Talk:2012 Formula One World Championship/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2012 GP Map

To whoever created the map of the world highlighting which countries will host GP's in 2012, can you please revise it?? The little island of the south-east corner of Australia is part of the country (known as Tasmania). I notice that Alaska is highlighted, therefore Tasmania should also. --Brody59 (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, they screwed up Alaska as well and missed the "arm" that runs between the Pacific and Canada. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They also missed Hokkaido island in Japan.79.21.163.122 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How about we just remove it until it is right? --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it because there wasn't a map last year so why start now (and it was wrong anyway)? --MSalmon (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not having one for previous seasons is not really a legit reason to remove it. Why start now? Because it might be a helpful diagram. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is wrong anyway --MSalmon (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If the user who created the old one edited it so it was correct or if even I had a crack at it, would it be acceptable? BosleyTree (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why it wouldn't be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If the original user fixed it or if i had a crack at it would that be more acceptable? BosleyTree (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if it was fixed then it can be put back --MSalmon (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The new version is up, and it's, er ... green. Very, very green. It might be a little bit too bright. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree buddy. I also want to know why it is squashing the table up so much you can barely read it. That is why I moved the Red Bull RB8 image from next to the Drivers' table to above the teams who had their names changed. Move the bloody map under the calendar.TollHRT52 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2012 (AEST)

The RB8 image is there because it is the car entered by the reigning World Constructors' Champions. It goes under the picture of Alonso, the current championship leader; and Vettel, the reigning World Drivers' Champion. And the picture of the RB8 is not squashing the drivers' table. The size of the drivers' tabe is programmed by the wikicode embedded into the article. Moving the picture won't do anything.

And please don't call me "buddy". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not on your computer or laptop, but on mine it is squashed. And sorry about the buddy thing. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2012 (AEST)

That's the resolution of your screen causing the squashed effect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

fastest lap

in the german grand prix schumacher set the fastest lap 1.18.725 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs)

And this article already says that...? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

but don't here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Formula_One_season) or I can't see the italics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is italics, but it just looks like a normal 7. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why no YDT?

Why does the Young Driver Test segment on the season report keep getting deleted? TollHRT52 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2012 (AEST)

Because it's not important and does not contribute to the subject, which is the season of 2012 Formula One racing. Testing is given no more importance than the training in any other sport receives in their articles. If any of the young drivers actually contribute towards the 2012 races, then its worth a possible mention that they participated. --Falcadore (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because something happened, that doesn't automatically make it notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with TollHRT52, this page is for the 2012 Formula One Season, and therefore everything that happens in it. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The test is not part of the season. This article is not about everything the F1 teams do, it is about the World Championship season, i.e. the Grands Prix, and events that affect the Grands Prix. This young driver test is the F1 equivalent of a Manchester United v Liverpool youth team kickabout. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And if we were to include the YDT in the article, what would we say about it? That it happened? Nothing of any degree of notability took place during the test. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Car 10 Exclusion

In the constructors standings table it says the result at the Italian GP for car 10 is EX. I am aware that this is correct for Romain Grosjean in the drivers standings table, as he is excluded, but Lotus are still allowed to run somebody else (presumably 3rd driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio), as it explains in the signed teams and drivers table. Therefore, the result is not EX for Lotus. Sas1998 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would also argue that Grosjean himself should not be listed as "EX" in the drivers' table. He will nevr sit in the car over the Monza weekend, so that space if best left blank. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly he will not sit in his car because he is excluded. That is the reason and it should be mentioned in the drivers' table. FinnishF1Fan (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking back over some of the other pages where drivers have been excluded from the race, it appears that the unwritten definition of an exclusion is when a driver is formally removed from the results of a race after that same race has been run. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) He is not excluded, he is banned. It doesn't matter how many editors don't understand the difference, "EX" is the wrong terminology to use in this case. It so happens that there is nothing in the key to show a ban because it's not a result in a strict sense. It's a results table, and Grosjean will have no result for Italy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

By way of an explanation, a driver/car is excluded (EX) if he is thrown out of the event between Friday practice and the race (now very rare). If he is thrown out after the race has started, he is DSQ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Grosjean, like Schumacher in 1994, should be labelled as "SUSP" or "BAN". --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is under way here about that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant column in calendar table

OK, so there's opposition to the idea of adding useful hyperlinks from the specific race rows in the calendar table to the specific races, and no current support for it. What about removing one of the two columns giving, effectively, the same data then? The "Race Title" and the "Grand Prix" columns could be merged into one and the generic GP could be linked to from the resultant single column, thus a redundant column would be removed. Eff Won (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For the exact reasoning that you stated in your intent to edit the article in the first place. As some Grands Prix are not in English and thus not in a name easy to recognize for casual users, both are listed for their ease. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table links - why not?

Hello, I'm new here, and today I thought I was improving the usability of the calendar table by hyperlinking from it to the Belgian (and later the Italian) GPs to the article for the 2012 instances of those GPs. I came to the article looking for the grid places for today's Belgian GP, and clicked on the calendar in the contents list. This brought me to the calendar table, which is fine, but there was no link to the aticle about today's GP in it. There was one to a generic Belgian GP article and one to an article about the circuit, but neither was what I wanted. I eventually found the article, but it wasn't as easy as it could have been.

So, having eventually found the article, I came back and added the hyperlink for it. However, despite a few attempts to make it stick, other contributors removed those hyperlinks, with various comments such as: "we don't do that", "It already exists further down the page. Redundancy is redundant", "There's no harm in linking every single word in this article either. Or there are guidelines on when we should be linking, and this article is following them" and "Useful links already exist. Redundant links are unnecessary".

This doesn't add up. The table does not already have those useful links in it. The article has links to the generic GPs in more than one table, to the constructors several times over and even to the drivers and circuits several times over, so why not the useful link to the specific GP that the calendar is describing? It's crazy not to. What "guidelines" say you can't add a useful link to a table, especially when there is a column begging for it, and it's probably what most visitors want and expect?

Eff Won (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Because those links are found elsewhere in the article. The focus of the calendar table is not the specific races themselves, but a top-down view of the races.

You may have noticed that this article is structured with information introduced gradually. It's why we detail who the drivers are and what races appear on the calendar before we start recounting the specific events of each race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The links may well be found elsewhere, but that isn't good enough, they also belong where readers expect to find them; in the calendar. If you find a row in the table describing a particular race, eg today's Belgian GP, then you expect a link to it there and not at some unspecified place further down the article. What do you mean "information introduced gradually"? Readers aren't all idiots, and don't want to be forced to hunt through stuff they don't want to read to find what they do want to read. The links would add value, and could be ignored by those who want to read through the whole of the (long) article just for the sake of it. It links to the drivers at first mention, and to the circuits and to the generic GPs, so why not to the specific GPs? Your answer is unsupportable.

Eff Won (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it link to the specific races?

Because that section of the article isn't related to the specific races. It's related to the formation of the calendar, rather than the events of the season. The only way you could include links to specific races is if you removed the links to generic races, and that is removing information that should be kept in the article. Moreover, the calendar is the only place in the article where the links to generic GPs fit.

