop e  14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is the right info, only perhaps not full. The fact that logos are never free to use of course means we can't have them here and that was my point. John  Anderson   (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No John, the user specifically asked about uploading logos. You gave them information that specifically excludes logos. Hence, the wrong information for that question. We can most certainly have logos here, they just require a different upload method to regular image files.  Pyrop e  17:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So where is this specific information about uploading logos to be found? -Ulla — 08:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Matra is the only F1 world constructor´s champion to have no logo in the wiki article. I don´t know why. Every other F1 world constructor´s champion ( Vanwall, Cooper, Ferrari, BRM, Lotus, Brabham, Tyrrell, McLaren, Williams, Benetton and Brawn ) has got its own logo in the article. Why to place Matra´s logo is such great problem ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to find a picture of it, upload it and then add it to the article. There's really no problem, though, someone just has to do it. I don't know where to find the Matra logo. -Ulla — 08:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find Matra logo from: http://auta5p.eu/katalog/matra/matra.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, and now we just have to find that information about how to upload logos, which Pyrope claimed exists but doesn't want to reveal the link to. -Ulla — 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why no member of the Formula One WikiProject showed a willingness to resolve this issue. What are members of the Formula One WikiProject doing ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If it comes to that, why didn't you? In case you didn't notice nobody here is getting paid. The vast majority of us do this as recreation and, frankly, ferreting around on the internet to find an appropriate (not too big, not too small, representative of their F1 involvement, etc.) Matra logo, downloading it, uploading it to Wikipedia, then writing the detailed "fair use" rationale that is required is a pretty tedious business. It is something that should be done eventually, but if you feel so strongly that it needs to be done immediately I suggest that you use this opportunity to create an account and learn the ropes yourself.  Pyrop e  14:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but you should realize one thing - I asked for insert a logo of Matra into the Matra article on 25 March 2010, more than halfyear ago !! Up today, nobody was willing to help me. I provided link for Matra logo ( http://auta5p.eu/katalog/matra/matra.htm ). I am not very good at English and I have no experience about inserting pictures into wiki-articles. I wonder that all F1 constructors which won Formula One World Drivers' Championship and Formula One World Constructors' Championship ( from Alfa Romeo to Brawn GP ) have got their company logos in their wiki-articles, only Matra not. Why to place Matra´s logo into the article is such great problem ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidance you seek is at WP:UPIMAGE. Please pay careful attention to the section on 'Fair use images', which apply to logos. I uploaded a few logos several years ago, but frankly I think I did it wrong, and the guidance has changed since then anyway. It's no-one's job here to do anything, so if you feel strongly about this, it looks like you'll have to do it yourself. Your English appears plenty good enough to read and digest the guidance. 4u1e (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Teams categorised into works, independant and private in 1950 season article
I notice a discussion started by an editor who categorised the entries in the 1950 season into works, independant teams and private entries didn't come to any sort of conclusion, and that the section of the article remains split, unlike all other season articles. I propose to revert to one list, or if we must split, the only other editor who commented last time suggested "works" and "other" which makes some sense. But then we'd have to change all other articles, as for example Ferrari and Mercedes are "works" teams but Toro Rosso etc aren't. What do you think?Allypap81 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was my idea in the first place, and now I come to think of it, it wasn't actually a great idea. It probably would be best to go back to having one list featuring all entrants (as is the case on all other pages). «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it just doesn't work separating the teams. Makes the list too unwieldy. Keep it as one list. QueenCake (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

F1 race report leads
As some of you may have noticed, I've recently updated the leads of numerous F1 race report articles to a standardised format. Originally I was writing:
 * "The 19xx Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held on at . It was the Nth round of the 19xx Formula One season."

I then went back and changed them to:
 * "The 19xx Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held on at . It was the Nth round of the 19xx World Drivers' Championship."

on the basis that the "19xx season" can be considered to include both the championship and non-championship races held during the year. But I'm not sure what to write from 1958 onwards, when the Constructors Championship was introduced. Alternatives I have considered: I'm open to other suggestions. Also, do people like "...was a Formula One motor race...", or do you prefer just "...was a Formula One race..."? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "It was the Nth round of the 19xx World Drivers' Championship." (i.e. as for 1950-57, essentially ignoring the Constructors' Championship)
 * "It was the Nth round of the 19xx World Drivers' and Constructors' Championships." (is this a bit unwieldy?)
