Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship: Difference between revisions

Semi-protected edit request 10 January

Please remove the folloeing text from the "driver changes" section:

"The only teams retaining the same two drivers from the 2018 season are Haas (with Romain Grosjean and Kevin Magnussen) and Mercedes (with Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas)."

If teams are retaining the same drivers they had in 2018, it's not a driver change. 1.129.107.140 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 24 January

Could somebody please change the alignment of the driver photos in the "driver changes" section? They appear in a vertical alignment on mobile devices, but the caption says that they are aligned horizontally. I have tried every display setting possible, but it appears to be something to do with the way the site is coded.

Also(/alternatively), can someone replace the images of Sainz, Ricciardo and Gasly with the following image (it might need to be re-sized):

Robert Kubica will return to Formula 1 with Williams.

Last year there was a conversation about which image(s) to include and it was agreed that only the most notable one(s) should be added. I think Robert Kubica's return is far more notable than the RIC-SAI-GAS shuffle. 1.129.110.37 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to resolve this, but the problem lies with using the "multiple image" template in horizontal alignment. I think the three drivers pictured do make sense, but they will have to be inserted differently. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I only see it as horizontal in mobile view, regardless of the phone's orientation or what phone it is... --DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Perhaps it is not the same with all use cases? Using Wikipedia's Android app, the images are stacked vertically in either orientation on my Pixel XL. And it is the same if I use the phone's Chrome browser. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Then since I can't replicate it, I won't try to solve it with no way of knowing if I fix it or mess up. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Fair enough. I'd like to hear from other editors before messing about with it. I would think the logical thing would be to rewrite the caption to eliminate any mention of the image location, which isn't really an accessible way of doing things anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:, can you not make a screenshot of your mobile phone's screen where the images appear horizontal and post it here per WP:WPSHOT?

@Scjessey: It may appear logical, but it is not as simple. How else can we identity the named people in the pictures? The problem is with the template, not the captions. The images should simply never be stacking. What's the point of having a template with horizontal in its name when it doesn't work horizontally quite frequently?? I have already raised this on the template's talk page but there was little interest in fixing it. I can't make this simple fix myself because the template is edit-protected and can only be edited by template editors.Tvx1 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Well, I'm actually on my computer, but when I click "show mobile" and try it in different phones and at different orientations, and it always works. I'll see if I can upload a photo at some point if its still needed, but I'd rather not because I've had some bad experiences uploading wikipedia screenshots. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

Please change the "Alfa Romeo" link in the constructor table. It currently links to Sauber which, given that Alfa Romeo in Formula One currently exists, makes it a WP:EGG. The prose of the article should be updated to explain the agreement in more detail. It currently reads "Sauber was renamed Alfa Romeo Racing as part of a sponsorship deal", which is limited (also, a space needs to be inserted before the "Sauber"). 1.144.105.145 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)  Partly done The link has been updated. I would prefer us to have more discussion on the exact wording before tackling the changes section.Tvx1 21:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requent 2 February 2019 (table sorting)

Please update the table markup to include the following:

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers
				No.	Driver name
Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	7	Kimi Räikkönen
				99	Antonio Giovinazzi
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	5	Sebastian Vettel
				16	Charles Leclerc
Rich Energy Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	8	Romain Grosjean
				20	Kevin Magnussen
McLaren F1 Team	McLaren-Renault	MCL34	Renault	4	Lando Norris
				55	Carlos Sainz Jr.
Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	F1 W10 EQ Power+	Mercedes	44	Lewis Hamilton
				77	Valtteri Bottas
Racing Point F1 Team	Racing Point-Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	11	Sergio Pérez
				18	Lance Stroll
Aston Martin Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Honda	RB15	Honda	10	Pierre Gasly
				33	Max Verstappen
Renault F1 Team	Renault	TBA	Renault	3	Daniel Ricciardo
				27	Nico Hülkenberg
Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	STR14	Honda	23	Alexander Albon
				26	Daniil Kvyat
Williams Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW42	Mercedes	63	George Russell
				88	Robert Kubica
Sources:

References

If I have done this properly (and I'm pretty sure that I have), it should now be possible to sort the table by driver number and driver name and the table will automatically break the larger cells up to accommodate it. This was a function that was not possible when we first introduced the sortable markup to the tables in 2014, but updates to Wiki software mean that it is now possible. 1.144.105.48 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this is exactly the same problematic version we disagreed on using years ago. It still has the problem that rows using a rowspan are split when sort button is clicked or pressed and that effect is not reversible lest one refreshes the page.Tvx1 15:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Then that defeats the purpose of sorting by the number column at all. It should sort sequentially, but in its current format it does not come close. 1.129.105.99 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks fine to me like that. In fact I'd say there's no clear reason to have the rowspans in the first place. I'd support removing them altogether. I'd say that providing the expected sort behaviour is much more important. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There was an earlier discussion on this which leaned towards maken the numbers columns non-sortable. I don't know why that wasn't implemented. There simply is no way to make a sorting on numbers practically usable. Also, the prosed table includes adding rowspans, not removing them. There are no rowspans in the table we currently use.Tvx1 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no "rowspans", but there is faked row spanning by the use of "<br>". It'd be better with a proper single row per driver, then sorting would work logically, and the table would be more useful. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"There simply is no way to make a sorting on numbers practically usable."

When the sorting was first introduced, I believe that one of the main justifications was to give readers the opportunity to sort the table according to their preference. Those who wanted it sorted by constructor name could have it that way, while those who wanted it sorted by driver number could apply it equally.

"It still has the problem that rows using a rowspan are split when sort button is clicked or pressed and that effect is not reversible lest one refreshes the page."

You can re-sort based on constructor, you just don't get the rowspan effect. But where is the demand to go back to the default layout? I put this together based on the original argument from 2014 that some people would want to sort the table as they saw fit; from that I inferred that once sorted according to preference, they would be unlikely to change it back.

"It'd be better with a proper single row per driver, then sorting would work logically, and the table would be more useful."

I agree. Opposing the change on the basis that once done, you cannot naturally return to the default layout sounds like an argument based on the cosmetic appearance of the article. 1.129.105.99 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's good. So let's see what that could look like then:

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers
				No.	Driver name
Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	7	Kimi Räikkönen
Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	99	Antonio Giovinazzi
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	5	Sebastian Vettel
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	16	Charles Leclerc
Rich Energy Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	8	Romain Grosjean
Rich Energy Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	20	Kevin Magnussen
McLaren F1 Team	McLaren-Renault	MCL34	Renault	4	Lando Norris
McLaren F1 Team	McLaren-Renault	MCL34	Renault	55	Carlos Sainz Jr.
Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	F1 W10 EQ Power+	Mercedes	44	Lewis Hamilton
Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	F1 W10 EQ Power+	Mercedes	77	Valtteri Bottas
Racing Point F1 Team	Racing Point-Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	11	Sergio Pérez
Racing Point F1 Team	Racing Point-Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	18	Lance Stroll
Aston Martin Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Honda	RB15	Honda	10	Pierre Gasly
Aston Martin Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Honda	RB15	Honda	33	Max Verstappen
Renault F1 Team	Renault	TBA	Renault	3	Daniel Ricciardo
Renault F1 Team	Renault	TBA	Renault	27	Nico Hülkenberg
Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	STR14	Honda	23	Alexander Albon
Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	STR14	Honda	26	Daniil Kvyat
Williams Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW42	Mercedes	63	George Russell
Williams Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW42	Mercedes	88	Robert Kubica

