Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 Formula One World Championship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Explanation of the system being used

Latest comment: 10 years ago115 comments12 people in discussion

Okay, this is a bit unusual but with all the tables in the above discussion, my mobile browser cannot handle it when I try to edit, so I am forced to create a new subsection so that I can actually contribute to the discussion.

Anyway, I noticed that the table has been re-edited in the past hour or so to order the table, based on WCC order with the edit summary that the system made no sense. So that there can be no cause for confusion, I am going to describe the reasoning behind it.

The table is currently arranged sequentially based on the lowest number being used. The lowest number at Mercedes is 6, and the lowest at Ferrari is 7, so Mercedes is listed first. Likewise Williams and McLaren, where the lowest number at Williams is 19 and the lowest at McLaren is 20; therefore, Williams is listed first.

This does create a couple of unusual patterns, like Sauber and Toro Rosso going 21-99-25-26, or Lotus and Force India going 8-13-11-27, but this system is widely used in motorsport season articles, mostly for touring car racing. V8 Supercars, the BTCC and WTCC all do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's the system Formula One articles have been using all along. So I don't see why it has to be justified by comparing to Indycar and WTCC. --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Now the list looks more confusing and unprofessional as it did previously!

I give up with you guys, I actually do. The fact that it's been SO hard to just change the table to WCC standing when now even the FIA has listed it that way is just extremely appalling. I get it, it's been listed by driver numbers in the past, but that was BECAUSE OF THE WCC STANDINGS. Yes, I get it, sometimes there were exceptions but for goodness sake. I just think you two love a good argument, you two should be ashamed. Joetri10 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No actually you are wrong. Prior to 1993 it was never in constructors order. Since then there have been several small examples where the number order has varied from constructors order and we've always chosen number order instead of constructors order. Just because you've been led to believe something other than the truth does not mean I should agree with you and not point out the truth. If you feel frustrated it is because the foundation of your argument is false and that is certainly not my fault. --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore, I was pointing to those other examples because they are separate to Formula 1, because I thought it would be easier to show it at work if I used an example outside Formula 1 so as to avoid confusion.

Joetri10, it does not matter what format the FIA publishes an entry list. We are free to use our discretion in how we represent it in the article. For instance, the draft entry list for this year's Rally Sweden lists competitors in the order that they registered for the event. However, the relevant articles show these entries in the most convenient way. To be honest, I do not understand your fixation with listing the entries by WCC order. As Falcadore rightly points out, the table has always been arranged numerically. The difference between 2013 and 2014 is that the FIA has changed the system for assigning numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The numbers that were arranged numerically were from where the team finished in the WCC (in recent times). How are you not getting this! Previously RedBull listed as Car No.1 and No.2 because they won the WCC, Ferrari finishing 2nd meant Alonso and Massa were 3rd and 4th and so on. The numbers were convenient but otherwise only support the reason in which they were listed. Now that drivers can chose their own number you scrap the actual concept while holding on your "Original System" which actually now, is used in f1 completely different. It's not hard. For the record, the other sites that use a system other then ranking make no sense either. Joetri10 (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No other season articles for any series arrange their numbers based on WCC position. Touring car pages and Formula 3 go sequentially. NASCAR, DTM and WRC go by manufacturer, then sequentially. IndyCar pages go alphabetically by team name, then sequentially within the team. ERC and IRC pages do not use numbers at all. In short, Formula 1 is the only series that ever had numbers that were assigned by championship position. Even then, that was only incidental. The FIA could have assigned numbers based on whoever was voted Most Eligible Bachelor each year, and the numbers would have been arranged sequentially in the articles. You are working this whole thing backwards - you are assuming that we prioritised WCC standings in arranging the table, and that the numbers just happened to be in sequential order. But this is not the case. Those tables were arranged in numerical order, which just happened to reflect WCC standings.

Furthermore, it does not matter how the sources given represent the entry list. So long as we show the same content as they do and maintain a neutral point of view, how we represent that content in the article is our perogative. Since numbers no longer coincide with WCC position, the decision was taken to arrange the teams in numerical order rather than WCC order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No Joetri it wasn't. I'm sorry you chose to believe otherwise but that is not the case. Do you need proof? --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the last straw. Everyone here but you is in agreement to sort the table as we've been doing all along, in WCC order, as EVEN THE OFFICIAL FIA ENTRY LIST IS SORTED. Furthermore, literally not one single person thinks the god awful way you've tried to sort the table (by lowest number, lmao) is in any way helpful. It provides no value whatsoever and is a completely random departure from what we've been doing. Please stop acting like a child and return to contributing instead of vandalizing. You're not going to get your way. Eightball (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And you know what else? I'm certainly a douchebag, but I still try to assume good faith. But I cannot do that here. It's pretty plainly obvious to me that you're upset that everyone (read: everyone) is disagreeing with you and are responding by editing the article in a way you know no one wants. You've even questioned the FIA entry list itself. What source in the world would we possibly trust if not the official entry list released by the people who run the sport? Eightball (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument holds absolutely no weight. You claim that the table should be arranged based on WCC order because that is the way it has always been done. But those tables were only arranged based on WCC order because the numbers assigned to the teams were based on the WCC order. Since the numbers are no longer based on WCC order, arranging the table based on WCC order makes no sense.

On top of that, you don't have a consensus. You claim that I am a lone voice arguing in favour of one system, but there are at least two other editors who I share my views with. And as I said, it does not matter how sources arrange content; we are free to represent it however we choose, so long as we are accurate and neutral about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. Just stop. Eightball (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As Prisonermonkeys says, numerical order has always been the basis for these tables (and in my opinion it is sensible that it should remain that way). If you look at any of the season articles between 1974 and 1995 (when teams generally kept the same numbers from season to season) you will realise that this is the case. Take 1986, for example. Tyrrell finished in 9th/10th in the previous season's WCC, but are listed 2nd. Ferrari finished 2nd the year before but are 13th on the table.

As an aside, I would suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism before you accuse other editors of vandalism, just because you happen to disagree with their edits. Such behaviour is not exactly constructive. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nor do I think it's particularly constructive to repeatedly and stubbornly edit the page to make it worse simply because you can't get what you want, which is what Prisonermonkeys is doing, hence why I call it vandalism. If he wants to try to justify sorting the table in the least useful, least supported way then he can go ahead. Until then I'm going to insist that what he's doing is vandalism. Eightball (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Look Eightball, I'm sorry that you believe it has always been constructor's order in the past but that is simply not the case and it is a conclusion you've leapt to. --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "least supported way" when four editors - myself, John McButts, Falcadore and now deape gecweld - are if the same opinion?

On top of that, why do you keep removing 8,000KB of content? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I do have to apologize for that, I did not release the version with the corrected table omitted the team/driver changes. Sorry. Eightball (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I would like to point out that I have voiced support for sorting the table alphabetically, not based on lowest number within the team. This table is designed to inform readers about what teams (and drivers) are competing in the current season. It is NOT meant to show the results of a previous season. In addition, basing the table on the lowest number in the team is ridiculous. It means that the table would have to change whenever a driver changes teams mid-season, and the order is not clear for new readers. Alphabetical is by far the fairest, easiest to understand, and it will be stable during the season.

If I had to guess, the only reason why these other series use the 'Lowest Number First' is to guarantee that reigning driver's champion is listed first. This is not a problem for us, as we list the defending champion at the top of the article (we even have his picture). JohnMcButts (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't guess. It's what Joetri and Eightball have done leading to this mess of a discussion. And as some series, most notably NASCAR, do not award #1 to the defending champion, or in the case of most open wheel series because they are ladders towards F1 or Indycar so there is never a defending champion. Race number is simply a convenient sorting mechanism. Like alphabetical order of drivers name, although that becomes difficult in linking team mates together. Sorting by team name is difficult for most series because teams are not always well known or even easily identifiable where team mates have individual sponsorship arrangements and sometimes change during the year. Race number is simply the most consistent value that allows sorting via teams.