This is a system that is used on every season page (as far as I am aware) and is the result of a long-standing consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length, and this system is the one which was decided upon by a fairly large number of editors. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It needs discussing again because there is no clear reason why the first column should not hyperlink to the specific GP. The article would be made more useful, so it must be a good thing. Or can you explain a disadvantage of adding a valuable link there? Eff Won (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not "valuable". It doesn't add anything. As has been said, those links can be found elsewhere on the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The reader doesn't want the challenge of finding them elsewhere, the reader wants intuitive links. You didn't say what the disadvantage of the intuitive link is. Eff Won (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The first column has no links in it, so we can easily use that with no disruption to the rest of the table. Tell me, what possible races could "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" be referring to in 2012? Eff Won (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't use that one, because then we will have two links to something called the "Belgian Grand Prix" with nothing to differentiate between what each link will lead to. It's an easter egg. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are worried that readers won't realise the difference; don't be, because they will. In any case, the specific is more useful that the generic there and the specific links to the generic right near the top anyway. And you didn't answer what else "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" might be in 2012. Eff Won (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot assume that readers will recognise the difference between the links. Wikipedia articles are to be written with the assumption that the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject - if they click "Random Article" and are brought here, then they should be able to read along with ease.

Secondly, we don't link to race sponsors. So "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" could theoretically refer to something else other than the "Belgian Grand Prix". What that something else might be doesn't matter; the fact that it can mean something else means that it should not be linked. Of course, we could always link to "Belgian Grand Prix" and ignore the "Shell", but then we'd have two links two different pages that each use the same wikilink, and that is unacceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You could use that argument to remove ALL links. McLaren has many meanings and I'm sure Fernando Alonso could be someone else too. The fact is, that row is about the 2012 Belgian GP; but, inexcusably, does not contain a link to it. The advantage of no link when a link is what exactly? Eff Won (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But they all link to pages that reflect what their links say the first time they are introduced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The first column of the table that says "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" could be linked to 2012 Belgian Grand Prix - as, according to that article the 2012 Belgian Grand Prix is also known as the "2012 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix". That certainly makes more sense than the links further down: Belgium, Report and BEL. Eff Won (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The generic link can't go anywhere else better, and the race link is already present more than once. I'd suggest that fewer readers will be looking to find a race report from the calendar, than from the results tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So far, you're the only one arguing for this, with two against - I suggest waiting to see if anyone agrees with you before wasting more time over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, there are numerous links to the same driver, the same team, the same course, the same generic GP, so why not put a link, where a link is sorely missing, to the article that the row is exclusively about? Eff Won (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because right now, only you think it's sorely missing. And there's only one link to each circuit in the article, as far as I can see. Some people argued for fewer repeat links in the discussion we had; almost nobody argued for more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, Eff Won? I just explained that to you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A quick count of hyperlinks gives:

• Circuit of the Americas: 4
• Fernando Alonso: 22
• United States Grand Prix: 5
• Red Bull Racing: 18

Now tell me again; why can't we have one link in the calendar table, on the row about the 2012 Belgian GP, to the 2012 Belgian GP? Eff Won (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, as Breton pointed out, the generic link can't go anywhere else better, and the race link is already present more than once. And as I pointed out to you, we cannot be in a situation where there are links to two separate pages that use the same wording in their links. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The generic link can stay where it is too - why not have links to both? If you can think of a reason for only having one link, then the link to the specific GP is definitely the more useful of the two in the context of that table, especially as it, in turn, links to the generic GP anyway. And nearly all links are present more than once - and that isn't a problem with the others, so why suggest it is a problem here? And, to answer your late addition, they don't have the same wording, unlike the 20 identically worded links in the Results and Standing Grand Prix table which point to 20 different articles. Eff Won (talk) 21:52, 2

September 2012 (UTC)

We can't have two links because we would have (Shell) Belgian Grand Prix and Belgian GP. Do you see the problem there? The two links have the same or similar wording, and yet lead to different places. "Shell" isn't enough to distinguish the 2012 page from the generic page, because Shell have sponsored the race for years.

As for why the link to the generic page article is the best, this has already been explained to you twice: the calendar is the only place where they fit within the article.

And with regard to the "twenty identically-worded links in the results and standings table", each one of those corresponds to the race whose line it shares. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are dancing on the head of a pin with this one. There is only one Shell Belgian GP in 2012, the 2012 Belgian GP. If you find that too confusing, you could give it its full name in the table and call it the "2012 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix", as it says in the article, or even abbreviate it to "2012 Shell Belgian GP" instead. It isn't rocket science. Eff Won (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm finding so confusing is why you keep forcing the conversation around in circles when you don't get your way. It has been explained to you why the article is written this way. Several times. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The "explanations" don't add up though, they aren't rational, as I've explained several times. What I'm finding so confusing is why you are looking for reasons to omit such a useful hyperlink, rather than saying "good idea Eff Won!". Eff Won (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So that's it, is it? If your ideas aren't great, then clearly we're making decisions based on faulty logic. I've heard this song before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but you haven't supplied any sound logic yet. All the excuses supplied so far have failed the "have a quick look at the rest of the article and see if they hold water" test. Eff Won (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Enough already, This has "flogging a dead horse" written all over it. If and when someone agrees with you, then this "discussion" can continue. Until then, it's dead in the water. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To go back to Eff Won's original statment: "I came to the article looking for the grid places for today's Belgian GP, and clicked on the calendar in the contents list."

Why would you not click on the heading that says "Results" if you were looking for the results of qualifying for the Belgian Grand Prix? What is a calendar going to tell you about grid positions? The link to the race report is where it belongs, in the Results section. Just because you happened to look in the wrong place does not make it something that needs immediate fixing.

"Hello, I'm new here"

And we're experienced here. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bite the newcomer, but you, obviously not knowing the past discussions over this very thing amongst a variety of editors, made your attempt to improve, but were reverted based on consensus. However, why would you then, despite being told not to do that, continue to do so, again knowing full well that you are new here? Not only that, but continuing to edit war with other editors until your point of view stuck, and demanding that the consensus discussion be reopened because you are still not satisfied.

I suggest you take a step back. You have a concern, fine: discuss it. Demands and edit wars will get you nowhere. Further, once a discussion finally manages to spring up, calling those that disagree with you as illogical or making excuses is certainly not going to help your case either, nor is trying to make this into a win-loss scenario. Just simply be aware that this specific topic has a history, and many editors have discussed it in the past. We are not going to magically do away with that standard simply because you think you've solved a logical conundrum.

So to keep it simple: Calm down. You're new here, you have some things to learn. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, perhaps I was a bit hasty. I hadn't anticipated the level of passion that existed here about what I assumed was an oversight. I apologize to all concerned. I didn't realize that there was a history here.

I hadn't thought to look at the "results" section for the starting positions for a race that hadn't started. I imagined the results would only be for the race itself, and so filled in after the race finished.

Bottom line: I still think a link from the calendar to the specific GP would be useful and I found a policy which I think supports my concern. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, in the "Link specificity" section, it says: "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." So, the topic of the rows in question being the specific GP taking place on that date should link to the specific GP article, and it will in turn link to the general one. Makes sense, no?