Everything is properly sortable. What do we think? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That's just doubling everything up for the sake of applying the sort function to every column. The columns that get the most benefit out of sorting are constructor, number and engine. Everything else is unnecessary. 1.129.105.78 (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So when you said "I agree" just above, you didn't mean it then? That's what we were talking about, after yours is sorted it splits the rows like this anyway, so why not take the opportunity to have this, very much simplified and 100% sortable, table in the first place? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not simplified at all. It's more complex and duplicates unnecessarily. That's the exact problematic situation created when sorting the table in the proposed table, which cannot be undone then without refreshing the page, and it's exactly what we decided against years ago.Tvx1 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As there are two cars per constructor of course parts of rows will be duplicated if sorted by, say, driver number - that's how sorting works. The question is whether we sacrifice full sortability so that when sorted by stuff common to both cars we get rowspans on the common stuff. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Another posibility:

Teams under contract to compete in the 2019 World Championship

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit
				Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari
Aston Martin Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Honda	RB15	Honda
McLaren F1 Team	McLaren-Renault	MCL34	Renault
Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	F1 W10 EQ Power+	Mercedes
Racing Point F1 Team	Racing Point-Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes
Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	STR14	Honda
Renault F1 Team	Renault	TBA	Renault
Rich Energy Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari
Williams Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW42	Mercedes

Drivers under contract to compete in the 2019 World Championship

Name	No.	Team
Alexander Albon	23	Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda
Valtteri Bottas	77	Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport
Pierre Gasly	10	Aston Martin Red Bull Racing
Antonio Giovinazzi	99	Alfa Romeo Racing
Romain Grosjean	8	Rich Energy Haas F1 Team
Lewis Hamilton	44	Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport
Nico Hülkenberg	27	Renault F1 Team
Robert Kubica	88	Williams Racing
Daniil Kvyat	26	Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda
Charles Leclerc	16	Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow
Kevin Magnussen	20	Rich Energy Haas F1 Team
Lando Norris	4	McLaren F1 Team
Sergio Pérez	11	Racing Point F1 Team
Daniel Ricciardo	3	Renault F1 Team
George Russell	63	Williams Racing
Kimi Räikkönen	7	Alfa Romeo Racing
Carlos Sainz Jr.	55	McLaren F1 Team
Lance Stroll	18	Racing Point F1 Team
Max Verstappen	33	Aston Martin Red Bull Racing
Sebastian Vettel	5	Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow

-- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this purpose of this request solely to allow sorting by number and chassis? Wicka wicka (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears so. But the thing is, we already judged the above suggestion among many other proposals featuring halved tables, in the discussion that ultimately led to the current format being adopted and non of them really got support.Tvx1 21:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop me if this is a crazy idea, but maybe we should just stick with what we currently have because it works. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: it works like a car with a flat tyre works. But it could work so much better if we fix the "puncture" by finding an acceptable way of sorting by car number and driver name. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Two tables is not the answer. The reader should not have to cross-reference them to get all of the information. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: two tables is better than we currently have, but I agree, not ideal. The only one-table solution we have so far is the one with a row per car (4 February post above)), but that duplicates all the entrant details for each car, so is not ideal either. My preference though, from what we currently have on offer, is that 4 February table as it is the cleanest and clearest, closely resembles the official FIA entry list which also has a row for each car, and is the least tricky to code. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"two tables is better than we currently have"

I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more if I tried. Two tables is awkward, creating an unnecessary need to cross-reference between them to get all of the information. It's especially noticeable on mobile devices where the tables are arranged vertically and both tables have a greater vertical height than the screen.

"the official FIA entry list which also has a row for each car"

And by recreating that exactly we quite literally put twice as much information into the article than we need to because the entrant, constructor, chassis and power unit all appear twice. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I suppose it depends on whether you prioritise aesthetics over utility, or vice-versa. I don't think we should compromise utility for the sake of how pretty it is. I know it frustrates me not to be able to sort by car number or driver name, so I would happily tolerate the slightly larger table as a compromise solution to the requirements for only one table and having it fully sortable. Have you any other ideas for how we can accommodate both requirements? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I would argue that you shouldn't prioritize aesthetics over utility, or vice versa. You should prioritize both equally and seek for the most optimal compromise between the two because they are not entirely distinct concepts - a solution that looks nice is often the most pleasant to use. And I would argue that's what we've achieved with our current table. It's clean, tidy, it displays all the most important information at a glance, and most of the columns are sortable. We've achieved this at the cost of not being able to sort by driver name, since it breaks rowspans. Removing the rowspans makes the table incredibly cluttered and difficult to read, therefore I (and most people, seemingly) think this is a perfectly acceptable compromise. Maybe there is a solution to this problem, but doubling each row or having two separate tables is not something I'd consider.

