Talk:2018 Formula 2 Championship

Recreating the style of F1 articles

Now that the FIA is moving to consolidate the feeder series for Formula 1, I think now is a good time to move this article in line with the Formula 1 championship articles as much as possible. This means recreating the style of those articles as much as possible. Some changes will be cosmetic, while others will be more structural:

• Standardised article lead (which we already have).
• Including chassis, engine and tyre fields in the entry table.
• Centre-aligning the number and rounds columns.
• Moving away from dot points in "changes" sections and sub-sections in favour of a prose layout.
• Changing the calendar to a more holistic "rounds" style; details of individual races are better-suited to the results table.

Ultimately, I'd like to see all Formula 1, Formula 2 and Formula 3 championship articles adopt the same format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Totally disagree with parts 2 and 3. There is no sense in including chassis, engine and tyre fields as they are equal for anyone. Centre-aligning like including of the redundant information is also over-complicating the code of the table. The table should be easily edited by everyone. Other things is OK and I support. I'm always for standardization, but I think it shouldn't lead to complication of the editing of the other users and overloading of the table. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Centre-aligning like including of the redundant information is also over-complicating the code of the table."

Not at all. It does add extra markup, but it's certainly not a complex table. Especially in comparison to something like a results matrix, with all of the colour codes we use.

"The table should be easily edited by everyone."

It doesn't make the table difficult to edit at all. Experienced editors like you and I will know where to put information and can correct errors with ease. If that information is already there and a new editor wants to update it (say by adding more rounds), they can. And a centre alignment is a pretty basic piece of markup. If you're concerned about inexperienced editors not knowing what to do, how can we expect them to learn anything if we don't show them examples of it? That's how I learned. And "| align=center | 14" (as an example of the numbers column) is very basic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Why we have to center-align at all? We don't have permanent numbers like in F1. And the left-aligning works better in this case and doesn't require additional code. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"We don't have permanent numbers like in F1."

Permanent numbering is not a pre-requisite for center-aligning.

"And the left-aligning works better in this case and doesn't require additional code"

Less coding does not automatically equal better by default. Do you have an actual reason why we shouldn't recreate this style of an F1 article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it looks better with left-aligning as the numbers are consistent. It is a different series, with a different regulations, so the fact that the rounds are part of F1 package, doesn't mean that we should make exact copy of F1 article. In parts where it really necessary, I agree that standardization is a sound decision. But if train has 8 wheels, it doesn't mean that the car should have 8 wheels or have pipe on the roof. And, yes the size of the code is an issue. 2017 FIA Formula 2 Championship article is more than 60kb. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Because it looks better with left-aligning as the numbers are consistent."

That's a purely subjective opinion. One could just as easily argue that the centre alignment looks better. But editing decisions should not be made based on aesthetics.

"It is a different series, with a different regulations, so the fact that the rounds are part of F1 package, doesn't mean that we should make exact copy of F1 article."

None of which impacts the presentation of the entry table.

"And, yes the size of the code is an issue. 2017 FIA Formula 2 Championship article is more than 60kb."

Most of which is a product of the results matrices, not the prose of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Centre-aligning is also a purely subjective opinion. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But you haven't actually given a reason beyond aesthetics to oppose it. We should be trying to replicate the style of the F1 articles as much as possible—just as WRC-2 articles do for the WRC and Moto2 articles do for MotiGP. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Redundant code in the table is quite a reason. It is a big question, was it a correct decision to use centre-aligning in F1 articles. The tables wouldn't be equal at least because in F1 we order by the constructors name, while in F2 and in GP3 by numbers. Which really make big difference to the tables. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Choice of alignment is per definition an aesthetic choice. There is no other aspect to it. I will add that even in Formula One center aligning the numbers is not a general practice. It's only done in those season article that feature non-sequential numbers. The practice was questioned this discussion, to which all three of us contributed. The reasons given there don't exist here so I can't see justification to use center-alignment here. It doesn't improve the table in any way. After all, you are the one always lecturing others that we shouldn't make decision for one set of articles, bet on what suits the set of articles that is been discussed. Well, center-alignment does not suit F2 articles. For what it's worth, I support points 1, 4 and 5.Tvx1 13:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"After all, you are the one always lecturing others that we shouldn't make decision for one set of articles, bet on what suits the set of articles that is been discussed."

True, but as has been pointed out, this is a largely stylistic element of the article. I'm not calling for a major structural overhaul based on what another article is doing. Whatever structural changes I am proposing are natural, like converting dot points to prose. But I also think that recreating the look of the parent article helps emphasise the relationship.