Eff Won (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You misinterpret that guideline, specifically the part about context. In context, the "Belgian GP" in the calendar is a reference to what sporting event it is. For instance, a mention of the "Indianapolis 500" in the IndyCar article would be linked to Indianapolis 500, not the 2012 Indianapolis 500 because the context is about the event, not that a specific running of that event. The other column of the calendar does indeed refer to a specific running of an event, but there is nothing in the guideline you quoted stating that a link is required or even necessary there. The guideline is for discussing existing links, basically. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table links again

I thought the reasons given by Prisonermonkeys for removing the links to specific GPs from the calendar table were unlikely, especially given the poor level of compliance with many of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines of many aspects of this article. I had a recollection that I'd seen the specific GPs limked from the calendar table in previous season articles, so I went on a little investigative journey. What I found was that not only that those links did exist in the 2011 season article, but in the 2010 article too. That was they did exist, until June 11, 2012 when a certain Prisonermonkeys, visited both of those articles in turn, and deleted all of those valuable links using the same astonishing (given the policy compliancy state of both of those articles to) edit summaries: "there is no need for this - links to report pages are all throughout the article". In other words; deliberate systematic destruction of content to the detriment of the articles. I have restored the information in both of those articles and I plan to add it to this one too now that there is clearly actually no good sound reason not to. Eff Won (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you're so familiar with many of the policies and guidelines here so quickly, take time to read WP:AGF – and heed it. Your above comment violates it in a big way. If you want to continue editing, be sure to rein yourself in a little bit. I'm sure you'll want to strike parts of your comment, like "deliberate systematic destruction of content", for example. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I took the time to read through many of the links that were provided when I registered. God knows why though, they seem to be totally disregarded by the dominant editors here. The assumption of good faith of one so blatantly denying the assumption of good faith to others is difficult. I stand by my comments for the reasons I detail on my talk page. I am sorry that I ever crossed the threshold of this article and am disturbed by the hostility exhibited to newcomers here. I hoped I might be able to improve this article, but I fear that was a naive assumption. I fear that there is a clique here resistant to interference from outsiders. Eff Won (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your very first statement is that you feel that the reasoning for Prisonmonkeys removing the links is unlikely. Exactly what gave you the notion that the reasoning supplied by the editor was false, or even possibly false? Because as far as I can see, there is not a single thing questionable about the reason given by Prisonermonkeys. Therefore, if you somehow find Prisonermonkey's edits to be questionable, then you have failed WP:AGF from the start. And your rating of the article of having a poor level of compliance to Wikipedia policies is based on what, exactly? I don't know anyone who reads all possible guidelines before they ever start editing, AND knows them well enough to start judging articles after only two days.

We are assuming quite a lot of good faith with you, even with all the grief you have supplied over the past two days. However these sort of unfounded accusations gives us reason to be weary of good faith. If you wish to help us maintain good faith in you, then you need to supply the good faith in others. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We ARE getting a lot of unilateral editting going on in a number of articles, like for example an IP edittor is removing from early season race reports the line from the lead stating (formally the 2012 Sponsor Name Here Countristania Grand Prix) stating that it is irrelevant, which has me a little astonished. Certainly I think the359 hits the nail on the head with incorrect assumption of how Good Faith works.

That having been said, I'm a little surprised at you Prisonmonkeys. From this debate last year, not only were you fine with the links heading to race reports, you used it as justification for not linking to race reports elsewhere in the article. --Falcadore (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. From what I gather, Prisonermonkeys was arguing in 2011 the same thing he is arguing now - The calendar section should not link to specific race reports. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I've completely grabbed the wrong end of the arguement. My sincere apologies Prisonermonkeys. Tt does, for EffWon's benefit, point towards previous established consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's okay. I stopped paying attention once it became apparent that this argument was going around in circles. I don't mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note: as suggested at Talk:2010 Formula One season, this discussion has moved to WT:F1 as it involves more than this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eff Won (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Serious level of non-compliance with key Wikipedia guidelines

A user commenting on my talk page invited me to give links to the specific Wikipedia guidelines that I feel are being contravened in this article (I think that's what was meant).

Just hours after I made my first edit here, a friendly user added (to my talk page) a welcoming message, and starter links to several hyperlinked networks of pages dealing with key Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I then devoured. With much of the content of many of those guidelines still fresh in my mind, I thus realised that I was being fed duff information about the compliance state of this article, and duff reasons why my edits were being ruthlessly destroyed.

Let me list just some of the failings as I read it:

• MOS:BOLD tells us not to use bold other than in a few specified circumstances, and not to use it to emphasise text. The text in the 'Constructor' column of the first table is non-compliant.
• MOS:LINK tells us:

• That section headings should not themselves contain links. Each section under the 'Race summaries' heading contravenes that one.
• To avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link. The article is littered with those.
• links should be created to: relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (...). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question. The calendar table contravenes this by not linking to the specific GP pages.
• Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations... Every GP location city and country is linked, many several times over. A clear contravention.
• Do not link to a page that redirects back to the page the link is on. Many of the 'Report' links in the first of the 'Results and standings' tables blatantly contravenes this one.
• Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Almost every link in every paragraph contravenes this one.

• WP:LENGTH tells us that at 50 kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries. This article is currently about 180 kB.
• WP:COLOR tells us to ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. The last 2 tables contravene this comprehensively.
• MOS:FLAG tells us that the name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon. This article does not comply with that.

And that's what I've found so far, after just a few days experience editing here.

We should challenge ourselves to fix all of these, at least, and ASAP.

Eff Won (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

For a rookie edittor you are astonishingly well-versed in policy. --Falcadore (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Whump... there it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well versed? No, but I can read, yes. Having followed some of the chains of links given to me on day 1, they are all there in black & white for anyone who is interested to read. If rules are well hidden and as difficult to get to grips with as you seem to imply, then I imagine that I have only scratched the surface here, and that many more transgressions will become apparent as more policies and guidelines are read. Eff Won (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who is given a handbook on Day 1 and feels within a few hours that they can start making demands on what is or is not correct to do in various situations. Reading guidelines and applying them practically are two different things. You also seem to be woefully ignorant of several of the pillars of Wikipedia, which are far more important than methods of style, namely the treatment of other editors. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Look on my talk page, you will see there the "handbook" I was given - on day 1. As I said, I haven't read them all yet. Why not follow some of the links there yourself, read some of the guidelines, and you'll see where I'm coming from. Then review your responses and actions here. Eff Won (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the text on your talk page. I'm also well aware that my reponses to you have come solely based on your disregard for the warnings and advice you have been given. I am also well aware of the existing guidelines, and know that they are what forms my responses to your actions. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But don't understand how debating works. You don't WP:EDITWAR and don't argue the same subject on multiple pages. You've made your point that you have a disagreement, now discuss it with the involved editors, come to a consensus and absorb that consensus into the article. WP:CONSENSUS. If you've read all those other policies (without making content contributions), you can read these as well. --Falcadore (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you want to go down this road, I'll oblige...

MOS:BOLD is in reference to prose. Tables are not prose. Further, the results matrix also features bold for the Position and Total Points columns, to help them stand out. This is simply for readability amongst the various cells.

MOS:LINK's reference to major geographic features means continents, not necessarily cities or countries. Further, since you point out that MOS:FLAG says the country should be listed alongside the flag, then the calendar section fulfills this requirement by linking the country. Also, an article this size does require some repeated links merely for the sake of sanity. Also, if you're going to argue that the calender should have links to the race reports, don't then say that the repetition of these links is against policy.

WP:LENGTH sets a limit of 50kb in readable prose. 2012 Formula One season is currently 33kb of readable prose. The other 150kb is code and references.

WP:COLOR tells us not to use color unless there are other definitions. The definitions are in the key and helped by the diagram of points per position in the race. These charts are also universal to all motorsports articles, and are not simply an F1 idea. I would also point out that the example of sporting results featured on WP:TABLES includes colored cells.

Finally, there is WP:IAR, which states that certain guidelines can be ignored if it is in the best interest of the article, and this is something that has been discussed before. We do not in any way hide that we have agreed through consensus to ignore certain elements of the Method of Style, which, in and of itself is not a requirement, but merely a guideline for how to structure an article. Nor are they necessarily key elements. Several of the F1 articles which have reached Featured Article status also ignore some of the MOS elements you point out here. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You may have convinced yourself of that, but your selective and skewed interpretations of the guidelines reveal the real problem - a deep-rooted ability to see just what you want to see, but not what is actually there.

Take a look at MOS:BOLD again, for example. It states, and I will quote it verbatim; after giving the main use as in the "lead section" it goes on to say: "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases..." then lists the cases I recounted above, and then: "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." It doesn't distinguish between the prose and anywhere else. Your excuses for breaking the other rules are mostly similarly groundless.