That said - what is the reasoning behind the chassis column not being sortable? I just tested making it sortable with the current table and it works perfectly fine. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

See the below discussion. The reasoning is that there is no apparent value in sorting on chassis. Each team use a different chassis. Sorting on the chassis column just rearranges them without giving any useful information. This is different to say the power unit column where sorting groups them per manufacturer/supplier allowing the reader to then compare the groups using the same power units.Tvx1 14:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Another wasted opportunity, it doesn't even change the aesthetics in this case, and it was taken out without consensus and despite its removal being challenged. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: it's the "most", i.e. not "all" that lets it down, and badly in my view. It's a lost opportunity to make it so much better. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: And many of us strongly believe your proposed changes would make the table far worse. Say something new. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Please see the above discussion regarding sorting the Entries table. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys/Mclarenfan17, the above edit request does not show a consensus in favor of it. I don't why you thought it was okay to make this edit then.Tvx1 14:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Mostly because I think that having the ability to sort the table by numbers in such a way that it doesn't actually sort by numbers is stupid. And I find the argument in favour of keeping it that way amounted to "we can't do it perfectly, so we should keep doing it a worse way" to be even more stupid. And then for someone to unilaterally revert it without looking at what they changed lowered the bar even further.

There is, however, a clear desire to use the sort function effectively. Sorting the table by team based on the lowest number they use is by no means effective. If the sort by number option is to be used, it should behave as the reader expects. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should provide the ability to sort by driver number, and by driver name. Without a consensus though as to the method, we are stuck with poor functionality and unexpected (from the reader point-of-view) behaviour. We need to continue exploring this - maybe seek outside help and opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both DeFacto and Mclarenfan17, if the sort by driver number is there then is should actually sort by driver number, not by the team which as the lowest number, while the fact that it removes the cell merges isn't optimal, I really don't see it as a problem and I definitely don't think its a good reason to compromise the sortabillity of the table. SSSB (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The default sorting is by constructor, which is sensible given the non-sequential numbering of the cars. Adding the sort function by number is therefore really a matter of convenience. While re-sorting by constructor creates duplicate content, it does not fundamentally break the table and I struggle to believe that this is so inconvenient for so many readers that we're better off with the "sort constructors by lowest number used" approach. I actually have my doubts that the sort function is used much at all and that if it is used, then I doubt that it is regularly used by the same readers each time they read the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I could not disagree more strongly - duplicating the content DOES fundamentally break the table, and it is not a solution I am willing to accept. I would love it, absolutely love it, if we could find a way to sort by numbers in a way that doesn't ruin the table. No one has achieved that yet, and I'm not optimistic they ever will.

