Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship: Difference between revisions

Circuit locations

1) Some of the circuits are incorrectly listed in the article. For example, the Shanghai circuit is over 30km from the city, just as the Hungaroring is not in Budapest, but some 30km away.

2) The circuits are not in the locations listed—the Hungaroring is not in Mogoryod, so it's a false equivocance to suggest it is, hence the extra column.

3) If there is an existing discussion on this subject, please cite it. Don't claim it exists when the article has been like this for weeks and no-one has any objections. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

1)While the Shanghai circuit is situated 30km from the city centre, it is still located on the territory of Shanghai so listing Shanghai is just fine.

2)You are the one who changed it to Mogyoród in the first place. Make up your mind. Moreover as far as I can find, the circuit IS located in Mogyoród.

3)I already linked to the discussion in my revert. Here it is again. You already proposed the extra column and you received unanimous opposition.

4)Details on the circuit locations are not relevant here. They belong on the articles dealing with the circuit. The only important things here are which race takes place on which circuit when.Tvx1 13:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you took a break from Wikipedia recently. I noticed it because we actually got stuff done instead of having to run every change past one person. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Pot, black, kettle. This isn’t about me. We discussed this subject four years ago and we decided unanimously against Youri proposal for a location column. I never stated I have to approve anything.Tvx1 01:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet, it seems that any changes to an article seem to need your approval before they are applied to an article before they are accepted. Even if 99 out of 100 users agreed to a change and you were the only dissenting editor, we'd still end up doing what you wanted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2018

That’s your general behavior, not mine.Tvx1 19:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one insisting that a four year old consensus must be observed despite the way nobody in that original discussion objected to those edits for weeks. I'm not the one who refuses to acknowledge the way people can and do change their minds and nor do I expect that people remain consistent with something they said years ago even if they no longer agree with it. I'm not the one who assumes he has the power to ignore a recent consensus because he personally disagrees with it, and I'm not the one who abuses the ANI process to try and punish people for daring to disagree with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of even having discussions and gaining consensus if the just become invalid solely because some years have passed. Many of our articles even operate on consensus which have been achieved over a decade ago. And where has even one person from the linked discussion said now that they no longer agree with it?? The fact that after four years you still refuse to accept that you "lost" that discussion and that no-one agreed with you show what the real problem here is. You just cannot stand not getting your way and then you launch into rant after rant of delirious personal attack s on the person you consider guilty of not getting your way. Here you accused me of going to ignore the consensus. In reality, the discussion was closed, you made the supported edit and I did nothing. So you really need to drop your delirious obsession that my sole purpose here is to create trouble. Also your accusations regarding ANI and me are hilarious and utterly hypocritical. In reality, you are the one who has the habit of jumping into running to ANI to settle scores whenever someone does something you don't like (as seen e.g. here, here, here here). You have even been warned once by a reviewing admin about jumping to ANI. So stop going the personal route by fruitlessly trying to question my credibility because it just has no relevancy to, let alone effect on, this discussion.Tvx1 11:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"What's the point of even having discussions and gaining consensus if the just become invalid solely because some years have passed."

It's not to give you a licence to block changes that you disagree with.

"you are the one who has the habit of jumping into running to ANI to settle scores whenever someone does something you don't like"

Says the man who either trawled through years worth of ANI archives or had those discussions bookmarked for just such an occasion. Neither is a good look for you.

"So stop going the personal route by fruitlessly trying to question my credibility because it just has no relevancy to, let alone effect on, this discussion."

I'm not the only one who has questioned your attitude. And I believe it is highly relevant because I think there is a pattern where you behave as if the article is your property.

"So you really need to drop your delirious obsession that my sole purpose here is to create trouble."

I never said that your purpose was to cause trouble. I think your purpose is to control the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no desire to control any article. Again pot, black, kettle. You're the most unopened editor to other editors contributing to articles you regularly contribute to. I went to the ANI archives because you accused me of things which are simply not true and because I prefer to back my claims up with evidence. You just spout out unfounded accusations and hope they are correct. I did not block any changes that you disagree with. The tyre column is the evidence of that. I merely ensured that the article adhered to consensus. You were the only one who ever complained about those locations and you still are. Nothing what you wrote here achieves anything. Unless you have anything meaningful to say there is no point in continuing this. Wikipedia is not a place to vent your anger with other people.Tvx1 15:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's something meaningful: you need to learn how to work with people. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with working with people. Years of fruitful contributions to multiple versions of wikipedia demonstrate that. I'm not the one who has been blocked six times for behavioral problems.Tvx1 15:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Says the man with a history of trying to use 3RR to punish people who disagree with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't. That just your disillusioned thought.Tvx1 18:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