I have twenty to thirty years of race programs stacked on my shelves here from a variety of regional, national and international motor racing series. Is it a co-incidence that they ALL display drivers in numerological order? What does it say in the race programs you own? What is the prefered method of the hundreds of motor racing series official websites out there? It is by a very long way the most used method of sorting competitors in a list the world over. Why is that not mentioned anywhere in these discussions? --Falcadore (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I have completely lost your logic right now. Within a week you have supported three(!) different systems of ordering the table. You started the week having agreed to the WCC order proposal, than you suddenly changed your mind and supported the alphabetical order proposal and now you suddenly change your support to something you shoved aside right from the beginning: the, somewhat, numerical order proposal. How are we ever going to reach a consensus on this issue if you keep changing your mind every five steps. Having said that, why do we need to endlessly make comparisons with other motorsports? This is like comparing tennis to football to baseball. They all use balls to score points, but apart from that they have different rules and have different traditions. They same goes for all the motorsports. They all use a vehicle to win races but aside from that, they all have different rules and traditions. It's sheer madness to try and forge some consistency between all of them. I think our primary concern should be to try and keep some sort of consistency between the boundaries of our own project. If there is one thing that has been somewhat consistent throughout the majority of the formula one season's pages is that the defending champion is listed on top of the table. That is, if he was still competing of course. I can think of at least three examples (1971,1993,1994) where the defending champion did no longer compete. If we put the three proposals to the test, it immediately takes out alphabetically. Now if we go by WCC order, we would have the problem that we have no guarantee that the defending WDC champion will remain with the WCC champion and therefore that he (or she) will be on top. With the numerical order the defending champion will be on top as long as he/she exercises the right to uses number 1. All in all I feel that going by somewhat numerical order is not a bad compromise.

Putting this whole situation in a greater context it's time that we put this ridiculous, childish discussion to and end, because frankly to much time and cyberspace has been spent bickering about a stupid order for a simple table. It's really sad that a bunch of grown up people cannot get to an agreement by having a debate with even some remote civility. All of us should ask themselves the question how many readers actually care about there being a logical order. To give an example: can anyone give me an explanation which logical order there is in the tables for the 1951 Formula One season and for the 1960 Formula One season? Yet I don't see any complaint by any user about a lack thereof. So is it really a matter of life an death for all of you to see your favorite proposal being selected. Please take a moment to think about that. Tvx1 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to change my mind? I liked the idea of WCC standings. Then I changed my mind after I though about it. Then Falcadore convinced me to go with numbers rather than alphabetically.

Also, I do not see why we need to list the defending WDC first. The table is not there to reflect championship standings. It is there to reflect entries. The champions are already covered in the lead, both in prose and photographically. Listing them first in the table because they are champions is not going to improve anyone's understanding of the season.

On top of that, two season articles with an unusual format do not make your case. As far as I can tell, the argument for keeping WCC order boils down to "we have always done it that way".

Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We have always done it that way, it maintains consistency, limits confusion, AND it's the way the FIA sorts their own damn list. I fail to see how this is the slightest bit complicated. Eightball (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As I, and several other editors have been trying to explain, we have not always done it that way. Numerical order is the consistent policy that we have followed (even though it may have appeared that we were following WCC order).

The apparently unusual format of the two tables mentioned (and, in fact, all the entrant tables prior to 1974) actually follows essentially the same logic of all the post-1974 tables. Since there were no permanent numbers allocated in those seasons, and the actual numbers allocated often varied considerably from race to race (e.g. sometimes only even numbers were used), the entrant tables follow numerical order based on the first race that an entrant participated in. So, taking 1951 as an example, the entrants up to and including Peter Hirt were numerically in that order for the first race, the Swiss GP. Following those entrants are Ecurie Belgique and Pierre Levegh, who first appeared in Belgium (in that order, numerically). Etc. Just thought I'd clear that up, as it seemed to be causing some confusion. If anything, this seems to back up the argument that numerical order should continue to be used, for consistency, if nothing else. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1: Understanding Prisonermonkey's logic is not the goal. Coming to a conclusion is.

As I see it we have the existing method of ordering by race number, the occasional used elsewhere alphabetical by team, and the never used previously constructor's order.

I ask all of you - what is the purpose of a racing car's number? Is it not, (and always has been) to individually identify one car of of the many in the race? The only purpose of a race number is to be the primary source of individuality amongst the competitors. Why not respect that? Ever since they first started putting numbers on race horses well over a century ago it was for the exaact purpose of singling each competitor out for the purposes of identification in programs and in event scoring. It is the most obvious method of sorting competitors in a list.

Two suggest the previous years constructors order is illogical because it implies that each year the results are expected to be the same as the previous.

Race numbers were invented expressly for this purpose. Why is that difficult to understand? --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Every year before this (unless you start going really far back) has been sorted by WCC order. Obviously some of you are going to claim that, no, it was sorted numerically, and the fact that numbers were assigned based on WCC order is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter if you're right. The simple fact is that, for whatever reasons, teams ended up being sorted by the previous year's WCC order. And that's how we're keeping it. End of story. Also, none of you have even attempted to give me a reason not to just use the FIA's order. So there's that. Eightball (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Every year before this (unless you start going really far back) has been sorted by WCC order. Incorrect (as I have stated before), and you only need to go back to 2010 or 2007 to see why (McLaren are listed first in both tables, despite not having won the WCC since 1998).

Obviously some of you are going to claim that, no, it was sorted numerically, and the fact that numbers were assigned based on WCC order is irrelevant. Correct.

It doesn't even matter if you're right. The simple fact is that, for whatever reasons, teams ended up being sorted by the previous year's WCC order. As I have pointed out, that logic does not hold up to scrutiny.

And that's how we're keeping it. End of story. If a consensus is reached to change the policy that we have always used, then fine. But I'm afraid it is not your decision alone to make.

Also, none of you have even attempted to give me a reason not to just use the FIA's order. So there's that. As has previously been mentioned, there is no reason to use the FIA's order if it is in direct contradiction to the policy that we have always applied. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Eightball I can accept that you believe that, but you are mistaken. We've given you examples and you refuse to accept them. --Falcadore (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for Eightball and any other Number deniers I have created this page here which compares number order to constructors' position. --Falcadore (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Time to decide

We can spend days chasing our tails like this, and the only thing we are going to achieve is frustration. We need a consensus, so it is time to decide.

Having gone back and read over all of the debate both on this page and in the archive, I am satisfied that the consensus so far is heading towards ordering the table by numbers, not by WCC order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop acting like a child and leave it. it's done. It's time to focus on other parts of this now this. Joetri10 (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have left it. In the state that is consistent with the consensus. So you are right - it should be left alone, at least until you can form a new consensus to change it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

very close to contacting Admin. You did this with Race Names until we found evidence against it. You kept Sirtokin on the page when evidence was against that also. Now you are keeping this up and we have even found evidence to support why it should be WCC and you just rubbish it for the sake of "Own Opinion". Own Opinion Huh?. Let alone the whole idea of sport/competition in general is ranking, From Champions to point scores. All is tallied in correct official standing order within the sport itself. You making a point to focus on car numbers because "That's what we have been doing" does not make a right nor does it make a wrong. It is not correct or incorrect. However everything that happens, happens for a reason. We ordered them by car number for the convenience of the most simplistic. It however too simplified the sporting boards. Teams finishing higher obtain numbers to carry over and show next year of their position, to reflect and to hold personal for that team. Pits also were moved to support this. We otherwise ordered them in that order as of recently with only few exceptions. Now that the system has changed, we too must change. To support a system that no longer supports an even older system is illogical. In the honor of a sporting mind, a fresh start for the sport and a unified understanding of ranking, ignoring all other pages because one cannot justify with the past forever and making the page easier for all to understand, listing the chart in WCC is the correct official way forward.