@Mclarenfan17: Watch your mouth. I didn't "unilaterally revert" anything. I fixed the page after YOU unilaterally changed it despite there being no consensus to do so. Wikipedia has never, EVER worked in a way that allows you to stroll in and make whatever change you want, then demand that we let your changes stand while things are discussed. This is why we have talk pages, this is why we reach consensus before making major changes. Let me know if this is going to be a problem. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This was all discussed years ago in the discussions I linked to before and a clear consensus was achieved against any format where sorting would cause the duplication of information. We cannot ignore such a consensus all of sudden because someone decide they like sorting on sequential numbers. The reality is that splitting of rows just makes this inefficient. Once they are split, I cannot be reversed without refreshing the page and it reduces the efficiency of sorting of the other columns, like power units. That sort of information becomes much less clear. The positive of sorting sequentially by number just doesn't outweigh the negatives. If there is such a huge dislike of sorting by teams' lowest numbers, then I suggest making the number column unsortable. After all, I can't really see why sorting a numbers is that important anyway. Since 2014 there has not been any sequential correlation between numbers. In fact, the world champions has barely even used the number 1 since then. I could see the point of number sorting prior to 2014, when these would put the teams in a sequential order, but now I really don't see the benefit.Tvx1 14:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to be answering these questions from the perspective of a reader. What value does being able to sort by number provide to the average reader? When you sort a list it's because you have one piece of information and want to correlate it with others. Maybe I've come to this page because I want to know who is driving for McLaren. The information I have is the name of the team. The information I do not have is the name of the drivers. So I sort the list by constructor, am easily able to find "McLaren" because I know where it will be in alphabetical order, and then I slide over to the drivers column to answer my question. What I'm struggling to imagine is a realistic situation in which the only piece of information the reader has is the car's number, and has to work backwards from there. That's why I don't believe it is important to be able to sort by driver number. It addresses an extremely unlikely edge case at the cost of literally breaking the table. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that sort of the same feeling I have.Tvx1 16:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Watch your mouth. I didn't "unilaterally revert" anything."

Except that you did. You reverted the edits without looking at what you were reverting. I know this because you also restored errors in the markup that I had fixed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

YOU were out of line in making those edits without acknowledging that there is no consensus to do so. YOU acted unilaterally; I simply fixed your mistake. I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you're incapable of accepting this fact, I would strongly encourage you to lose your password again. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"I simply fixed your mistake."

And in doing so, you reintroduced changes to the markup that meant the table could not sort properly. For example, Kimi Räikkönen's entry was assigned the sort value "Räi", but the Wiki software does not recognise the letter "ä" and so places it after "z" in the alphabet. Hence, the software would place George Russell ahead of Räikkönen. I fixed that problem in my edit, which you reverted without a second thought. So you either didn't know that this was a problem, or didn't care, but either way you should get into the habit of checking what you are reverting.

"I would strongly encourage you to lose your password again."

And I would strongly encourage you to tone down the aggression before an admin sees your behaviour and decides that your password needs to be forgotten for you. You're not going to achieve anything by going on the offensive all the time. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: when an editor reverts a bad edit such as that one of yours, it's not reasonable to expect them to unpick and restore any subsequent edits done to the same section. I'd say that the onus is on you to sort that out. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ding ding ding. I'm not the one who incorrectly edited the page, in direct contradiction to established consensus. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: I didn't say you were, I was addressing Mclarenfan17. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"it's not reasonable to expect them to unpick and restore any subsequent edits done to the same section."

Even when those subsequent edits add value to the article? If nothing else, it's common sense to check that you are reverting what you intended to revert. If you just blindly revert on sight, you wind up in this situation.

"I'm not the one who incorrectly edited the page"

Yes, you did. You didn't check what you were reverting. The end result is that you reintroduced errors into the markup. You could have easily reverted those edits whilst fixing the errors at the same time. Instead, you chose to blindly revert and behave in an uncivil manner on the talk page.

"in direct contradiction to established consensus"

Please show me the consensus that says that "Räikkönen" comes after "Russell" when arranged in alphabetical order. Because that's the change you made and it's not supported by any evidence. Or maybe the way George Russell chose the number 100 instead of 63, because that's another error you introduced. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: yes, even if those subsequent edits add value to the article. You can't expect someone else to spend time unravelling stuff that you've mingled into your disruptive edit. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"You can't expect someone else to spend time unravelling stuff that you've mingled into your disruptive edit"

It was not a disruptive edit. That's assuming bad faith. I saw two consensuses emerge: one to utilise the sort function more effectively, and one not to apply the sorting to the number column. Since there was far more support to use the function more effectively, that was the one I felt was more appropriate to apply. Now, I'm happy to acknowledge that my judgement may have been in error, but since Wicka wicka decided to revert that edit, he had a responsibility to ensure that he was actually reverting what he intended to edit. Instead, he decided to revert on sight and then act like an arsehole about it. He either didn't know what he was reverting, or he didn't care. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Shocking, shameful behavior. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not to sort by chassis discussed where?