WP:IAR only applies if "a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". The rules I mention above clearly do not fall into that category. And just because rules are broken in some other articles, that isn't an excuse for breaking them here and certainly isn't an excuse to make editing an unpleasant rings of fire experience for a new contributor.

Eff Won (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Text and tables are two seperate entities within an article. There is no externeous bolding in the article text. Bolding in tables is not covered in WP:BOLD. In fact bolding is built into tables, with the ! starting field which not only automatically bolds the text, but also changes the color of that cell to a darker shade of grey.

WP:IAR can be applied to anything. The "rules" you mentioned above are not rules, they are guides. There are not requirements.

As for ring of fire experiences, you should see it from our perspective. You seem to be quite adament that "breaking rules" when it comes to edit warring is justifiable, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with saying that methods of style, which are inherently not rules, cannot be broken in this specific article. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't distinguish between "text" and "tables" in the way you suggest. It explicitly allows bold for table heading, thus implicitly not for table body text. Guidelines are "rules" and this article contravenes many of them with no supportable excuse. I'm not saying I have read all the guidelines, and probably followed links which sounded more useful or appropriate for content rather than behaviour, but judging by the reception I received, any behaviour rules that there might be are either quite lax or poorly adhered to anyway. Eff Won (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

1952 Winter Olympics, 1956 Winter Olympics, 1930 FIFA World Cup, 1926 World Series, 2009 Giro d'Italia. These are all Featured Articles. All have tables. All have bold in tables. Some even have color in tables! Are you going to tell the editors of these Featured Articles that they are in gross non-compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? And these are just the first five I happened to grab from the Sports section alone, I can grab many more, including Formula One articles, which show the same thing and have been approved by the community.

As you can see, you are not only misinterpreting these guidelines, but also confusing them for "rules". They are not rules. In fact the very opening of WP:MOS states that they need to be applied with Common Sense and by default have exceptions. Nowhere is it stated that the Manual of Style is a rule. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If its in Featured Articles then it is obviously within the parameters of good editting. So lets abandon that arguement and move on. --Falcadore (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

They might have a valid reason to break the rules. What is the reason here - more than if they can we can, I hope. Eff Won (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Straw-clutching at its lamest. Featured articles cannot break the "rules" - they are proof that rules aren't being broken, neither there nor here. Anyway, as you have been told more than once, they're guidelines, not rules. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; Feature Articles are Feature Articles for a reason — they are examples of the best-written articles on Wikipedia. They cannot get to FA status if there are critical issues in the way they are written. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

I have just reverted an edit to the article by Prisonermonkeys, not because I want to edit-war, but because I don't accept that his total reversion of the six edits I made, which represented over an hours deliberation and hard work, was justified; especially under the edit summary of "please stop deliberately disrupting this page - it has been explained to you that the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, not biblical commandments".

If there are specific problems with any one of my six edits please describe them here, and we can see if we can reach agreement over a rework, but please do not wipe them all out again in such a dismissive fashion, and please do not characterise my work as "deliberately disrupting this page". Eff Won (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read over the section "Serious level of non-compliance with key Wikipedia guidelines", which you started, and which explains to you why the Manual of Style is not to be taken as an absolute law. I characterise your work as the deliberate disruption of the page, because that is all you have done for the past week. You need a consensus to make those changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think I haven't read that? I suspect that you had not though, but now have, as your more recent edits reveal that you are now eating your own words. I see you didn't come back and admit it though. Are you now going to retract that personal attack too? Eff Won (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, your rewrites of the section are misleading, the section is already a little too long as is, and your edits didn't actually add anything but extra words. Please stop editing pages for the sake of disrupting them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My edits clarified some of the unclear content (as we'll see below), and please stop characterising my edits as disruption, especially given your recent edits to the page. Eff Won (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your rewrite of the Italian Grand Prix section because it did not actually add anything - just more words to a section that was already bulking up. It also misrepresented things by removing the sentence about Ferrari using Massa to get a tow. Your inital edit summary commented that "it reads to me as if Alonso appeared to be giving Massa one". For one, you seem to have misread what was being said; Ferrari planned to use Massa to give Alonso a slipstream. And secondly, they wanted to get both their drivers on the front row by having each give the other a slipstream - which is supported by the reference - but the plan fell apart when Alonso's anti-roll bar failed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC) (Moved here from User talk:Eff Won by Eff Won)

Apart from the replacement of discouraged links in the section headings, which you now clearly accept, as you took another one out yourself later and replaced it using the same technique that I had introduced for the others (so no disruption by me there), I clarified a few points as follows:

• I changed "Six current and former World Drivers' Champions..." to "Six current or former World Drivers' Champions..." I thought that sounded less like there were six current champions.
• I changed "The final race of the European season" to "The final race in Europe of the season" as I don't consider there is a formal "European season".
• I shortened the sentence "Ferrari's early bid to put Fernando Alonso on pole position by way of using Felipe Massa to offer him a slipstream ended in disaster when..." by removing "by way of using Felipe Massa to offer him a slipstream" from it because that was the opposite to what the reference article was saying, as I read it. So the sentence was less misleading after my edit I believe.
• I replaced the unparsable sentence fragment "...he elected to start on the harder compound tyres and complete one stop, producing fastest lap after fastest lap..." with this "...he elected to start on the harder compound tyres and attempt a one stop race, and then produced fastest lap after fastest lap" because I thought it improved the sense of the sentence.
• I inserted the short sentence "Pérez came in second." after the account of how Pérez challenged Hamilton for the lead - to answer the dangling question of what became of him, as he wasn't mentioned again before my edit.
• I replaced "A double retirement for the Red Bull cars, with Vettel suffering another alternator failure and Mark Webber spinning violently at the Ascari chicane," with "A double retirement for the Red Bull cars, with Vettel suffering another alternator failure and Mark Webber severely flat-spotting a front tyre after spinning violently at the Ascari chicane," to claify that Webber had to retire because of his tyres and that he hadn't spun off, or hit anything.
• I replaced "to take second place in the World Drivers' Championship" with "to move up to second place in the World Drivers' Championship" as clarification because I thought "take" suggested a final positon.

Right, over to you Prisonermonkeys, to substantiate or retract your allegations.

Eff Won (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an example of your edit, which adds nothing but words to the page.

This is an example of my edit, which adds actual content to the page.

The quality of your edits is consistently low - you haven't actually added anything of value to any article you have edited. The fact that you run straight to the article talk pages and demand explanation as to why your edits were reverted, not to mention the way you reuse to allow any progress on an article until you have been satisfied, is enough for me to characterise your edits as deliberately disruptive.

Also, in future, please do not copy messages from your user talk page over to an article talk page without first asking permission to do so. If you feel that I raise points that need to be discussed here, then please send me a message before you do so. Don't just take the liberty of copying it straight over. It's very rude. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is evident from that bluster and further personal attack that you cannot substantiate, and are not honorable enough to retract, your allegations. And I see no-one jumping to your defence here either.

Here are some more typical examples of your edits:

• In this one you add a hyperlink to a section heading, remove a few interesting nuggets of information from the prose, remove clarity from a couple of sentences and delete 7 lines of hidden section headings, complete with their contained hyperlinks.
• In this one you then remove the hyperlink you added in your previous edit, replacing it with a "see also" as I had done to similar hyperlinks in one of my previous edits - an edit you reverted on sight with the edit summary of "please stop deliberately disrupting this page - it has been explained to you that the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, not biblical commandments". Why is it one rule for me, and another for yourself?
• In this edit you re-added the 7 lines of hidden section headings, but with their hyperlinks removed and "see alsos", following my pattern added, and use the misleading edit summary "this should not have been removed", effectively complaining about your own incompetency!