 * "It was the Nth round of the 19xx Formula One World Championships."
 * "It was the Nth World Championship round of the 19xx Formula One season." (note this format could also be applied to 1950-57)

Suggestion for driver table in season summary article
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Tables. (on the assumption that not many people will have that page on their watchlist). DH85868993 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers DH, wasn't familiar with the Wikiproject so was unsure where to post it. The change is rather small but I thought it was worth floating. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea - it'd be nice to get a few people's thoughts on it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is a terrible idea, but the more views and the greater the discussion depth the better.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume we're commenting at the comment page. So I have. :) 4u1e (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensive Reults Tables
There is a potential conflict about to occur and before that does occur can opinions here be formulated, to try and reach a consensus.

Should Comprehensive results tables be split over more than one row per year just because a different Chassis or Engine was used in the season? Is splitting of seasons over two rows needed when a person changes team mid-season?

I say that the tables are much easier and simpler to read if each season is on one row within the table. It also makes the table look a lot cleaner removing lots of large chunks of blank cells. One row per season also makes a lot more sense as few people from outside of the world of formula one will be that aware of the changing of chassis or engines mid-season and having large chunks of blank cells is potentially confusing. It will also remove the need to work out precisely when a different chassis or engine was first used and will make the tables much easier to compile. Finally for the user starting out in table editing having each season on one row makes it much easier for new users to edit and compile tables.

Also before the argument “it is a lot of effort to go through each table and change them it is simpler to just leave them as they are.” I saythat is a cop out as there is a problem with these tables and that is that they split seasons over two rows and that does need fixing. I am also willing to go through and change the tables myself if consensus agrees to remove the splitting of seasons, in the comprehensive results tables. Negating the argument as moot--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree in every way. The format you suggest renders it impossible to see which car the driver was driving in any given race. You say it "removes the need to work out precisely when a different chassis was used" - yes, it makes it impossible to tell. Why remove information? What exactly is the advantage you advocate in not being able to tell what car anyone is driving? I don't believe there is any issue of a lack of clarity. There are no more tables to construct, so there is no issue of any confusion for new users. This has not been a problem for anyone up to now, and I don't think you appreciate the work involved in changing around 8-900 driver tables, even if anyone agrees with you. Also, of course, please leave the tables as they are until any consensus is reached to change them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier I don’t care how much work is involved in correcting this, it is not a relevant point in this argument and I am willing to undertake the editing myself if necessary.
 * The above quoting is also a distortion of what has been said. The teams will not necessarily make public that they are using a new chassis or engine during the season and will sometimes only reveal at the end of the season they used more than one type during the season and will not reveal from which race they started using the new engine or chassis. It also makes trying to track down information for older articles to make them fall in line with the split rows much harder, as records of when a separate chassis or engine were introduced will not be as easily and freely available. If the information is needed and necessary it should be available in the main text of the article. Also does the extra information of exactly which model engine or which model chassis was used actually add anything to the table? It is just information for the sake of information? I think it is an example off too much information being added and the information only being added because just because it can without an actual justification for the information being added. What does the extra information actually add, apart from two different engines of chassis being used? Why don’t we add the gearboxes that were used and how about the engine oil used as well, where does the line get drawn over too much information in the table?
 * The ease of viewing and simplicity of the table (particularly in editing) is greatly increased by simply having each season on one row. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging from how long it took to expand the tables, it would take you months to contract them again. But as you say, it's not a relevant point.