There has been no consensus formed, no one has agreed to it. However the actual willingness to understand the reasoning behind this is much more supported. We have the Official F1 Site and the FIA homepage. we also have the general background of how the original car numbers worked also which makes more sense supporting WCC order then "Because we have always done that". This isn't a match for consistency between pages, but for the heart of sport.

This is over, I have too read the discussion and the Consensus I have found agrees with this understanding. Change the edit again and you will consider it a continuous edit war and I will get admin involved. So I ask, please stop. Joetri10 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How about this Prisonermonkeys? These are the reasons why I want to sort the table in WCC: It's the way all the recent articles have been sorted (ain't broke, don't fix it). It puts the most successful and most notable teams near the top (inverted pyramid). It's the way the FIA sorts their own entry list. Reasons you want to sort the table numerically: It's the way other, non-F1 articles do it. Do you realize now why I am as angry as I am? Can you at least attempt to give me one objective reason why sorting the table numerically would make this page better? Ignore the fact that we're on Wikipedia. Ignore all Wikipedia policies. If you were creating this table to pin on your wall for your own reference, how would you sort this and why? This discussion shouldn't be about consensus, or edit warring, or false accusations of sock puppetry. It should be about how we can make our articles best. Eightball (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As the numbers were previously allocated in WCC order, a numerical sort was, in effect, a WCC sort. But now the numbers are completely arbitrary, a numerical sort is illogical, and pure WCC order makes more sense. I support User:Eightball on this. Burgring (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The numbers were just as arbitrary between 1974 and 1995 (most teams kept the same numbers from year to year), and yet numerical order is used there (as it is throughout all season pages). As several people have previously commented, the WCC results from 2013 have no bearing on the 2014 season, and so, if anything, ordering by WCC is illogical. At least with numerical, or, in fact, alphabetical, order anyone viewing the page can immediately see the logic behind the order. And I would suggest that numerical order is preferable to alphabetical order on the basis that it has consistently been used up until now. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't take any amount of intelligent whatosever to understand that the numerical ordering of previous seasons (when numbers were assigned based on WCC order) is utterly irrelevant to this season (when numbers are completely arbitrary). And yet, here we are. Stop trying to choose a method. Start focusing on how the content is displayed. I'm trying to maintain some kind of consistency and usability. You're trying to say "oh well it was numbers before so let's keep the numbers regardless of the fact that it makes the table look completely different from any recent year." It's just ludicrous that I have to write so many words to make such a simple point. Open your eyes. Eightball (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we're stuck with this extremely poor table as of now unfortunately. Its a bit of a joke quite frankly. The shame.

As for these pages in general, I've lost hope. It's clear its nothing more then a joke to some editors. Sorry guys. Joetri10 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It really is sad. And the worst part is that at no point are any of these people making an attempt to improve the page. They're not concerned with the quality of the content in any way. Every argument they've made is about NASCAR articles or Wiki policy but they've never justified why numerical sorting makes the table more useful or easier to read. Eightball (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So now you folks have succeeded in getting the page locked (seriously, I can't remember a time when we effed up a page so badly it had to be locked), what order is this supposed to be? It's not WCC and it's not numerical or alphabetical, what is it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It is numerical order by team - i.e. the teams are sorted by the lowest number driver in the team. This has been the default system used throughout F1 season pages. I think we all agree that it is unfortunate that tensions got so high that the page needed to be blocked, especially on a trivial issue like this. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No. This is the worst possible solution and makes no sense whatsoever. Let's just do it in WCC, LIKE THE FIA DOES, and leave it at that. How is this even difficult? Eightball (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Bretonbanquet, the page was put under full protection less than a month ago as result of the Sirotkin dispute. Tvx1 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @ Deaþe gecweald: Really? Nobody could think of anything more trivial than that? I'm surprised. It's actually partly a numerical order then, and partly random. Past F1 season pages are irrelevant because since '74 when teams had regular numbers, a driver and his team-mate (almost) always had consecutive numbers. They don't any more so numerical order becomes a nonsense. And that list is currently a nonsense. It's very hard to see just exactly what criteria is used for ordering it, making it unnecessarily confusing.

It's either primarily a list of teams or it's primarily a list of drivers. Which is it? To my mind, it's firstly a list of teams (as they appear first in the table) and secondarily a list of drivers. So contrive some order of teams. That's either WCC order or alphabetical.

Contrary to what anyone else has said, there's no consensus here for WCC or numerical ordering. This "discussion" is the archetype of no consensus. I suggest going back to alphabetical as it was originally, so that the edit-warriors can save face and we can all get on with our lives. ANI! Jesus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@ TVX – of course, you're right. Are we trying to outdo the Sirotkin debate here in terms of banging our heads against the wall? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bretonbanquet that alphabetical is a good compromise. If can all agree on that, at least, we could present a united front to an administrator, and either get it unlocked or get it edited for us. Burgring (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Eightball, I have sent you a link (again now) demonstrating what you believe is not the case. You just going to continue to deny? --Falcadore (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WCC order does not work. If you look back at previous season articles, the tables have always been arranged numerically. That this coincided with WCC order is just that - a coincidence. Numbers were assigned based on WCC order. But that is no longer the case. Numbers are assigned based on a driver's personal preference. WCC order does not come into it. The 2013 standings have absolutely no bearing on anything in the 2014 season article, so I do not understand why it is so important to rank teams in WCC order.

Furthermore, if this is purely a display issue, then going by WCC order makes even less sense. The table should have a structure that is immediately obvious to the reader. If we go by WCC order, then there is no apparent reason for the information to be displayed in the table like that. Articles should be self-contained: a reader should not have to go back to another article to understand the content that is presented in the one they are reading. Maybe I could understand it if we were talking about a hardcore scientific article like string theory, but we are not. If you look at the table based purely on the numbers, then if we arrange the table numerically, the order (based on the lower number in the team) goes 1-6-7-8-11-17-19-20-21-25-TBA. On the other hand, if we go by WCC order, it is 1-6-7-8-20-11-21-25-17-TBA. Yes, there are some anomalies - because drivers like Hamilton, Sutil and Bottas picked numbers that are very high - but at least there is a pattern to the first sequence, with the numbers getting bigger and bigger. It is all over the place in WCC order, with the numbers going up from 8 to 20, down to 11, back up to 21 and 25, and then down again to 17, and all for no apparent reason. It is not our place to rank teams based on their success, because that assumes they will all be consistent in their performance - and some teams, particularly Williams, have been wildly inconsistent; in the case of Williams, they have been bouncing around the grid for a decade.

The argument that the table should be presented the same way as the FIA entry list also does not work. Firstly, we are not under any obligation to arrange content the way a source presents it. Provided that we present all of the content and keep our neutrality, how we choose to present that content is our perogative. After all, the entry list contains stuff that we do not touch, like the company names. Secondly, and more importantly, the FIA entry list does not present the entries in WCC order. It presents the teams in WCC order, and arranges the drivers within the teams in their WDC order, so we get the very confusing situation where Lewis Hamilton, #44, comes before Nico Rosberg, #6. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You talk about an order of 1-6-7-8-11-17-19-20-21-25-TBA and suggest that a reader will find that easy to understand. That might be true if there weren't other numbers in between! That isn't the order, is it? It's actually 1-3-6-44-7-14-8-13-11-27-17-TBA-19-77-20-22-21-99-25-26-TBA-TBA. That isn't any kind of order at all. No reader is going to readily pick up on that any more than if it were arranged by last year's WCC.