Did you get awarded a barnstar for those "quality" contributions? Or perhaps a brickbat for the breathtaking hypocrisy?

Are you ready to retract your unsubstantiated, even disproven, allegations about my edist now, or are you ready to face the consequences for your blatantly unfounded attacks on both me and my contributions here?

Eff Won (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I resotred those edits because Falcadore pointed out that it "probably should" happen, and I respect his ideas, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. It was nothing you did.

Also, I would not characterise anything that was removed in this edit as "interesting". All you have done is add words like "and then produced" and "move up to". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you realise what you have just admitted - that you reverted my edits, not because you had a principled or reasonable objection to the content of them, but because it was me who made them - that you performed a bad-faith reversion. Eff Won (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no incrimination. I see someone who discussed edits with another editor and changed their mind. This hunt for a "gotcha" moment is childish. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And that "discussion" is where? Eff Won (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If I discuss things with another member in a space somewhere away from this page or your talk page, it is none of your concern. I am allowed to make my own decisions in concert with other members when and where I like. I do not need your approval for every single change made to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept your word that it was as a result of an external discussion, and not because you won't accept any improvements from me. I thought there might be yet another level in the user/article/project hierarchy that I hadn't discovered yet, where yet another discussion over the contents of these articles was taking place. Eff Won (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may ask, why do you seem to think that you need to be copied in on each and every single discussion relating to the content of the page? I get the distinct impression that you seem to think everything needs your approval before it can be added or removed from the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of round 13 summary

The Pérez story

The current summary of the Italian GP gives some detail of the pressure that Pérez put on Hamilton in pursuit of first place, and goes on to confirm that Hamilton managed to hold on to first place and did win the race, and that Alonso came third. I think we need to mention too that Pérez finished in second place, if only to complete his story in that race. Would anyone object to me adding a few words to that effect? Eff Won (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been no objections since I proposed it - so I've now done it. Eff Won (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to ask permission to do something that you think will benefit the page. Within reason of course. BosleyTree (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but the last couple of times I tried I was reverted and told to "stop deliberately disrupting this page" and "your edits regarding the Italain Grand Prix are misleading". Eff Won (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I get why you edited that in, but I've moved it back a sentence. You added it to a sentence that was mostly about Alonso and which included Vettel's penalty, so it felt a bit awkward to go from reading about a little bit about Pérez and then a lot about Alonso considering that Pérez was second and Alonso third. So I moved it back into the previous sentence, detailing his battle with Hamilton, since the two were a little more evenly-matched than Pérez and Alonso.

Also, your edits regarding the race were misleading. You claimed that the write-up wrongly suggested Alonso had tried to get a tow from Massa in qualifying, which is actually what happened; Ferrari wanted to put both their cars on the front row, not just Alonso on pole, and planned accordingly - Massa was to get the tow first, and then Alonso, but Alonso's car failed on his out-lap. And as I outlined below, stating that Webber retired of a flat-spotted tyre is an over-simplification, since it does not explain why Webber did not simply pit for a new set of tyres. The actual cause of retirement was a vibration that was a result of the flat-spot. I was going to update the article once I found out exactly what happened, but you edited it before I could find the actual cause. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Webber's retirement

Currently the summary describes Webber's retirement as simply being the result him "spinning violently". I think we need to explain that he retired because of flat-spotted tyres, to remove doubt about whether he span off the track or hit something. Would anyone object to me adding a few words to that effect? Eff Won (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Done too, given the lack of objections. Eff Won (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone in and rewritten the section. I felt your version was an over-simplificaton. Webber did damage his tyres, but I believe the actual cause of the retirement was vibrations running through the car as a result of those flat-spots. If it was just a flat-spot alone, then it stands to reason that Webber could have simply pitted, changed his tyres, and rejoined the race. As it stands, he didn't; the team retired the car. So while saying that he retired as a result of a flat-spot is technically correct, I felt a bit of expansion was in order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Prominent quotes at the end of race summaries

Three of the race summaries feature large boxed quotes at the end of them. These seem disproportionate in size compared to the rest of the information in the section, thus giving them undue prominence. Would anyone object if I deleted them, or at least absobed them into the prose, where at least one of them is already mentioned anyway? Eff Won (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How many more things can we find to complain about? The³5₉ (Talk) 18:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see where Eff Won is coming from here, however I think that this information adds to the article. Is it possible to format the quote box so that the article prose wraps round it like with photos in the article? Mharris99 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

When I first started inserting quote boxes into the season summary, I did try to wrap them around the text like the images - but it just didn't work. There were long, narrow boxes full of text that just interrupted the article. Putting notable quotes at the end of some of the subsections seemed like the best way forward. I did expect to have more than three by now - maybe five - but there wasn't really anything noatble being said. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just that their visual impact is distracting - they are toooo big. They draw the eye in a way that is disproportionate to the significance of their content. Is there a way to make their font sizes smaller, or box border smaller? Eff Won (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't selectively edit what a driver said and when because we run the risk of changing the intended meaning. There is an ellipsis in the Grosjean quote box, but that is there to cut out comments that were redundant - Grosjean said the same thing twice.

The current format is better than the one you edited a while ago, fully integrating the quote into the text of the section, which pulled the reader's attention away from the events of the race.

Besides, each of the quotes pertains to something important and notable within the season - criticism of the tyres, allegations red Bull's car was illegal, Grosjean's ban - so I see no problem with the length. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a priority issue at play here. Individual race summaries should not be taken precedence of the season summary. We have individual race articles for individual race summaries. The season summary article should have the season summary first. --Falcadore (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How can we write a season summary when the season has not finished? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you even asking? It is not about predicting the future, but writing the season how it is now. Extensive summaries of individual races belong in other articles, for obvious reasons. --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Because last time you brought this up, your argument was that when race reports are written, they aren't written lap by lap - they are written at the end of the race. That's an argument I fully agree with. I just don't see why we can suddenly ignore that and write a season summary halfway through the season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid you've misunderstood my intent. Writing a race report and a season report are nto the same thing. There is a substantial difference between waiting 30 minutes for a race to finish, and waiting elevn months to acknowledge something in progress exists. --Falcadore (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The current form of the article does acknowledge it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Then it isn't as hard as you make it out to be then is it? If we can write an in progress points table we can write, and then re-write as necessary an in progress season summary. --Falcadore (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Background color for 2nd place in the results table

At some point in time the background color for the 2nd place finishes in the results table changed. It is now #dfdfdf, which looks incredibly similar to the background of results 4+, which is #dfffdf. In fact I could only tell the difference from viewing source, even after fiddling around with a bunch of different contrast / brightness settings on my monitor. I notice the same thing happened in the 2012 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season which uses the same format. Can we change it back so it is visually clearer the difference between 2 and 4+ by making it a little darker grey, perhaps? 124.171.40.58 (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The background for second place is clearly silver, while the background for positions 4-10 is clearly green. And looking at the article history, there have been no recent changes to thsoe particular colours that I can see. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

seem kinda written a little to "tabloidy"?

Maybe tabloid is not the best word. Just doesn't have an encyclopedic sound to it. 68.115.53.79 (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm afraid your post is a little too vague for anyone to be able to act on it. The article itself is over 200,000 kilobytes long. It would help immensely if you could point to specific examples of what you think is "tabloidy" rather than just turning nouns into adjectives and then expecting everyone to be able to work with that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Article sounds like some sort of british rag I might wipe my a$$ with instead of an encyclopedia. Can I be any clearer?68.115.53.79 (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can be clearer. You can point to speciic examples within the article of what you think is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, so that we can fix the problem. I made that pretty clear in the above post. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Proper use of possessives

Prisonermonkeys, I've noticed you previously reverted my changes in 2012 Formula One season article. All the possessives I changed, actually conformed to the standard English grammar rules for singular possessives ending in -s. Wikipedia adopts standard form on which majority of manuals of style agree, i.e. -s's, so please make sure to review MOS:POSS before changing it again. cherkash (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read MOS:POSS, you will see that both versions are acceptable:

Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.