Tvx1, in your revert you say "This has been discussed." Where was it discussed? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed here on this talk page in a discussion I already linked to in the section above this one. It seems that you didn't really bother to click on that link.Tvx1 19:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hardly a consensus for that then - one mention and no support or opposition for it! I think you should reinstate it per WP:BRD, or give a better rationale than that for defying that fundamental backstop of collegiality and collaboration. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I gave my rationale in the edit-summary. Firstly, there is the discussion and secondly there is no benefit whatsoever from sorting on chassis. It doesn't group them or provide correlation between them, so what additional information from re-sorting the chassis names do the readers get?? I could see the point, in articles on older seasons where you privateer entrants entering the same chassis. In that case sorting would group those entering the same chassis which is interesting to the reader. Here, however the sorting doesn't provide anything. "Defying that fundamental backstop of collegiality and collaboration" has nothing to do with this. Leave those personal attacks away, please.Tvx1 20:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think sorting adds value for the reader. So, as that has been in the article for months, then per WP:BRD you need to get get agreement to change the consensus on this. Please revert restore the status-quo and start a discussion on your proposal to change this. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

How? It doesn't add value only because you like clicking on the sort button. I have just thoroughly explained how re-sorting the chassis' do not enhance the understanding of that information for the reader in any way.Tvx1 20:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree with our assertions, and please stick to the content question, and don't keep trying to personalise it. We can't predict what the reader wants to see - they might want to find a row by the chassis name, and the quickest way is by sorting. The sort function is free. Either way, forcing your change on us without consensus, especially when challenged, is, I believe, deeply discourteous and a violation of the standards of collegiality and cooperation that underpin the Wikipedia ethos. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like over-design to me—"it might be useful, so let's include it just in case". It would be useful if teams could use the same chassis so that readers could see who was using what, but since every team produces their own chassis, sorting by chassis is effectively the same as sorting by constructor.

Given that some teams (Haas, Williams, Ferrari, Force India and old McLarens) use a chassis designation unrelated to their constructor name, a far more intuitive way to search the table would be to look up the constructor and then find the chassis rather than go straight to the chassis. 1.129.105.10 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather allow the readers to decide for themselves how they want to use it. As we can make it a more interactive and fulfilling experience for them, and without any downside, why impose this unnecessary restriction on how it is used? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for adding functionality to the article, but I'd need more than "it might be useful" to justify it. Thst feels a lot like the kitchen sink. You simply have no way of proving that readers would use it if it were added. 1.129.105.249 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo

According to this BBC article, the Alfa Romeo team will still be based in Switzerland: "The Swiss team say the ownership and management structure remains unchanged but the Sauber name will disappear." Besides this, Autoweek quotes team principal Frédéric Vasseur confirming where the newly-named team will be headquartered: "This has given a boost of motivation to each team member, be that trackside or at the headquarters in Switzerland, as the hard work invested has become reflected in our results." I think it is clear that Alfa Romeo will remain a Swiss team, so the recent spate of edit warring can end. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We know Sauber raced under a Swiss licence, but we've no idea whether Alfa will change that, so the nationality under which they will race is, as yet, unconfirmed. So it's probably best to stick with the "none" flag, for the time being. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo gave no indication the organisation would be moved from Switzerland to some other country, and we needn't speculate. It would frankly be bizarre to do such an upheaval. The article should reflect the current state of affairs, which is that it is a Swiss team. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

They don't need to move to change the flag they race under - look at all the British teams that race under foreign flags, and as Alfa aren't Swiss, it's not unreasonable to imagine they might choose to change it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

But they are currently a Swiss team, as backed up by reliable sources. It makes no sense to remove the Swiss flag just in case they decide to change nationality. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Very good point, but with the name change they, effectively (apparently) become a new constructor. Probably best not to worry about it, and wait to see how it turns out. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