 * Your second point is simply not true. All teams are obliged to notify the FIA of chassis changes and engine changes, obviously. In fact, they are (and always have been) obliged to publish the actual chassis number of the car being used in a race, though we don't include it as it's not terribly relevant. Don't try to obfuscate the argument with some total fabrication. All the tables for F1 drivers have been completed, and all the information on chassis / engine changes are present, as that information is widely available. Of course the information adds to the article - drivers changing chassis or engines, let alone teams, often has a huge effect on their results, and it is imperative that the time of those changes is immediately obvious to anyone reading the table. You don't appear to realise that driving an entirely different car might affect a driver's results. We restrict the information to chassis and engines as this information is widely available (contrary to your claim) and most pertinent. The other info you mention is less so.
 * There is no issue in editing these tables as they are complete for all non-active drivers. Over-simplification in the manner that you are advocating would make the tables useless. You may as well remove the teams / chassis altogether. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you listed this at Third Opinion? If not, what's the banner for? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course the dispute is listed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You listed it a minute ago. Let's not pretend it was listed when I asked the question. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get drawn into irrelevancies over when or if a discussion was listed. That is a distraction technique to try and diminish the opinions i have put and to undermine the discussion as a whole. Comment only on the content of the discussion and not irrelevant side issues such as when or if something is listed--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "of course" like I was asking the question for no reason. Don't paint me as the troublemaker, and watch what you say about "distraction techniques". My good faith is already tested. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Another disagreement here. Cannot put it in a more concise way than BB put it, so I'll leave it at that. It's not like anyone apart from yourself has had any concerns with it... Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Rubens Barrichello. The results table has been stable and only on one season per row since as far as i can tell |28 May 2007 without any objection. The above use Bretonbanquet has edited the Rubens Barrichello page without objection since the table was formatted to one row per season.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And your point is? You find one table (the biggest of the lot) among hundreds where two rows haven't been expanded. I didn't expand all the tables - other editors were involved in that too. I simply didn't notice those two rows weren't expanded, as obviously I don't check several years of results every time I edit the current row of the table. I'll get on to it - thanks to "the above user" for the heads up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Rubens Barrichello article hasn't fallen apart and there have been no cries of the table being confusing or misleading or incomprehensible because the seasons are on one row. The table has been stable and has been updated in the same manner as all of the other Formula One drivers’ tables with no one editing it to split the season over more than one row, showing that having the seasons on one row is not as confusing, misleading, or incomprehensible as is being made out. It may be indicating the information added is of little value to outside users other than those who actually added the information. Also now changing the table would be a POV push to further your point. This article clearly and easily demonstrates that having each season on one row is not as disastrous as is being made out and is actually moe than acceptable for the results table as the Rubens Barrichello article table has been so stable.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't fallen apart. But I suspect the reason it hadn't been expanded was that it was the biggest and nobody fancied doing it. It turned out there were only three rows that needed expanding anyway. It's true that in his case, the expansion adds less information than for others, but it still adds information. The guy changed cars mid-season and some of his results were in a year-old car - this is relevant to his results, even if you don't see it. In other cases, it is vital to understanding the table. I do not agree that it is of little value to outside users - I'd like to see you provide some evidence for that. I have expanded the table in line with current consensus - of course it can be reverted if the consensus changes. I am not trying to prove any point other than the current consensus. Please refer to Stirling Moss and try to imagine how useless that table would be if it was bastardised to the suggested "clearer" version. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that, given that the other 8-900 hundred tables are already expanded, and precisely nobody has complained, it looks like Wikipedia users in general have no problem understanding the tables. Furthermore, these tables are used in several foreign language Wikis. There is no history whatsoever of any problems with these tables. In fact, most of the discussion we've had about them was when people wanted to add information to them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to show that outside users do not care one way or the other, Also i was given a message do not edit this again until a consensus has been reached and I shall say this extends to all users involved and to all articles involved. If consensus does say "change to split the seasons" then by all means change the table but not until then. The table appears to be understandable just as easily in the single row format as the multi row format. I think the table is much cleaner and simpler to read within the article in single row format. The multi row version has large blank gaps which are unsightly and not very nice to look at. I am pretty sure the main body of the text can explain the Chassis and Engine changes with no need to compromise the tables in the way that is being done. Indeed there is no history of edit warring because few if anyone out side the three of us care about this issue. As has been demonstrated both versions of the table produce stable tables and it is now down to discussing the merits of each as opposed to edit warring over them. I have given some reasons above as to why i believe single row tables are better, and you have given reasons as to why you believe multi-row tables are better. I say we both wait for the 3O to come to fruition and discuss this further when we have information from other users (if any users care enough to comment). Until then I say there is no editing of any of the table to either single row or multi row.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with Bretonbanquet by and large. The summary table might be easier to read in a single row format, but then Harry Potter is easier to read than Tolkein and that certainly doesn't make the tales of the wizard kid the better books. Stripping out information such as you suggest makes such tables so simplistic as to be useless. Where there is a high degree of complexity to a driver's results then the table is the most succinct and elegant way of demonstrating that (unless you really do want prose in articles that reads "...and then he drove car u in race v and finished in place w, and then he drove car x in race y and finished in place z, and then..."). As with any informative text the prose should be straightforward and readable, while detailed information is much better presented in a figure or table (just take a look at the "instructions for authors" pages of most major scientifc journals, for example). What you propose turns this on its head. There are tweaks to the tables that might be able to be made that would help with readability (anyone any idea how to make lines between seasons bolder than lines between cars, for example?) but at present they offer a relatively straightforward at-a-glance summary of a driver's career. Where such complexity doesn't exist then this issue doesn't exist either.  Pyrop e  19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Project's sample driver results table shows separate rows for different chassis and teams. Tables should conform to the standard until a clear consensus to change emerges. So far I see 1 editor who wants change and 4 (including myself) who don't. DH85868993 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add that consensus has existed for some years on this, as the sample table shows, in that there has never been any objection to the multi-row format, after many, many discussions involving it. Therefore it is ridiculous to now pretend that we are looking for a totally fresh consensus, just because one editor objects. This discussion will either reinforce that existing consensus, or change it. In the meantime, the articles can conform to the consensus that has existed for years. It seems that Lucy-Marie's main objection to the multi-row format is that she doesn't like the look of it and it doesn't add any relevant information. She hasn't addressed any of the rebuttals of her other points. So far four editors disagree with her. Not for the first time we have a situation where one editor wants to put editing on a semi-permanent hold while we wait for points of view that may or may not materialise, to make a possible change to hundreds of articles - a change nobody else appears to want. I suggest we carry on as before until such time as this discussion might threaten to produce a consensus against the status quo. Practically all (if not all) the tables are multi-row already anyway, and it made perfect sense to bring Barrichello's in line with the others. I agree with Pyrope's suggestion that subtle tweaks could be made to improve the appearance of the tables, a more solid line between seasons being a very good idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above comments imply there are many articles which have been unilaterally changed. At the moment it is simply one article. I am sure one article can stay the way it has for over three years for a few more days. Consensus on this issue will not take months to formulate it will take days at most and the one article you are referring to can wait a few more days, after all it has been stable for over three years in its current condition. I am now simply waiting for others users to comment. I have given my views on this topic and so have other editors. I am not going to sit here and rebut every single point made by every single other user. In the end it will be the overall consensus of the users that decide what the policy is and it is not for anyone to go back and forth refuting and counter arguing every point another editor makes. The best way to have this discussion is to allow a few days of comments to build up and make answers to direct questions and then see what the consensus is. There is no point is having this discussion if the purpose is to "win" by diminishing other users views or trying to refute every point made by another editor. I am simply now going to wait a few days to see what happens but in the meantime i am sure one article can wait a few days if it does indeed need changing from the way it has been for over three years. If it is changed again then it will be an edit war that is unnecessarily occurring purely because an editor cannot wait a few days. I will of course answer any direct questions that are asked to me which relate directly to this topic or my original comments.