Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Tables

History
The current standard table formats have been derived as a result of the following discussions: Please continue further discussions on this page. DH85868993 12:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Race and Career Result Charts (Note: this discussion is archived and therefore must not be edited).
 * Chassis links from tables
 * Constructor career summary tables

Format of Engine columns
How much detail should we include in the Engine columns? As much as is known (e.g. "Renault RS01 3.5 V10") or should we limit it to just engine manufacturer + configuration (e.g. "Renault V10")? Does the format need to be consistent between Driver career summary tables, Constructor/team career summary tables, race entry lists (e.g. the 1950 British Grand Prix entry list) and season summary articles (e.g. the 2005 list of Drivers and constructors)? DH85868993 12:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Season Progression Tables
Hello,

I thought it might be useful to have some indication of the progression of the championship lead over a season in the standings table. Here's an example using this year's drivers championship

$†$ Drivers did not finish the Grand Prix, but were classified as they completed over 90% of the race distance.

Thoughts? The gold bordering could be more visible if red, as below:

$†$ Drivers did not finish the Grand Prix, but were classified as they completed over 90% of the race distance.

What do people think of this? - 129.234.252.67 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That was me posting above - forgot to sign in Pretty Green (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have advertised this discussion at WT:F1. DH85868993 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice idea, but a little bit garish? How about a black border? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow that does make the table look awful. Please never never suggest that again. It makes the table look garish and detracts from the clarity of the table. It is also possibly trying to use the table to convey too much information.--Lucy-marie (talk)15:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Try not to trash people's suggestions quite so roundly, especially given how uber-sensitive you are about your own. To counter the garish angle, here's the table with grey borders, for instance.