More to the point, there's no consensus for this semi-numerical order or any other kind of numerical order. I'd prefer WCC, but there's no consensus for that either. In order to achieve a consensus, sometimes you have to forget what you want, and go for what everyone has the least objection to – in this case, that appears to be alphabetical order. Easy to use for us, and easy to understand for the layman. However, it does involve certain editors dropping the stick for the sake of the project (which is starting to look like a barfight) and our own sanity. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it can be an issue, but the numerical order seems to work just fine on season pages for other series: 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship, 2013 World Touring Car Championship season and 2013 British Touring Car Championship season all do it. At the very least, it makes more sense than WCC, which is what I was trying to point out. Right now, my stance is to see which way the discussion runs and consider the merits of each proposal in turn. WCC order was the first one brought up since the lock, so that is the first one I considered. And I think it's a bad outcome for the reasons I listed above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Forget other series. This is the F1 project and we do things our own way regarding everything else, so we can do things our own way with this if necessary. Also, with those series you mentioned, most teams' numbers are at least nearly consecutive within each team, if not totally consecutive. F1 now has effectively random numbers. You want to see which way the discussion runs? Is that not clear already? It runs forever. This page will never see a time when editors actually agree on WCC or numerical. Forget WCC order for a moment – how are you with alphabetical order of constructors? I assume you have no big objections to it since you were advocating it a while back. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I am. I don't understand why there is a need to change from numerical which has always been the case prior. --Falcadore (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Partly because there's no longer any relationship between driver number and team, but largely because we can't all (and will never) agree on which to use. I can see the arguments for both sides (WCC and numerical) but we're at an impasse and we need to find a compromise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, can we at least agree that the template for the teams competing this season should be consistent with the table in the article, even if the order is currently disputed?

Right now, I have Burgring demanding that I form a separate consensus for changing the template to reflect the article.

Seriously, Breton shows up and starts making some actual progress, and then this comes up. Whatever our stance on the issue, I think we can all agree that the template and the table should be consistent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait until there is a consensus here first, then take that to the template talkpage and see if there are any objections to pushing it through. What's the rush? Burgring (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, does anyone have any serious objections to listing constructors in alphabetical order? Particularly those who were strongly advocating either WCC or numerical, like Falcadore, Eightball, Deaþe gecweald, Joetri10, Tvx1 etc. I think Burgring is fine with alphabetical, and I think I saw Mr McButts suggest it a while back.

I definitely think that template should reflect this article and the same order should be used. Let's decide on an order here, and just fix the template to suit. I suggest leaving the template as it was until then, otherwise we'll have a nightmare on two fronts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I object. I do not see the need to change for any reason. The entire reason racing cars have numbers is to allow for individual identification. I see no reason why something so intrinsic to the sport from its earliest days should be dismissed. But if everyone else agrees my objection doesn't count for much. --Falcadore (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can come back to it once cooler heads prevail all around and people realise that going numerically does not break the internet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Falcadore – They've kind of screwed it up for us. Since 1974, the numbering systems allowed us to order constructors via car numbers and we could always have all the numbers in actual numerical order (with a few exceptions in the 70s). Now, using that system gives us a jumble which some editors don't like. We have a disagreement because F1 has changed. We might well have to change with it. We're not dismissing the numbering system, it's just that it now doesn't as easily lend itself to ordering a list of teams. Let's see how many others object to alphabetical ordering though.

PM, that kind of thing does not help. You appear to be suggesting that people are only objcting to this semi-numerical order because they have become hot and bothered. Be aware that if a consensus for WCC or numerical does not arise, then we go back to the original consensus of alphabetical per the admin who has locked the damn page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been a few exceptions here and there. Like when Renault ran three cars, and well Zakspeed ran widely varied numbers (I think 14 and 29? Possibly 15/30 based on cigarette pack sizes) and those differing examples did not break the F1 season articles.

Yes it is a bit of a jumble, but so what? Constructors' order is based entirely on events which did not occur in the F1 season being depicted. To me that reasoning makes no sense. Each season article stands on its own information and should not be dependant on information from neighbouring articles, certaainly not when the reasoning behind doing so is not explained in the article, it is essentially making something up.

So what in the last 15 years or so of Formula one the numbers have been assigned by something closely resembling constructors' order. The table was presented in number order and made no corrections for variances. It would have been presented in number order regardless of the reasons for those numbers being assigned. Now some editors want to re-write history based on how they see it.

There was on objection against a sortable table before based on the fact that using a sortable table you could not restore it to constructors' order. The fact that the objection underlined the lack of merit of constructors' order was completely missed. Sorting by constructors' order requires information not included in the table and cannot be included in the article BECAUSE IT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE DATA PORTRAYED. Why is that not obvious? --Falcadore (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I know what I am suggesting. If I am getting frustrated with people, chances are that they are getting frustrated with me. After all, I had to revert the page nine times in the space of 24 hours because a small group of editors refused to accept what I felt was a consensus. Given the extremely aggressive tactics they used, they were getting hot and bothered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why the page is locked now. Frankly, if another admin had arrived on the scene instead of Bbb23, we'd have seen at least three editors blocked. Nine reverts? Regardless of what you thought was a consensus, you were lucky not to be blocked. Admins never trawl through discussions to see if the consensus you thought you had was real or not, they just see nine reverts and snuff you out for a while. We need to try to work towards a solution, not towards what we want as individuals, however strongly we feel. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to support alphabetical order as a compromise if that can be quickly implemented because what we have now is unacceptably awful. Eightball (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're preferred method is based on facts not in evidence. It's not even remotely citable. How is that explainable? There is nothing in the table anywhere connecting to the previous years results. Where does it say "this is based on previous years result"? Where could it? A completely unneccesary note? --Falcadore (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Bretonbanquet here. That you see that there is any justification at all for nine reverts demonstrates you have lost perspective in the wikipedia process. This is something I have been trying to tell you for sometime, perhaps now you might gain some understanding of this. There is no exemption from the rules because you are Prisonermonkeys or because you think you can demonstrate you are right. You do not do it at all, not even to revert back to a status quo.

If someone is edit warring their own opinion into an article, that is not your job to fix it. It's what admins are for. They will then request or ban the warring editor, not you. You want to be that person, become an admin and demonstrate you understand how consensus process works. --Falcadore (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

New Proposal

I have a new table layout that *might* help us to reach some sort of agreement. Looking through this expansive discussion, it seems that the argument stems from several different views for what this table should show, and how it show show it. My idea came from Joetri10's idea of having the table be sortable. The trouble is that, if you make the current table sortable it creates a duplicate of the sections that span multiple rows. This unfortunately turns the table into a cluttered mess, and can't be reverted without refreshing the page. The trouble I found when fiddling around with the table in sandbox, is that, as far as I can find, you can't have 'merged' rows stay when sorted. (If someone knows of a way, please let me know)

I decided to try creating two separate tables that could both be sorted without effecting the way the table looks. I did this, by separating the "merged rows" (The team, tyres, engine, etc.) from the "unmerged rows" (Drivers, car #'s, and rounds). Because the drivers table is now separate from the teams, I had to add a column for teams. As a default, I set it so that the teams table is alphabetical by Constructor name, and the Drivers table is by Driver Number. I also included and example of a mid season driver change. (NOTE: Because the page is locked, I had to use the table on the talk page from mid-December, so some info is out of date)