World Constructors' Championship standings

Can't edit it, but on constructors standing two "Ret" must be for Hulkenberg rather than Sainz. Macaldo (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Constructors’ standings aren’t tied to the drivers. They just list the constructors’ results in ascending order. For the drivers' results, please refer to the drivers' table.Tvx1 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"Change the layout of the matrices", you said. "It won't be confusing", you said. And even when WP:F1 formed a consensus to revisit those changes, you rejected them and insisted that it wasn't a problem. Yet here we are with another editor who doesn't understand the layout of the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The design of the Constructors' standings table is an absolute fucking omnishambles, to be honest. Why bother to break it down into separate cars and have all that extra information? All that matters is how many points the constructor scored in each race, because all the other information is available in the Drivers' standings table. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The other user has kindly been explained how it works. It's much easier this way once replacement drivers start coming in. Tvx1 15:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Any system that needs "explanation" from other editors is broken. Please consider a new design. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because one editor makes a mistake we don’t have to overhaul said section. Otherwise we’d constanter be overhauling these articles. That’s knee-kerk reacting and is the exact opposite of how we should act.Tvx1 20:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Macaldo, Prisonermonkeys and I all think the current table needs to be changed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessy — common sense says as much. But Tvx1 has been insisting for months that a) this is the best way forward and b) given enough time, people will get used to it (which clearly hasn't happened). He refuses to even allow the possibility of reviewing the changes at WP:F1, much less revert them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This format was properly and thoroughly discussed at the WikiProject. The discussion was closed with a consensus in favor of the change by an uninvolved person. This all went through the correct process. It works perfectly on four of the five articles it is used on. And it does on the articles of other Motorsports season articles which have a similar stance towards the constructors/manufacturers championship. 2018 Formula One World Championship is literally the only article where there is some minor trouble. But it isn't serious at all. There were just three relevant edits last month. That's nothing meriting such a hysterical overreaction again. One user posted a question, received a kind answer and has not made any further complaint since. Stop making such a drama out of this. For every person making a relevant edit, there are 8 000 visitors to the article who understand everything just fine.Tvx1 15:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in linking the two rows to the two cars (no matter who drives them), then you get a quick look on how the two cars performed over the season and you can see if the "second" car outperformed the favorite car (like MAG/GRO and RIC/VER) Tuelund (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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

No, it wasn't. A group of editors wanted to review its effectiveness and you refused to even entertain the idea.

"For every person making a relevant edit, there are 8 000 visitors to the article who understand everything just fine."

Where is your evidence of that? A lack of edits does not mean that it is automatically understood. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many people just view and don't edit. You lose a good view of the performance between the two cars when best result is always first. I use the old format a lot to have a good view of the battle between teammates. That is gone now. It also had the start number in the constructor results in the past. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Formula_One_World_Championship#Results_and_standings for instance. Much better than the current layout (adding numbers to the drivers standings would be prefered) Sjon 25-6-2018

@Tvx1: Consensus can change, and it clearly needs to because a majority of editors here have expressed confusion and/or a dislike of this system. In the Constructors Championship, the driver of the cars is irrelevant. All that matters is the total number of points scored by the team at a given race, and whether or not the constructor won a given race. All the other stuff in the table is confusing crap that largely replicates what it says in the Drivers Championship table. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey — a few weeks ago, a group of editors wanted to review the changes to the matrix in light of a series of edits that suggested readers did not understand the new format. Despite having the numbers to start a review discussion, Tvx1 denied that there was any need for such a discussion and it never happened. He treats a consensus like an annoying inconvenience if he disagrees with it. I fully expect the same thing to happen here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree, I didn't understand the matrix either and was convinced that there was a embarrassing mistake in the results, it is not intuative. Tuelund (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please change the table to reflect which drivers scored the points for the team. I don't edit this page but I use it from time to time as reference (for non-Wikipedia related hobby thingies). The table is next to useless in its current state. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

"Last year's table had five rows for Toro Rosso alone, two of which were for one and the same driver"

Which was an unusual situation to say the least. Having five rows to the Toro Rosso results was awkward, but reacting to that and that alone was a mistake. Especially since the system we now have arguably has issues throughout it. In a perfect world, we would have a solution that was easy to read and concise—but we have to accept that that may not be/probably is not possible, so we have to look to alternatives. Having one matrix with an awkward (albeit still clear) entry beats having dozens of confusing matrices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t react to that alone and I never claimed so. It was just the final straw mich made me decide to propose a change. As I pointed out, there are still alternatives which are not what we currently have and which do not have the unnecessary extra rows.Tvx1 00:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you share some examples? I know you linked to the German Wikipedia, but you say there are several alternatives?