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'll accept that when you make things up, like the idea that chassis and engine changes are secret and little information exists on them, people are going to challenge them. It doesn't surprise me that you don't respond to that, no. Again you are labouring under the impression that a consensus did not already exist, but yes, we can wait a few days until it's clear (if it's not clear already) that there's no support for contracting all the multi-row tables across the hundreds of articles for no reason other than a perceived prettiness. To avoid you edit-warring against consensus, like you also started to do against two editors at Michael Schumacher, I'll leave the anti-consensus version of Rubens Barrichello in place for a few days. It's good to see you admit that you'll edit-war if the consensus is enforced, so we know where we all stand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As i said I am not going to refute every point made by another user. Take it as accepted that I haven’t stated the opinion again. If someone doesn’t respond it doesn’t mean they ignored it. It might mean they actually took it on board and accepted it. I would also like to state that currently there is "a review of consensus" as that is what is being discussed here. Until consensus is either changed from the original or the original is re-stated technically the consensus is under review so claiming to uphold "existing consensus" is disruptive at the least. Similarly changing articles to a “new consensus” before the discussion are clear is also at the very least disruptive. It currently to early in the discussions to make a judgement as to what the concensus might be as the 3O is still outstanding.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't know the guidelines concerning consensus, so there's no point in having this discussion. You think that if one editor objects to a consensus, then that consensus is suspended pending a long discussion? That is not the case. There has never been any consensus against multi-row tables or for single-row tables, so how is there now no consensus at all? It's a mystery to me. And you say I'm disruptive? Wow. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway away from the side show no one is interested in. The discussion is on the Complete Results Tables. The options are: Either multi row tables split on the basis of teams driven for, Engine used and Chassis used or whatever else is deemed necessary. Or single row per season where each season is on one row, or something else suggested which is suggested but that relates to this discussion constructively. Please continue to comment below.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To toss in my opinion, the tables are fine as is. There is no need to cut down on the space, and there's nothing wrong with including information on the different chassis which may change between races, especially for some older privateer teams who may have changed constructors from race to race.  The359  ( Talk ) 01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion response
That sounds like a brillaint idea and your opinion is of course more than welcome in this discussion it is even activly encouraged. Please feel free to comment on this discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Should the complete results tables in Formula One drivers articles be multi-row or single-row for each season if there are changes in Chassis or Engine or Team during the season.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They should be multi-row. As Bretonbanquet said, multi-row tables allow readers to identify exactly which chass a driver was using at the time of a certain race. For example, under a single-row system, how would you explain that Giancarlo Fisichella drove for both Force India and Ferrari in 2009? And if Fisichella needs two rows to explain his 2009 season, then why should every other similar split entrant be limited to a single row? It's never been an issue until now; having single-row tables might remove vast tracts of empty space, but I believe they make the table easier to read because users can identify when and where changes happened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that for drivers just a single line for each year should be used. Instances where drivers changed cars or teams mid year have no reflection on the points a driver achieved. Points accumulated are the same regardless of team or chassis. In my personal opinion the break down of what chassis, teams and engines a driver uses should be indicated on the pages of the inidividual Grands Prix. We have one article for each race there is plenty of scope and room to descrivbe cars in this manner. Yet we used the 'constructor' nomenclature to indicate the results of races. We even use the constructor nomenclature in pre-1958 races where it is completely inaccurate and even inappropriate to do so as constructors title did not come into being until 1958. Also on non-championship races we use constructors in many places when the term constructors is terminolgy specific the the World Championship, and only in years 1958 onwards.
 * My peronal opinion to indiacte a vehicle breakdown on the drivers page, and to use constructors terminologies on the race pages is the backwards way to do it.
 * There is however an achieved consensus, and I am content to respect it. If we are re-visiting consensus then that I believe is by far the most logical representation. I would certainly like to look at the accuracy issues of how we use Constructors terminology.