I would also like to point out that in the discussion you linked to, you said the following:

"Center-alignment is the best readable, especially with the non-sequential driver numbers that are currently applied."

Now, you're talking in the context of non-sequential numbers, but you specifically said that it is the "best readable, especially with", not the "best readable when using". That comment can clearly be interpreted to mean that centre aligned is the best readable solution in all circumstances. If you opinion on the matter has since changed, could you please explain why? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, consider the following from the 2017 table:

Team	No.	Drivers	Rounds
ART Grand Prix	7	Nobuharu Matsushita	1–10
	8	Alexander Albon	1–3, 5–10
		Sergey Sirotkin	4

To be blunt, I find that awkward, especially in the rounds column. There's an acre of empty space next to the 4 in Sirotkin's entry. This is much more functional:

Team	No.	Drivers	Rounds
ART Grand Prix	7	Nobuharu Matsushita	1–10
	8	Alexander Albon	1–3, 5–10
		Sergey Sirotkin	4

And yes, there is an aesthetic quality to it as well. You don't have everything crammed to one side of the column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't go and lecture me on what my opinion. What I meant back then I still stand by right now, is that center-alignment works for non-sequential numbers, but it doesn't work for sequential ones. What it wrote there applied only to the tables discussed there, no to "always". Your example gives the false impression that it works because you only used numbers containing the same number of digits. When you include all sorts of numbers it just looks weird:

Team	No.	Drivers	Rounds
ART Grand Prix	7	Nobuharu Matsushita	1–10
	8	Alexander Albon	1–3, 5–10
		Sergey Sirotkin	4
DAMS	9	Oliver Rowland	1–10
	10	Nicholas Latifi	1–10
Campos Racing	11	Ralph Boschung	1–10
		Lando Norris	TBA
	12	Stefano Coletti	1
		Roberto Merhi	2
		Robert Vișoiu	3–9

Now matter how you turn it, this is a matter of opinion and I agree with Corvus tristis on this one.Tvx1 17:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it looks weird at all. I think it looks better than the left alignment because you don't have everything forced to one side of the column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It does look weird. Every single other racing series uses left-alignment and I don't know why you feel you have to change everything. JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Every single other racing series uses left-alignment"

No they don't. Did you read any other articles before you made that claim? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Other changes

I want to get rid of the sub-headings in the driver changes section—the stuff like "Joining FIA Formula 2 Championship". I find it messy and counter-productive when writing prose. The way I see it, there is a narrative to each seat and all those points can be condensed down into a prose paragraph. For example:

Charles Leclerc left the series as the reigning champion is not permitted to continue racing. His seat at Prema Racing was filled by former Arden International and Campos Racing driver Sean Gelael while Antonio Fuoco remained with the team for a second year."

And so on and so forth. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It makes it easier for people to understand how the market truly changed by showing who individually joined, left and changed teams. A prose paragraph would just be confusing for a casual fan who wants to try and get into F2.JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. A series of paragraphs would be able to follow the changes made over the championship and eliminate redundancies. Dot points means that the reader has to scroll up and down to try and find information, especially when there are multiple driver changes. For example, this:

"Nych de Vries left Racing Engineering to join Prema Racing, where he replaced reigning champion Charles Leclerc. He was partnered with former Arden International driver Sean Gelael for the opening rounds of the championship. Gelael left the team after the Paul Ricard round of the championship to join Fortec Motorsport and his vacant seat at Prema Racing was filled by Artem Markelov."

Is better than this:

• Sean Gelael joined Prema Racing.
• Nyck de Vries joined Prema Racing.
• (Unrelated driver change)
• (Unrelated driver change)
• (Unrelated driver change)
• (Unrelated driver change)
• (Sub-heading)
• Sean Gelael left Prema Racing mid-season to join Fortec Motorsport.
• (Unrelated driver change)
• (Unrelated driver change)
• Artem Markelov replaced Sean Gelael at Prema Racing.