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	P
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	P
Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-TBA	TBA	TBA	P
Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	P
McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	P
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	P
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari	P
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P
Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	P

No.	Race drivers	Team	Rounds
1	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull	All
4	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes	All
6	Nico Rosberg	Mercedes	All
7	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	All
12	Jenson Button	McLaren	All
14	Kimi Räikkönen	Ferrari	1-10
19	Valtteri Bottas	Williams	All
20	Daniil Kvyat	Toro Rosso	All
23	Sergey Sirotkin	Sauber	All
25	Jean-Éric Vergne	Toro Rosso	All
27	Nico Hülkenberg	Force India	1-10
27	Nico Hülkenberg	Ferrari	11-19
40	Jules Bianchi	Marussia	All
46	Daniel Ricciardo	Red Bull	All
56	Romain Grosjean	Lotus	All
59	Adrian Sutil	Sauber	All
71	Heikki Kovalainen	Force India	11-19
72	Felipe Massa	Williams	All
85	Pastor Maldonado	Lotus	All
86	Sergio Pérez	Force India	All
90	Kevin Magnussen	McLaren	All
97	TBA	Marussia	TBA
98	TBA	Caterham	TBA
99	TBA	Caterham	TBA

What do you think? I realize that this is not consistent with previous seasons, but this new numbering system has clearly changed things, and this is simply one way of providing information in a (hopefully) clear manner. I also realize that it's not perfect, but I'm trying to find a solution for the problem. If you have any comments, or ideas on how to improve it, I would love to hear them. JohnMcButts (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Another table is never going to be popular. Some people argue that we already have too many as is. I can see and appreciate the logic behind the parallel tables, but I think it is unnecessary and it only really serves as a solution to the dispute rather than the needs of the page. Everything that it does can be better-served by a single table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We have too many tables as it is. Placing two tables where one will suffice is just wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want a sortable table then you don't put sorts on columns of differing rows. You do it either just on the two row columns or just on the one row columns. Essentially it just requires a different format of the table concerned. --Falcadore (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need the sortable function? I mean, it lets the reader sort the table numerically or reverse-alphabetically by engine name or whatever takes their fancy, but what does it actually add to the article that was not there before? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tie-breaker

Here is a question which should give us some pause for thought. Whenever there has been a clash between constructors order and race number (of which there has been a few), how has the tie been broken? Has it ever once been in favour of constructors' order? Is there a single example in any of Wikipedia's Formula One articles where Constructors' order has been given precedence over number order? Anywhere at all?

And the conclusion from that is? --Falcadore (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Jenson Button in 2010. He won the 2009 title with Brawn, which became Mercedes, but he moved to McLaren. Brawn also won the WCC, but because Button moved to McLaren and took the #1 with him, Brawn/Mercedes became #3 and #4, the "highest" (for lack of a better word) available numbers after McLaren were assigned #1 and #2. Had Button stayed with the team, McLaren would have been given #7 and #8 (I think - they might have been in line for #9 and #10). Which means that because Button moved to McLaren and used #1, the top four (or five) teams carried numbers in 2010 that did not correspond to their 2009 WCC positions.

For a more dramatic example, seen Damon Hill, who won the 1996 title with Williams, then moved to Arrows for the 1997 season. Arrows, who competed as Footwork in 1996, would have been assigned #18 and #19 had Hill stayed with Williams. Given all the team changes between 1996 and 1997, Hill's move meant that no-one actually carried the numbers they would have been assigned based on the 1996 WCC standings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations Prisonermonkeys for misreading in the worst possible way. I was not in anyway referring as to how the FIA assigns numbers, but actually how we in wikipedia sorted the drivers table.

Did you see the bit that said: Is there a single example in any of Wikipedia's Formula One articles where Constructors' order has been given precedence over number order?

I was additionally hoping you would not be the first person to reply, but that was perhaps optimistic of me. --Falcadore (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I say this because THIS is how Eightball would have us believe the 2010 article should have been written.

Teams and drivers

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race Drivers
Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	MGP W01	Mercedes FO 108X	B	3	Michael Schumacher
Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	MGP W01	Mercedes FO 108X	B	4	Nico Rosberg
Red Bull Racing	Red Bull-Renault	RB6	Renault RS27-2010	B	5	Sebastian Vettel
Red Bull Racing	Red Bull-Renault	RB6	Renault RS27-2010	B	6	Mark Webber
Vodafone McLaren Mercedes	McLaren-Mercedes	MP4-25	Mercedes FO 108X	B	1	Jenson Button
Vodafone McLaren Mercedes	McLaren-Mercedes	MP4-25	Mercedes FO 108X	B	2	Lewis Hamilton
Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro	Ferrari	F10	Ferrari 056	B	7	Felipe Massa
Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro	Ferrari	F10	Ferrari 056	B	8	Fernando Alonso	All
BMW Sauber F1 Team	BMW Sauber-Ferrari	C29	Ferrari 056	B	22	Pedro de la Rosa
					22	Nick Heidfeld
					23	Kamui Kobayashi
AT&T Williams	Williams-Cosworth	FW32	Cosworth CA2010	B	9	Rubens Barrichello
AT&T Williams	Williams-Cosworth	FW32	Cosworth CA2010	B	10	Nico Hülkenberg
Renault F1 Team	Renault	R30	Renault RS27-2010	B	11	Robert Kubica
Renault F1 Team	Renault	R30	Renault RS27-2010	B	12	Vitaly Petrov
Force India F1 Team	Force India-Mercedes	VJM03	Mercedes FO 108X	B	14	Adrian Sutil
Force India F1 Team	Force India-Mercedes	VJM03	Mercedes FO 108X	B	15	Vitantonio Liuzzi
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	STR5	Ferrari 056	B	16	Sébastien Buemi
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	STR5	Ferrari 056	B	17	Jaime Alguersuari
Hispania Racing F1 Team	HRT-Cosworth	F110	Cosworth CA2010	B	20	Karun Chandhok
						Christian Klien
						Sakon Yamamoto
					21	Sakon Yamamoto	10
					21	Bruno Senna
Lotus Racing	Lotus-Cosworth	T127	Cosworth CA2010	B	18	Jarno Trulli
Lotus Racing	Lotus-Cosworth	T127	Cosworth CA2010	B	19	Heikki Kovalainen
Virgin Racing	Virgin-Cosworth	VR-01	Cosworth CA2010	B	24	Timo Glock
Virgin Racing	Virgin-Cosworth	VR-01	Cosworth CA2010	B	25	Lucas di Grassi

Now tell me again Eightball how this is an improvement? Tell me how the method in use in the 2010 article is, to use your words unacceptably awful. --Falcadore (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned MotoGP - their numbering system is the most similar to Formula One and the riders are listed in numerical order there, so it should be the same here. You can see here that Damian Cudlin switched teams during the season, taking his number with him, and it does not make the table confusing at all. The table should be in numerical order, and if a driver changes teams mid-season, the table just needs to be changed to reflect that. Non-fans should still be able to understand what happened if the move is described in the text. ^Kytabu _Talk 07:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, This is how that table should be looking also. I'd go out of my way to edit all of them in this correct manner to be honest.