 * In specific reply to User:Prisonermonkeys as to how to represent Fisichella driving for two different team in the same year? The simple answer is that it is not relevant to the drivers points which team he races for and this difference should be indicated in the text of the article, which is always wikipedia's preference for diplaying of information where possible. --Falcadore (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An additional question, as I (and also Prisonermonkeys) are regular WP:Motorsport contributors, should we be replying in the RFC section or should that be for uninvolved editors? --Falcadore (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was a bit curious about that. This is the first time I've even heard of RFC. I got the impression that the request was made because the above conversation was almost exclusively between Lucy and Breton; I thought an RFC was when a discussion was put to other members of the same WP rather than put out to the entire Wiki. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All Comments by all users regardless of who they are. Are welcome.--07:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.56.4 (talk)

I do find it a little odd when someone says that the team a driver races for is irrelevant to his points score, or changing teams is no reflection on the number of points scored. I find that utterly illogical. So why did Fisichella switch to Ferrari mid-season, because he liked red cars? He wanted more points, and the fact he didn't get them is entirely relevant. On one single line, nobody would ever know from the table whether his 2nd place came at the wheel of a Force India or a Ferrari. The tables might just as well be deleted altogether as portray misleading information. By this token, all team/constructor info could be removed and we could just have a tiny table with how many points each driver scored in each season. Yes, the info should be outlined in the text, but as Pyrope said, having text like "he then joined x team, driving a y, then he switched mid-season to the z team, and he drove this for six months, then the zz came out..." it's terrible text. The tables sum it all up perfectly, and users will automatically use the tables to find a specific result, rather than trawl through the text, whether we like it or not. Putting the chassis info in the race articles is fine, but then in order to follow the cars a driver was driving, you'd have to go and check each and every race article in turn. At the moment, it's clearly displayed on the driver's own article.

I think the constructors terminology is a separate issue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to reply: It is a mostly separate issue, but connected to my reasoning as to why I believe a single line is superior for the drivers pages. It was worth explaining, to forstall some criticism of my opinion.
 * The point score does not care about the colour of the car. It is a number which describes in an of itself all it needs to do, explain a drivers position relevant to all the other drivers. The identity of the drivers car is important to the constructors pointscore, but not to the drivers pointscore. For example, James Hunt was the 1976 World Champion. It is not neccessary to describe him as a McLaren driver to explain he was the 1976 World Champion. You can say Hunt was the world champion and that Niki Lauda was runner up and it is completely correct with abosultely no mention of what team they drove for. This is why I say the team is irrelevant to the pointscore, and why it isn't even remotely odd. It is actually commonplace.
 * Sometimes we over explain things and forget simplicity. --Falcadore (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is over-simplifying matters for no real purpose. The bare statistic of "Fisichella finished 2nd" is great, but finishing second in a Force India (which nobody else has done) is clearly more notable and important to his career, than finishing second in a Ferrari (which dozens of drivers have done). Of course it should be described in the text, but to remove that info from the table is just misleading for no purpose. Yes, it's still correct, but it provides considerably less relevant information. You might also say that the results of each race are irrelevant to the Championship position, as the only thing that counts is that a driver's Championship position. Or remove the year of the Championship - why does it matter that Hunt was champion in 1976? You could just say he was once champion. It's still correct. The info could be retrieved from the race articles, as you say, but why create more work for readers? I don't believe it is commonplace among serious sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fisichella finishing second is extremely notable when it's done in a Force India. So it's a great idea to highlight it in the prose text in the body of the article.
 * This is a table. Tables aren't about notability. It's about a factual display of the resultts. Simplifying the table is actually the correct thing to do. --Falcadore (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And you don't have to believe me it is common place to not mention McLaren when describing James Hunt as the 1976 World Champion, just run a google search of newspaper websites and see for yourself. --Falcadore (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree wholeheartedly; emasculating the tables would have no purpose, and is pure dumbing-down, in my view. It would render the tables almost useless as far as I can see, a retrograde step on a big scale. Why you would disguise Fisichella's achievement in the tables, I don't know. I don't often disagree with you, but we'll agree to differ on this one :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tables are raw stats, there can be no 'dumbing down'. To use tables to explain nuances is a failure to achieve the same thing with the text. The tables should accompany the text, not the other way around. --Falcadore (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tables are statistical, but you can have a table that tells you one thing, or a table that tells you four things, in more or less