Prose is always preferred to dot points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Rounds column

@Corvus tristis — please stop reverting edits based on false claims. First, you said that centre-aligning the rounds column was invalid because it wasn't applied to other F2 and GP2 articles. However, we are treating F2 and GP2 as separate championships despite their common hetitage. Not applying the changes to the GP2 articles was not necessary. Secondly, the above discussion about centre-aligning was focused on the car number column, not the rounds column. You cannot claim a consensus that does not exist. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The second claim doesn't cancel the first, moreover we use left-aligning not for just F2 and GP2, but for majority of the single seaters. And I claimed that you don't have a consensus for change for centre-aligning, don't misinterpret my words, please. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"we use left-aligning not for just F2 and GP2, but for majority of the single seaters"

That's not an argument. We should make decisions because they benefit this article first and foremost, not because they benefit some other articles. Everything you have said so far amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

"I claimed that you don't have a consensus for change for centre-aligning"

And you made that claim based on a discussion that was addressing a different part of an article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Centre-aligning of the round column doesn't benefit to the article and to majority of other articles. WP:ILIKEIT, isn't an argument too. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Centre-aligning of the round column doesn't benefit to the article"

Yes, it does. It makes the table easier to read by evenly distributing the white space in the cell across the width of the cell. As it is, the table has a wide column with all the information crammed up against one side of the column and an acre of white space that is not being effectively used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

GP2

Formula 2 is now a year old and is effectively a new championship. I really think we have to move away from linking everything to the GP2 Series, because with each passing day it becomes less and less relevant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Autosport as a source

If we can use a source different from Autosport we should use it. Because Autosport has a limit for views per month. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — that violates WP:SOURCEACCESS, which clearly states that sources should not be rejected because they are difficult to access. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting, I'm changing to a more accessible source. If I have removed the source without providing another source that would be rejection. Formula Scout is a WP:RS. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you're rejecting it. You're saying that the source isn't good enough because it's behind a paywall. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It is good enough if we haven't any other free alternatives. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the alternate source, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still rejecting the Autosport source on the grounds that it's behind a paywall. If you can reject that Autosport source, why stop there? Eventually, all Autosport sources will be inaccessible because they're behind paywalls. You have just written off one of the most reliable and relied-upon publications simply because you cannot access it. Rationalise it all you like; you're still violating WP:SOURCEACCESS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It is just your interpretation which doesn't have anything to do with the policy. If there's nothing wrong with the reliability of the alternate source then stop this empty chatter. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Your entire argument is that Autosport is a poor source because it is behind a paywall and that is a clear violation of WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't matter how you justify it—SOURCEACCESS clearly says that you should not choose to reject a source because it is behind a paywall. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with adding an additional accessible source, but consequential removal of an Autosport citation is unjustified. Autosport is a Blue Riband source, justified on its historic reliability, commercial editorial oversight (and therefore liability) and professionalism. Formula Scout may be reasonable, but you can't claim that a one-man-band augmented by (probably unpaid) trainees has the same degree of reliability. As Prisonermonkeys says, the text of our guideline says "do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" and the offline sources guide states that "even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." Based on these guides and guides to what constitues RS, Autosport is always better than Formula Scout, but if you want to add an additional, accessible secondary source as a service to readers then go ahead. Just don't remove the existing source. Pyrope 12:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pyrope, okay I understand your point. Why we don't post the exact same source from the same Motorsport Network editor Khorounzhiy which doesn't have accessibility issues then? P.S. Little trivia: Khorounzhiy started at Formula Scout, when it was known as Paddock Scout. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition, sure, but Autosport is the most credible source here and that should be the one used as the principal support. That Motorsport.com inherits some credibility in this one instance because it reposts Autosport doesn't suddenly mean that it is in itself credible. They are certainly not as bad as back when they were just another GMM aggregator, but they haven't given up that pattern of behaviour completely. Just look at the story yesterday about the new pit buildings in Montreal. It is credited to "René Fagnan", but is actually just a crude cut-and-paste job from the original Parc Jean-Drapeau press release. It even preserves the very typical Anglo-Quebec syntax that any decent English-speaking sub editor would have cleaned up. Ergo, no detailed editorial oversight there. Hence, until proven otherwise, the editorial credibility of that organization stems from its Autosport subsidiary, not the parent. But again, why the hurry to remove a credible source? Leave it be and add extra if you think it needs it. Pyrope 14:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In some cases Autosport reposts Motorsport.com. They have one editorial team for both Autosport.com and Motorsport.com. Corvus tristis (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