As for alphabetically I'll just reiterate my point from before and say our readers are not idiots. So no. Joetri10 (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't say "correct manner", though, as that is your opinion. Personally, I think that table looks extremely odd with the number order being 3-4-5-6-1-2-7-8-22-23-9-10 and so on. The fact of the matter is, prior to the numbers being assigned based on WCC position (pre-1996), the tables are listed numerically, so we should continue on from there. ^Kytabu _Talk 07:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So your preferred method of sorting is based on something that is not mentioned anywhere within the relevant article? You want 2014 to resemble 2013 results even though it has nothing to do with the 2014 season? That defies common sense. --Falcadore (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The tables from 1996 to 2013 do go in numerical order. That order just happens to reflect WCC standings. I think that is where the confusion from all of this started: one group too the position that the table was arranged numerically and that it just so happened to reflect WCC standings, while the other group took the position that the table was arranged by WCC standings and just happened to be in numerical order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just making a comparison to articles where there is no ambiguity in the matter. ^Kytabu _Talk 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So, we appear to have stalled in our attempts to resolve the issue. Is there anyone we are yet to hear from ? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that a lot of the discussion is still aimed at WCC vs semi-numerical. This is a dead argument because nobody is about to change their minds on it and no consensus will arise. Bear in mind that if there is no further agreement on the "numerical order" vs WCC debate, I'd say the previous consensus for alphabetical (before the numbers were issued) should stand. I also see that only two editors have objected strongly to alphabetical, and only one of those (Falcadore) made any sense. Otherwise we go to WP:DRN and nobody wants to do that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see any reason to change what we've used for years. I don;t see it as numbers vs alphabetical or constructors, I see it as changing or leave it as it is now. There is no convincing argument to change the current method apart from a few editors who cite subjective reasons like "awful looking" and that on its own has never been an acceptable reason. So instead there is a compromise arrangement of alphabetical listing being advocated all because some editors don't like how it looks? --Falcadore (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, because the numbering system has changed, it is now impossible to have a numerical order if the table is based on teams. All you get is some drivers in numerical order and others a total jumble. That is not what we've done for years. People keep talking about "numerical order" then producing an order that is barely halfway to being numerical. That's what some people don't like. Sometimes we have to compromise. It's not my preferred choice either, but the alternative is this endless debate and probably edit-warring. I'm ascloseasthis to switching off, but I am trying to reach a permanent fix here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's happenned before and been handled sensibly. 1980 Formula One season, 1974 Formula One season, 1978 Formula One season, 1975 Formula One season, 1977 Formula One season, 1976 Formula One season, 1986 Formula One season, 1979 Formula One season.

See? It's almost been common. --Falcadore (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

They're really nothing like as jumbled as the 2014 proposal would be / is. Those are consecutively numbered with an occasional anomaly. 2014 is not even alternately-consecutive, and has huge anomalies forward and backward. I do see your point, I just don't agree on this one, and would prefer to see a compromise than a continuation of the acres of chat above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, I don't want to be purposely difficult, but having read through the entire discussion again I cannot say there is or has ever been a consenus for alphabetical order. Allow me to (try to) sum up the chronology of the debate: We started out with the numerical system which has been used for years. Prisonermonkeys rightfully raised the issue that the new numbering system would make it less logical to keep using the numerical system. Prisoner sought a consensus for his proposal but none was achieved. In fact a new proposal was made by Eightball and was "endorsed" by you, Bretonbanquet. You even posted an example on how that would look like and frankly it looked quite good. Even Prisonermonkeys agreed with that proposal and consensus was (seemingly) achieved. No objections were raised for a whopping 15 days until on the 4th of january Prisonermonkeys had a change of mind and tried to form a new consensus for alphabetical order. This was met with fierce opposition however. 7 days later the numerical order gained new supporters and the debate evolved into a massive dispute and resulted in fierce edit warring with the full protection of the article as a consequence. So to sum I find any moment where a consensus was achieved for one of the proposals it was for WCC order on the 19th of december.

Now, in short two proposals were made to change the system of numerical order that has been in use for years up until this point:

Arrange by WCC (which can be translated as arrange by Order of Merit)
Arrange alphabetically

My preference lies with arranging by Order of Merit. However I also support the compromise that has been proposed by Joetri10 of making the table sortable. If all else fails I'm willing to compromise to maintain the system of numerical order. Tvx1 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought my table was pretty good too. C'est la vie. I liked the WCC idea and I still do, but enough people don't like it to make it hard to see a consensus for it. Previous consensus for alphabetical was according to the admin who locked the page, and he sort of has a point. He probably saw the article was stable at that point and took the consensus we had for alphabetical order prior to the numbers being issued. Without getting too far into it, there's a definite case for saying that the previous numerical system is neither here nor there because the change in car numbering renders it impossible to produce a remotely consecutive numerical order. We wouldn't be maintaining the old system because, with the best will in the world, it wouldn't very closely resemble the previous system we used. From a distance, it doesn't look like the table is ordered at all. Obviously some editors disagree with that and I respect that.

I don't think taking a point during the discussion (even though there was a bit of a gap, probably due to Xmas and NY) and claiming a consensus at that point is going to fly. The discussion continued afterwards and any nascent consensus was lost. We have three options, none of which are favoured by enough people to produce a consensus. A sortable table might be a way forward if people like that idea. I have tried to find a consensus among everyone's least-hated options, but I'm sensing that people aren't really grabbing it. If that's the case, I may leave you all to fight it out. It was worth a shot. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sortable table could work but it looks a bit messy once the sorting button is clicked as the cells spanning two rows split into two cells with identical content. I would like to point out that the numerical order is used on every MotoGP season page from 1996 to now and there doesn't appear to be any issues there. ^Kytabu _Talk 02:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be time to devise a new table then to suit the new numbering system. Something which enables a numerical order that actually looks like a numerical order. What happens on bike articles is for the bike folks to deal with, this is a different project with entirely different editors writing the articles. The FIA are quite happy with WCC order, and that doesn't fly here any more than what the bike folks do. In any case, the tables on the MotoGP season articles look like they are not ordered at all. Maybe they had a consensus for it – we don't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, alphabetical by constuctor looks like it would work best. Drivers would have to be arranged numerically within each team, because remember the WCC results matrix shows results per car - Ferrair will show results for car #7 and car #14, not Raikkonen and Alonso. Like the teams template, it should all be consistent (the hidden matrix is currently alphabetical, but that will only last to the end of the first race).

"Order of merit" does not work because it assumes teams will perform the sane way they did in 2013. It is based on 2013 standings, which have no bearing on the 2014 season. Any argument in favour of WCC standings needs to overcome that. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

I just came up with a bit of a radical alternative which incorporates both the alphabetical and numerical methods, but I think it's a bit ungainly. ^Kytabu _Talk 06:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A temporary solution

Okay, I have an idea. We are two weeks out from pre-season testing, so I am anticipating information will come thick and fast. However, the article is still protected. What if we called a temporary consensus to open the article up by putting the team and driver table in alphabetical order, on the condition that nobody changes that order until such time as a full consensus - be it WCC order, numerical, or to keep it alphabetical - is formed? That way, the page will be stable, open to edits, and the full consensus discussion might flow a little more easily if we can all turn our attention to working on other aspects of the article at the same time.

HOWEVER, in order for this to work, we need everyone involved to agree not to change the order of the table until a full consensus is formed. This will not work if people immediately start changing the table once the article opens up. In order to facilitate that, I would suggest appointing someone - I would suggest Bbb23, User:Bretonbanquet or User:Kytabu if they are willing - to act as a kind of moderator, watching over the discussion as the only person who can judge whether or not a consensus has been formed.