 * No personal comment was made it was a comment purely on the content of the discussion. I firmly believe the addition in any colour is garish, unsightly, overly complicated and unnecessary. The tables are fine without this addition and the addition is unnecessary. In providing additional clarity it fails to, so it is surplus to requirements and something which is already dealt with on each race article and the rest of the article as a whole. The tables are at the moment clear and easy to understand and provide succinct clarity which this addition beings to remove.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's clearly not garish in grey, is it??? Nothing grey has ever been garish. It's not overly complicated, it's a blindingly simple, and fairly innocuous addition to the table. It adds information that does not otherwise exist in the season article, and avoids the reader having to go through the race articles to find who was leading the championship at any given time. It might be surplus to your requirements, but let others make their own decisions on that. It doesn't compromise clarity at all. I'd say it would make a good addition to all the season articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the rationale behind the need for this information? As far as i can see it does not add any tangible information easily and without the need for explanation. It will simply confuse not help. At the moment the reader can scan the table and find who won what race easily as the finish position is universally understood. The outline of a few boxes dotted across the table is not. It could mean the driver was on pole position or was in the lead for the most number of laps. While I accept this will be in the Legend it will clog the Legend up as the same Legend is used for the complete driver results tables which will not have this information on it. That table will though have all the other information in the Legend applicable to it. Also this could be the first time something which is grey is garish because the extra outline is garish in all colours.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've explained the rationale. It really is a fairly basic concept, and will obviously have an explanatory note for those who don't pick it up for themselves. It doesn't need to be in the legend, because it is specific to the season articles, not the other articles that the legend is used for. So that's that argument fixed. And no, garish means tastelessly colourful or bright. Grey isn't colourful or bright. If you don't like it, say so, but it's not garish by any measure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we will just agree to disagree, but one definiton of Garish is "Marked by strident colour or excessive ornamentation." and in this case the addition of the colour is excessivly ornamentatal, as the information does not add to the table it is information for the sake of information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think that's ornamental then.. ok. Information for the sake of information? I don't understand the problem. Wikipedia as a whole is exactly that - providing information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that too much information means that other information in the table cannot as easily been extracted and there needs to be a level in this where the amount information is just right ie all the information in the table can be easily extracted and too much information where it begins to get overcrowded and the purpose of the table is lost as it just become a repository of information and not a results table. This is a results table and not Championship Commentary table. The addition of this information moves the table away from its purpose and that is to be a results table. Please also see WP:IINFO as I believe we are straying into point three.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've made that point already, I just disagree with it, that's all. It's a minimal addition which is painfully clear. How it can cloud anything else in the table, I don't see. FYI, it's not technically a results table - it's a WDC standings table, so accenting the championship leader after each race is entirely pertinent. Point three of WP:IINFO discourages "long and sprawling lists of stats" - utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Let's leave this for others to have their say, or otherwise it turns into (another) barney between you and me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment
The above tables show a suggestion for an addition to the drivers progression chart in Formula One artciles. It is proposed to add a box outline indicating who was the leader of the Drivers Championship after each round. Comments please on the proposal and weather the propsal should be intergrated in to all Formual One progression tables.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm, forgive me if I'm missing something but where is it stated what the box means? A note stuck at the bottom of the table looks awfully ugly and out of place in my eyes, and we can't run without the meaning stated somewhere. I'm not too sure if I like the look of it, but I concede this does add information to the article with no cost in additional tables. My chief concern is whether it clutters the table at all, the cleaner the table the easier it is to read. QueenCake (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think PrettyGreen put a note in - that could be added anywhere really. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral shading to postive about this. It gets the information across in a subtle way (assuming we go for grey rather than red!) without obscuring any of the other info in the table. Actually the more I think about it, the more this seems like a good way of conveying the information that otherwise would come from one of those championship graphs Autosport do (there's one in last week's issue describing Franchitti's route to this year's Indycar title). It might be a good idea to try it out on an audience not familiar with the topic though (i.e none of us!), to see whether or not they intuitively grasp it. 4u1e (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't stick a note into the table, but I presume that could be done with relative ease. I do agree that the red colouring is perhaps too garish - I stole the colouring from the National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup article - and the grey works much better. The simple reason for suggesting it is that the information is relevant in providing an understanding with regards to the progression of the formula one season, and not clear from the table. Such a summary is provided in other sports (for example the articles of the various cycling grand tours (see here or here), but I was conscious that adding another table was neither practical nor desirable. In response to User:Lucy-marie - there's simply different level of preferences. I do agree that we need to be conservative in potentially over-colouring tables (hence the proposal rather than just making the change!) but in this case I felt that information was interesting, relevant, and not easily conveyed in the articles as they stand. Pretty Green (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - If someone with better technical nous than me knows how to border multiple cells at once then that would reduce the amount of colouring and impact on the table, so that in the above example Hamilton's row would have a single border around all races from Canada to Germany, and so on.