This applies equally to Mercedes, Lotus and Williams.

Trust me. I'm an English teacher. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The MOS specifically states that s' is acceptable if it is consistently used throughout the article, which it was prior to your change. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been raised multiple times, and every case I'm aware of, the conclusion has been to use -s's instead of -s'. I'll refer to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_126#MOS:POSS_broken and Talk:Steve_Jobs/Archive_3#Jobs.27_or_Jobs.27s.3F for some examples of extended discussions. Prisonermonkeys, being an English teacher, I suggest you re-consider your point in view of overwhelming recommendations in numerous manuals of style. cherkash (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not made up of hard and fast rules. They are to be considered more as guidelines, just like any other Wikipedia policy. I fail to see what a consensus on the Steve Jobs page has to do with this, given that the Formula 1 pages have their own individual Manual of Style that is derived from the actual MOS, just like any other project. Consensus there does not necessarily reflect consensus here, and vice versa.

Furthermore, you will notice the following in the MOS:

Apply just one of these three practices consistently within an article. If the third practice is used and there is disagreement over the pronunciation of a possessive, the choice should be discussed and then that possessive adopted consistently in an article. (Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have traditional pronunciations that may be deemed to take precedence: Jesus' answer and Xerxes' expeditions, but Zeus's anger; and in some cases—particularly possessives of inanimate objects—rewording may be an option: the location of Vilnius, the old bus route, the moons of Mars.)

If you want to observe the hard and fast rules of grammar, then the best fit here is "Mercedes'" rather than "Mercedes's". Compare that to the likes of Lotus, where there is little difference between "Lotus'" and "Lotus's". This is important, because the MOS points out that we shouldd only use one practice. Because "Mercedes'" fits much better than "Mercedes's", we should therefore use "Lotus'" instead of "Lotus's" and "Williams'" instead of "Williams's". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you that "Mercedes" may be preferred to "Mercedes's", so feel free to change it accordingly. My edit was purely based on grammar, since Mercedes was already used as a possessive instead of attributive form. Other cases, like Kolles's instead of Kolles' should be much less ambiguous – yes, it's Kolles's that is a strongly preferred version. cherkash (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In every instance in the article, an apostrophe without the "s" is permissable. Therefore, because "Mercedes'" is preferable to "Mercedes's", the apostrophe without the "s" is preferrable in every instance in the interests of keeping things consistent.

PS - You have already been told to cease editing the article this way until such time as you have a consensus for these changes. Please do not edit the article again until such time as you have one. If you feel there are other changes that are necessary, then please feel free to fix them - but do not adjust this page for grammar until you have a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say the onus is on you to selectively revert the changes you didn't agree with, rather than reverting all the edits with a single "undo". This is a bad form, especially when multiple changes are involved, not all of which you disagree with. I've already mentioned this on your talk page, so please go ahead and do some constructive editing, rather than mindlessly pressing an "undo" button. cherkash (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You were told that you needed a consensus before making any further changes. You ignored that instruction. Therefore, the burden of responsibility rests with you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Same applies to you verbatim, by the way. (Besides, trying to assert authority in the way you did by using the comment above, is never a good example of collaboration.) Additionally, you got involved in non-constructive acts of undoing other users' changes based on only a portion of them being not to your liking. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and is expressly discouraged on Wiki. Please try to be more civil in the future. Demonstrating good collaborative spirit goes a long way towards creating nice and friendly environment for everyone to work productively on the articles. cherkash (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Preferred does not inherently make the other way wrong. MOS:POSS agrees with us, regardless of whether or not there have been discussions on it. Unless there is consensus to change the MOS, then other discussions don't magically overrule. Therefore, there was absolutely no reason to change something that was not incorrect to begin with. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've re-phrased all the controversial cases to avoid use of possessives. Issue is closed. cherkash (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no need for rephrasing. There was nothing controversial. You simply saw edits that you didn't like, tried to get them approved, and when no consensus was obtained, you needlessly re-worded the article to get around the lack of consensus.

There is nothing wrong with the grammar in the article. It is perfectly acceptable. You do not need to change it, and you should not change it - in any way, shape or form - until you get a consensus.

Furthermore, while you are correct in saying "preferred does not inherently make the other way wrong", "preferred" also happens to mean the way we want it to happen if it can be implemented. And since this can be implemented, there is no reason to or sense in change it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Results Ahead of Summaries

I think that the results and standings section should be placed above the race summaries section. The reason being that if I am trying to get to a quick summary of results, and I have to scroll all the way past the long description of race summaries it is inconvenient. It makes a bit more sense to do it this way, as the standings and results are more important to the page than the race reports, as there are separate pages for race reports anyway. Sas1998 (Talk) 23:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just hit the option on the contents list. We won't change a page around for your convenience. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, we might, if others agree with Sas1998. Just because there's a contents list, it doesn't mean we shouldn't order the contents in a way that suits most editors. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not just for my convenience! For the convenience of others too. I'm sure some people may agree with me. Like Bretonbanquet said; just because there's a contents list... It was just an idea of how to improve the page for everyone, any way to improve the page should be considered. Sas1998 (Talk) 16:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is, other than laziness. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no issue with laziness. It's convenience - if it is better to have a section at one part of the page then it should be there. It's just an idea, any little way we can improve the page is good. Sas1998 (Talk) 18:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. However, I would not call your suggestion an improvement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you "agree entirely" now that there's "no issue with laziness"? It should be about efficiency of navigation. I agree with Sas that the 'results and standings' should be nearer the top, if not at the very top, of the article. I think they should certainly be before the race summaries which take up far too much space - couldn't they be collapsed out of the way, or left out altogether - their content, I think, should be delegated to the individual GP "report" articles. The article is currently far too cumbersome and awkward to navigate around as it is. Eff Won (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Tables unaccompanied by text should be placed at the bottom of articles. Tables are an addendum to text, not a replacement. --Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This underlines the lack of a season summary. --Falcadore (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I intend to add it in once the championship has been decided. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to wait. --Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is - neither championship has been resolved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of updating? --Falcadore (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Image width

Some of the images in this article have been set at 220 pixels in width, which somebody keeps changing. There is a very important reason for this: the rest of the images in the article are 220 pixels wide, even when they are not set. The smaller images have been set at 220 pixels to keep them consistent with every other image in the article. This gives the overall article a uniform apperance - consistency in formatting text should also be applied to formatting images. Please do not change this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to explain that again because, as far as I can tell, most of the other images do not have their widths hard-coded either. As I understand it, all images defined as "thumbnail" will default to 220px width (or the user preference setting for thumbnail width if that is different). By hard-coding the widths of just 2 or 3 images (as in this article) readers with their thumbnail width preference set other than to 220px, will see inconsistent image widths. Try it for yourself to see this - alter your user preference to say, 120px, and those 2 thumbnail images (and the group in the 'round 5' section and the Austin circuit plan) will, annoyingly, stay at 220px.

I think that the width settings should be omitted from all thumbnails so that the readers can use their own preferences. Eff Won (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I just found a policy at WP:IMGSIZE (or is there an override exempting F1 articles from that one somewhere too?) which tends to support what I thought from my empirical discoveries too. Eff Won (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Then please explain to me why my default setting for thumbnails is 220px, but the two images you change - Raikkonen's photo and the COTA map - do not appear at 220px when they are not hard-coded that way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi PM, are you saying that these three images, all given the "thumb" attribute, but not a width value, don't all display with the same widths on your browser?