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

I don't see the need for more than two rows. A team never has more than two cars in a race. Last year Renault changed PAL for SAI midway, but SAI just overtook that PALs car and you could clearly see that the car suddenly made points. Tuelund (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need for more than one row. In the Constructors' Championship, the only things that matter are the net number of points achieved by the two cars in each race, and whether or not one of the cars won. All the other details are only relevant to the Drivers' Championship table. I don't understand the need for all this complexity. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s not quite true. The actual positions can determine the WCC positions in case of tie.Tvx1 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

But that information is already in the drivers' table. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The WCC can be decided on countback independently of the WCC results. You're assuming that because the information is in the driver matrix, it's redundant to have it in the constructor matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Both tables are shite, to be honest. Have you seen them on mobile? You have to horizontally scroll for miles, including (most ridiculously) to see the legend - a thing I've complained about before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is primarily a desktop site. Perfection is impossible. One cannot simply read the constructors' positions from the WDC table. More often than not constructors use more than two drivers and, like the last couple years, drivers can drive for more than one constructor during a season. It is not clear from the WDC table which positions belong to which constructors whence we need them in the WCC table as well.Tvx1 16:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A simplified table like this seems to be sufficient for formula1.com. The current level of complexity is confusing everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Only the 2014-2018 tables are causing confusion. Nobody else has reported being confused by the 1979-2013 tables, which are very similar, apart from the significant difference of having a "car number" column, which instantly indicates how the table is ordered. DH85868993 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I checked with the editor who closed the October discussion and it was his view that there was consensus for Tvx1's original proposal in that discussion, i.e. "two rows per constructor with a number column", not what was implemented, i.e. "two rows per constructor, no number column, ordered by result". Would people be happy to try the original proposal (which is essentially the same as the 1979-2013 format) and see how it goes? DH85868993 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That has the same problem (albeit not to the same extent) as the current format—it's not immediately obvious how the results are arranged. Readers would have to compare the constructors' matrix to the drivers' matrix in order to understand it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that the table is ordered by the "Pos." column then by the "No." column. For clarity, here are the first few rows of the 2016 table using the format I'm proposing (copied from the October discussion):

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes	6	1	1	1	1	Ret	7	5	1	4	3	2	4	1	1	1	3	1	2	2	2	2	765
		44	2	3	7	2	Ret	1	1	5	1	1	1	1	3	2	3	Ret	3	1	1	1	1
2	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3	4	4	4	11	4	2	7	7	5	4	3	2	2	5	2	1	6	3	3	8	5	468
		26/33	DNS	7	3	15	1	Ret	4	8	2	2	5	3	11	7	6	2	2	Ret	4	3	4

I still think there is value in having separate rows for separate entries within a team. The whole purpose of the matrix is about more than just showing the final result. It's about showing how the teams got that final result. We already acknowledge as much considering that the shows how a countback applies. There are countless examples of how a team's WCC campaign changed when they swapped drivers, but for some reason people insist that each constructor must be limited to two rows for now better reason than to minimise the amount of empty spacd in the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This has all already been explained in the discussion last October. The WCC table is not a catch-all solution intended to tell the season's whole story. We have a season report to tell the stories of driver swaps and their performances. It's also not a provable fact that a driver swap alone affected a constructors' campaign. There are many other factors which affect that as well. (Failed) Updates to the cars or power units. Reliability issues. A string of (un)favorable events in consecutive races. Reliability issues of other constructors, etc. Those are the exact reason why we have a season report. That's where we can tell the story and give context. The WCC table's sole intent is to list the physical outcome of said championship with only the vital information. The things that are actually use to determine the outcome. These are the constructors, their points and the positions they achieved. The drivers' individual results belong in the WDC table. There was never any request to split out the Drivers' individual results in the WCC table prior to 2014, so I can't see at all why it would be vital to do so now.Tvx1 11:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, out of respect I'm going to ping everyone who participated in the discussion from last October, which resulted in the current system, who has not yet contributed here. Myself, Prisonermonkeys and DH85868993 are already here, so that leaves Zwerg Nase, Sr88, Corvus tristis, Cherkash and Wikipediaeditperson.Tvx1 12:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"The WCC table is not a catch-all solution intended to tell the season's whole story."