 * Just how necessary is this information is it needed to make sure there is complete understanding of the table or is just ornamental cruft added to provide information which is not really needed? I suggest we take this proposal to a disinterested group and ask their opinion a that will give an independent view on weather the proposal are enhances, diminishes, or has no effect on the tables.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would a "disinterested group" know how necessary the information is? Intrinsically they have no interest in it. Are you proposing to choose another WikiProject at random and ask them? I think we all agree that the information is useful as it doesn't exist elsewhere in the article, and we don't want another table. This is a simple fix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It would demonstrate if the table was aesthetically compromised by the addition of the opinions of someone who is not involved in this discussion, by having them cast an independent eye over the proposal to see if it makes sense or not. Also stating "we all agree" is a little premature. I say we actually try and get an independent take on this to see what an outsider makes of this proposal as the article needs to be easily understandable to someone with little or no prior knowledge of the subject at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What I'm asking you is how do you propose to do that? You've made a request for comment and got nothing from outside the WP so far, so what do you want to do? And ok, you think the information is of no use whatsoever? Can you explain why you think a function of showing the Championship leader after each race might be of zero use in an article about the Championship? And please confirm that you believe this addition renders the table incomprehensible. Of course, the aesthetics of the table are not an issue, as tables are not for decoration under any circumstances. There's no argument to be made that the tables aren't as attractive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly with your last point as they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I believe rose tinted specs are being looked through at this table by other users. As for the information having boxes outlined to show "the championship leader after each round" is not needed as it adds no value to the article after each race the leader is placed at the top of the table because they are the person with the highest number of points so the current championship leader is very easily identifiable. There is no need to show who was leader after round three or round seven, the information is irrelevant. The things which are relevant are the finishing positions in the race, and the total number of points accumulated. Added outlines to boxes after each round showing who was leader in the championship is totally unnecessary, as the current leader of the championship is easily identifiable as they are at the top of the list. Can you please show some appetite amongst the wider Wikiproject for this change or is it just a couple of user who are saying this going to work and it looks nice without there actually being a need for the addition or a necessity for the addition. If this info is added then where do you stop with the additional information? Do you go on to add different colours round different boxes showing who was second or third in the championship after each rounds do you give the reigning champion some special outline and so on. This information is not needed as it is of little to very limited value, to the table and is unnecessary proliferation of information in a table which does not need it. Can you please demonstrate why it is so necessary to be able to identify the championship leader after each round and why that information is so important?--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand my last point - beauty / aesthetics / attractiveness is not an issue, as the tables do not exist to look pretty. They are there to give information. We have been through this with the flags issue and there is no suggestion that adding, removing or subduing information for the sake of aesthetics is acceptable. The rest of your post seems to say that your opinion is that there is no value in being able to track back and see who was leading the championship at any given point during the season, and the only thing that matters is who was leading at the end. I couldn't agree less, and I believe it's a fundamental asset to be able to see who was leading at the beginning of the season or in the middle, to avoid having to add up the points to work it out. It's actually pretty obvious what the function of it is. Other wikiprojects do it, as has been explained, so it's not a novel thing, specific to WPF1.


 * Nobody is advocating the other additions you mention, so don't cloud the issue. No appetite for any change needs to be shown anywhere. Any change is welcome as per WP:BOLD until someone disagrees. Then a consensus is formed either way, which is what we're doing. You are the only person so far who thinks it's unnecessary information, the only issue for other users seems to be the form in which the info is shown. If nobody else objects and significantly more people want it than don't want it, then it happens. If nobody complains or objects, then no action can be taken to that end. That's how it works, unless you have some other interpretation of the guidelines. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Lucy: knowing who led after each round is pretty important. In fact, it is the story of the season. You seem to be suggesting that only the end result is of interest, but every season summary or F1 book I've ever read has mostly consisted of explaining how the season (or race, or career) unfolded. You say that the leader is at the top of the table. This is only true for the current season. For the 60 previous seasons, you have to be able to do the maths in your head (and I do!) to work out who was in front as the season progressed.

As I've said above, Autosport magazine sometimes uses a graph to convey this very information. They usually do show the top three, four or five contenders, although I agree that we should not. Of course, no-one has suggested that.