They all have identical widths on mine. However, if Räikkönen is set at 220px, he appears almost twice the width of the others to me. Eff Won (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happens here, people will wait until there's an agreement before changing this away from the established version. It doesn't matter if certain people don't understand that, that's what will happen. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've a feeling that the default thumbnail size is part of the skin - vector uses 220px, but I use monobook, and it's at 120px, and I can't ever remember changing it - but I could do if I wanted. If you want to fix the image widths, you will have to do it for all the images. You can add image sizes to thumb displays - "|thumb|220px|" instead of "|thumb|"  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

BB, what do you mean by "wait until there's an agreement before changing this away from the established version"? Why would we want to keep a formatting error, which breaks the guidelines and which ruins the presentation of the article? Do you think that we should preserve other mistakes too (spelling mistakes perhaps) if they have been in the article for a while? Eff Won (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I think we should preserve as many mistakes and errors as we possibly can, because I am trying to subvert the project... Seriously, if you want to stay part of this project, cease asking idiotic, insulting questions like your last one.

I said to wait because there's a disagreement, and the way it works (as I've told you and your socks before) is to have the discussion then make the edit – not to assume you're right and just do it anyway. Personally, I do not see any formatting errors and there is no ruination of the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

BB, what's the disagreement? Do these all look th same width to you?

If they do, please confirm your user preferences for thumbnail width is currently 220px, and try it again with it set to 120px.

Such obvious Errors and non-compliance with guidelines can surely be corrected without drawn out discussion.

And please retract the "sock" allegation - I've told you before you are wrong about that - indeed I had the block lifted, and I find it deeply offensive. Eff Won (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you really have to post those three photos again? Why not just post them a few more times? I'm not messing with my settings, everything looks fine already. I don't see anyone else chipping in saying they have problems either with these "obvious errors and non-compliance with guidelines". The sock thing is not an allegation, it's a fact. There was an SPI, and it was judged to be so. Your unblocking was not a declaration that the SPI was in error, it is a "second" chance, as was explained by the admin. I don't see much change in behaviour right now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

BB, I'm posting the images in different formats to try to show the error. If those above all look the same to you, and you are not prepared to change your settings to prove my point, let's try it this way then. Do these all look the same width to you now?

I've changed the hard-coded width of the first from 220px to 120px. They all look the same to me now - but my preference is set to 120px.

The "sock" allegation is unfounded and unproven, and deeply offensive. I am a free editor, please assume good faith and stop dragging up old disputes.

Eff Won (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't all look the same to me now. I don't see why people should change their preferences to suit a change when things look fine as they are. Your latter point is in error, on all counts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Point proven.

The width setting should be omitted so that reader preferences are honoured. There are many reasons for choosing different settings - eye sight problems, screen size, network speed and so on. Why make it difficult for those who choose different setting when it is so easy to cure the problem? Are you happy for me to remove the unnecessary width now - so the images will all appear 220px to you and 120px to me? Like this...

There was no error in my latter point. Please assume good faith and retract the allegation. Eff Won (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Do whatever you want, it's your encyclopedia, you make your own rules after all. And no, you really must be kidding. Good faith here lies in you not repeating your BS and being disruptive, or opening further accounts. It does not lie in pretending you have never socked, that's your own little dreamworld. This is not the place to discuss it anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you will self-revert this unnecessary revert of yours then, now you recognise that widthless is best for all readers. And yes, you are right, this is not the place to discuss that allegation - and you were wrong, very wrong, to bring it into this discussion in the first place. Let's try and resolve that elsewhere. Eff Won (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I won't. Still trying to put words in my mouth, huh? I don't recognise that at all, as you know. I just recognise that you will just disrupt this page for all eternity until you get your way, and I can't be bothered to argue with you on this point. There's nothing to resolve elsewhere about your socking, whether it's in the past or not, though I see it's a particularly sensitive issue for you to discuss, I'm not surprised you don't want it aired. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we in agreement now that we should remove the anomalous thumbnail widths (as per WP:IMGSIZE) and bring those few remaining images into line with all the other images in this article (and with most of the other images in most of the other recent F1 season articles)? Currently, those odd images with a fixed 220px width stand out like sore thumbs (no pun intended!) if the article is viewed with a user thumbnail width preference of other than 220px. Eff Won (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no agreement or consensus. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, neither do I. But I am not willing to engage any further on this with EffWon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

All I see is much-a-do about nothing, and no particularly imperative reason to change something so minor. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; keeping it wrong for no good reason is ridiculous. There are good reasons to fix it, but no imperative reason to keep it as it is, especially as the change is so simple to make, and the change would improve the reader experience and improve guideline compliance at no cost to anyone. In fact, no-one other than those currently inconvenienced by the anomoly would even notice the change. Let's do it, eh? Eff Won (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well there's the problem right there, you think it's simply an issue of right and wrong. There is nothing wrong with it, and changing it makes no major difference to the article. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that to flout the guidelines is wrong, and as there is no aparent good reason to keep it as it is, and a valid reason to fix it, then we have no reasonable excuse not to improve the usability of the article by changing it. Eff Won (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

But we're not flouting guidelines, and guidelines are not hard rules. There is no good reason to keep as is, and there's no good reason to change it. Hence the status quo remains. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is a policy; "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". It says: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". There has not been a good reason offered for the images in question here, so we are indeed currently flouting it. Eff Won (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has ever complained but you – a common situation. There's no consensus to change it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

HRT F1

Isnt the official title of HRT on the FIA entry list (HRT Formula 1 Team) not HRT F1 Team? Thats not right. Theirs need for a discussion? Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it is HRT F1 Team. FIA 2012 Entry List. Sas1998 (Talk) 21:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The "F1" in the team name obviously stands for "Formula 1", and the team may refer to themselves as "HRT Formula 1 Team" from time to time. However, "HRT F1 Team" is the name that the FIA recognises in all official documentation, and so that is the name that we use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Formula One season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

General

• Images are good, all are on Commons and appropriately licensed
  • Not required for GA, but alternative text is recommended

• Reference formatting is all over the place, including typos and different citation styles throughout. While it is not a GA requirement, if the ultimate goal is FA, these will have to be sorted out in a consistent fashion as FAC reviewers will hammer on this.
• There is a heavy reliance on blogs, which per WP:SPS, are likely not reliable sources. Of specific concern: F1 Fanatic, Adam Cooper's F1 Blog, Joe Saward blogs about F1, ScarbsF1, Cameron Paterson F1 (ref 119, deadlink and unverifiable). Given how much of the article is cited to these blogs, I do not think that the review can continue until I am satisfied these meet our RS standards or the citations are changed to something that is a RS.
• Regardless, ref 157, a tweet from one of the above bloggers is most certainly not a RS.

Will continue review if above concern can be resolved. Regards, Resolute 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The problems with the referencing are largely my fault. I tend to make quite a few errors when I type quickly. I'm not sure exactly what you mean with regards to inconsistent citation styles, but if you're referring to the Autosport articles and the way some have the author name and others do not, that's probably because Autosport introduced a limit on the number of articles you can read. After 30, you have to start paying to access the site.