And yet by virtue if its design, that's exactly what it does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

So, are we doing something about this or what? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure - see proposal below. DH85868993 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: update the 2014-2018 Constructors' Championship tables as per the resolution of the October discussion

i.e. implement Tvx1's original proposal from the October discussion = "two rows per constructor, with a number column", e.g. the first few rows of the 2016 table would look like this:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes	6	1	1	1	1	Ret	7	5	1	4	3	2	4	1	1	1	3	1	2	2	2	2	765
		44	2	3	7	2	Ret	1	1	5	1	1	1	1	3	2	3	Ret	3	1	1	1	1
2	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3	4	4	4	11	4	2	7	7	5	4	3	2	2	5	2	1	6	3	3	8	5	468
		26/33	DNS	7	3	15	1	Ret	4	8	2	2	5	3	11	7	6	2	2	Ret	4	3	4

noting that the editor who closed the October discussion was of the view that there was consensus for Tvx1's original proposal (pictured above), not the last option discussed ("two rows per constructor, no number column, ordered by result"), which is what was implemented.

Survey

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

• Support in principle; I don't like the current system but have concerns about the implementation as this is what we will wind up with in the 2017 article:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS
2	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3	4
		10/26/28/39/55	4

"Messy" doesn't even begin to describe it. Having a separate row for each number might have its issues, but at least it's clear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment — I've played around with it and I have a mock-up of an alternative format here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Your alternative format would still end up with 4 rows for Toro Rosso in 2017, wouldn't it? Toro Rosso in 2017 (= the worst case) can be represented like this:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	CHN	BHR	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	AZE	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
7	Toro Rosso	26/10	9	Ret	12	12	9	14†	Ret	Ret	16	15	11	12	12	Ret	14	13	10	13	12	16	53
		55/39/28	8	7	Ret	10	7	6	Ret	8	Ret	Ret	7	10	14	4	Ret	Ret	13	Ret	Ret	15

which I don't think is too bad. DH85868993 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's still confusing. Why are the numbers not arranged sequentially? Why does it contradict the driver table, which treats #26 as two separate entries? And I don't see what the issue with four rows is except trying to minimise vertical space. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The numbers could be arranged sequentially. Personally, I don't have an issue with four rows (you may recall that my proposal back in May would have meant a return to five rows for Toro Rosso in 2017), but others seem to find that unpalatable. DH85868993 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — which I supported at the time. Arguably we had a consensus for change back then, but it never happened because certain people opposed it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no need to break what works fine. It is just matter of a time till the current format will become a habit. GP3 Series since arrival of the fourth car for some teams in 2016 hasn't any issues with the same format which sorts by best results like we have in F1 now. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment — for one, GP3 uses a different scoring system where only the top two cars score points. But more importantly, the matrix here is clearly an issue since so many people are having trouble with it even six months after its introduction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, top three cars, and secondly and the most important that the current format universal for different scoring systems (when one, two, three cars counts towards constructors'/manufacturers'/teams' championship), while the format with numbers doesn't. And it seems that for almost two weeks and two races of the triple header there aren't any troubles. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The problems have been happening intermittently since the matrix was changed. Don't assume that stability means the problem has been resolved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You may call it the problem, but the proposed solution carries more troubles. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you care to explain them? Because right now, the current system is causing mass confusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"10/26/28/39/55" (or 26/10 and 28/39/55) are non-encyclopedic mess, which will confuse more than the current format which doesn't confuse me at all. Your proposal slightly better, but it is still more a trivial than a necessary function which expands table which already quite large. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