And you know this how? Also, that rather calls into question the reliability of both sources as there are clearly editorial deficiencies remaining at Motorsport.com. Pyrope 20:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pyrope — they're now both owned by Motorsport Network. I think they've gone a long way towards improving motorsport.com's reputation; they hired Jon Noble a few years ago and the quality of journalism has improved. It's still not perfect, but it's a damn sight better. They've also acquired GPUpdate and a few other digital publications. It does beg the question of what we do when multiple sources are owned by the same people, though, because then we're at risk of getting the Murdoch effect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that, but much like the Murdoch network merely being owned by the same people doesn't mean that they have the same editorial team or that they operate in the same way. To be honest, looking at the way that Montreal article was 'constructed' (I'm not going to say 'written', as that's just not true) and then syndicated hither and yon, Motorsport.com looks a lot more like GMM than it does Autosport... Pyrope 20:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pyrope because if you subscribed for both their Twitter accounts you will see that all last F2 articles have been posted at the same time by the same people. And as you can see in both cases Khorounzhiy was named as an editor but the Motorsport.com article features not only the same text but also table with announced 2018 F2 teams and drivers, while Autosport.com doesn't. Even Top-50 of 2017 are the same while top-40 are behind the paywall on both sites. I don't know how it can be more obvious that they have one editorial team (or maybe some part of the Motorsport Network staff that works for both sites) now. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

So the answer to my question is that you don't know, you are guessing things based on when tweets are published. One word: Hootsuite. That's pretty weak. The rest of your post you answered yourself in your parenthetical statement. Pyrope 11:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I will chip in here to point out that if you use archived version of the urls, the paywall problem is defeated.Tvx1 15:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A very good point, thanks. Pyrope 16:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Style of prose

@Joeyofthepriuses — there is no rule that says the style of an article must be identical in concurrent articles. "We have always done it that way" is not an excuse to keep doing something that is obviously flawed. For too long the articles have been lists of dot points when they should be prose. We are trying to bring F2 articles in line with the style of F1 articles, but it takes time. How are we supposed to make changes if you are going to keep reverting things on the grounds that the changes have not been made?

Finally, the rewrites you did are terrible. Seriously, the language is a mess. The grammar is all over the place and parts are practically unreadable. For example:

"Nyck de Vries, after driving for Rapax and Racing Engineering throughout the 2017 championship, switched to Prema Racing."

Your verb-subject agreement is all after the place, your dependent and independent clauses are backwards and the tense is wrong. Then there's this example:

"2017 Formula 2 champion Charles Leclerc left Prema Racing to join Formula One team Sauber, as the reigning champion is not permitted to continue competing in Formula 2."

This suggests that Leclerc got the Sauber drive because he could not continue in Formula 2, which is incorrect. Furthermore, the rule stating that Leclerc cannot continue is irrelevant because he is driving for Sauber and thus would not be in a position to not race in Formula 2. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "As a result of the contracts with Russell and Aitken, Alexander Albon left the team and Nobuharu Matsushita returned to Japan to race in the 2018 Super Formula Championship."

It is an incorrect statement because it means that Albon and Matsushita had an intention to stay in the team. Matsushita decided to return to Japan way before the contracts with Russell and Aitken. While Albon may already have a preliminary agreement with DAMS. Matsushita's and Albon's departure from ART are not a result of the contracts with Russell and Aitken. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sponsors and entrants

I'm not keen about including the sponsor names in the entrant column. Sponsors can and do change frequently—case in point, Pertamina went from Prema to Arden and back to Prema in the space of three years. These sponsors do not own a stake in the teams and nor do they physically enter the cars. I think the "entrant" column should be limited to whoever enters and operates the cars.

@Corvus tristis — thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sponsor names are the important part of the actual team names which we see in the team standings and they entered under this name. Sometime it may be a total rebranding like in case with Lotus GP/ART Grand Prix in 2014. So we can't just "limit to whoever enters and operates the car". It will be an original research. P.S. I personally don't like the monstrous current Prema name, but there is nothing we could do as in the team standings they will be known under that name. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — I think there's a precedent here. Look at 2018 Supercars Championship as an example. DJR Team Penske own racing licences and operate the cars, but the team compete as "Shell V-Power Racing"; likewise, Triple Eight Race Engineering own licences and operate cars, but compete as "Red Bull Holden Racing Team". The article recognises the team, not the identity. I think we could reasonably list Prema as Prema Racing; if it helps, we could add a footnote reading "Prema Racing competes as Pertamina Prema Theodore Racing". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a very bad example. In the teams' standings on the official site it is "Shell V-Power Racing", they entered under this name, therefore Wikipedia should reflect that name. I don't understand why you, the one who have started the talk page with proposal of recreating F1 style, now asking about rejecting the F1 style in the terms of team names after just one unnecessarily long name. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Prema's name. I'm lobbying for the same thing at WT:F1 to have it applied to Formula 1 articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — it's not original research. We are simply using the name of the team that fields the cars. The sponsor(s) is irrelevant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Arden don't use word "International" since they entered F2. While in Prema case you have invented "Prema Theodore" name which can't be confirmed by any source. And as I said it is not just name of the sponsors, it is a part of an actual team name in the team standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — in that case, they should be "Prema Racing", "Arden" and "Campos Racing". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Theodore Racing

@Corvus tristis — would you mind helping me out with something here? You have access to sources I don't, so I was hoping you might be able to clarify something for me.