I agree that it would be useful to have views from non WP:F1 readers about whether they 'get' what the outlines mean, but we can only lead the horse to water. If such outlines are already used elsewhere that may also provide some evidence of their utility. 4u1e (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to 'bump' this. Is Lucy Marie the only person to object to this change? Why don't we soft introduce it on a couple of articles - it might get a few more views and if there are negative responses we could remove it? Pretty Green (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. There certainly hasn't been a major rejection of this, or any consensus against it. Maybe people will have more to say if they see it in place on some articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although there's certainly not a concensus to change the status quo, either. I'm all for gathering more opinions, and a limited demonstration on a live article might help us do that. 4u1e (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not a particular fan of it for a number of reasons, some similar, but not the same as Lucy-Marie's. This is supposed to be a Request for Comment, but in another RFC elsewher within this Project I saw a lot of rebuttals of other people's comments which discourages me from detailing my issues as the RFC has seemingly been used to batter down naysayers, rather than collect opinions. It is not that I am against robust debate, I just did not think the RFC process was neccessarily for the purpose of the majority to rebutt the minority.
 * I will say that applying it over the full 60 year history of Formula One is going to be problematic, because of those years when not all races counted towards the title. My reasons for this is mathematical in nature and may be extroadinarily boring and long-winded to read. Most of you will not want to read it and may want to thump me over the head several times hard.
 * Applying the removal of points prior to the end of the season can provide an inaccurate result.
 * If for example in a eight race season only seven races count, at what point do you start to take the points away. Part of it will depend on the official wording mind you. Does the wording say "drop your worst score" or "best seven scores to count". It makes no difference at the end of the season, but it can make a large difference during the season.
 * In the example season, if it says "drop your worst score" then after the first race, officially nobody has any points. Which is silly, even if it may be correct. So everyone generally applies it the other way. But it can be technically wrong. This gets complicated towards the end of some seasons as you will see in the media of the day long and technical explanations of how the progress point scores do not actually reflect how the end of season total is likely to look and a myriad of predicted permutations start to appear, if driver A finishes 3rd then he will have score XX but he can expect (not will) to lose X points because he has to drop his worst score and it can become very crystal ballish very quickly. The mathematically correct way to do it for example in the seven out of eight example would be to take I think 13% of the worst score away after the first round, but nobody ever does it this way, even if it is unofficially the most accurate.
 * In the late 70's and early 80s it gets worse because F1 started to cut the seasons into two parts and say delete two races from the first half and one from the second.
 * All of these variations of scoring have the intention of evening up the score at the end of season and not prior to that, because the season is supposed to be considered holistically, if I can use the word in this sense. Applying during the season is mostly not the intent of the rule variation in the first place. It is an interpretation, and even if the media of the period apply the points that way, it is still an interpretation, even possibly speculation. And we're not supposed to interpret, analyse or speculate.
 * My apologies to those who persisted in reading and ended up giving them a headache. I almost certainly will be widely rejected and ridiculed for saying the above, so feel free to do so. It's how consensus is supposed to work. --Falcadore (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, which I hadn't thought of. (My objection to long discussions was to do with the long, repetitive cycles of the same comment between (usually) two editors. Long, thoughtful posts like yours above are of course very useful). Although I can see what you mean about the points, I believe that the practice was to take the best X scores up to that race, so dropped scores are only a factor towards the end of the season. If I am correct then even for a split season, this is simple enough to do. What we need is a good reference either for how the scoring rules were applied or for the leader after each race, which should be possible to unearth. And of course you are right that consensus is about building an agreement, not about shouting down others. My apologies if I haven't met that ideal! 4u1e (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally - depending on the interpretation, we can have more than one points leader. IE a different driver can be the points leader depending on whether the worst score is removed or not. --Falcadore (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say it depends on whether there's a standard way of doing this used by the major sources. I think there is, but the onus is on me to find something to support that! I'll have a poke around. 4u1e (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look at (randomly) the 1987 Autocourse and the 1986 FOCA yearbook. Both give the points totals after each race and both simply drop the worst scores out of the total once the maximum number of scores has been reached. Interestingly only three drivers were affected by this in the two seasons - part of the reason for the dropped score rule was to allow for a certain amount of unreliability and most drivers didn't get 11 pointscoring finishes anyway! I'll have a look at Motorsport as well and report back. 4u1e (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat idiosyncratically (which perhaps shouldn't be a surprise...) Motorsport for 86 and 87 doesn't give a table of championship results after each race, or even at the end of the season. I think if we could establish what Autosport was doing in this period, we'd have a reasonable case for the simple approach being the standard one. 4u1e (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1975 John Player yearbook gives points after each race, but again no-one scored often enough to have to drop any so I don't know what they would have done. I only mention it as further support that it is normal in season reviews to identify the championship leader after each round, albeit with more detail than is being proposed here. 4u1e (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's no reason why this couldn't be applied for years since the drop-worst rule appeared and not previously. But ideally if we can find a referenced-supported way of doing it I'd guess that would work. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * True, although I'm not convinced we've really got agreement to go ahead here. A trial and a renewed requuest for comments might be the way forward. 4u1e (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't think there was any "battering-down of naysayers" - more an unwillingness to allow falsehoods and bad faith to go unchallenged. Any sensible comments would never be "battered-down", such as this valid point of the rule of dropping the worst results. I'd be happy to see a trial of this on a later article where the results-dropping didn't apply, and maybe not applying this latest proposal to articles where it could become problematic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bretonbanquet do you mind clarifying your comments especially with regards to "an unwillingness to allow falsehoods and bad faith to go unchallenged".--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was speaking generally, obviously. I'm sure you know the kind of thing I mean. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you two keep any off-topic discussions to your talk pages, please? 4u1e (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of addressing the above user on any subject on discussion pages again. Life is too short. 4u1e, while previous discussions may have been irksome to others, and I do understand that, none of them were off-topic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion ended 4 years ago, but i'm gonna make a small suggestion anyway. How about a more subtle approach? Knowing who led when is interesting, it's just hard to find a way to give the information without distracting too much. something like a little add-on sign might help: for example (°, *, '). Another solution is underlining the latest result like i did in the example belowBytas (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