the same space. Text that explained everything currently in the tables would be ridiculously long and complicated in some cases (Stirling Moss), dare I say boring, and who would write it? On a point some might say is irrelevant, removing all the information from the 8-900 tables might take Lucy-Marie a couple of weeks. Adding it all back to the text would take several years, if it was ever done at all. I still haven't heard a good reason to do it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The tables tell plenty of things - but tables should not be telling stories when text tells the story more correctly and more accurately. The tables do not drive the articles, the text does. The tables are supposed to be addendums. You add too much to the table they completely defeat the purpose when they try to convey too much and become unreadable. IWikipedia is a general prupose encyclopedia, not a motorsport encyclopedia. --Falcadore (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right, but you know as well as I do that the text of no driver article explains the information currently displayed in the tables. On a practical and realistic level, you also know that the text of those articles will not be expanded anytime soon, if ever. There simply aren't enough editors willing or able to do it. At the moment, the only editor in favour of removing the information from the tables and putting it into text, and who is capable of doing it, is you. So it looks like we'd be removing information from the tables without replacing it in the text. If the text of the articles ever reaches that standard, and the tables become redundant, we could look at it then. Until then, pretending that the text will tell the story more accurately is a fantasy world. I believe the tables are perfectly readable, in fact far more useful than any single-row table could ever be. Regarding your last point, if the information is too specialist for a general encyclopedia, then it's too specialist whether it's in a table or the text. In any case, I hardly think that showing which car someone is driving is 'too much information'. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * you also know that the text of those articles will not be expanded anytime soon, if ever Like the constructors issue, that is a separate subject, and really, it's making excuses for poor editting behavior. Which is not a good reason to make tables to something they should not. --Falcadore (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to say what the tables should or shouldn't be - that's a matter of opinion. But otherwise I agree, that's a very laudable attitude. But it's not practical, or realistic. The fact is that the tables are already done, as per the previous consensus, and removing the info from them without replacing it in the text is just destructive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is where my point relating to constructors comes in. I'm not about deleting, but demonstrating a more appropriate place for that information. So you see, it wasn't really a seperate issue after all. --Falcadore (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no way in which a more appropriate (or convenient) place for the information can be a separate article. I can't see the logic in saying that these tables are too hard to understand, then asking readers to go to dozens of separate articles to find the same information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it can. They all link together. And of course you can't see the logic, you're writing the tables so you're intimately familiar with the subject. But imagine some of the 1950s and 60s drivers when like Moss for example wouldn't just switch back and forth between cars, but also teams. Or when Ferrari used four different cars in the same season. The tables will blow out immensely. The vast majority of users won't care when John Surtees was driving a Ferrari 156, 158 or 1512. It's the championship position that's the most important bit. If people are that interested in the chassis the drivers were using at each race, then each race article is the most appropriate place for the information, particularly as many of the race articles are carrying the information incorrectly now. --Falcadore (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They do link together but it's hardly "at-a-glance" stuff, is it? Having to go to all the different race articles just increases the overall hassle of getting to the information. Especially given that, at the moment, that information isn't even in the race articles. Moss' table is completed already, but with it, it's clear to see and compare the different results using different cars or teams. I disagree that most people won't care what car he was driving, and I certainly don't accept that they won't care what team he was driving for. It's extremely basic stuff. Even the original ultra-basic tables showed the teams. I've just been to look at a few tables, and well, they are painfully easy to follow. I'd like to add that I didn't design the tables, I just filled a lot of them out, which was policy at the time, and still is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Wow. This got real complicated real fast. To the extent that I can't really plough through all of the above. Breton, Lucy, and Falcadore, I know it's difficult, but can you keep your discussions short. To whoever is keeping score, which team a driver races for is crucially relevant to his or her results, so we should keep rows that are split to reflect this. I'm less fussed about splitting engine and chassis in a driver's results, but they do affect results significantly and if we're splitting rows for teams I can't see any merit in merging only the engine/chassis splits. 