What is the relationship between Prema and Theodore Racing? I know Theodore are in the habit of forming a partnership with other teams who operate the car on their behalf. As I understand it, their model has them controlling the entry and the funding, but the partner team has the knowledge and experience to run the car. They do it to promote Asian drivers on the world stage.

Is Theodore simply a sponsor of Prema, or are they a partner in the team? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. It is unclear for me, what kind of relationships between them now. In 2016, It was described as "partnership" when they competed under Theodore Prema name in Macau Grand Prix. Theodore Racing had an intention to buy a stake of Prema, but I wasn't able find any sources to confirm that it happened. As you know in 2018 they have started to use Prema Theodore naming for both F2 and F3 championships, maybe they finally got the stake, but I can't find any confirmation for this. I can definitely say that Theodore were never denoted in any sources as sponsors of Prema. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — in that case, it's probably safest to treat Theodore as a sponsor until we get more information. Prema held the entry in 2017 and continue to hold it in 2018; Theodore becoming a part-owner is a bigger change than Theodore simply being a sponsor. We might need to take a look at an entry list to get a clearer idea. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We can't treat to Theodore as a sponsor because it is an assumption, which based on nothing. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Their logo appears on the car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Logo doesn't ensure that Theodore are sponsors, not partners/shareholders like Strakka in 2013 Formula Renault 3.5 Series. Sponsorship is a cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property (typically in sports, arts, entertainment or causes) in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property. So we need a source to prove the fact that Prema get any kind of fee from Theodore to paint their logo on the car and add Theodore to the name. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If they're not a sponsor and they're not a partner—or if their role is uncertain—how can we keep them in the table? All we know for certain is that Prema Racing control the entry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it is part of the team name which we see in the official site, will be displayed during the TV translations and in the teams' standings. We can't just randomly crop the team names. Talk page of one article is not a good place to discuss such changes (as well as centre-aligning) which affects many other, better place for this will be WP:MOTOR. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Notes

I don't know why this keeps getting changed. We used to use "[N #]", but frankly "[note #]" makes more sense because it's not clear what the original "N" meant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The [note #] doesn't work, especially on the season summary table where it makes the columns unnecessarily long. Especially when browsing through mobile. Clicking on the N gives the same description, so it's best to use a short tag for that. 116.68.80.215 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. It works just fine for me and I edit exclusively from a mobile device. And while it does make for wider for wider columns, the columns are already very wide to begin with. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. They're wide enough as it is, no need to make any wider by adding note instead of N. Clicking on the N gives the extra details they need to be shown regardless. 116.68.80.215 (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I prefer the "[N #]" due to width, but "[note #]" is clearer. Nevertheless, we don't explain references, which are presented just as numbers, so I'm not sure if it is so important to use "[note #]" instead of "[N #]". Corvus tristis (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Making edits for aesthetic reasons is bad editing. Especially when it is unclear what the "N" stands for and goes against a previous consensus.

@Corvus tristis — the footnotes provide supplementary information. We should explain what they are; that they are notes rather than references. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1) The "[note #]" tag works just fine. There is no reason why it should not work while "[N #]" does, since the markup is identical and "[note #]" is used on dozens of articles without issue.

2a) While "[note #]" does create a wider table, trying to narrow the table is a purely aesthetic decision and edits should not be made based purely on aesthetics.

2b) While this is most noticeable on mobile devices, a long-standing consensus is that these wide tables work better on mobile devices because everything is kept on one row, making the tables easier to read

2c) If you are having trouble viewing the article, check your display settings. Changing markup to make it easier for you to read doesn't automatically make it easier for everyone to read—in fact, it usually creates more issues than it solves.

3) It is unclear what the "N" in "[N #]" stands for.

4) There is an existing consensus that Formula 2 articles should recreate the style of Formula 1 articles. You don't have a consensus to supersede that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2018 FIA Formula 2 Championship

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2018 FIA Formula 2 Championship's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kari":

• From 2018 GP3 Series: Gruz, David (15 January 2018). "Ex-Red Bull junior Niko Kari gets GP3 lifeline with MP Motorsport". Autosport. Retrieved 15 January 2018.
• From MP Motorsport: Wood, Elliot (15 January 2018). "Former Red Bull junior Niko Kari remains in GP3 with MP Motorsport drive". formulascout.com. Retrieved 18 January 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 FIA Formula 2 Championship which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)