On the subject of the blogs, the Formula 1 WikiProject has no issue with their use. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the world of Formula 1, but each of these blogs is run by some very respected journalists:

• Keith Collantine of F1 Fanatic is very well-known, and runs what is perhaps the largest Formula 1 blog on the internet. He's pretty much transcended being a blog to being a news source himself - when this year's Ferrari was launched, Collantine had an article on his site hours before most of the major news outlets. Furthermore, comapre the content of his articles with the articles posted by Autosport, and you'll see that he's very reliable.
• Adam Cooper is also well-known, with thirty years' experience in Formula 1. He's attended 300 consecutive races, and has contacts all throughout the paddock. That twitter reference you point out as being an RS comes from Cooper.
• Craig Scarborough of ScarbsF1 is known for his technical articles. He started out as a grassroots blogger, but these days, he contributes to Autosport as one of their technical writers.
• Like the above journalists, Joe Saward is also known, though I'm very hesitant to use him unless I feel I need a secondary source (I've noticed the page uses Autosport as a reference a lot) because he's had a few problems in the past with letting his personal feelings get in the way of his objective reporting. This is mostly limited to one subject, though, and I avoid referencing anything he writes on the subject (hell, I avoid reading him these days).
• As for the Cameron Patterson reference, I have honestly no idea who he is. This is the first time I've heard of him, and I was completely unaware that his blog was being used as a reference.

Hope that helps. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I may have to refer this to the RSN, because as you alluded to, I am not familiar at all with the bloggers. All I see is "wordpress", and that raises a red flag. Do some of these guys have a known history in mainstream media that I can use to back them with? Thanks, Resolute 00:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Collantine and Scarborough have regularly appeared on The Flying Lap, a YouTube series in the style of a panel show hosted by Peter Windsor, a journalist and former team principal. Scarborough also contribues to Autosport, a leading motorsport publication, for technical commentary. Joe Saward is known in the paddock, working with David Tremayne; they publish a e-magazine together and have each written several books on the sport. And finally, Adam Cooper works for SPEED TV, though not being American, I don't know what his capacity it. Nevertheless, he's attended 300 races, and has quite a few contacts - many of the stories used as references are ones he has broken first.

Finally, you didn't mention him, but you may also spot references from James Allen's blog as well. Although self-sublished like the others, he was lead commentator for the English-anguage broadcasts of the sport for over six years. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw James Allen's site, but the professional nature of it led me to be more concerned about the others. I have, however, requested opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard here. Feel free to add any comments not already made here, and/or to respond to anyone who responds there. As a fair warning though, if it is decided there that these are not RSes per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I will fail this nomination. If they feel they can be used, I will continue the review. Thanks, Resolute 23:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for letting this lapse. My on-wiki time has generally been limited lately, and has been focused on some rather momentous events in my personal sporting focus/obsession. I got no response at RSN, but a posting to the GAN talk page here did pretty much coincide with my thinking. I'll accept Scarborough, given I view Autosport as a reliable source, and Cooper, since he seems to be all over SpeedTV. Colltaine and Saward I still wonder about. Do you have any RS sources that identify them as acknowledged experts? Resolute 00:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Ok, I don't want to let this hang forever, so I will continue reviewing prose regardless. This may take a bit given the article's size.

Team changes

• The paragraph about Force India's partial sale mixes past tense with present tense then back to past tense. This should be made consistent in the past tense.
• "Kaltenborn's appointment made her the first female team principal in the sport's sixty-three year history." - Citation needed

Driver changes

• "Sébastien Buemi became Red Bull Racing's testing and reserve driver and will contest the 24 Hours of Le Mans with Toyota, driving a TS030 Hybrid." - Not sure how relevant Buemi's competition in the 24 Hours of Le Mans is to this article, but the tense needs to be changed.

Calendar changes

• The line for the US Grand Prix is also in improper tense. Future looking statement on an event in the past.

That's it for part one. Resolute 05:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing...

Changes

• "The regulations in 2012 will govern the design of the exhaust with the teams agreeing to strict constraints on the position of the exhaust tailpipe. This will result ..." - Again, tense issue.
• "Technical regulations for 2012 include the reprofiling of the car's nose. The pre-2012 regulations allow the nose to be as high..." - Same. Should be past tense. "...included the reprofiling of the car's nose. The pre-2012 regulations allowed the nose..." I am not going to continue pointing out the temporal errors, but it is clear the entire article should be checked for this.

Other Changes

• The BBC/Sky Sports deal resulted in the parties being called to answer questions before a House of Commons committee. How did that resolve?

Race summaries

• OMGHUGE! I've no real issue with the section, however. There is some minor use of slang but nothing to really worry about from my POV.

Overall

Very well written, especially given the size. I think the main requirement from a prose perspective is to adjust the statements from future or present tense to past. Overall though, I am going to place this nomination on hold. I don't really like the amount of blog coverage (and would recommend minimizing it in future articles), but am leaning toward accepting it in this case. Cheers! Resolute 23:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Outside comment

• What is holding up this review? It's the oldest GA review on hold, and there hasn't been any action for well over three weeks. Were any of the issues you pointed out ever dealt with? If not, perhaps it's time to close the review... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've been thinking of sending a reminder note, but needed a reminder of my own, apparently.  ;) I'm heading out of town in a couple days for a week, but if nothing happens after, I may have to close this. Resolute 15:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry about all that. Something came up in real life, and while I was able to keep up my usual editing practices, a lot of the side-projects like this got neglected. Anyway, I've gone through the article and changed most, if not all, of the tense that needed to be changed. The only real point of concern at the moment is the sources provided, but I still maintain that these are highly reliable, even or self-published sources. Particularly F1 Fanatic; ten minutes on the site should tell you all that you need to know about its reliability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, I am going to accept the sources, though I do recommend using mainstream sources wherever possible in the future. From a prose perspective, I have few concerns with the article, and so am passing it as a GA. Congrats! Resolute 01:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Size split?

Issue has been resolved
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split starting with "Changes" and/or "Race Summaries". Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Per WP:SIZE, the judgement is "Readable prose", of which this article is only 55 kB (under 10,000 words), which is right on the cuff of becoming too long but not exceeding it in any way. The359 (Talk) 19:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Winning constructor

The confusion has been cleared
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
In the Grand Prix section in results and standings, the table has a "Winning constructor" column that states the winning constructor of the winning driver. Shouldn't it, instead, contain the constructor who won the most points at that race? I say this because it seems we're prioritizing the driver's championship over the constructor's. I've tried editing this article before, but someone usually jumps on me for it. So for convenience, here is a list of constructors who won the most points, but their drivers didn't come first: China: Mercedes → McLaren Spain: Red Bull → Lotus Belgium: McLaren → Red Bull Italy: McLaren → Ferrari Abu Dhabi: Lotus → Ferrari Brazil: McLaren → Ferrari. In Hungary, both McLaren (driver's winner) and Lotus had 33 points. --User:Kris159 (talk – legacy) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Why would it be the constructor who earned the most points. It isn't a championship, it's a race. The winner is the winner. The359 (Talk) 16:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC) In addition, at the podium ceremony of every Grand Prix, a constructors trophy is awarded to the winning constructor. Who do you think received that trophy in every instance you stated? We cannot simply make up winners based on a measurement absolutely no one uses. The359 (Talk) 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC) User:Kris159: It did actually used to be the way you suggested where the team that finished second and third COULD take the winning constructor on the day, but back in 1991 when the win became 10 points instead of 9, then a win was worth the same as second and third combined so at that point it was formally changed so the race winning constructor became the winning constructor on the day and they have never changed it back to what it was before when the points structure changed again three years ago. So while another constructor might win more points on the day, the Constructor's Trophy for the race is now always presented to the race winning team regardless of where everybody's second car finishes and how many points they might gain. So if you do change it in the points table it will always be changed back, because to suggest that the winning constructor is the one who gains the most points on the day is a situation that is NOT officially recognised, so other edittors are correct when they "Jump on you for it". --Falcadore (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Ah, I forgot about the podium ceremony. Good point(s). And for the record, the things editors have jumped on me for were formatting changes, not false info. --User:Kris159 (talk – legacy) 21:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)