Before we can go any further with this, we need Bretonbanquet User:Eightball, User:Falcadore, User:Joetri10, User:JohnMcButts, Kytabu, User:Tvx1 and anyone else I may have forgotten to agree to the following:

1) That the article will be opened up to editing again
2) That the table will be arranged alphabetically by constructor, with drivers arranged within their teams numerically
3) That by agreeing to this, you are agreeing not to edit the format of the table, teams template or results matrix (all of which will be consistent) until such time as a full consensus is formed
4) That by breaking this agreement, you can and probably will be referred to the administrators
5) That the power to declare a full consensus as having been formed will be transferred to another editor

If you feel that this agreement has merit, and that you are willing to observe the above conditions, then please indicate so here. This cannot happen without the agreement of all involved; if one person does not agree, then the page will remain protected, and we will continue to seek a consensus as we have been.

In suggesting this temporary solution, I agree to the conditions set ou above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree to those terms. ^Kytabu _Talk 06:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine... Only because it would be counterproductive to otherwise stop other important and relevant information from being posted (Which there will be this week if all goes to plan) Joetri10 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree --Falcadore (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree Opening up the article to editing and temporary rearranging the order does no make it more stable than under full protection. The page is protected until saturday so there is not need to rush and I prefer to calmly, constructivilly further discuss the matter in a civil manner until we reach consensus. If other unrelated edits (e.g. another driver having been confirmed) are required that can be requested using the template protected edit request. Tvx1 (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree Eightball (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, most of us agree. That's good. User:Tvx1 is the only hold-out. He does raise a valid point, but the primary purpose of all if this is to restore us to a state of AGF. I am willing to bet that some of us have assumed that someone else will immediately edit their preferred version of the table into the article as soon as it is opened up. I am not accusing anyone, just saying that some of us probably felt that way, even if they are not prepared to admit to it. But by agreeing to this proposal, we are all saying that we trust one another not to change the order of the table (and template and results matrix) alone if editing privileges are restored. Furthermore, it is unfair on other editors to deny them the ability to edit when they had nothing to do with the dispute.

Since most of us agree, I am going to go ahead and suggest we follow through on this proposal, but two things must happen before we can: first, we have to be willing to trust Tvx1 not to change the order of the table before a consensus is established, and secondly, we need someone to watch over the proceedings and take on the responsibility of deciding when a consensus is formed. I would suggest Breton, Kytabu or User:Bbb23, if he is willing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably count me out of the moderator role; a more experienced editor would be best I think. I've put all the proposals together in my sandbox so that they can be viewed side-by-side. If anyone has any other ideas, feel free to add it to that page. ^Kytabu _Talk 03:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going so far to agree that just do whatever you want. Alphabetical, numerical, upside down, in Japanese; I don't care. It's obvious to all of us that this will never get solved so I'm just supporting whatever consensus comes up. That's me out of this particular discussion Joetri10 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I'm willing to agree to the terms if and only if the order of the table is not changed at all, not even to a temporary state in expectancy of a full consensus. That way the page will remain the most stable as possible. Additionally I would like to suggest another user as a possible moderator DH85868993 is an experienced user who has contributed a lot to this project, yet has not been involved in this dispute. Therefore, I'm certain that this user can watch over the proceedings in a neutral manner. Tvx1 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can moderate if required, but I think TVX1 has a good point in that a totally uninvolved editor might be a better bet. Bbb23 might be a bit busy, being an admin, but I think DH85868993 or CSWolves, or Britmax, or any of a number of experienced F1 editors would do a good job. If they want to! Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Cs-wolves and Britmax are good options for a moderator as well. Tvx1 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me that a consensus has been reached on this issue, despite Tvx1's disagreement vote and their subsequent comments, which I don't completely understand except that they appear to want to impose future conditions on the table. I'm going to try unlocking the article based on the consensus. Howevever, if I see any disruption to the article, I may lock the article again or sanction the disruptive editor. If there's a problem enforcing the consensus, it would be better to complain to me or another administrator rather than trying to enforce it through reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I just want to get User:Tvx1's position on this right. Everyone else has agreed to put the table in alphabetical order for the time being. Tvx1 has said he will only agree if the table remains as it is. Given the agreement from everyone else, I think we can call that a consensus. However, I am concerned as to how Tvx1 might respond if he logs in and finds the table has changed.

I do not think he has anything to worry about when he mentions the stability of the page. This agreement is to change the table to something neutral until a full consensus can be formed. Even then, that consensus bay be to keep the table alphabetical.

Once the article is opened up, the next step is to archive all of the discussions related to the car numbers, and start over from square one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm happy to act as moderator. I'm possibly a good choice because I'm not especially fussed about the table order (which is one reason I haven't participated in the discussion up to this point). Am I right in thinking that until such time as "full consensus" is reached, we are happy for anyone, including the "involved editors" (Prisonermonkeys, Falcadore, Deaþe gecweald, Tvx1, Eightball and Bretonbanquet) to restore the table order to the "temporary solution" order, e.g. in the event that a new editor comes along and changes it? DH85868993 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am okay with that. Same goes for the teams template. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you learned nothing?

So having been formally warned about edit warring on this article, and on the Formula One teams template, you are now edit warring on the 2015 Formula One season article?

Where on earth is the respect for what wikipedia stands for and STOP THE DAMN EDIT WARRING!

It's like dealing with children I swear to you. --Falcadore (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

But he's not wrong? The numbers are assigned for the drivers throughout their career. The only minor change would be if the next WC chooses No.1. He isn't edit warring either.

I don't normally back up Prison but in this/that matter, he's not really doing anything wrong. If at all related to any of this (Details, not design) Joetri10 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. No numbers, then...

Prisonermonkeys add TBAs

k.Belev adds 2014 numbers to 2015

K.belev removes remaining TBAs

Prisonermonkeys restores TBAs

Burgring removes all numbers

Prisonermonkeys restores

Sport and politics removes

Prisonermonkeys restores

Looks like edit warring style behavior to me. My question, why have numbers at all? 2015, we have no idea if people will keep their numbers. There is an assume intention, but it's one of those ass-u-me things. Don't put them in at all until season is imminent surely. Not exactly a significant contribution, and certainly doesn't affect anything. May as well detail car colours like the Indycar folk used to do. --Falcadore (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"we have no idea if people will keep their numbers" Yes we do? Unless the FIA change it at any point until then, we certainly know. Vettel did an interview to explain why he chose no.5 though also explains why he has primarily kept no.1. He certainly reckons the system will be in place.

As for his edits, I cant see it done fluently. It all seems a bit silly and I don't understand why he's had to keep the numbers there.Joetri10 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please continue this discussion on Talk:2015 Formula One season. This is irrelevant to this page and this talk page is already overfilled as it is. If you want to leave a personal message to an user you can do that on the talk page of the user involved and not on the talk page of another article. Tvx1 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't irrelevant as it goes towards patterns of behavior on several articles. --Falcadore (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: collapsible table for test drivers

Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

With the 2014 regulations changing to allow teams more time in FP1 and their being encouraged to run rookie drivers, I am a little concerned that if we continue with the table system used on previous season articles, then test drivers are going to dominate the table if teams start rotating those FP1 drivers. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if only a handful of teams actually do this, then we get ourselves into a situation where we have a large column full of blank space. And given that the table is for teams and drivers who are actually competing, the column seems a little out of place. So, as an alternative, I propose using a collapsible table to show the FP1 drivers, similar to the one used on the 2014 World Rally Championship season article.