They're a Swiss-based team, not necessarily a Swiss-licenced team. Because the constructor changed, they have to make a new registration with a national motorsports governing body. We cannot simply assume that they have done that with the Swiss one (ACS). We need a source to support that. What you're doing is making your own synthesis out of some facts.Tvx1 19:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Racing with Swiss flag. Official source. The full constructors name is Alfa Romeo Racing-Ferrari, see here.--79.19.108.206 (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I don't see their licence nationality mentioned on that page, but look at the graphic on the Alfa entry on this one (as posted above by 79.19.108.206), they seem to think it is going to remain Swiss. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The F1.com is rather slow in updating however. It still lists Sauber's records for Alfa Romeo as well, notwithstanding they appear to be separate constructors.Tvx1 15:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Toro Rosso's full Constructor/Engine name as according to the FIA entry list is "Scuderia Toro Rosso (STR14)-Honda", I think we should keep Alfa's constructor name as just "Alfa Romeo" for now until we have more sources. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "More Sources", there's literally only one relevant source for an entry list and the entry list is it. Duds 2k (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I note the "Chassis" was changed to TBA, which makes sense but if that's the convention, the entry for Ferrari is now wrong Duds 2k (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's change Toro Rosso's to "Scuderia Toro Rosso (STR14)-Honda" then if that's the only source we need. (!) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. The column is for the name of the chassis, not the name of the constructor. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The FIA publishes separate entry lists for the different grands prix. These generally have a column labeled constructor. We always use both the season and Grand Prix entry lists to verify the constructor names.Tvx1 18:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@The359, I'm using the same logic as that's the name listed on the FIA entry list. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you're not. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not always identical on the different entry lists. Sometimes the abbreviations STR or very rarely RBR were used to save space. Since STR14 is put between brackets, I doubt that is actually intended to be part of the constructor name. That appears to be the chassis type. Regardless I don't really think that it's very debatable that the contested constructor name is "Alfa Romeo Racing".Tvx1 21:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, by "Speedy"'s logic the STR one should just be "Toro Rosso" as that's the bit of the team name that isn't "Team". It isn't though. And yeah if it changed on a future race entry list it might well be worth changing but right now we have 1 entry list, 1 source and I'm confused why it's even a discussion other than a user has decided what it should be called and is edit warring the cited entry from the only available official source Duds 2k (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "Alfa Romeo Racing" is the only name the team has used to date. Therefore we should treat it as the constructor name until we have evidence to the contrary. 1.144.104.89 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@The359, It was the exact same logic you were using, if that's how it is listed on the FIA entry list (as "Scuderia Toro Rosso (STR14)-Honda") and if that's apparently the only source we can use then that must be the constructor name that we use for Toro Rosso. I'm using that as a example I'm not saying we should change it to that, these FIA lists aren't always that consistent. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, guys, this edit warring over the flag icon has to stop immediately. In my opinion, it should remain as SUI until we have a source that changes that, but edit warring is much worse than it being wrong. Cut that shit out. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The constructor changes, a new registration is required. We cannot assume the license is still Swiss. We need to support content with reliable sources. We need a source here of one of the relevant people discussing the license.Tvx1 17:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That is no defence of your edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not one of the ones who were edit-warring. I just restored the last good version prior to the edit war. I hadn't edited the page for two days prior to that.Tvx1 18:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This precedent was established so long ago that I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for a source, but the reason teams like Red Bull use the full "Red Bull Racing" as their constructor name is because FOM (I think Bernie specifically) felt that a name like "Red Bull-Honda" could be misconstrued as a Red Bull-sponsored Honda factory team. Given that Alfa Romeo was purely a sponsor of Sauber last year, I suspect they have chosen the full team name as their constructor name for similar reasons. Regarding Toro Rosso - last year they also included "(STR13)" in their constructor name and we also chose to ignore it. Note that the name of that column is actually "Name of the Chassis." I suspect the person at Toro Rosso who fills out this paperwork is under the impression they need to include the actual chassis designation, not just the constructor. Obviously (STR14) is not intended to be part of the constructor name. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)