They're not unencyclopaedic at all. They're directly linked to the entry list and when used properly, clearly show which entries scored which results, which directly addresses the issues people are having with the matrix. But for some insane reason we're limited to two rows for each entrant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle It should be a row for each number entered for that constructor. The only reason why this is a mess, is because of the personal driver numbers we didn't have before 2014. That is why nobody complains about the old format and it was clear as day which car scored best, because drivers replacing injured drivers had no seperate number. I don't see the point in limiting the constructor to two lines only. There isn't a puppy killed for every line made. ;-). Moreover you shouldn't rule by exception (80-20 rule). The Toro Rosso <> Renault mess from last year is very rare. Accept that it can happen and move on. Sjon 3-7-2018 Edited 09:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's much clearer and easier to read. More importantly it separates which drivers scored or didn't score points in races. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Still confusing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: between this discussion and previous ones, I think there is a clear consensus for change. What form that change takes remains to be seen. At this stage, I suggest we implement the proposed changes but continue the discussion with a view to fine-tuning the final matrix. I know there is still some opposition out there, but if I am reading the comments correctly, it's more opposition to the detail rather than opposition to the idea of change. Given the ongoing problems with the format, I think it's imperative that we make the change now. We can worry about the specifics later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You are free to interpret any way you want, but we don't have a clear consensus for change. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You are the only person who is opposed to any change. The only other person who has expressed opposition is @Scjessey and I don't think he's opposed to change in general, just the particular proposal. Consensus does not need to be unanimous to be valid, simply because you'd get one person voicing opposition and using it to thwart the consensus from being reached. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should not assuming for Scjessey? I am pretty sure that he doesn't delegated authority to conduct a discussion on his behalf. The last time the change of the format was performed after the discussion was closed by neutral person. You are involved in the dispute, so you can't just pronounce a consensus when it wasn't actually reached. And only two days passed since start of the survey. So it is clear that not all users who may be interested in the survey have expressed their thoughts. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my views about the tables are more or less in line with those of Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs). I confess I am having trouble articulating exactly what I want to see in a table, except that the matrix needs to be simplified to make it easier to understand. The fact that several have expressed confusion makes it clear we need to work on it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

But you expressed your opinion that the WCC table should only list points? That‘s quite far away from what Prisonermonkeys wants.Tvx1 15:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I support change because I think anything is better than the current system. I'm not a fan of the proposal to keep using the number column, but limit each constructor to two rows—I think it's unnecessary, restricting and has the potential to cause confusion of its own kind—but even that is better than what we have now. I think we could reasonably change it to the current proposal, but continue the discussion to fine-tune the format. Fix the big problem first, then worry about the little one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Circut Paul Ricard 2018 layout map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: Only two editors have weighed in on this nomination. Perhaps other editors here can do the same? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Pole Position Austria

I noticed that in the championship tables Lewis and not Bottas are shown in bold. I'm not sure how to correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malfunctional (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It is now fixed. (Mobile mundo (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC))

Thanks

Standings

The current Championship standings indicate Lewis Hamilton got pole at the Austrian GP, this needs to be changed to Valtteri Bottas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versicarius (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2018

Hamilton has been awarded Pole Position from Austrian GP in Drivers championship table instead of giving it to Valtteri Bottas. Tähdikki (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the template, but this begs a question regarding the constructors' Championship results: Since we no longer indicate the individual cars or drivers in the constructors' table, I assume when both cars retire and one of them also had pole or fastest lap, this will be displayed as the "upper" of the two results? This would imply Bottas' result as "top" because that Ret result is in bold, despite that fact he retired earlier than Hamilton. I guess it doesn't matter because neither are classified? 68.187.249.27 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That is my understanding. DH85868993 (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Photo of current driver/constructor leader

It seems odd we have photos of the current leader and the defending drivers champion and only a photo of the current constructor leader. We should have a photo of the current leader in both championships or photos of both defender and current leader (if they are different).

Swagger9000 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about this season, not last season. There is no requirement of having pictures of all defending champions in the lead.Tvx1 20:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit was reverted because there was no consensus. There is no rule saying one way or another. So at some point there was a decision made to have a photo of the defending driver champion and the current driver champion photo placed side by side but only the current constructor champion photo. Would like to hear some feedback as this is inconsistent. Swagger9000 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Too many photos at the top of the article clutters it up. You claim it is inconsistent, but it is not. Look back over previous championships—they always feature more drivers than teams. There is no rule that says we must have two drivers and two teams or one driver and one team, but we cannot have two of one and one of the other. The current arrangement of two drivers and one team was reached through edit-consensus. I see no reason go change it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason not to change because that is the way we have done it in the past is not a good reason to keep doing it. As we are both arguing the same thing, there is no rule saying there needs to be a photo of the two driver champions and/or two constructor champions or one driver champion and one constructor champion, there is no particular reason to keep the accustomed layout. If space is a valid concern, show only the current champion for both or if it is not, show both current and defending for each. Swagger9000 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You're arguing that we change the article for the sake of change. You haven't provided a single reason why the current layout is a problem. The expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" springs to mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Notes

@Mayerroute5 — you need a consensus for your changes. Given the recent history of this article and other, related articles where the same unjustified edits were made (which coincided with your block), your edits constitute disruptuve editing. The edit-consensus has accepted the use of "[note #]". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Where does it show that note# is agreed as the consensus? It's not there on the WikiProject Formula One page. Mayerroute5 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)