4u1e (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then don't. Just read the top few bits - after that it's just the two of us going back and forth. --Falcadore (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Falcadore (and to 4u1e for this not being particularly short...), but I can't see the sense in anything you are saying here. Having a driver's complex race history explained in prose is far less simple, elegant and accessible than having it shown comprehensively in a table. The text should not be cluttered up by too much detail and just the most important points ought to be discussed: those which are important for interpreting a driver's role in history. As far as demanding that readers skip hither an yon through a multitude of race articles to get a sense of which car a driver was piloting at any one time, that's just daft and unhelpful when all of the requisite information is already located in one fairly straightforward table. Also, a driver's career does not consist simply of how many championship points they score. By that logic all you really need is a table of years and points scored; no need to differentiate where they scored the points, how many races they participated in, who they were driving for and in what, and how they performed when they didn't score points (DNF vs. NC vs. non-scoring finish vs. whatever). Tables allow you to simply distinguish whether a driver had a boring but reliable season, or whether their car or talent let them down. It allows a simple glance to show you whether the fact that they finished tenth in the championship was because they competed for the half of the season in a pup but then switched into a bullet, or whether it was a slow accumulation of minor positions all season long. It allows you to see instantly where a driver drove in something a bit unusual (Ferguson P99, Bugatti T251, Brabham BT46B, and so on) and how their results in that compare with their usual form that year. There is a rich depth of information that is available in a simple tabulated format that would take reams of prose to properly describe, and besides being tedious and boring (just take a look at a lot of modern drivers' pages to see how blow-by-blow race histories in prose pan out...) it would take forever to construct. As an aside, I'm intrigued that you are using the future tense when talking about Surtees and Moss's tables, as it rather suggests that you don't know that they are already in the expanded format. In contrast to some of the discussion between you two above, I'm actively arguing that detailed results are better placed in a table than prose, which will allow the prose to be more focussed and accessible for the non-specialist reader. Such an appendix is widely used in all sorts of other technical literature for exactly those reasons. Please go and read Fernando Alonso from end to end and tell me you don't want to gouge your eyes out by about half way through. Now try to imagine that he had a career like the '50s guys and on top of all the information that is already there you now need to add another layer of detail in not only describing which car and team he was driving for at any one time, but try and get that prose to flow in such a way that it doesn't make the average Joe or Josephine want to weep. This is a seriously complex and skilled task that you are suggesting, and one where even gifted motorsport writers have crashed and burned when attempting (looking at you Doug Nye). I'm sorry that the modern drivers' articles are so poorly written, but that is not an argument for dumbing down the tables to allow a casual reader to get an overview of a career. In fact the opposite should be the case, and an awful lot of the modern stuff could be cut down significantly and the detail transferred into a concise format that might live down at the bottom of the page, out of the way, perhaps in some sort of, ooh, I don't know, table?  Pyrop  e  19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to 4u1e and anyone else who finds the long discussions tedious and hard to plough through - I do get a bit rambly in arguments like these. I guess this page is as hard to read as Alonso's article. Suffice it to say I'm against the proposal to merge the tables to a single-row format. As far as I can see, everyone so far is against the proposal except Lucy-Marie, and Falcadore, who wants to move the information to other areas rather than delete it, which, while I thoroughly disagree with it, is a more valid idea. I agree with everything Pyrope has just said. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Adjustments to address issues raised...?
At the risk of kicking this off again, but in the spirit of compromise, I've had a play with the table format in a sandbox to try and increase the readability of the longer, more complex results tables. Please have a butchers and let me know what you think.  Pyrop e  23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. Would a colour work instead of the white line between seasons, to accentuate the break more, or would that be overkill? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just had a play with that. To my eye anything other than white or neutral tends to draw the eye toward the line, not the data! Even light grey seems to suffer this a little.  Pyrop e  14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For me it makes things appear slightly more cluttered, but I'll happily agree to it if it proves popular with others. I suggest by the way that in the absence of a clear agreement to merge the lines after a couple of weeks of discussion, we effectively have a concensus to keep the status quo. Concensus is always open to challenge of course. 4u1e (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a quick test with the coloured lines too - I agree that they are a bit bold, whatever the colour, or they clash with the colours in the tables. As Pyrope says, even the grey is a bit much. So white is fine. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the grey lines but I don't think it's a huge improvement over the current format. And I wonder how we decide which tables to apply them to, i.e. what defines a "longer, more complex results table"? (I'm also a little concerned that if we apply them to some tables, then some editors will think that's the standard format, and start applying them to other (i.e. not "longer, more complex") tables, and we'll eventually end up having to apply them to all the driver tables, "for consistency" - which seems to me like a lot of work for negligible gain). DH85868993 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)