This is what the the table would look like under the current system:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds	Free Practice driver(s)
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	#	Daniel Ricciardo	TBA	Antonio Felix da Costa
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	#	Sebastian Vettel	TBA	Antonio Felix da Costa

And this is what it would look like with a collapsible table for FP1 drivers (I forced the table width for cosmetic purposes; this could be changed):

Teams and drivers who competed in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race drivers	Rounds
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	#	Daniel Ricciardo	TBA
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	#	Sebastian Vettel	TBA

Teams and drivers who took part in Free Practice 1 sessions
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Driver	Rounds
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	#	Antonio Felix da Costa	TBA

The advantages of this are many: it keeps the secondary information in the article, but does so in a way that it does not distract from the main focus of the table; that information is available should the reader choose to pursue it. It allows us to be more accurate in highlighting which FP1 drivers took part in which rounds without the risk of extending the main table beyond its bounds. And if certain teams choose not to enter a driver in FP1 sessions, then we haven't dedicated space to covering something that does not happen. It is a neat and tidy system that keeps the most relevant information in the most appropriate place.

There are some drawbacks. For one, it requires some duplication of information, and may cause the article to grow in size considerably. Secondly, it does mean another table in the article, which I think will be unpopular, even if it is hidden (but only because I couldn't figure out how to attach it to the bottom of the existing table whilst keeping the collapsible function intact). And users browsing on mobile devices will always see it, because the mobile version of Wikipedia doesn't allow for the collapsible function at all.

Personally, I am in favour of it (if I wasn't, then I wouldn't suggest it), and would like to trial its introduction through the year. If successful, we might be able to roll it out to other season articles. I think it addresses every issue everyone has ever had with the presence of the test driver column and is worth including. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

At the F1 wiki we have a table that lists test drivers on our 2013 article. Maybe adding their "official" role into the table may be a good idea? Also, we only need the "number" column in the testers table if the test drivers also get to pick their own numbers.

Anyway, I don't think the testers table is actually a good idea. The sheer amount of wikitext added in is too much and surely it represents a bit of stat creep? I believe the data can be added in brackets and/or via a tooltip. So a final column entry could look like this:

Free Practice driver(s) (Rnds)
Antonio Felix da Costa (5, 11, 15)

Which saves a lot of space and basically shows the same data, but kinda has a lot of tooltips. If testers get to choose their own number, this number can be placed where flag guidelines advise it to be placed. —Gyaro –Maguus— 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about what happens when a team runs five or six FP1 drivers over the season. That field will become the largest, and will overshadow the rest of the table. Look at the 2010 season article - before the definition of test driver was redefined this year, they had five separate drivers listed in that column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you could make the specific cell text in the column hideable, again, like on my wiki page, stating something like "five FP1 drivers", which can be expanded to show the drivers and the rounds. I really feel that creating a whole new table is just a little excessive, especially when most of the data gets repeated.

Unless... you want to remove the repeated data from the testers table and have a much smaller table, that only lists "constructor" (constructor-engine combination, not official team name), "number" (if driver gets his own), "driver" and "rounds". Data is not repeated and readers can refer to the above table for the extra data. I realise that this table won't work if multiple chassis, engine or tyre manufacturers are used, but with the way F1 currently works, none of those are likely to change mid-season. —Gyaro –Maguus— 03:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to continue with the current system for now and worry about it if one team runs 5 or 6 drivers (and we think it makes the table look ugly). DH85868993 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I still think that places undue weight on their presence and role within the team. The race drivers race; they take part in every session over the course of a Grand Prix weekend. In 2014, FP1 drivers will drive the car for thirty minutes (or at most two hours) at the start of the first session. Putting them in the same table as one another places too much emphasis on FP1 drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

How about we don't tabulate them AT ALL and only mention them if they somehow make a significant contribution to the season. If teams are going to change FP1 drivers on a case by case basis, perhaps individual Grand Prix reports could carry the information in a non-tabulated paragraph of text?

It should be born in mind the this 2014 season article is a summarised report of the season. If FP1 drivers have no real influence on the season then why mention them at all? Wikipedia isn't a collection of tables. Tables exist to expand upon the text not replace it. If the FP1 drivers aren't worth mentioning in the text then they definately are not worth tabulating. --Falcadore (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

They take part in the event and the eventual consensus was that they should be mentioned in the table, but only if they take part in an FP1 and don't race. I say we leave it as it is (I know I suggested improvements, but this is a reasoned suggestion). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a test driver who drove in FP1 gets promoted to a race seat, then he would be removed from the FP1 drivers column for that team and placed in their race drivers column. This would mean that the data on which rounds he drove in would be lost; considering that one aspect of the column would be compromised so easily, then changing it seems misguided. —Gyaro –Maguus— 12:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're debating something different than the previous consensus, then not showing is an option. --Falcadore (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing the collapsible table. I feel those drivers make enough of a contribution to merit inclusion in the article, but I feel their inclusion in the table alongside the drivers who qualify and race overstates their importance. The advantage of a collapsible table is that it allows us to include them without overstating their role by providing that content in such a way that the reader can follow up on it if they so choose.

The main disadvantage is that it doubles up on a lot of the table content (ie the constructor-chassis-engine-tyre combinations), but exactly what that collapsible table would include is open to discussion. I really just copy-pasted the raw code over to highlight how it would work and what it would look like. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think something like this would be ideal if we use a separate table.

Teams and drivers who took part in Free Practice 1 sessions
Team	Driver	Rounds
Red Bull–Renault	Antonio Felix da Costa	TBA
Red Bull–Renault	Sébastien Buemi	TBA
Sauber–Scuderia Ferrari	Robin Frijns	TBA

It removes the information that is unnecessary for a FP1 driver table, as it is already included in the main table. JohnMcButts (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That is more or less one of the things I proposed above. I am fine with this if it is all that is changed/added. But there has to be something that states "but did not race". —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

GyaroMaguus, that is easily fixed - put a bar across the top of each table, one with the heading "Teams and drivers who competed in Grands Prix", and the other with the heading "Teams and drivers who participated in selected Free Practice 1 sessions". That should differentiate them. I think I did something similar when I first proposed the collapsible table format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I find that to be a workable solution – it even helps explain what the first table is about to anyone who knows nothing about F1. —Gyaro –Maguus— 02:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we will also need to figure out which fields should be included in a collapsible table for FP1 drivers. The constructor, driver and the rounds are the obvious ones, but I think we would also need to include the chassis and tyre used to demonstrate that the FP1 drivers are using the same cars as the regular drivers (although since everyone will use Pirelli tyres, I am wondering if the tyre column(s) are needed at all). We would probably also need to include the FP1 drivers' numbers, since they are apparently getting their own, and the FIA would need some way to recognise them on timing sheets (when third cars were used in 2005 and 2006, those cars had their own numbers, so there is a precedent here). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If the drivers do get their own numbers, then we add them in a column to the left of the driver name; otherwise, we shouldn't include the column (as it would only confuse). Since that all the drivers will be using the same chassis and tyres as the regular drivers, I think a note at the bottom will suffice (with text like "all drivers use the same chassis model and tyres as the race drivers from their respective teams"). —Gyaro –Maguus— 12:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly certain they will get their own numbers. Antonio Felix da Costa and Carlos Sainz Jnr. have both revealed what numbers they want, and the FIA would need some way of distinguishing them on the timing sheets, even if they do not have a decal on the car they drive. But only time will tell - we will need an entry list to confirm one way or the other. Hopefully one will drop this week. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the FP1 Driver table has been added to the article (hidden), I would like to get back to what should, and should not be included in the table, as I don't think there was a clear consensus. I don't see a need to include Chassis, Engine or Tyres. All of these fields are pretty redundant since this table is acting as a supplement to the main table which already includes the information. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I just added those because it was convenient. I have always found it easier to edit more content in and refine it down than to go for the minimum from the outset and try to pad it out.

Plus, I was coding from memory, and my memory was of every field. If I start trying to change things halfway through, I break the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't trying to criticize the addition of the table. I simply wanted to re-start the discussion of what information is appropriate for the table, so that we can reach a consensus. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)