$†$ Drivers did not finish the Grand Prix, but were classified as they completed over 90% of the race distance.

Race results on event page
Hi there, I just thought it might be a good idea to use the same color codes used in the championship standings as a quick indicator of the nature of a position on an event results page. It adds extra information without negative side effects. It would look something like this (example from formula e page, same idea though). Look at the first column.

Bytas (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not keen myself. What extra information does it add? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not negative, but no positive either. Completely pointless. --Falcadore (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see the point of this either. In the season results matrices this actually has a use, because the competitors are listed by championship order and the individual races results aren't always that obvious. The coloring, for instance, allows one to find out who won which race in no time. In this table, however, the nature of the postion is made clear by the order they are listed in. The coloring those not add anything at all. Tvx1 (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to state that it is not pointless at all. It shows in less than a second who is in a point paying position and who isn't. It also makes a clear distinction between different types of classification. In short: it adds structure, user friendliness and strengthens the convention of the used colors, without having any negative effects what so ever. The boxes are there, they still have the exact same information as before, but the background, which would otherwise be a blank square, are used to add extra structure to the results. If it has any negative side effects, i encourage you guys to list them and provide an argument as to why these negatives are an objective drawback. I know this is a new concept and might take some getting used to, but in the long run, i'm convinced that it is an improvement. For example, if a scientific test would presents readers with 100 result tables and ask them to identify if the table used the modern point paying system (top 10) or the old (top 6) i'd bet money on the fact that readers would be able to make the distinction quicker every single time in the newly proposed format. Information doesn't have to be numerical alone, environmental information can be just as powerful, and can help to accentuate certain information and improve it's usability. Bytas (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't need colour to show the points-paying positions – we have a points column for that. We also don't need it to show first, second and third – we have "1, 2, 3" for that. Those who have retired are clearly marked with "Ret". It just looks like decoration to me, and that is not required. If you want a negative side effect, I think it's unnecessarily gaudy. But the main point is that there is no discernible advantage in my opinion. The colour system was devised for other uses and I don't see that it has any valuable use here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, but the unnecessarily gaudy thing is a personal opinion. ;) I personally think the blank table looks dull in comparison, but that doesn't matter because it's how i see it, and doesn't have anything to do with objective use of the table. And while the colour system may have been designed for other uses, it has grown out to a well known convention under racing fans, a convention that is no longer confined to just F1 and wikipedia, but is used and recognized around the globe. I gave an example of a situation where the colors can have a real impact, but in general it just helps the human brain to process and use the presented information faster and more efficiently, which is an advantage that in my oppinion shouldn't be underestimated. Bytas (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some evidence that this colour system has made any impact beyond Wikipedia. It was something that was knocked out years ago between a few editors, mainly for the season articles and the driver / constructor results tables. We've given our opinions, let's see what others think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Link specificity
Hi! In order to get an overall good quality level in linking, the MOS suggests (Manual of Style/Linking) to avoid links like Moreover linking many times on consecutive rows the name of the same company is just plain overlinking (Manual of Style/Linking). I know the first link seems "more complete", but from the point of view of the reader is pointless to link also the company, he is going to find it on the car article. For these reasons I suggest to adopt also in this table links like. I'm running a bot in order to fix wikilinks like these, so we are not going to spend human time on them. Do you agree? -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 19:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * and use instead a simpler


 * Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)